Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kats on June 27, 2000, 10:44:00 AM
-
Got this off agw today:
I went so
far as to open an account with Aces High planning to fly there alot. However the FM there is so completely different from Warbirds as to be
unplayable for me. The view system is bizarre at best and the planes seem to lose e instantaneously. They also seem to be flying through
molasses not air. A zeke in Aces High turns like a dora in Warbirds. Today I gave up and closed my Aces High account. Now I have to come
back to Warbirds with my tail between my legs to get my fix.
Instead of getting into it, I passed realizing this fellow has a valid POV. Since WB has been known and touted to have the best FM in the market over the years - what are players supposed to think when coming over to AH, finding an FM very different?
First off, they feel uncomfortable and unless they give AH time, they don't enjoy.
What would get players to give AH more than a couple of days to get used too and enjoy the FM? I believe the satisfaction of knowing that they are learning a more complex FM is the trick. Same reason why AW players came over to WB harboring the same feelings.
I think a little old fashion mud slinging/bragging is in order on the HTC web site. IE, explain the FM advantages over the competition so the new players *know* why it's different & more desirable. This will help motivate them into giving the proper amount of time to learn and get used to it.
As it is right now, we let people "off the hook" by allowing the "Ah and WB both have good FM's, but I preffer WB's" statements when it is clear that the AH FM is a much more indepth peice of work. The WB player is not the type of player who would say "AH may have a more realistic FM, but WB is simpler - so I stay there" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I don't think this type of promoting is in bad taste either. I pulled up to the Burger King window and on the sign it had a list comparing how many ounces of ketchup, mustard, lettuce, their burgers had compared to McD's. Fare game IMO, as long as you stick to the facts.
[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Nice comparison with the burgers Kats. Certainly iEN would not argue with the comparison - one of their employees told me that when I played AH at the WBCon it was like buying a McDonalds hamburger and eating it at Burger King. LOL!
-
Provide a link pls, I would like to read the entire thread.
(http://ww2.esn.net/~saved4sure/AMMO.jpg)
-
Sorry Kats gotta disagree,
There are two kinds of people that come to AH from WB.
1. This person comes because there is a new toy on the shelf to play with. They take it down unwarp it play with it, and because it is new and differant, they stay with it awhile to find all the neat stuff in it.
2. This person comes because they have an agenda. They have to believe that their toy is better and are going to prove it. They take the new toy off the shelf and immediatly start finding how their toy is better. They run back to their friends that still have the old toy and tell them to not bother, the new toy sux.
Your never going to change the second persons mind. The only thing that will make him play with the new toy is when all his friends are playing with it.
Sharky
-
What about person #3 sharkey?
The guy who'd looking for the highest fidelity ww2 flightsimm, but has never flown a real warbird before.
-
I think most of the #3's are here.
The biggest thing missing from AH (from the perspective of the guys I talked to at the WB Con) is S3. It's going to be a while before AH can muster the planeset, terrains, CM tools, and community required to match the S3. I'm sure it will happen, but a lot of these guys will not jump ship until it does.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Hi kats....<Salute>
I think there's a process in motion that will speak for itself. HTC is currently reviewing a direct comparison spreadsheet with iEN's WB, of the function/feature sets both simulations exhibit. Once HTC has signed off, it will be sent to iEN and then posted publicly.
I think it will stand alone and speak to the issues of which product uses the more accurate program code algorithms etc, to produce the most representative simulation of a real WW II aircraft flight characteristics.
Once read by the end user wishing to choose one of these products for his own entertainment, it will be up to them to make the decision of which FM they wish to experience. By the way, this comparison covers a lot more than just the FM aspects of these two simulations. It includes the gunnery and damage modeling as well.
We all know that HT has been very busy getting out v1.03r3, so I assume now that he's had some breathing room he'll be able to review this material.
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)
-
DINGER!!!!!! Can you work your magic on this topic too?
-
Dinger...
Can you work your magic on Westy? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Just kidding....couldn't resist... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
<Salute> Westy....
-
What I find interesting is comments from other flight sims enthusiasts that try out AH for less than a
week, then go back to their old stomping grounds, make a post saying "FM is porked, too mushy,
etc. etc.", usually means their egos will not allow them to understand and learn a more difficult FM.
I on the other hand, fly HTH in Warbirds, and find their FM (after playing this game so long) very
arcadish, hell, my 4 year old plays relatively well on the realistic FM in WB's. He can easily land the
plane in WB's. He's trying in AH, but is kinda sloppy on the approach.
-
Rip!!
WB is easier!!??!! Great!
