Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vigilante on January 20, 2002, 02:40:01 PM
-
Recently an AH fan posted some defamating statements about the Fighter Ace 3 beta.
Let me clear up a few things about their alleged remarks. I have replied to their statements in all R.) posts.
Gentleman,
I finally got an uninterrupted download of the new FA 3 release.
1. In my opinion it sucks.
R.) What are your computer specs? This is a new graphics and flight model in its beta stages. You flew online and yet stated you merely tested offline. You complained about features only available in online play without any foundations of investigation. 10 minutes is not an evaluation, its an attack on the fact you had to learn something new and were too lazy to try it.
2. Very unrealistic.
R.) You flew in an Arcade Nations at war room, I heard your whining. All players in the room told you that you would have to go to a tagless cockpit only view room with advanced physics. You continued to whine and ruin others enjoyment in their testing & debugging. If you had read anything available in the forums you would know that the entire game is being tested for hardware issues and nothing has been set. The dammage model is not even close to completion.
3. Kiddies arcade play.
R.) Try flying advanced and you might have a clue. Most advanced flight physics responses ever placed in a Sim.
4. Planes do impossible maneuvers.
R.) See above.....yawn
5. No cockpit view.(untrue)
6. Unrealistic information all over the screen, no working
cockpit instruments.(Untrue)
7. Minimal improvement over original release.(untrue)
8. Laggy as all hell. (untrue)
9. Even if there was a cockpit view no head position
adjustment. I know this from the original release, this
was very aggravating as the necessary instruments were
unusable. ( Untrue)
10. Padlock is unrealistic, WW 2 planes did not have
automatic tracking devices.
R.) Your head and eyes follow objects in
motion without thought why should this be different. I love padlock because it makes the game 3 dimensional. In cloud cover it doesnt work in the next patch. The range is purely visual of 5,000 ft usually and can be adjusted in the room settings.
It will also cease functioning when the view is blocked if it is set that way. FYI, you can fly under radar and knock out enemy radar.
Fully operational carrier battle groups and territorial combat are running and being debugged right now.
11. Graphics do not even come close to AH.
R.) No they don't they blow them
away, try a new computer with at least 64 MB of ram in video.
See attatched photo.
Its at a low resolution. You can fly in and dogfight inside cloud cover. The time of day goes from day thru night.
R.) The rest of this AH pilots thread is just a heated obsession with padlock. I don't fly AH because it felt totally 2 dimensional in its views.
-
Corsair F4U4 with A2G rockets.
-
well take that to the fa3 board :)
most folks here believe or not fly AH
-
Some Cockpit Visuals, oops, the images cant be reduced any farther because i fly online @ 1280x1024 in 32 bit graphics with 35-49 fps depending on if i am in cloud cover.
-
Wow Vigilante, thanks!
Now I am TOTALLY convinced!
I will quit AH inmediately and go play FA3 inmediately
Things are SO much clearer now, I was playing the wrong sim, and my sense of enjoyment was false.
Thanks for coming to this board and clearing things out for us.
-
Well, when I downloaded the beta for FA3 beta it didn't deserve the name "beta".
The graphics at that time were horrible, absolutely horrible. The textures were far worse than the amatuer mods for EAW. The dials were unreadable. The polygon count on the aircraft was much lower than AH.
The FM was a joke. According to the version that I downloaded the Spitfire MkXIV had a top speed of 398mph. If a game is willing to knock 50mph off of an aircraft's top speed for play balancing it isn't a sim, its an arcade game.
The sounds were the worst I have heard in a sim in more than 5 years.
For some reason I haven't wanted to spend the time to download a newer version.
BTW, a 64mb card shouldn't make that much of a difference over a 32mb card.
-
(http://www.raf303.org/funked/ag00290_.gif)
-
Why is that guy shooting rockets at 10k feet?
-
Speaking only for my self of course.
-Sikboy
-{Shillelagh}- Squadron
-
Sorry, is this an ad or something?:(
-
Are you the old Vigl from WB's?
LLB OUT!!!!
-
I doubt it. -vigl-'s got more class than to advertise for FA on an AH board, and more sense than to fly FA in the first place.
D
-
[size=18]Arcade Nations at war room[/color][/size]
-
Why are you here again?
-
not to be a nastay bastard (Ok I am so what?). But it looks alot like CFS2 infact I think CFS2 looked betterand like cfs2 probably uses the same reality engine witch is ripped off of Air Warrior (In its favor it had a much better damage model). I still think AH looks better then FA3 screen shot. in any event theres no use in comparing a beta to a functioning game at least not until some one I know and trust gives me the details. I also like having Free H2H and Free Lan play witch is a first for mass multiplayer games. the closest Ive ever seen is 1 on 1 h2h in air warrior II and III box CD sets (you had to buy the game to get that feture).
-
Mayhem,
WB also had a H2H option with the dowloaded bersion. I used that on LANs alot.
-
Huh?
A. Why is this here?
B. Why should we care?
Nothing against FA guys, but if some jerk comes and slams FA in a FA forum, there's no need to bring it here. He was wrong in doing so, and you're wrong in doing the same.
If it was in some other thread, why start a new one?
BTW, several AH pilots can't read. I once put a 2-year-old at the controls of a C47 in AH. Heck, judging by your posting, I'm surprised you can read.
You expect us to believe a sentence fragment by you, who's never seen any other game but FA, that your favorite sim has the most advanced flight physics model?
If you're interested in researching the issue, I advise you check out http://www.dogfighter.com for starters. They have correspondents for all the MMPO Flight Sims, and they try to balance the cheerleading out.
-
Well go count verbiage on an english ed board.
FYI, Ive made planes for CFS2 and quite well. Even though the flight model was extremely limited and dissappointing for me I can't say I could write an entire game engine to be released before it was time. Fact is, I was wrong bashing the guy for an opinion. But I would dare say it was a bit more intelligent than the responses.:D
-
Also, I am glad your 2 yr old can't read some of the content here. The type of language I'm seeing isn't permitted in our community. Having an opinion is usually only worth as much as it's character. I know this whole thing is just an "apples and oranges arguement" in retrospect.
AH has a well established community and many refugee's from FA when MS destroyed much of its previous popularity with poor management. VR1 took the game to be developed away from Microsofts misguided judgement. I wish your AH community well. I'll not bother you again.
-
blah blah blah
-
spell check....
-
Oh, wait - I don't.
Take your pompoms elsewhere, you're bothering me.
-
Yeah the graphics are crap...
These are from the same build you would have been using...
The Smoo
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, when I downloaded the beta for FA3 beta it didn't deserve the name "beta".
The graphics at that time were horrible, absolutely horrible. The textures were far worse than the amatuer mods for EAW. The dials were unreadable. The polygon count on the aircraft was much lower than AH.
The FM was a joke. According to the version that I downloaded the Spitfire MkXIV had a top speed of 398mph. If a game is willing to knock 50mph off of an aircraft's top speed for play balancing it isn't a sim, its an arcade game.
The sounds were the worst I have heard in a sim in more than 5 years.
For some reason I haven't wanted to spend the time to download a newer version.
BTW, a 64mb card shouldn't make that much of a difference over a 32mb card.
-
Please allow for the lower res - I had a bit of bandwidth consideration and reduced them from the 1152x864x32 I run the game at...
-
and more...
-
Did someone say the cockpits were unreadable? Could they read in the first place?
The Smoo
-
Are they aure they could read?
-
aure = sure - gotta love typos when you're having a dig at someone, eh?
The Smoo
-
Fed up with me now? Okay, I'll stop :)
-
I have to agree, the Pilot faces look better than ours :D
I didn't know F4U's could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles though ;)
-
Sure they look fine. A bit cartoonish maybe but really, is there a recent flight sim with crap graphics anyway?
-
Are those pics supposed to favor the game or bash it?
Only the last cockpit view was nice.
You know, if you want to get jiggy with screenshots, I can fire Il-2 Sturmovik and we can have a little competition.
Graphics are schmuck if the sim is scum.
-
BTW Karnak, the Spit XIV's top speed in FA3 is 447mph at 28k.
What you saw was just placeholder copy in the plane description during the beta process.
A great deal of effort has gone into making the plane performances as accurate as possible from available data.
-
Sure animal - you give me a screenshot of every plane you can fly in Il-2, and I'll give you one of every plane I can fly in FA3.
I have the choice of 80...how many have you got in Il-2? And how many players can you have in the same room at the same time with those few planes you've got?
I can play in an arena with more than 200 players flying 80 different planes, attacking multiple different kinds of ground targets and several different kinds of ship.
Oh and I can even fly for GB and attack GE over the English Channel, or fly JP and attack US over Pacific Islands, or fly SU and attack GE over Kursk or fly GB and US and attack...oh well, you get the picture.
Are you guys still playing chess in the air? Have you still got Georges winging with Stangs? And you're STILL saying yours is more realistic?
Seriously, try the advanced rooms if you ever get the chance... you might find you like it more than you think...
You'll have to get over the padlock thing though - but no-one is forcing you to use it. The hat switch buttons work perfectly well in FA3 too.
-
Ooooohhhhh...
well, I thought you were talking about graphics... if you are not, then you are doing even more harm to your argument. You aint gonna convince anyone here that your pile'o crap "sim" is better than AH or IL-2, so you are wasting your time and energy, and HTC's bandwidth.
And if how many and wich planes you can fly make a good sim to you, then you should go play MS Flight Simulator and Jane's Advanced Tactical Fighters.
I am not a biased players. I am all for good sims. Heck, I'd love if some company made a sim better than Aces High so I could fly that. I love being impressed and entertained, like I was back in the AH beta.
But sorry pal. No good impressions from your screenshots or your arguements, thats why I'm giving the game a shot. If it was for your little Quest to make everyone agree with you, I'd hate that game even more.
-
SmoothMonster,
There's no written rule... but I'm here to tell ya.. one graphic 256x256 is fine
8 graphics all 1024x ain't so fine... If you want to give us a spread, take 10 minutes to make an index page put all your graphics on there and send us a link..
Another unwritten rule, we don't go to other flight-sim boards and bash their game... Developers over there do what they have to do gameplay balance/business whatever most of us understand that.
If your over here to try and get converts... well um.. Its like a neighborhood bar.. You can offer free drinks at your bar... free pupus. But I still would prefer to be over here.
Can you still remove the entire front end of your cockpit?
Can you still remove the texture in the terrain?... (thought that was weird)
-
No, I'm talking graphics, mate - I've got 80 beautifully rendered planes in realistic settings that perform to historical specs.
What have you got? Bishops, rooks and queens? And half a dozen flyable planes in an offline sim...well, I know which one I'm staying with.
And you're calling it a pile o'crap sim because.....? You must have flown it then I take it?
Did you find Westminster Palace then? Eiffel Tower? How did you like the snap roll behaviour? Hammerhead stalls? Vector turns? What did you think of the P47's roll rate? Did you manage any flat spins? Did you try a jurabatic move in the Lightning?
Or are you just talking through your most intelligent orifice?
-
sharing pictures...oh hell, why not (http://24.50.71.15:90/simfreak/190.jpg) :rolleyes:
-
Well, holy toejam, I'm convinced! I'll go sign up just as soon as I cancel my AH account. :B
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
SmoothMonster,
There's no written rule... but I'm here to tell ya.. one graphic 256x256 is fine
8 graphics all 1024x ain't so fine... If you want to give us a spread, take 10 minutes to make an index page put all your graphics on there and send us a link..
Another unwritten rule, we don't go to other flight-sim boards and bash their game... Developers over there do what they have to do gameplay balance/business whatever most of us understand that.
If your over here to try and get converts... well um.. Its like a neighborhood bar.. You can offer free drinks at your bar... free pupus. But I still would prefer to be over here.
Can you still remove the entire front end of your cockpit?
Can you still remove the texture in the terrain?... (thought that was weird)
Sorry about the pics.
FA offers different levels of gameplay to suit all tastes. In the real-mode arena, you have cockpit-only views.
In FA3, you can have several graphics settings to allow it to play on as many PCs as possible, but I believe the disappearing terrain option has been removed :)
Regarding the bashing, I honestly am not. I'm sure this is a great game for those who play it. I do find the bishops/rooks thing strange, though.
I am however responding to the opinion of FA expressed by a long-time AH player. I think it's only right that sort of thing is challenged by an alternative viewpoint. I would hope you guys would also welcome seeing another side of the story so you can make your own minds up and come to a balanced decision rather than a kneejerk one.
If you ever drop by once beta either goes completely public or the game goes gold, I would be only too happy to show you around a bit - and if you think it still sucks after that, then fine. At least then you would have been shown some of its best attributes...
Awra best,
-
WOW! FA3's Fw190D-9 outclimbs both the Spitfire IXe and XIV! And take a look at the 109K-4 performance! An axis flyer heaven, definitely ;) :D
http://fighter-ace.propfighter.com/FA3/Secrets/charts.htm
-
Yeah, yeah, FA has a "realistic" arena...with how many people?......10?....15? Sorry pal, I flew FA for almost 3 years. The arenas with the 200 people are the ones with the Superman views and X-Wing physics. The realistic room attract a handful of people. We've got a realistic arena with over 400 people every night. Go sell your crap someplace else.
-
I actually would try it, but it's self appointed however unintentional promotional salesman makes it impossible to consider.
-
Well, by putting the picture there you showed that the pilot who had whined was right about the FA3 graphic sucks compared to AH.
I actually tried FA3, and whoever the pilot who whined is, he's right, it sucks.
Got a couple of nice planes though, Do219 and such.
-
some folks here actually tried it and guess what?
its arcade crap.
Why come to the AH board to peddle crap?
Then get all defensive when folks call ya on it.
The way I see it your wasting whats left of the free beta best you run and enjoy your arcade game war quake easy mode room or what ever the heck its called..........
While those pics are better then fa2.5 they aren't as good as ah wb3 or il2.
Even old games like eaw sdoe and janes were better imho.........
-
No worries guys - you're all obviously a bit insecure about the limitations of your chosen game and have to resort to constructive criticism along the lines of "It Sucks".
To me it's all just a game, not a religion. I was merely offering you an insight into the latest available alternative. You have a choice and the choice doesn't define you.
I guess to you guys, it's different. You have the kneejerk reaction of fundamentalists..."Aaargh - they have an ARCADE mode! Save me! Save me!"
It's funny though - that arcade mode seemed to keep you very happy for three years, Raub. Then I seem to remember you and the rest of LJK threw a bit of dummy spit about the 190 modelling and stormed off here...guess you would have been completely uninterested by the current D9 climb rate then (and the rest of the 190 series modelling)?
(BTW the LF IX now outclimbs the D9 by one second - it's beta, flight models are being refined all the time to get as near historically accurate as possible...my charts simply haven't been updated as quickly.)
Doesn't AH's 109K climb to 5km in 3 minutes 1 sec like ours? It should - that's what it did IRL...
The reason I don't fly in AH is it was more expensive and I prefer country-defined teams and more historical alliances of planes. I didn't find the environment very immersive either. I'm sure if I'd stuck at it, I would have done - but there was already a game I knew and was cheaper and more fun. That's not called getting defensive, that's just telling the truth.
Raub, say hi to Reschke for me. I saw him last week in one of the FA3 beta rooms...he seemed to quite like it, IIRC.
MS created a lot of problems for FA by inhibiting its ability to react to players' demands - that stumbling block has now gone and player-raised issues are dealt with literally within minutes now. Find a bug? It's fixed in the next patch (if it's done that easily). Find a modelling flaw and can substantiate it sufficiently? It's fixed in the next patch.
Additionally, many of the long-time arcade and intermediate fliers are now moving into the full real arenas. Often the full real arenas are now the busiest of all the servers.
Anyway, those who flew FA before will simply find FA3 is an entirely different proposition from the monster MS created.
Take it or leave it (and, yeah, I know what most of you are gonna type...*yawn*).
Oh and PLEASE - as for intruding on your newsgroup, go tell it to your players. We see it all the time - they even turned up at the Town Hall Meeting about FA's Future last year to plug AH!
-
How can any of you look at those graphics and say they are crap? look better than AH to me, but those are just still images.
i'll have to check it out, before i flame you of course. :)
-
Why bother a perfectly happy bunch of Flight model perfectionist,ganging,whining,foul mouthed sods,with such tripe.
We are here because this is are choice.I have had the pleasure of flying every online sim at one time or another.AH is the best,believe they won the Online Sim award again this year,for the second year in a row.
As I recall FA didn't have any significant features to hold my interest,and the low price seemed to bring in the mentally challenged and demon posessed at a alarming rate.
Dobe
-
hmm I tried FA3 Beta few months ago but didn't like it then. Guess I'll download that 260megs file to give it a another try.
-
Gonna go download it and try it again, tried it a few weeks ago and, sorry to say, it S-U-C-K-E-D. FM was WAY BAD together with teh you have been dammaged 95%, "take 2x50 cal pings anywhere and you will blow up" Dammage modell, now THAT is realsim! :rolleyes:
PS. AH has got a G10, not a K, and btw, what K version is it in FA?
-
Originally posted by olddobe
Why bother a perfectly happy bunch of Flight model perfectionist,ganging,whining,foul mouthed sods,with such tripe.
Dobe
I'm genuinely confused here - are you talking about AH players or FA players???
:p
We have the 109K-4, Willbus.
Those planning on downloading the beta should note the online version is still a closed beta and access is by invitation - unless you know someone on it and can *ahem* borrow their login, you won't be able to play online yet. Numbers are also limited by those with the ISP ability to download 260M on a regular basis...
The damage model is currently at its most basic beta level to assess each plane's inherent durability before complicating matters by adding in individual components. No conclusions should be drawn from the current damage modelling, although hopefully it will be more advanced in the next beta version released. It is a work in progress in the closed, closed beta :)
The beta that was (is?) running on MS zone is no longer representative of FA3 in any way, apart from the plane skins.
The Smoo
-
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, for those FA3 shots do nothing in my opinion for me...this does!
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/shots/players/grizz1.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/shots/players/sf1.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/shots/players/solas1.jpg)
-
Hmmm - first one looked so nice I thought it was actually an FA3 screenie until I noticed there was no texture mapping on the planes. Ah well.
The second one is bloody awful. What hell is that? It looks like a ship sinking (where's the steam, fire and smoke - you do HAVE steam fire and smoke and air bubbles and waves and ship wakes don't you?), but what is the ugly stuff in the foreground????
And the clouds in the third one are nice too - just like FA3s - but the plane is very boxy...and again no texture mapping.
Thanks, though, they were interesting shots.
-
Foreground is looking over the manable 14 Inch gun on the cruiser. :)
Those clouds ain't just pretty pictures, they are real 3D clouds.
Smoomonster, can you drive a CV in FA?
Can you drive a PT boat and join someone as a gunner in their PT boat? in their Tank? in their Bomber?
Can you fire a 14" gun from a Cruiser?
Can you drive a tank?
Can you jump into a 40mm gun and protect an airfield?
Can you jump into a 16" gun on a shore battery and pummel the ships going by?
Can you strafe trains that are resupplying nearby cities and fields?