I'll open an account! Do they have easy mode?
I want to be able to throw my 8000 lb. fighter aircraft around in the sky like a Bud Light sports plane.
Thanks Rip!! How much does WB cost? $24.99 a month? $34.99 a month? I fly about 2 hours a night so I should get my money's worth, huh?
Cool!
-
Quote:
"I on the other hand, fly HTH in Warbirds, and find their FM (after playing this game so long) very
arcadish, hell, my 4 year old plays relatively well on the realistic FM in WB's. He can easily land the
plane in WB's. He's trying in AH, but is kinda sloppy on the approach."
Rip:
Is it any wonder no one takes you seriously any more???
Quote:
"I think most of the #3's are here."
Funked, you know better than that. Nice to see ya at the CON, BTW!!!
Cabby
------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Cabby, I have a AH community that takes me seriously...also have 53 members in a squadron that do too, how about you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Do you live anywhere near the NW? You're welcome to come over and watch him fly! I'll extend my hand in friendship and buy you a beer as well...btw, for a guy not interested in AH, sure see you alot here!...what's with that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Swager, that'd cost you $120 a month at your flight time rate..hehe, see you tonight!
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Person #4: The guy/gal who comes to AH to try something different, and seeing that is is very different, either a) gives up and goes away, or b) says AH sucks (when in fact that may be valid for them, or maybe it's just too different than what they are used to).
Fury
-
I don't think HTC should get into a "mine is bigger than yours" fight over flight models. Why should a prospective player believe HTC?
The most convincing evidence for a superior FM has to come from a relatively neutral and respected authority. If such a person were to publish a review favorable to AH, then I think HTC should seek permission to quote it on the website.
IMO it is very important for HTC to maintain a class act with respect to the competition and to players who prefer other games. They've done a great job so far, and I would hate to see anything "down and dirty" from them.
As more of the known and respected players from other sims migrate over to AH, it will become obvious to other players that there is something here worth climbing the learning curve.
popeye
-
I think it's mostly #2s posting here. Can't we just acknowledge Kats' idea and finish without turning it into ANOTHER WB bashing thread?
Apologies to those who made valid points.
-
sorry tried.
Couldn't even kill Cabby's post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Yup. Events are really needed here. But we need more than just a mature planeset and CM tools, we need a mature community. That is, we need a corps of folks who have been playing scenarios for some time and know what it is that makes them different from quakin' round the arena.
Hehe. Why do you think people go proselytizing on AGW?
-
This isn't very scientific, but here is why AH is better than WB. You never or hardly ever see kats complaining about ANYTHING! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) j/k kats Seriously though, I can't remember the last time I saw a 30mm thread from Kats, btw Kats could you post that pic of the spit that was hit with 1 30mm round?
Quoted by Ripsnort......
"Cabby, I have a AH community that takes me seriously...also have 53 members in a squadron that do too, how about you? " .....
Oh man now I have to start taking you serious too?!?!? This is just too much! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Cabby,
Love your sim! Love it well! Your very loyal and I respect that, but you realy do remind me of the AW2 guys that would come and bash ck/wb back in 95 and 96. Alot of whom are now flying AH I bet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) This ought to get your goat too... We avg 120-150 people in the arenas at any given time, every night now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) where in 1.02 we avg'd 100-120 at any given time. Next version we get ships (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) so I bet we'll be in the 150-175 range.
We're catching up to WB and as long as HS and Jay (HS more so than Jay) are running the show over there I have no doubt that AH will be one of the "survivors" in the online flightsim buisiness war. Given a choise I'd rather give my money to somebody who I consider a friend, not some duche bag like Wild Bill.
Anyway don't get too mad at me Cabby, I bet we will be flying the same sim again one day soon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
udie
-
I think this is a very good idea. People like to think their sim is closest to the "real thing" if you can show them why it isn't there is one less reason for them not to fly AH.
Most people have opinions on FM's and most of them start "it feels" if AH could post irrefutable facts as to why their FM is better than the competition it can only help AH's marketability.
e.g. AH models twice the components WB does (i.e more wing sections etc.) - i don't know if thats true just the sort of thing i;d excpect.
-
I don't agree, Kats. If you want to be #1 in anything, just concentrate. Don't look back. I'm not wise enough to judge wether AH's FM is better or not. I feel it is, but who knows. But I appreciate 3 things above all:
a) HTC approach to clients. Not only they are superb workers, IMO (look at the improvement path), but also have a personal touch with them (i.e., they quite regularly appear in the MA, and answer to questions)
b) I've flown WB for nearly 3 years, if my memory suits me well. Only aspects in the game I feel are somewhat better are RPS, Scenarios and Buff treatment (Norden, essentially). I am SURE, given HTC performance up to date, they will overcome these points. Dunno how, but I trust them.
c) Flat rate. If I like flight sims (I do) and flying in as close as it is possible to reality way (I do, xcept suicide missions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ), hourly rate is almost unaffordable (almoust ruined myself in WB, paying average $140 per month), just take your time to climb 20.000 in a B17!.
So, all in all, I just ask HTC don't waste a minute of their time getting down and dirty, and, instead, have all the new toys I want as soon as possible (especially navy, now we have CM) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers, and sorry for long post.
Pepino
PS.: on the Burger comparison, I would say It's more like going to Burger King with a nice, grilled, most evident T-Bone Steak. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Just a couple of minor points to make.
A HT is putting together CM group as we speak. I expect tools will follow as the need arises for them.
B Terrain Editor is next thing to be released. It's currently in beta and will make a HUGE difference in how special events are run.
Just what events, how they will be run, and how they will compare with WB's is in many respects up to us as a community.
This and planeset are the only real area's where I see Warbirds haveing an advantage.
Otherwise, it's hands down Aces High IMHO.
-
Kats-
Here is the problem I have; I think your idea sounds good in theory, but in practice there is so much animosity between AH/WB at the moment I don't think there would be any way way that HTC could be viewed objectively, no matter what they said.
If an individual (say, myself) was to put up a site dedicated to offering the differences between sims it might be viewed a bit more charitably. Then again, maybe it wouldn't. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Yes, it is a pity that a useful site such as you propose probably (IMHO) wouldn't work. There are surely plenty of people out there that could use a little insight as to what they might be looking for in a sim. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
HT built WB. Who is he supposed to argue with? Himself.
-
HS fixed it.
-
I invisioned it more in this line:
Dynamic CoG: AH=Y WB=N
Single round projectile modelling AH=Y WB=N
etc etc etc
A very matter of fact comparison. However, it seems like badger is doing the work, so this is moot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
PS, I chose WB in 1996 because a PC gaming mag said WB had a more realistic feeling FM. I have never tried AW.
-
MG, I thought you ran home to tell your big brother on us.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"I say old boy, why don't you shut up and die like a man?"
-
Originally posted by easymo:
HT built WB. Who is he supposed to argue with? Himself.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) good point.
How he managed to get it perfect the first time around and screw things up so bad the 2nd is the big mystery to me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I said "most" not "all" Cabby! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I talked to some #3's at the WB Con but they were pretty drunk. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
MacBOY,
And who was it that went to North Carolina last summer and saved HS's sorry arse? Pyro, HT do you guys care to answer? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
They did some cool stuff to the game with the first 2 patches they made after imol split. But about the 3rd patch or so they started screwing thing up and leaving them that way.
Udie
Oh yeah, before I forget, GET A REAL OS!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
[This message has been edited by Udie (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Actually Kats I put your guy #3 in with my #1.
Whether a person comes from another flight sim or this is his first experiance with sims, the guy #1 has no agenda, no axe to grind. He plays and appreciates it for what it offers, or finds it's not for him and quietly leaves.
Sharky
[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
The HTC team is moving ahead with leaps and bounds. It would not surprise me to see AH pulling down awards in the near future.
That is exactly what is needed to draw customers to AH, reviews and awards in the rags that do that stuff.
As for the loyalty to sim issue, I was lurking on the AGW forum during the IMOL/IE split, and IMO some of the anomosity between WB and AH communities is tainted by that unprofessinal airing of dirty laundry.
At any rate I vote with my credit card, I've done EF2000V2.0 on TEN, then AW3, followed by WB2.5 and up, now I am TOTALLY absorbed in AH.
Is there room for improvement? HELL YES! But as the HTC team is fond of saying, this sim will NEVER be finished, it is a work in progress.
(http://pages.hotbot.com/games/davekirk/images/Mil.jpg)
The Great Milenko (http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rowgue/milenko.ra)
You can kill me can't ya? (http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rowgue/killsomeone.ra)
------------------
<< MILENKO >> (http://pages.hotbot.com/games/davekirk/milenko.html)
<===THE ASSASSINS===>Webpage (http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm)
-
I started flying WB in 1995 and I liked it until the community there got too "nasty".
After first trying AH in november -99, WB seemed to be a cartoon, It still does.
Keep up the good work guys at HTC!!