How about convoys, got any of those to strafe?
I'd gladly give up texture mapping for these things. To me, Strat, flight model trump out eye candy (and again, eye candy is in the eye of the beholder). If I cared about eye candy, I'd be flying CFS2 all the time.:)
-
Will give my grade of FA3 after I tried it, bout 40 minutes left till download it complete. Beta 0.58 the latest one?
Let's hope, for the sake of the FA community that the dammage modell isn't complete, even Aces Over Europe and Red Baron didn't have % dammage.
-
No, I just like to have fun flying WWII planes on a PC.
That kinda stuff doesn't come under that heading, but I can understand why some people might want to do that.
I would think those people might enjoy a game like WWIIOnline more though instead of a flight sim where ostensibly people are supposed to have fun flying WWII planes on a PC.
-
Well, AH is a flight sim first, all the other stuff is there if you choose or you get alittle bored one day doing the same thing. Choice is good.
Constant updates, new aircraft, customer support where a real person contacts you, "choices", player feedback that is actually implemented into AH...all that rolled up is why most of us is here.
-
PS - we have clouds too in various densities and altitudes right up to total overcast and complete whiteout IFR conditions. They're fun.
BTW, you're description of ah...
Constant updates, new aircraft, customer support where a real person contacts you, "choices", player feedback that is actually implemented into AH...all that rolled up is why most of us is here.
...is now exactly what FA is like under the control of VR1. The general public newsgroup is now full of one on one chats with the developers and programmers. Under MS, we envied the likes of AH for that kind of intimacy, now we have it and it does taste good :)
-
Well there you have it, you like Burger King, I like McDonalds. We both enjoy eating hamburgers. All else is meaningless. :)
Edit: I'll bet HTC is proud to be the state model in which FA3 now runs its business. :)
-
"To me it's all just a game, not a religion."
Then why are you preaching here?
Westy
-
I thought I was just having a chat - initially, I was replying to false assertions and assumptions but now I'm shooting the breeze. If you think it's preaching then....
Now...where can I get a flame-grilled Big Mac at this time of night...?
-
You have to preach a little harder,before i take an 8 hour download;) ,,,,, i like the screenshots,but the terrain looks,,,well
not as good as AH.
-
"false assertions and assumptions"
Heh. In the "old" days we use to call that "opinion." Although opinions aren't false. If they were then you call them a lie and the speaker a lier.
FWIW, I downloaded last week the latest beta and tried it. Uninstalled it soon after too. I also browsed the community on the VR1 public beta news group. Instead of running down a long list of things I did not like, about either, I'll just say that I pray that FA stays in business. For imo it does serve a usefull purpose and it's one that only became quite apparant to me after AW closed down.
AH and FA serve different ends of the wwii aircombat spectrums and imo that is the way it should stay.
And my apology for being semi-rude. Stay as long as you wish! ...Preaching.... watermelon chatting... When the subject is about different products and the reason for being here in the first place is opinion changing and swaying then call it whatever one wishes for it's all the same.
Heck! Sometimes it was the missionaries that were converted (or eaten after being boiled) ;)
Westy
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
The second one is bloody awful. What hell is that? It looks like a ship sinking (where's the steam, fire and smoke - you do HAVE steam fire and smoke and air bubbles and waves and ship wakes don't you?), but what is the ugly stuff in the foreground????
Your missing the obvious ...
Do you see all thoses whales breathing near the sinking CV ? ;)
Obviously this thread has turned as a "dick" measurement competion ...
And frankly who cares of FA or AH ?
We are going were there is fun ,competion and friendship...
Even quake can be fun ...
-
Whales? Pah! We've got SHARKS, dammit! Now THEY are fighters...
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
No, I just like to have fun flying WWII planes on a PC.
That kinda stuff doesn't come under that heading, but I can understand why some people might want to do that.
I would think those people might enjoy a game like WWIIOnline more though instead of a flight sim where ostensibly people are supposed to have fun flying WWII planes on a PC.
That kinda "stuff" is in AH because the players asked for it...AH is predominatly a flight sim with ground action, WWIIOnline is primarily a ground sim (read: tank) with some air action thrown in. I must admit I'm glad someone other than MS is now developing FA, a question tho...does FA have the ability to add ground action?
At any rate, if there is improvemnet in FA, it makes all flight sims better for it :)
I'm comfortable in AH (even if I am a crappy pilet) but I will no doubt have a look at FA once the new version gets released.
Hope you FA guys do well, it serves us all well...
DmdBgm
-
I got a big zit on my forehead. So big I've already popped it twice and am patiently waiting the 3rd popping. Ya know both time I popped that sucker the crap that squirted out onto my mirror was better looking than anything I ever saw from FA Which is only slightly worse that seeing this thread in our O'club.
If I wanted to see some crap like this I'd subscribe to the gay channel or something. Move along!
-
Curiously enough, I've flushed away better flames than yours, Udie.
And you show a disturbing knowledge of the gay channel's content...
-
Hello:
I am very familiar with the cause of this thread. The post that I found in the VR1FAIII news group came from a squad mate of mine. This post was contained in an email to the AoA Squad of FA fame and also an email went out to the TigerSquadron of FA. Unfortunately an member of the Tiger Squadron thought he should take this internal squad email and post it in the VR1 FAIII news group. That is what started this entire mess.
My squad mate flies in AH now with the rest of my squad mates who all use to fly in FA1.5 and left when MS screwed up the realistic flight model in FA2.5 He like the AH game better as his email states. He didn't intend for his email to appear in a public forum. My squad mate was able to test out FAIII beta as he was given a user name and pw from one of the other guys in our squad so that he could try out the FAIII beta and see for himself what the game was like. You must remember that FAIII is still in beta and that it's changing every min as the programmers madly tweak and change it for the better. The damage modeling is still not finished and you can only damage the main componets right now so that the dev can test the planes major componets like wings for stresses etc. They have the flap, aileron, elevator and such hit boxed turned off right now but they will have those hit boxes turn on in the later versions. FAIII is a game for everyone who wants to virtually play like they are flying these old WWII bird. Those newbies that don't know anything about airplane can have some fun in the arcade rooms and then later move on to the intermediate rooms and then finally they can move on to the more advanced rooms with 3Dcockpit views and stall spins etc.
FAIII only really looks good (graphically) when you you play with hardware that is up to date ie DX8.1 hardware support. When you play the game with a Geforce3 card you will see the graphics in much better light. I have another two squad mates that both left FA 2 for AH and they have voodoo3 chip based video cards and they can't see the nice graphic in FAIII since FAIII does not support the voodoo3 chip based cards and the these guys see all kinds of wierd graphic glitches in the FAIII game right now. Maybe VR1 will be able to support these legacy cards and maybe now. Many guys were forced to stop playing FA 1.5 when FA 2.0 came out and had higher computer specs requirements. That happens and time marches on and hardware gets faster and better allowing more complex programs.
I really am sorry that this entire thread started and I do appologize to the AH guys for this mishap.
Bottom line is that I think that each game has it's good points.
I think that if FA 1.0 were never developed that everyone would still be paying $2.00 per hour to play WarBirds. Think about that when you pay your credit card bill this month you may want to thank God for competition. Now AH costs 15 bucks per month and WB is down to $25 per month. Thank MS for that guys as if not for FA 1.0, FA 1.5 and FA 2.0 the cost for online flightsim gaming would not have fallen down to where it is today. Each game has improved over the years and we the customer have a better gaming value due to good old competition.
My entire squad Aces of America left FA 2.5 due to the mismanagement of the game by Microshaft. Sorry Bill but you guys cared more about talking about fish than pleasing the customers.
VR1 has always been a great company, but they were under the thumb of MS. That is no longer the case now and it shows. VR1 has been so response to the customers, that they are going to rewrite the book on customer relations. BTW VR1 is owned by a Japanese company and is headquarted in Boulder CO with offices in Canada, Japan and even Russia. I have heard them say that they might even put servers in Europe and overseas someday to get more international customers.
I won't tell you that AH or WB or FA III is better or worse than any other game. Only you can make up your mind which sim you prefer. We each have our likes and dislikes.
I hope that AH flurishes and prospers and that you all have fun. After all that is what we fly and play for. We just want to have some fun and get away from the everyday chores of life.
Smoo it's time to come home mate. Bring vig with you.
Have a great day guys and I hope your kill to death rations get better.
AoA_WindDancer AKA _65Moose1am or just Moose.
BTW it was TS_Hiarch that started this mess by posting my squad mates email in the FA III news group. I just thought that everyone should know the source of this mess.
-
They are adding offline planes for targeting soon, & the guns are still needing damage percentile tweaks. Everything is being refined for hardware compatability right now.
-
Originally posted by Vigilante
They are adding offline planes for targeting soon, & the guns are still needing>>>damage percentile[/I][/U]<<< tweaks. Everything is being refined for hardware compatability right now.
Nuff said :)
-
Never saw the thread bagging on FA, but I will never go there simply because of this tasteless advertisement couched in the form of a post. (Intolerant of me?)
Paaaleeeez.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Never saw the thread bagging on FA, but I will never go there simply because of this tasteless advertisement couched in the form of a post. (Intolerant of me?)
Paaaleeeez.
You stupid ignorant leftist pinko commie liberal. :D Let me tell you how to think! er... what I think!
What were we talking about?
:rolleyes:
-
I just tried FA3, downloaded latest version and played it.
I LOVE IT!!.............. NOOOOOOT!