Crabofix
-
Problems with all of this:
1) Trying to fit people into a few (e.g. - 2 or 3) nice neat categories doesn't really work. For example, I've tried AH on more than a few occasions, for a reasonable amount of time each shot, and simply didn't find it all that gripping. Perhaps that's because I want a few things and AH still doesn't offer me the package I'm looking for -- first, reasonably realistic FMs (AH has this); second, fun gameplay (AH fails this check IMO, I think I'd use the word "staid"... of course, WB has also been failing this one recently, tho not so greatly as AH for me personally); third, something different (both WB and AH fail this one miserably... more same old, same old).
2) Inconsistencies: For example, if WB was the best FM of its day, and it was designed essentially by the same folks, why the striking disparities between turn rates and the general feel of the aircraft (for example)? Is it simply that the WB FMs weren't really all that great (or were simply good relative to everything else that existed previously)... that's the only thing that could (IMO) explain disparities of something like 50% between turn rates in WB vs AH. And, so, IMO that raises a bit of a credibility question.... if it was supposed to be accurate in the past, and it really wasn't all that accurate, how truly accurate is it now?
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
The true measure of any game is how long it stays on your hardrive.
I have had Command and conquer on mine for 5 Years, with Zero updates. It is just good, and the group I play with is still there.
I have had Warbirds on the drive for 2 years, from 2.0 to 2.76. It is better than it ever was, and the group I play with is still there and growing.
I have had AH on the drive since whenever it started till now, but I have never flown with an online group, so I only "survey" it with each new release for now.
Which is better? Neither. Which has the best group of pilots? Neither. Which will survive? Both, I hope.
I will say that I see more "I'm bored, I'm out of here" posts here than I ever did for Warbirds, so either AH flyers are spoiled by the frequent updates or they realize what they are missing(in the way of planes and events).
I do not mean that as a slam; HTC is rapidly providing the missing elements and provided it is given time, it will be right there as a premium simulation.
Flight model comparisons are silly and useless. I know of only 2 persons who regularly fly these sims and also flew these planes in combat conditions, and they ain't saying which is better, if they know.
-
For example, if WB was the best FM of its day, and it was designed essentially by the same
folks, why the striking disparities between turn rates and the general feel of the aircraft
That is a fair question, but I think the answer is obvious.
First off, all these games are limited by the power of the computer. That is why no one slams the artwork in AOTP for eg, because in it's time, it was great.As computors get better, the limits are raised in what can be done with them.
Secondly, about FM's. I simply believe that it is an issue of experience. I think that Pyro (just using him as an example) probalby has twice the knowledge and understanding of his craft than he did 3 years ago. Not only that, the deepr these developers dig, the better their reference material becomes. Evenso far as being able to examin flight test data and decipher what is "real" is a developed talent. It gets very complicated.
For eg, I did research on boost and injection systems used on FW's and 109's. I found a 109f with MW50, but guess what - only reconnosaince(sp?????????? hehehe). How about the FWa4, fitted for MW50 - the bottle was there - but did they actually use it? It is definately a rubics cube. Unfortunately, in those days they didn't envision a bunch of nut bags like us killing eachother on-line demanding perfect authenticity.
I am off track here really, but I see what you are asking snake. When I talk about "better" FM, that is a huge difference between the actual performance points of the aircraft like climb, speed, turn etc. The FM is how they actually make the a/c achieve those performance points. So it can be said that AW might hit the performance points right on, but missing the nuances of flight because of a cheesy FM - see what I mean?
I don't know who's hitting the performance points better - WB or AH, I just haven't been on top of those types of things lately, but I do think that the FM of AH is clearly superior.
-
I pretty much agree with your thoughts kats, but in the back of my mind I wonder about the following:
If Plane X does a 360 sustained in WB in, lets say, 20 seconds. But that same plane does the same turn in AH in 30 seconds... well... that simply makes me wonder what the "deal" is (in general). I can understand that the WB model is limited to lower fidelity as a result of its approach. However, on the performance points issue, which was obtained in some degree from actual testing data (which is, to some extent, what I assume the development team is trying to match the aircraft to)... well, how the heck can the disparity be so noticeable?
I'm not an expert, so I have to listen to the "experts" and evaluate what they say and intuit some level of credibility for each. We were assured by the very same people back in the WB days that things were "correct", and now things change drastically and we are again assured that this too is correct. Of course, by definition, that makes what occurred in the past to be incorrect. I can cope with all that... but it still doesn't explain why the disparities are so noticeable.
In short, what I'd been interested in is an explanation of why these disparities are so noticeable (in language that those of us who aren't quite aeronautical engineers can grasp). If someone was wrong about X, Y, or Z, I can handle that... I would just like to "know" why things are so noticeably different at 1K as well as 25K.