Seriously, first time, openened a little game by my self, offline mode, realism on 100% on everything, graphics 800x600 32bit mode etc etc. Took a P51, taxied out on runway with throttle opened up at 30%, rudder hardly gave any input to turn with. Fired my guns just to try it and a little nice window popped up with a little nice bug in it. Ok, tried to restrt, didn't work, had to reinstall (wich takes some time), same thing, did this some more and after the third reinstall i succeeded to get it to work. Started trying out different planes starting in the air.
Dora, 109 K4, A20, Do219 and so on.
First one up was the K4, wich btw, never flew with the MK103, it was the MK108. No 109 was equiped with a hub mounted Mk103, much due to its size, (bout 145kg) compared to about 50kg with the Mk108. Tried stall etc, plane started shaking when the stall ocured, wich would have been a nice feuture had it been realistic looking and feeling, I fly in R/L So I know what a stall and spin should feel like and that was nowhere near it.
Overall FM in there was VERY BAD and the Dammage Percentege is still there wich is allso VERY BAD. The Cockpits, although hi res looked like something from and old 1990's game with (only with HI RES) and it only gave me an impression of playing an arcadish game. The Graphics on the wings and everything else when looking from the cockpit looked really childish nad much too "short".
The planes from outside view looked pretty damn nice though, specially the reflections in the hud.
Something that almost made me laugh my guts out however, was the size of the 109K4 cockpit. Sorry to say, but even a pilot who know very little about 109's know that the 109 had one of the most cramped cockpits of all planes during the war. Here it is HUGE, bout 3 times as big as the one in the Dora. The pilot in it could litteraly lay down without trouble (was it a very short midget pilot?).
One nice thing was that when going straight up, shutting down engine, you could make nice tail slides/glides and fall on your back.
My overall score of this Arcade game (just nothing but an arcade game) would be about out of 10. I don't see how anyone, in any way could actually compare it to products such as Aces High or IL2 Sturmovik.
Sure, there are 80 planes in there, but what fun is that when all physics is SOO BAD???
-
My 6 yr. old has FA3 loaded on his HD, he likes it. It doesn't have the steep learning curves that AH has though he does play both. Totally agree with your assessment on the FM and damage model, though I admit I didn't spend all that much time online (Guess I'm spoiled by AH) :) BTW, I did this last June, was this FA2 or FA3?
-
Well, go download the old DOS game Aces Over Europe and the physics there will be better. Now Rip, if you don't get your son away from FA3 I'll come to you and do it! ;)
-
I'm not to impressed with the graphics engine... it looks... odd, I guess, and the models seem blockier than the AH ones (especially the later ones like the 262), and it just doesn't look 'clean'.
Anyhoo... I was tapped as a Beta tester for FA3, and played the first build they sent me months and months ago... wasn't overly impressed, seemed at that point to be FA2 with a new coat of paint... They sent me another CD at some point, and I tried it again, but it wouldn't paint textures on any of the models, so I uninstalled again...
The thing that was most annoying was that in the cockpit view, which you would use in the advanced model (which, by the way, they said they were basing on the arcade model, which they wanted to get right first, if that tells you anything), you had this itty bitty FOV that made using the cockpit a pain in the ass...
So did they ever listen to the complaints about that and fix it? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Hmmm - first one looked so nice I thought it was actually an FA3 screenie until I noticed there was no texture mapping on the planes. Ah well.
The second one is bloody awful. What hell is that? It looks like a ship sinking (where's the steam, fire and smoke - you do HAVE steam fire and smoke and air bubbles and waves and ship wakes don't you?), but what is the ugly stuff in the foreground????
And the clouds in the third one are nice too - just like FA3s - but the plane is very boxy...and again no texture mapping.
SmooMonster, you obviously have no idea what texture mapping actually is. Everything in the Aces High is texture mapped except for the sky. The difference between FA3 and AH's graphics is that FA3 obviously uses higher polygon models, higher resolution texture maps and more texture maps in general on their planes than AH does. We want AH to aslo be availble to the casual player, so we keep the system requirements on the low end. Most people don't enjoy having to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars just to play a game.
In reference to your "What the hell is that?" question. That is the view from a manable twin 40mm turret on an aircraft carrier which is fighting a battle with an enemy fleet as the enemy carrier sinks into oblivion. Naval battles are quite a sight to see.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/shots/players/sf2.jpg)
-
Hiya Wilbus:
I would like to help you understand a few things about FAIII beta that I think you will like:
The game really looks much better in 1024 x 768 x 32 bit color mode or higher graphics. You will need a Geforce3 card to enjoy FAIII and must have the latest Nvdia Detonator drivers installed properly to really see FAIII in the best light. Actually there are 8 light sources which are adjustable.
Remember that the game is a beta and has not even been opened up for PUBLIC BETA Testing ..yet. It still needs another three weeks of intense closed beta testing and the bugs are being fixed at a rapid fire rate. Even the MK103 vs Mk 108 has already been fixed in Version 60 which is the current version that the developers are working on right now but has not been made available. The worst thing about FAIII is the huge size of the game. I wish that were not the case but that is truely a negative about the game. 260mb is huge and because of that we can't get a download with each new version with the new bug fixes.
If you are taxing and you have set up a realistic flight model game and have chosen to limite the taxing speed limits then it's best to use the "B" key with the rudder to turn. That way you will get differential braking and you won't have to depend on the rudder alone to turn your plane. I think that in AH they use the spacebar for the brakes but it's been a while since I have tried AH so I could have the wrong key. But if you are going say at 40% throttle and at a speed of less than 10mph then the rudder and the "B" key will turn your plane very easily.
Those pop up message are for the developers so that they know what caused the bug be it video card driver or a particular version of DX that was used or any number of other things. If you look at in the c:\program files\VR1 FAIII directory you will find two files called debug.htm and message.log. Those are debug files that the debug software produces to help the developers find and fix bugs. The debug software is there now but after the game is finished it will be removed and the game will run much faster and smoother too. Just remember that it's not finished yet but that it's getting closer to FEB 15th the target date for going Gold if all goes well. That may not be a hard and firm date as I am sure that VR1 will not release the game until its ready and polished. Remember that unlike MS VR! will be doing updates on a timely basis. That I like very much as MS failed to let VR1 do this when MS was running things.
I am not sure about the spin modeling right now as that is still not entirely finished. But I have not ever flown a Bf 109K4 and would not know how it behaves in a stall. I know that most of the guys that did fly this plane are either dead now or in their 80's by now. Not many of them left to tell us how the plane actually should fly in RL. I don't count flying a cessna or any other present day modem planes anywhere near like flying a old WWII tail dragger. Now if you have actually flown the BF109K4 then I will listen more closely to what you have to say. Right now all I know about WWII planes and how they are suppose to fly is from playing WBIII, AH and FA for the last four years and before that all the other boxed flight sim games from various company's. That does not make me any better and knowing what a flight model should do. I just know what I am USED to and speak from that vantage point only.
The 3Dcockpit view can be adjusted using the page up, page down, home, insert, end and the delete keys by default. Of course you can assigne any ohter key to do those functions. Also the 3 and 4 key will zoom the pilots head in closer to the cockpit gauges or zoom out away from the cockpit gauges. You can also use the Ctrl F4 view with the mouse and see more of the wings when you look to the side. I found that the hat view to the left looked sort of funky also as the wing looked too short when viewed that way. So I see what you are talking about. I also don't like any Linda Blair like head movments and I have been told by Shad@VR1 that they can restrict the head movements at the server level now. A welcome change. I want the padlock views switched back to the way that PL view worked in FA 2 which restricted the head movements. Also pl planes can be adjusted to less than 2000ft so that it's impossible to padlock an enemey plane that is farther away. That way you are force to use the hat to look around. And even in the F4 or Ctrl F4 views you can press the left ctrl button down and then use the hat to see the 45 Deg up views for each hat view. A real nice feature.
Wait until the game is finished in a few week and then if you are wanting something different then give it another look see. I bet that in a few more months the game will have a few more features added. They do plan to add human gunners to the bombers someday. I saw that WB had human gunners and that they had the salvo and delay commands for the bombers and I asked for both features to be added to FAIII. They didn't have time to add the human gunner positions on the bombers but they did add the salvo and delay command to the game. So VR1 listens and does what it can to improve the game.
I also intend to fly in AH as my squad flies there a lot of the time. I don't fly there much since I have had trouble getting my joystick setup with the hat views correct. I have trouble with the up and right hat view not programming right in the stick mapper. I think I did a bug report on this news group somewere a few week ago and I hope that they will take a look at my bug report and tell me a workaround or get the stick mapper to work right. I program the hat to the up right view and the stick mapper shows the UP view instead of the UR thing.
Have a good day mate and may the wind be at your back
AoA_WindDancer AKS Moose1am
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wilbus
I just tried FA3, downloaded latest version and played it.
I
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I just tried FA3, downloaded latest version and played it.
I LOVE IT!!.............. NOOOOOOT!
Seriously, first time, openened a little game by my self, offline mode, realism on 100% on everything, graphics 800x600 32bit mode etc etc. Took a P51, taxied out on runway with throttle opened up at 30%, rudder hardly gave any input to turn with. Fired my guns just to try it and a little nice window popped up with a little nice bug in it. Ok, tried to restrt, didn't work, had to reinstall (wich takes some time), same thing, did this some more and after the third reinstall i succeeded to get it to work. Started trying out different planes starting in the air.
>>The joy of beta testing, huh?
Dora, 109 K4, A20, Do219 and so on.
>>2 models of Do217, I think you'll find, no Do219.
First one up was the K4, wich btw, never flew with the MK103, it was the MK108. No 109 was equiped with a hub mounted Mk103, much due to its size, (bout 145kg) compared to about 50kg with the Mk108.
>> Typos in the plane description which have since been fixed (but not in the public version). If you do a ROF test, you will see it is actually 108s that are installed.