Maybe its an academic distinction, and that probably won't affect my enjoyment or its converse of either game... but it would provide peace of mind, which is really what is my problem with regard to this issue. I suspect that others have a very similar concern.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Snake,
I think a large part of that comes from what Pyro calls 'airframe drag'. It seems much more pronounced in AH. For example, one plane might fly a circle at 150 mph in WB, while the same plane flies the circle at 130 mph in AH. There's 15% of the difference right there. Flying slower means less bank angle which means larger radius, which in turn means longer time to fly the circle. Is AH more accurate in this regards? Personally, I don't think so...I mean stomping on the rudder in AH creates so much drag that the plane can't maintain altitude, even at full power. IRL, planes were tested for flat, wings level turns and were flying the circles at 170-180 mph with full rudder deflection.
-
Snake,
If I understand you correctly, what your saying is, dispite the limitations of programing and computers, if Model A "hit the performance numbers" and Model W "hit the performace numbers" why do they feel so differant?
Well to be honest, I don't know. I can only assume that one didn't really "hit the numbers" or at least all the numbers. But I will say this. Although I don't know which is correct, I've never (even when HT and Pyro had Warbirds) really felt that these planes were as manuverable as they are in Warbirds. Just something about fliping and floping a 10,000 pound airplane around the sky like a Pitts just didn't sit right with me.
All I have to go on is anadoctal <sp> evidence, but when it comes to "feel" isn't that one of the best sources? I've never read or heard a RL WWII pilot talk about flying a P-51 or FW-190 the way they are flown in Warbirds. Common do you really think that WWII pilots could or would flip and flop his airplane 20' off the ground like daddy= does? I tend to doubt it.
We all talk about realism, yet none of us has any time in real warbirds. All we have to go on is what we read and hear from the guys that did. That and a bunch of numbers. If the sim we fly makes us feel what we think those guys felt, then it's the most accurate. Everything after that is do we enjoy it or not?
I do find one thing puzzling though and perhaps you will shed some light on it for me. It's obvious you don't like Aces High, or you feel Warbirds is better and I know there are some personal issues with you and HTC and thats fine by me, to each his own.
What I don't understand is why you care if AH is any good or not? You don't fly it, you don't want to fly it, so why do you care if it's correct or even if someone else thinks it is.
I know you as one of the good guys, so your not one of the -bobn- or MG types that just tries to cause hate and discontent. Not trying to start a flame war, just curious.
Sharky
[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 06-28-2000).]
-
Sharky, I think he's saying the opposite. He more than likely agrees that the FM of Ah is superior, but WB is hitting the performance points with respect to turn rates closer. He is asking why the disparity. I think that is a fair question. No one is saying which one is right or wrong, but I'm sure everyone is interested in the reasons why they went this direction.
I think I remember when HT went for a mock dogfight in a real P51D, he felt it flew like a truck. Maybe his flight experience gave him a new take in this regard.
-
Originally posted by Kats:
Got this off agw today:
I believe the satisfaction of knowing that they are learning a more complex FM is the trick. Same reason why AW players came over to WB harboring the same feelings.
humm i think this "crétin" plays in Easy mode...
-
I can only tell you how I got here..
Was looking for a good online sim for ages.. tried WB for about a week.. and completly hated it. It felt like something from the early 90's. A bad arcade simulation, with almost no immersion. Actualy I was disgusted that there is still code being sold that looks and feels this dated. Kinda like when win98 came out; more gloss, same outdated engine.
Then by accident I saw something bout a sim on 3dfiles.com.
Downloaded the blasted thing, played for a couple of hours offline. Cheese, that thing was hard, couldnt get a plane in the air.
Okay, turn left WB style, maajoor stall..
shit , this is thougher then it looks on Pensicola.
This is what I want... ;-) But I couldnt use a keyboard cause of the w2k bug. Stayed with it nontheless. Even without keys and just the basic set of controls mapped to my stick, it was still the most fun I had in ages. Even just flying a bomber straight is pretty taxing.
Been happy eversince, darn, if I could only learn how to fly ;=)
-
Originally posted by Koed:
.......Then by accident I saw something bout a sim on 3dfiles.com. Downloaded the blasted thing, played for a couple of hours offline. Cheese, that thing was hard, couldnt get a plane in the air. .........
Welcome koed.....<Salute>
Hmmm.....marketing, marketing, marketing.....
-
Lemme see what I can do to explain meself. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
1) I'm not certain which game best hits the performance numbers, as I don't have that data. But with regard to the strictly measureable data, such as the time it takes to turn 360 degrees, both Sims cannot be correct. Either WB is more accurate in "hitting the numbers" or AH is. I'm just wondering what the disparity is, and I think that Wells perhaps has a handle on this with regard to what he says about Drag.
2) When it comes to correctly modeling flight, or at least having the *potential* model correctly model flight, I think it's pretty clear that AH has the more sophisticated flight model. Whether it currently hits the numbers correctly is another question entirely. I think Kats has synopsized this real well.
3) In terms of whether planes could be thrown around like they are in WB... certainly there are things that can be done in either game that aren't possible or where "holes" in technology allow the game to be gamed. And there are plenty of things that simply don't exist... like pilot fatigue. Perhaps if a pilot were never tired or fatigued, they really could toss the aircraft around like that...
4) As for HT's hop in the P51, I think that we have to be careful to not mistake heavy feel for munging the numbers (which is the best info we have unless HT or someone flight tests a P-51 outfitted as it would have been in a 1944 flight test). Any aircraft is going to feel heavy compared to using a joystick connected to a computer. The stresses on the body and control surfaces simply cannot be recreated, and even force feedback doesn't provide more than poor-man's idea of what it really feels like.
5) Finally, with regard to HTC, I don't have an issue with them per se. Let's just say that I was Boomer's wingman back in WB, and have a somewhat tinged view on things as a result. I really don't think it's appropriate to say more. And, for what it's worth, if you look back in threads, I *have* complemented HTC where I think they've done a good job. I certainly don't think AH is a bad flight sim in any sense... I guess my take is that it doesn't make sense for me to "switch" flight sims (even if AH has a more sophisiticated FM, which I think it does) because: the gameplay really doesn't offer anything new (and, again, I've become rather bored with WB as well); I also have concerns about the accuracy of the "numbers" and IMO it doesn't make sense for me to "learn" AH for the sophistication of its FM if it doesn't get the numbers right.
Of course, if the WB numbers are wrong, well... maybe then I'd be more game... but I haven't seen anyone official make that contention yet.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Yah know, I think Chuck Yeager could come in here, evaluate the P-51 flight model, make a few statements and he'd get arguments. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Same for any other ace in a particular aircraft.
I've done a significant amount of flying in craft from the Cub to the 747 with many, many stops in between. The largest, highest horsepower "warbird" I've flown is a T-6, though.
I find things I don't like in the WB FM. I find things I don't like in the AH FM. I don't think EITHER one is exactly like flying these WW2 planes. I think both are pretty damn amazingly good for a free download that runs on a $700 computer, though.
I chose my "current fav" by "feel". I think the AH "feels" _to me_ more like a piston driven prop aircraft.
I don't worry too awfully much if a particular plane or planes "hits the numbers" exactly. All the planes have different strengths and weaknesses and learning to fight your mount against these varying capabilities in differing situations is what makes the game fun.
Just my .02 and YMMV.
Play what you like, like what you play!
-
Awww, snake gettin all soft around the edges (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I agree with snake, lets find out which ones are closest to the correct numbers. Then we can make judgements. Both are probably off, in some areas a lot, but lets get to the numbers on both.
Who has run tests side by side on both? Wells? Funk? Juzz? do that vodoo that you do so well.
------------------
Dnil
JG-2
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Toad:
I agree... I've heard comments that go both ways and it's kind of one of those "six of one, half-dozen of another" kind of situations.
Having said that, however, we're not talking about teeny-tiny differences. We're talking about some pretty noticeable differences in the time it takes to make turns. I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but we're talking about deviations of 50% in some cases.
I just can't help but wonder why the difference is soooooo great in some cases. If it's a situation where one sim currently has a more sophisticated FM, but isn't hitting the numbers very well, whereas another has a simpler flight model (alternatively called old or mature depending on your feeling) but hits the numbers better... well, heck, I'd like to know where we stand. And I *know* that I'm not the only one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Snake,
I'd love to see a true WW2 flight "simulator" that hit all the numbers exactly and had the right "feel" as well.
It isn't going to happen for a large number of well-documented reasons. Lack of certified, reliable data, near total absence of actual WW2 fighters in historical combat configuration available to test in actual flight, the horror and shock of an owner of such a plane when you asked him to loan it to you for "testing" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) , the fact that the vets that actually flew them are in their late 70's now and memory plays tricks. On and on and on.
I totally support trying to get it "as close as possible". Totally. But that is never going to be an "absolute". The data just isn't there.