Tried stall etc, plane started shaking when the stall ocured, wich would have been a nice feuture had it been realistic looking and feeling, I fly in R/L So I know what a stall and spin should feel like and that was nowhere near it.
>> You SURE you were in full real mode? You have to actually change the physics in the drop down box, even after you've checked all the boxes...
Overall FM in there was VERY BAD and the Dammage Percentege is still there wich is allso VERY BAD.
>>See earlier comments re damage modelling. I agree with you on the damage indicator, incidentally. Specifics please on the FM - which aspects are you talking about? Performance modelling? Plane handling modelling? Relative to AH or relative to RL?
The Cockpits, although hi res looked like something from and old 1990's game with (only with HI RES) and it only gave me an impression of playing an arcadish game. The Graphics on the wings and everything else when looking from the cockpit looked really childish nad much too "short".
>>That's probably because you guys are used to an unnatural wide-angle lens view which increases the length of everything. Ours is a more accurate recreation of the human FOV. Just because your car windscreen extends over the passenger side doesn't mean you see out of it when you're driving normally now, does it? Have you guys still got your Z for zoom key BTW? Where did the pilots keep their telescope in the cockpit then? I must have missed the eyepiece holder in those cockpit pics I've seen...
The planes from outside view looked pretty damn nice though, specially the reflections in the hud.
>>This is why I suspect you weren't flying full real mode. Unless you're on the ground, you can't see any external views in FA full-real apart from the cockpit-only and hat views.
Something that almost made me laugh my guts out however, was the size of the 109K4 cockpit. Sorry to say, but even a pilot who know very little about 109's know that the 109 had one of the most cramped cockpits of all planes during the war. Here it is HUGE, bout 3 times as big as the one in the Dora. The pilot in it could litteraly lay down without trouble (was it a very short midget pilot?).
>>Hadn't noticed that, but will look. I thought they were always talking about the WIDTH of the cockpit, rather than its length?
One nice thing was that when going straight up, shutting down engine, you could make nice tail slides/glides and fall on your back.
>>Try some others - hammerheads, snap rolls, barrel rolls. Try the snap rolls with the prop rotation then again against it...nice, huh? To me, that's just one sign of a good physics model...
My overall score of this Arcade game (just nothing but an arcade game) would be about out of 10.
>>I'm guessing that must be a zero then??? And what's the deal with the constant "arcade" stuff? Are you sure you were flying full-real? Did you ever manage to spin it? Any accelerated stalls? I don't see any mention of your view on the spin recovery or indeed anything about spin behaviour at all apart from saying you didn't like the buffeting which really makes me wonder...
I don't see how anyone, in any way could actually compare it to products such as Aces High or IL2 Sturmovik.
Sure, there are 80 planes in there, but what fun is that when all physics is SOO BAD???
>>Hmmm, you can do all the real-life moves and no fantasy moves, the flight models are performing to historical specs, planes stall and spin appropriately, spin recovery is as expected and you still insist the physics are bad. Ah well. Is that AH shorthand for "it's different from what I'm playing at the moment and I might have to relearn stuff so therefore it's wrong"?
Kratzer - I can only imagine your videocard isn't up to spec, especially if you were missing textures in earlier builds. I have never heard anyone describe FA3's graphics as blocky.
I've been in closed beta since August and I don't recall ever seeing a post by you in the beta ng regarding your complaints and/or suggestions. I can't imagine why you would want an unrealistic FOV other than the fact that it is easier, but it's a shame you didn't voice your opinions in the ng when you had the opportunity.
Ripsnort - last June must have been FA2 unless you got a REALLY early build of FA3 beta. Does he play arcade, intermediate or advanced? Putting a 6 year old in advanced would be an interesting learning curve for him...
-
Hangtime,
What was that you said that time about your cat's breath smelling like cat toejame?
-
Can you FA guys please go find your own board? I find posting ads on the competitions BBS to be really fediddleing rude. And you certainly aren't doing the product you like any service by pissing off the people here.
-
Originally posted by SUPERFLY
SmooMonster, you obviously have no idea what texture mapping actually is. Everything in the Aces High is texture mapped except for the sky. The difference between FA3 and AH's graphics is that FA3 obviously uses higher polygon models, higher resolution texture maps and more texture maps in general on their planes than AH does.
>>Oops - my bad, I think I probably meant bump mapping...that thing that maps texture to textures, ahhh you know what I mean :)
FA3 has all of the above plus the option to turn down the eye candy for those whose haven't shelled out thousands.
I could be wrong, but I think you conceded FA's graphics are better?
BTW We've got sea battles in FA3 now too - I just don't have any s/s's to hand (and I'd probably get my wrists slapped for posting them again anyway, hehe).
-
Don't know where to start, first of all, thank you for your nice, polite answer Winddancer, no flamming at all :)
To taxi in a plane, you don't need to use the brakes all thar much, if you have a 3 meter in diameter prop it will generate enough wind to make your rudder effective, of course, a defferental brake will help. I checked realism to 100% of course, and noticecd there were alot, sorry to say, but plain stupid things there.
For example, you can set the maximum decent rate that counts as landing, was set at 1900 feet/min so I kept it there. Now this is set for all planes, wich makes i tunrealistic, the 190 was developed to handle a drop of 4500 feet/min at landing, and the gears would take it, the later version got alot heavier and thus they couldn't land with such a decent rate.
Allso, a maximum taxing speed, why? If I wanna taxi my Cessna (don't fly cessna but anyway) I can do that in 10Mph or 70Mph (although in that speed I'd be airborne).
Maximum alt with/without oxygen, this too depends on plane, what if you add a plane with a pressurised cabin?
I have never flown a K4 either, unfortunatly, but the feel of stall is quite similair in most planes, starts (unless it's very quick snap spin) with a shaking plane, like it modelled in FA and then it goes into spin (if you keep the manuver up). However, a nice feuture but poorly executed and the planes didn't in anyway shake like they should.
3D cockpits, although more or less historical looking, look cartoonish and not very nice at all. Tracers not very nice either.
Smoomonster, the planes does not spin like they should IMO, they do not in any way feel very realistic at all. Relearn stuff? FA3 is SOOO much easier and all physics there seems arcadish compared to AH and IL2.
Give AH to an FA3 player and he'll get wacked ALOT of times before he actually gets a kill, give FA to an AH player and he'll be up wacking the first sortie.
Putting a 6 year old infront of FA3 will be alot easier then putting him infront of AH.
Allso, graphics, (I still laugh some because of the Jumbo Jet 109 K4 cockpit), the ground wasn't nice at all, no trees, no clutter what so ever, the runway had an ugly neon light all around it wich wasn't nice at all to see. Now, didn't see if you could turn this off, maybe you could, but it was ugly no matter what.
Superfly, was that a picture from the First day with the navy? remember seeing the same one right after the Navy version was released :)
-
Smoo, my son has been flying virtually since 3 yrs old. He's been flying for 3 years now. He flys every flight sim on full realism.
I do believe your right, FA2 was it. No way in hell would we even begin to attempt a 260 meg download (56k modem, no DSL out here in the sticks)
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Kratzer - I can only imagine your videocard isn't up to spec, especially if you were missing textures in earlier builds. I have never heard anyone describe FA3's graphics as blocky.
I've been in closed beta since August and I don't recall ever seeing a post by you in the beta ng regarding your complaints and/or suggestions. I can't imagine why you would want an unrealistic FOV other than the fact that it is easier, but it's a shame you didn't voice your opinions in the ng when you had the opportunity.
Dude, coming from FA to AH and lecturing on realism is going to get you taken about as seriously as a Backstreet Boy at a Motorhead concert.
Tell me... how wide is the field of view or your actual eyes? Is it greater than 30 - 45 degrees?
That's what I thought...
Now tell me this... how's that FA no-instrument superman view stand up on realism?
That's what I thought...
As for voicing my opinions... I got the beta at the beginning of April, 2001. I made a lot of constructive suggestions, and they were alternately ignored by the developers, or decried by the players because they would ruin the "fun" level. The favorite way to discredit anything I said was to point out that I was an Aces High player. :rolleyes: With that kind of reception, I was bored and long, long gone before August.
Vid card at the time was a GeForce2, and ran the first build fine.
So you are saying that they didn't increase the FOV? Not surprised.
-
anyone here who wants to waste their time with that big download will quickly find that FA3 graphics suk.
imho the the cockipit view is so bad it makes you wanna fly in "wonder women" mode. Thats all I care about is the view from the cockpit.
Real toejamty FOV from the cockpit.
I can see where you would come out of fa2 to see fa3 graphics and be all "wow'd" but even wwiiol cockpits are more pleasent.
You fa3 guys aren't going to find many here that are resceptive to your "odd" sales pitch.
Your basically arguing with yourself and are taking time away from the free closed beta which you could be enjoying instead of wasting your breath here.
Folks here fly and play AH because they like it. Most have cycled through every other flight game out there. We are here you are there for a reason. We each have decided what we like.
Run along, the arcade game quake war room could use 3 more wonder woman.........:)
ps the full real room over there will most likely be like fa2 full real.... 15 or so folks in there.
also the tracers look like crap are they gonna fix those.......?
and the ground/water hit sprits suk too. The terrain is ok but I like ah then wb3 then wwiiol then i guess by default fa3 is next. A bit cartoonish even eaw had a better lookin terrain. Most us here fly at hi res x32 so quit using that as an excuse why fa3 looks like toejam.
These are my honest opinions of fa3. Now you will ensure us a 100 posts in this thread by telling me how wrong me and the rest of the folks here are but even the 1 or 2 folks that buy into your arguement and waste their time downloading it to be dissappointed.