So, all these programmers do their best. It's some fact, some educated prognositcation, some intuition, some black magic and some wild-ass guessing.
I'm just damn glad we have two such difficult choices!
I'm sure as time goes on, refinements are going to be made. That new FW-190 that they are building over in Germany may help the data base (but it's not a true combat loaded FW either). More data will turn up. Research will continue.
For now, I'm going to play and enjoy myself. I think the key is to not get tooooo awfully concerned if you're having a good time. These games will continue to evolve. It's a good time to be a fight sim guy!
-
Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in seeing an explanation for why the difference exists. Is it simply a result of what putting the data into the flight models has produced, is it a conscious rethink that needed to be tweaked-in, is it unintended or potentially accentuated by a bug or something not yet more fully modeled, etc?
I don't think it's totally unreasonable to ask about this, since I'm certain that I'm not the only one with this question. To some extent HTC and IEN are asking their potential clienteles to "choose" between them (as not everyone can afford or wants to split time between both). From my perspective, I'm not entirely certain thta it is "worth it" to flip-flop for a more sophisticated FM that perhaps actually produces less accurate results (granted, "accurate" becomes a tenuous term at this point).
Maybe I'm hung-up on a minor issue... but I can't get over the nagging incongruity of both being produced by the same team (at least originally) and the vast difference with regard to feel, responsiveness, "numbers", etc. Despite the fact that some might think that I've got a beef with HTC, I'm honestly just puzzled by this issue.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Did you get my email SnakeEyes?
-
Naw, something is apparently busted on the forwarder for the ffgroup email... I've changed the profile for ya to send again.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Ok Snake fair enough,
Again, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in seeing an explanation for why the difference exists. Is it simply a result of what putting the data into the flight models has produced, is it a conscious rethink that needed to be tweaked-in, is it unintended or potentially accentuated by a bug or something not yet more fully modeled, etc?
Who knows, why did planes not fly the way the engineers thought they would on paper? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So if your not dead set against Aces High come on in and play with us. Forget why there is a differance in the two flight models, just stop in now and again have some fun with us. I for one would be glad to fly with ya.
Come on now admit it. No one spends this much time looking through the store window without wanting to go inside (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Come On!! It only hurts for a little while.
Sharky
-
I see your point Snake, and i'm curious too. Maybe it's just the data.
I had a Kawasaki Mach III in 1970...fastest production bike in the 1/4 mile at the time.
Suppose in 2030 somebody wanted to make a motorcycle drag racing sim. I remember that three different magazines gave 3 different 1/4 times for the bike. Like 10.5 sec, 11.2 sec and 12.5 sec. I ran mine through a few times and never got under 13.6.
So whose data would they use IF they found all three copies of the mag? Or would they believe an 80 year old antique like me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I don't know why there is a difference. I'd like to know but doubt we ever will.
The real questions are: Does it make a difference inside each respective game if all aircraft are treated the same? Would this be the sole determining factor in which game you chose to play?
-
Yuppers, there are lots of reasons, not the least of which is simply that there is a lot of info that doesn't exist, and so they've got to make educated guesses at the data.
I'm more interested for the sake of curiosity than for my making a decision on which to play. Personally, I'm likely to remain in WB for the near future for two reasons:
1) I honestly prefer the faster play. Sure I prize realism, and what goes on under the hood in AH certainly appears to be more sophisticated, but I'm not ashamed to admit that "how" a game plays is just as important to me.
2) My squad is there and I only have the time to play one of the two.
Ultimately, like a lot of others, I'm simply curious as to why the difference is so noticeable. Of course, it's probably as mundane as that they looked at a preponderance of the data and made the judgement call that this was simply more representative. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
it's probably
as mundane as that they looked at a preponderance of the data and made the judgement call that this was simply
more representative.
It is definatley a question that interests all of us. I wonder if HTC would be willing to comment on their feelings....(PS did this thread get hi-jacked? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
-
OK, MY TURN.
First of all, I played Warbirds for a good 4-5 years now.
When I tried the first AH release (open beta), I hated it. The FM did not seem right.
I was finally tempted to try it again since I saw new versions and patches coming out.
After 2 days of learning "offline", I entered the arena. I LOVED IT! I must say that after flying AH for almost 2 weeks now, the planes in WB seem "childish".
Being a real pilot, I have some idea how planes should act in the air. IMVHO, Aces High is more realistic then WB.
Man, I never thought I'd say this.
------------------------
S/L Skalski
No. 308 (Polish) Sqn
Royal Air Force
-
Originally posted by popeye:
I don't think HTC should get into a "mine is bigger than yours" fight over flight models. Why should a prospective player believe HTC?
I agree, I've always discounted any product which says "theirs is worse than ours because.." I personally think Aces just needs more exposure, but to the right places!! Seen waay too many adolescent quakers appear and dissappear over the past few weeks. I really don't know how or where to expose Aces better, but something needs to be done.
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I see your point Snake, and i'm curious too. Maybe it's just the data.
I had a Kawasaki Mach III in 1970...fastest production bike in the 1/4 mile at the time.
Suppose in 2030 somebody wanted to make a motorcycle drag racing sim. I remember that three different magazines gave 3 different 1/4 times for the bike. Like 10.5 sec, 11.2 sec and 12.5 sec. I ran mine through a few times and never got under 13.6.
So whose data would they use IF they found all three copies of the mag? Or would they believe an 80 year old antique like me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Damn good post.
Taking this one step further I drive an old Porsche 928 GT and on the 928UK mailing list you would not beleive the debates that go on as the to performance of the different 928 models (928, S, S2, S4, CS, SE, GT, GTS manual/auto) and this is from people that own the things, in some cases more than one...
Time and again the validity of the the magazine test data is questioned because it's all different. And doesn't always seem to fit people's real world experience.
And this is mostly data of about 10-12 years ago collected using acurate testing gear.
Lord knows who'll know the truth in 50 years time when there's only a handful of cosseted and hardly used examples left.
I can only imagine the nightmare it must be to try and sort out the data on WWII aircraft...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
This was quite a long thread. I just wanted to mention something that was not really pressed home by anyone.
I am here for one reason and will continue to stay for one reason. It is the same reason I still go to Ricks Chevron and pay .08
cents more for gas. The same reason I still shop at Twain Harte grocery story near our home and not the big Safeway in town.
The same reason I went to a particular family owned computer store over the Comp USA's.
Customer service.
Yes flight model is a factor. Yes gunnery is a factor. Yes graphics are a factor. Yes historical terrain's/plane sets are a factor.
Yes plane selection is a factor. Ultimately though, what turned me off to Warbirds and turned me on to Aces High is the glue to
all those items listed above, customer service. I flew Warbirds for 3 years. When I closed my account no one called me to ask
why. Even the gal that I talked to when I closed my account did not ask. My guess is I was one of a dozen she must have
been doing every day. Nevertheless you would think that after 3 years someone with some business sense would call and
inquire why someone would close their account. Not a peep.
Don't tell me that as soon as I come to dislike the flight model or some other aspect of the game I will leave. Truth is I still prefer
the Warbirds flight model and terribly miss the historical arena. Of course that could be due to over 3 years of Warbirds and
only a few months of Aces High, I don't know.
I would wager their are a few out their who are willing to pay more for a comparable product due to customer service alone.
The moment I feel someone at HTC would not return my call, answer my e-mails, ignore my postings, but continue to take my
money I would be gone.
------------------------
daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels (http://www.ropescourse.org/flying.htm)
Snapshots (http://www.ropescourse.org/snapshot.htm)
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cdaddog.jpg)
Where men become friends and friends become brothers.
-
Excellent point (as usual) Daddog, but according to Macboy(MG) that will disappear in the near future! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Give it time, give it time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Thanks for the headsup Ripsnort/Nosoup4u/dinkywinky/?
[This message has been edited by Macboy (edited 06-29-2000).]
-
maria grandy wrote:
Your account has been canceled.
----- Original Message -----
From: kats
To: accounts@iencentral.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 11:05 AM
Subject: close account please.
Hello, I would like you to de-activate my account. My handle is
-kats- and I am guessing my password is xxxxxxxx (xxxxxx
something anyway ). My login ID is either xxxx or xxxxxx I do not
have the game on my hardrive so I can't say for sure. Please reply if
you need anymore information.
Tony Katsabanis.
Here reply was in bold hehehehehehe as if she enjoyed typing those words (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyhow, I never left with any hard feelings....I was just bored - without any complaints really. As a ammter of fact, I didn't even bother with the "farewell/goodbye parting shot" because I didn't feel like a goodbye (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I found the response ice cold. I think a questionaire would be good business, or at least Thanks for the five grand sucka!!!!!!!!
hehehehehehehehehe
-
Originally posted by Macboy:
Thanks for the headsup Ripsnort/Nosoup4u/dinkywinky/?
[This message has been edited by Macboy (edited 06-29-2000).]
Yes, on the board of the sim I fly on, as humor, how bout you sour puss? Them grapes still sour! LOL! <S> Megan