How about saving our bandwidth and go tell you fa3 news group AH guys actual like AH.
Its ok to be a "fanboy" just do it over at your forums.
-
I concede nothing. :) I am only stating that higher polygon counts and higher resolution textures will usually appear nicer. It's like comparing the orginal Quake to Quake III. That may be an extreme comparison, but both had great art. The main difference between the two is the higher resolution graphics.
In regards to bump mapping, we have been considering adding that feature for a while, but more important aspects of the game usually get in the way of graphics upgrades.
-
Wotan, yes it is more or less a waste of time downloading it, why I did it was to be able to actually counter the things the FA dudes said, I played FA2 a few years ago during 3 day trails, and I must say, not much has changed IMO.
Realism still not there. The No cockpit view is really a bad thing etc.
SUPERFLY is that a picture from the first navy day??? I WANNA KNOW!! :)
-
let me change my mind on a couple of things after a good 2 hours or so screwing with it
The terrain is damn good ....
the 1 st map i flew on I dunno why didn't look as good as the bob terrain.
In full real, trim ,cockpit view only it was fun its a competent fm and compares well with most other modern games.
I was impressed with how u needed to keep on trim to keep it flying clean. I don't no how "real" this" is and I'm not a pilot or have I flown a real ww2 bird. The planes have a tendency to yaw (109s any way).
The tracers, and cockpits fov are bad imho is there any talk of changing these?
I would be only interested in a "full real room" and suspect it would be a lonely place. The biggest draw to fa as I have seen in the past is the arcade arenas which theres nothing wrong with that if you prefer it. In ah we have nearly a 400 folks in 1 arena and all though there are arguable some arcadish things (this is true about all computer flight games) I'd rather fighter a 109 in my 190 they cruise around like wonder woman. :)
I prefer the external look of ah planes over fa's they look "cartoonish" thats not a knock on fa so does il2 to a degree.
However its a real improvement over fa2 and I can see where you guys would be happy.
I fly ah and wb3 and il2 and prefer ah overall. However arena play has me burned out bigtime and a arcade room has no appeal to me at all.
Enjoy your game. I prefer vanilla ice cream, you like chocolate and neither of us are wrong.
-
It might be Wilbus. I can't remember. It was definitely within a week of the 1.05 release.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
let me change my mind on a couple of things after a good 2 hours or so screwing with it
The terrain is damn good ....
the 1 st map i flew on I dunno why didn't look as good as the bob terrain.
In full real, trim ,cockpit view only it was fun its a competent fm and compares well with most other modern games.
I was impressed with how u needed to keep on trim to keep it flying clean. I don't no how "real" this" is and I'm not a pilot or have I flown a real ww2 bird. The planes have a tendency to yaw (109s any way).
The tracers, and cockpits fov are bad imho is there any talk of changing these?
I would be only interested in a "full real room" and suspect it would be a lonely place. The biggest draw to fa as I have seen in the past is the arcade arenas which theres nothing wrong with that if you prefer it. In ah we have nearly a 400 folks in 1 arena and all though there are arguable some arcadish things (this is true about all computer flight games) I'd rather fighter a 109 in my 190 they cruise around like wonder woman. :)
I prefer the external look of ah planes over fa's they look "cartoonish" thats not a knock on fa so does il2 to a degree.
However its a real improvement over fa2 and I can see where you guys would be happy.
I fly ah and wb3 and il2 and prefer ah overall. However arena play has me burned out bigtime and a arcade room has no appeal to me at all.
Enjoy your game. I prefer vanilla ice cream, you like chocolate and neither of us are wrong.
Thank you wotan - I don't expect you to suddenly close your account and move over to FA or indeed any of you, but it's nice to see someone actually taking the time to look at it properly and fairly, with an open mind.
The reason for the yaw in the 109s is that there was no rudder trim in the 109s up to the late G and K models and are modelled as such in the game.
I think it will be interesting to see how the player numbers do develop in the future - in FA2, the most popular phsyics were intermediate, but I think in FA3, they might divide evenly between arcade and advanced.
The cockpit fov doesn't look like it's going to change. This does seem to be an AH-specific request. FA advanced players of old don't seem to have a problem with it.
The problem with FOV is the focus thing. If you look straight ahead and pick the edge of your focussed vision, it will give you a FOV of around 45 degrees (as modelled in FA). However if you include your peripheral vision, which is not in focus (and actually in black and white IRL - peripheral vision does not pick up colour, fact fans), then it expands to about 60 degrees or so (which seems to be roughly what you have in AH). However in AH, you have perfect vision and clarity throughout the 60 degree FOV.
You decide which is more realistic...(well - you have obviously :) )
As I say, I'm not expecting any of you will leave this game. This is where your mates are and where you are most comfortable.
But I think it is good for both our games to know what each other is up to...kinda raises the bar and hopefully the players all benefit as a result.
Awra best,
-
The reason for the yaw in the 109s is that there was no rudder trim in the 109s up to the late G and K models and are modelled as such in the game.
Yeah i figured that out....:)
this might be one of the first to actually model trim this way and its a good thing imho. Even il2 allows rudder trim in 109s.
I haven't noticed the effect of the wing slots on the 109s in realistic. Has this been brought up?
-
I downloaded FA3 and tried it out..
First thing that pointed out was how easy planes started to climb.. They require almost no runway to takeoff.
Second as I got into air, I noticed how jumpy the controls were.. Regardless of speed the ac seemed to bounce around like it was floating in air, hanging from a balloon.
It was possible to pull huge g's without blackout and stalls were very mild compared to AH snap stalls.
Textures looked nice from outside view, but looking at wings from inside was no sight for sore eyes. Cockpit in general was horrid, made me feel claustrofobic. Gauges were not visible in normal front view..
Land textures became choppy on fast turns.. Some tearing was also noticeable (ran it on geforce3)
All in all, it has some nice eye-candy features over AH but I still lik e AH FM much more. I'll have to do more testing to give a final verdict.
-
All the planes have their historical trims.
As you will be able to see in-game, the slots are modelled and they do work, it's not just a visual thing. (So too are cowl and radiator flaps and engine temperature, incidentally.)
However there is still a small debate about exactly how the slots worked in real-life. Obviously they worked at take-off and landing, but the question is whether the change of AoA in an accelerated stall would cause the spring to pop at other times. This seems to be a difficult one to pin down historically and as a result we're basing it pretty much on theory.
At the moment, the last time I checked, I think we had them kicking in during accelerated stalls (as the changing AoA would cause a sufficient pressure drop to allow the slots spring to be activated.) However it is possible that even an oblique wind force of sufficient strength may been enough to keep the slots from activating.
If you know of any sources that state differently, I would be genuinely very interested as I have run out of books and web searches trying to track something definitive down.
-
Who are you trying to kid Smoo? You and I both know that the real rooms will be empty 90% of the time. Even when there are folks in there, the numbers will never even approach 100. We have 400 in a real arena everyday. Graphics do not make a game. You can't polish a turd.
-
We'll see, Raub. You could well be right, but the early signs are that you won't be.
The introduction of an advanced FFA room (finally!) has given many of the arcade fliers a chance to try full real in a quick down and dirty environment which has let them get used to dogfighting in full real physics and coping with the restricted views. This has had a huge effect. It has made full-real accessible at last.
Long-time arcade fliers like LSA and Majorflex and BBKing - who wouldn't even have been seen in an intermediate room! - are now regulars in advanced.
You're absolutely right though - full-real was virtually empty which is why I would never bother flying there much.
Now I will always choose advanced over anything else given the choice, and I find many, many more are doing likewise. The numbers are rising exponentially as a result. It just required something to get the ball rolling.
As well as the AFFA room, the main reason, I think, is that intermediate is now closer to semi-real than it was, with many of the drawbacks of full-real, but few of the advantages, so players may as well just fly in full real and enjoy the maximum potential of the modelling.
I think there will still be a large arcade crowd - and there has to be for FA to survive IMO - but I genuinely think it will be matched by the number of full real players, and intermediate will be the ones less populated.
At least that's how it's looking at the moment...
-
The charts at this location http://fighter-ace.propfighter.com/FA3/Secrets/charts.htm have the Spit XIV listed with a sea level speed that is 12mph too fast and I note that the Fw190D-9 lacks the MW50 boost and therefore has a sea level speed far below where it should be.
-
Well, I bothered to redownload this POS (12 times the size of the AH download) and nothing has changed.
You still have absolutely horrid graphics from within the cockpit. Look out over the wing of a Mosquito for example. It looks horrid in comparison with AH. In both the Spitfire XIV and the Mosquito VI the canopy structure was highly distorted and you had your face pressed against it. This made the instruments unusable. It also made it very claustraphobic. It felt like SA would either be greatly hampered, or nigh impossible.
The FM felt "bouncy", but I'd have to fly it for quite a bit before I could really say yea or nay to the FM.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The charts at this location http://fighter-ace.propfighter.com/FA3/Secrets/charts.htm have the Spit XIV listed with a sea level speed that is 12mph too fast and I note that the Fw190D-9 lacks the MW50 boost and therefore has a sea level speed far below where it should be.
SL speed for Spit XIV according to my references (Spitfire by Stewart Wilson, Sovereign Press) is 375mph. The Spit XIV is tweaked in the next version as the fuel capacity was wrong and the flight model has been changed accordingly. The Spit XIV in your build however does 369mph at SL, 6 mph too slow. Where di you get your figure of 357mph from?
The Fw190 D9 does not lack MW50. It has it. A bug at the time of performance testing meant it wasn't working properly at SL, however it was fine at all other alts. It does mean the SL speed is coming in low until the WEP bug is fixed.
I honestly don't understand the problems you seemed to have with the canopy (???) or the cockpit instruments, unless it's another FOV issue.
-
in ah my squaddie ag ex fa2 PG_AG/Sturm is in the fa3 beta or was (i dont know if he still flies there). Bradys5 ex fa2 PG_Bradys until recently was in my squad in ah as well. I flew fa2 for a nit. Naudet flies ah hes ex fa2. Theres a ton of guys in here who flew fa.
Most of the folks that are in ah have flown most flight games out there.
Most of us know what fa gameplay is like. While fa3 is an improvement most of the ex fa guys have no plans of moving back there.
I checked your news group and it seems the original poster of this thread takes pride in his troll. Smoo you seem to take some pride in it as well.
One guy even suggested that an ljk was a cheater in fa. When I was in fa I flew against ljk guys in trukks mini wars and from what I know of umm here they are first class in what ever they do.
My point here is too address the original topic. I dont know who from ah is trollin on your newsgroup and I dont care.
But he probrably actually flew fa3. Unlike some of the folks over there that start a comment with "I never flew AH...."
Its also pretty lame to troll at 1 board then run to another with the "look what a good troll I am".
ps
I just wanted to be 100 :)
-
My last post to the FA ng was ...
"They're not a bad bunch, and it never really dissolved into
serious name-calling which was quite refreshing."
I think the LJK thing was a case of mistaken identity and apologies have been made.
I don't consider anything I've written a troll. I've been teasing sometimes and had fun exchanging views with you people, hence any lols. I do the same with people on our own ng.
I don't think I have insulted your game at any time - there are a few things I don't get and different perceptions of reality.
I definitely think FA3 is prettier but everything else is more a case of what you are used to.
Say hi to Naudet for me - we used to wing together a lot when we were squaddies in GDI. I've never known a finer wingman.
And give my regards to the PG boys too - I take it they're still B n Z'ing at 500 mph? :)
-
SmooMonster,
The RAF and Supermarine tests all find speeds of 357mph to 363mph at sea level for the MkXIV.
You can read several Spitfire reports here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
I would highly reccommend the book:
Spitfire, The History
By Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady
If there is one aircraft that I am familiar with, it is the Spitfire MkXIV. You may have numbers using the 150 octane fuel that was used to boost performance for anti-V1 operations. 150 octane fuel was not used for normal operations.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
SmooMonster,
The RAF and Supermarine tests all find speeds of 357mph to 363mph at sea level for the MkXIV.
You can read several Spitfire reports here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
I would highly reccommend the book:
Spitfire, The History
By Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady
If there is one aircraft that I am familiar with, it is the Spitfire MkXIV. You may have numbers using the 150 octane fuel that was used to boost performance for anti-V1 operations. 150 octane fuel was not used for normal operations.
The test report put the SL speed at between 363 TAS at SL to 374 at 2000ft... in which case I'll put the 369 I recorded down to my testing procedures (testing 80 planes meant I got a little slack and sometimes didn't go all the way down to SL for the SL tests, and the ground may have been 800-1200ft high where I was testing...)
Mea culpa
-
"I checked your news group and it seems the original poster of this thread takes pride in his troll. Smoo you seem to take some pride in it as well."
lol. That sounds familiar. Saw the same when the last group of "A__, ... oh wait. These guys were from Fighter Ace? My 'bad'!
Thought you were talking about a group from another (ex)game who's "MO' was the same.
Westy
-
Ok i got FA3 downloaded last night and checked it out.. I'll have to hold most of my comments since it is obviously still in beta, the sounds and firing sprites are enough to realize that.
But the so called "3d cockpit veiw" is absolutely horrible. It apears that in FA3 that your pilot is sitting with his chin 3 inches from the aim-point. It was enough to detour me from further analizing this. That is one of the huge advantages that AH has over many other so called MMOLFS.
The cock-pit veiw in AH is great, although i do agree that the panel apears to be VERY 2D. But AH's POV is that of a someone driving and not the typical (FA3 for example) "3d shooter" veiw a lot of flight-sims seems seem to fancy.
The terrain currently in FA3 is very nice, i dont think its even questionable.
Graphicly FA3 is superior, mainly the attention to detail such as the shell casing perjecting from the ejection chambers of the fire-arms. I will wait until ive played online to further judge this because i was flying alone high in the sky and getting constant freezing, even @ 20-30 FPS.
I was kind of disturb that if you go off the runway into the "grass" you nearly ALWAYS wreck and/or smack your cowl on the ground. This is very historical in-correct.
As i previously stated i'll hold my other comments on the kiddie FM's and other aspect until i play it out of beta and online (or with full realism). But If the 3d cock-pit veiw stays as it is, i wont even bother to re-evaluate it. If they are eventualy totally adjustable veiws i may consider checking it out.
-
I tried Fighter Ace years ago when it first came out. What turned me off pretty quick was the apparent ease with which it was hacked. Hacking completely ruins an online flight sim. Has this been fixed?
-
In the current online build, you can land anywhere and take off anywhere. I usually try to have at least one evening picnic down by the water's edge to watch the sunset as the waves crash onto the beach - and the ships blow hell out of each other - before taking off again to rekoin the battle :)
The 3D cockpit view is simply a matter of what you are most used to, I think. For instance, I feel like I must be the Jolly Green Giant in AH cockpits - or else there would be no other way my legs would reach the rudder pedals.
That in itself is not bad thing because IRL I always have to have my trousers turned up because my legs (and arms) are a bit stumpy and it's nice to feel super long-limbed every now and again ;)
But it is also the best illustration of how you have an unnaturally large FOV in AH - try sitting in a cockpit in the pilot's seat and seeing all those instruments AND the external views without moving your eyes...it simply can't be done. You DO have a wide angle-lens view of the world...
Hacking hasn't been a problem in FA since FA1.5 (although it was widespread in 1.5 when it neared the end of its days).
FA2 to the best of my knowledge was never hacked, although there were a couple of bugs which could be made to boot players. MS refused to pay for the patches to fix this unfortunately, even though VR1 had solved it.
Now MS are no longer in the picture, I'm confident VR1 will take swift action against hackers or exploiters of "undocumented features".
-
Hiya Smoo!
Well I see you are getting to know the guys over here :) I quit playing FA because of Microshaft as well. "You prolly shot me a few times in my __VMF214__Razor nick. " When I got fed up I started looking for something new and ended up over here in AH. Now I still completely suck at flying here, but I have my few shining moments. When I was just starting to learn over here anytime I mentioned I came from FA all I would get was LOL's and "why are you here comments" that detracted from what I was trying to do. But I hooked up with some ex FA'ers in the DevilDogs, and the rest they say is history :). These guys are a good bunch and we all have a lot of fun. But I am also a beta tester. I have been splitting my time between sims lately, which hasn't been a whole heck of alot since the CS bug has caught me again. But I am really impressed with FA3 so far. I wasn't at all impressed with the early releases involving the zone, but this last release really has. To each his own, I liked FA 1.5 when I started cause I didn't have to be a RL flyer to get in and kill. But I never like the ADV. modelling in FA at all. I have grown to like the "real" feel of AH, but when the mood strikes me I like the "planes on rails" feel of FA arcade. They both have their place and supporters I just don't understand why some find it necessary to bash each other immensely.
RazorDD
PS. HIYA MOOSE!!! I remember all those stupid politics arguments we got into in the FANG. Gotta get a few of those started again you pinko Democrat :) LOL
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
The 3D cockpit view is simply a matter of what you are most used to, I think. For instance, I feel like I must be the Jolly Green Giant in AH cockpits - or else there would be no other way my legs would reach the rudder pedals.
Tell me something, when you sit down in a desk chair, can you see your knees (not with them under the desk obviously) if you look strait ahead? I hope you can, if you cannot you need to have your eyes check for extremely poor peripheril(SP) vision.
The snap veiw system does not, or should not, represent the movement of your eyes, if you feal that it reflects the movement of your eyes, see my above stated advice. ;)
In AH the way eye movement is simulated is a VERY unigue method, creative as it gets! you MOVE your eyes! :D
The POV in AH is very good, high above average even, its not really arguable. I personally feal it is one of the few good qualities that it has over other flight-sims.
its very good to here that the terrain doesnt murder your plane online, that was very disturbing to me lol..
before i pass further judgment, i will check it out for sure.
-
Oh yes, I can see enough of my knees to be aware of them...but put your hands on your knees and display three fingers - can you tell how many fingers are showing without glancing down? I can't.
My focus is on the screen, the rest is extraneous, out of focus and undetailed.
In AH, however, it is all there in perfect focus and detail. In FA, it's just not there at all.
Tomato, tomaeto? Let's call the whole thing off??? :)
-
Well, you still have to look at different areas of the screen, and since you can't move the computer screen as easily and as quickly as you can move your eyes to look at things you pick up in your peripheral vision, some sort of accomodation is necessary to bring the limitations of the game and the possibilities of the real world together somewhere in the middle.
-
Originally posted by Kratzer
Well, you still have to look at different areas of the screen, and since you can't move the computer screen as easily and as quickly as you can move your eyes to look at things you pick up in your peripheral vision, some sort of accomodation is necessary to bring the limitations of the game and the possibilities of the real world together somewhere in the middle.
So... that makes AH easier than FA then??? ;)
-
"In AH, however, it is all there in perfect focus and detail. In FA, it's just not there at all."
Which is just like in real life. IN AH you STILL need to glance down at the guages to read them. And as in real life, be it driving a car or flying an airplane, the dash IS layed out in FRONT of you and never have I had to move my whole head DOWNWARD (let alone towards your knees) to look at speed, check oil temp or any other guage. The only people in real life who would have a hard time refocusing from an outside view to the guages on the dash are people with a eye problems. So FA3 (and WW2O) model views for the visually impaired? How novell :)
Westy
-
Hmmm - last time I flew, even the cockpit in my small aerobatics Robin 2160 was considerably larger than my 19" monitor.
Therefore the angle of deflection required by my eyes to move from straight ahead to dash was considerably greater and I was required to refocus - and adjust to the change in brightness - to look at instruments...
And I would have none of the peripheral knowledge of planes coming in from the side that you do in AH without a conscious scan of the skies.
You are able to take in far more in looking at the screen in one glance in AH than you can IRL.
Come on, say after me, "My name is KWest and AH has a wide-angle view of the world..."
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
:p
-
hmm I tried to get a plane to do a "Snap-Roll" in FAIII but no joy ?
And yes, Realism was turned on.
Planes looks nice from outside but from inside... unh... nevermind.
-
"Come on, say after me, "My name is KWest and AH has a wide-angle view of the world...""
Yes AH does. So do they all :)
Now back to the topic? As for blurry guages in forward views or even a seperate view to see them IMO it is completey unrealistic as anything ever added as a feature to any WWII aircombat game or sim. Just go look at pictures of WWII aircraft cockpits. Go sit in a REAL WWII fighter wherever you can find one. You will see that the manufacturers MADE it so that the pilot had minimal eye removal from the outside world to get the info the needed. The dash is up and it is also in thier line of view be it the 109, p47, spitfire, or p-38.
To compare a small aerobatics plane layout to a combat machine is tantamount to comparing a Toyota Camry dashboard to one an F1 racer. They are designed with different purposes in mind and one layout does not take into account the needs of the other.
Same with the flight (or driving) characteristics if you ever wanted to head in that direction. :)
Westy
-
Warbird priorities...
First priority - keep the plane in the air (with reference to the RL horizon).
Second priority - see the enemy.
Third priority - see the instruments.
Aerobatics planes are the nearest you can currently get to warbirds in that they are inherently unstable, designed to manoeuvre well, structurally strong and reasonably quick (given their engine size).
I think a Cessna might suit your Camry simile better. Aerobatics planes are closer to, I dunno, a Formula Ford maybe - it's not F1 stuff, certainly, but it's in the same direction.
I will wager a decent wad of folding stuff most WWII pilots took the cues in combat from sensation feedback rather than their instruments. Just as aerobatics pilots rely on visual cues form the real horizon relative to their planes, rather than the gyro horizon, WWII pilots would have relied upon similar, plus the G-force impact on their bodies and plane buffeting for stall warning.
Instruments were used only in times of cruise and climb. If they got in their line of sight during combat then they were getting in their way.
Note: F1 cars have no speedo - braking distances are calculated through instinct and visual cues from landmarks. Instruments are there to reveal problems with the car, not to guide it round the course.
Staga - I suspect you were offline when you tried the snap roll? I recently discovered the default realistic offline (and default online realistic custom rooms) differ in their settings from the default realistic server settings. Coincidentally, I found this out when I tried to do a snap roll in a custom room, and couldn't either. Work is ongoing in identifying what the difference is and addressing it. FWIW though, snap rolls in the realistic server rooms are a work of art :)
-
p.s. just to back up my opinion here are a bunch of cockpit dash pix I surfed for. I think it proves my point that a seperate or blurry view is baloney. To me it's quite obvious that most WWII fighters did NOT need more than a quick glance to get guage info and that the guages were layed out to facilitate pilot ease at collecting thier info. Those, like the Zeke, Spit and 110 that did not have an "up and at the top guage" layout still would not need a major head move to view them with.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38-17.jpg
http://www.war-eagles-air-museum.com/exhibits/p-38_4.jpg
http://www.algonet.se/~molrog/Italy/images/MC205-Aermacchi-cockpit.jpg
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p47-16.jpg
http://www.warbuddies.homestead.com/files/WAR-P-51-cockpit.jpg
http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/detail_p51a_04.jpg
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpit1092.jpg
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0519.jpg
http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/cockpits/yak3/yak3-s02.jpg
And out of these examples the Spitfire and ME-110 are the only
ones that need an excessive downward glance to look at ANY guage:
http://www.pilotlist.org/photos/rencontres/duxford/_spit_cockpit.jpg
http://www.photo-galleries.co.uk/flypast/F00003.JPG
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpit110front.jpg
And a Zeke cockpit would fall in between the top examples and those of the Spit and 110.
http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-cockpit-2.jpg
-Westy
-
Always interested in a new sim. Where can I download FA3?
-
http://fighterace.vr1.com
If you give it a few days, there *might* be a new beta build available...
-
Westy mate - look again at those pics and this time forget the camera angle.
Look at where the gun sights are - That is either at or BELOW eye level, depending on design. Now look at your P47 pic again. See how far below eye level the instruments are???
In the 2nd p38 link (1st wouldn't open), look at where the yoke is. Either the pilot had his hands at neck height, or again the instruments were far below eye level.
The P51 is very close to eye level, but IIRC in FA, you can actually see the top layer of instruments (or most of them anyway) in standard cockpit view.
(BTW - you do know you can toggle a glance down at the instruments in FA with one stick button press, doncha?)
-
Originally posted by Am0n
Ok i got FA3 downloaded last night and checked it out.. I'll have to hold most of my comments since it is obviously still in beta, the sounds and firing sprites are enough to realize that.
But the so called "3d cockpit veiw" is absolutely horrible. It apears that in FA3 that your pilot is sitting with his chin 3 inches from the aim-point. It was enough to detour me from further analizing this. That is one of the huge advantages that AH has over many other so called MMOLFS.
The cock-pit veiw in AH is great, although i do agree that the panel apears to be VERY 2D. But AH's POV is that of a someone driving and not the typical (FA3 for example) "3d shooter" veiw a lot of flight-sims seems seem to fancy.
The terrain currently in FA3 is very nice, i dont think its even questionable.
Graphicly FA3 is superior, mainly the attention to detail such as the shell casing perjecting from the ejection chambers of the fire-arms. I will wait until ive played online to further judge this because i was flying alone high in the sky and getting constant freezing, even @ 20-30 FPS.
I was kind of disturb that if you go off the runway into the "grass" you nearly ALWAYS wreck and/or smack your cowl on the ground. This is very historical in-correct.
As i previously stated i'll hold my other comments on the kiddie FM's and other aspect until i play it out of beta and online (or with full realism). But If the 3d cock-pit veiw stays as it is, i wont even bother to re-evaluate it. If they are eventualy totally adjustable veiws i may consider checking it out.
A couple of comments. The landing gear collapsing off the runway is by design. Here is how it works. The runways are concrete and the area around the runway are grass. There also is an area just outside the area around the runway. when you are using the F7 or F8 external view you can zoom out with the 4 key and take a look around the runway using the mouse. You will see an box like shape that enclose the entire airfield. Now if you get outside that box then your landing gear will colapse at a slower speed. Now inside that box the gear will not colapse as easily. In the games difficulty setting there are two areas where you can adjust the taxing speed allowed before the landing gear collapse. Those speeds are adjustable (GLobally for all planes). I hope that helps you understand what goes on in the FA III beta game now. Now someone suggested that certain plane's had stronger landing gear than others and that is a great suggestion that I will try to get the FAIII programer to look into for FaIII too. I like to come to these forums and learn how other games do things to learn. The FAIII game also allows for the vertical decent rate to be adjusted (Again Globally) for landing decent rate before the plane crash lands. There again are two different settings for this in the game.
I would recommand that you wait until the next version comes out before you look at this beta game. There are changes being made to the game everyday as new bugs are found and fixed. And the 260mb download is steep and that is one reason why they don't release a new version each week to the testers. Right now we are testing version 58 online but the developers are all ready using version 60 in internal testing. Version 59 was not making the cut so they moved onto version 60. If current testing goes well then version 60 or 61 will be release at the end of this week. Jan 24th 2002. Then it would be a good time to take a look at the changes that have been made.
The 3D cockpit view can be adjusted several ways to make it more pleasant to use. First the 3 and 4 keys can be used to move the seat forward or backward respectively while in the Ctrl F4 view. Also the page up and page down keys will move the seat up and down respectively. The home key will move the seat to the left while the insert key will move the seat to the right. The end key will look down to see the gauges while the Delete key will bring the seat back to the default seat position. Now you can use the hat views and also use these above keys to see around the canopy supports or the seat. The mouse can also be used to look around the cockpit just as a real pilot would turn his head to look at different gauges or to look left, right, back right, back left or up or any other direction. Linda Blair moves are going to be restricted if they are not already now.
As for the Flight model. yes the arcarde flight model is just that. But FAIII has three different flight models to choose from and each is adjustable towards the others. So the vairations are almost endless. AOA and Fuselage and tail lateral stabilty are adjustable in the Intermediate Flight model setting. So is the Amount of induced drag. The Advanced or Realistic flight model is what you guys would need to use to more closely compare the FAIII flight model that you would like to that of AH. Of course the flight models will differ but not by too much IMHO. Guess it's hard to quantify or qualify the difference for me anyway. VR1's main flight model programmer is a member of the Russian Aerobatic flying team or was at one time and still flies aerobatic planes. He is an aeronautical engineer and a programmer also. There are a few other FA III testers who are also Aeronautical Engineers and who are experienced in flight dynamics in Real Life that also enjoy the realistic flight modeling now and it's not finished yet. They have yet to really get started in tweaking the Full Realistic flight modeling. In the past they had to tweak the FA 2 flight model down to please the arcade crowd due to the way the game was programmed. But now they have an entirely new game engine that allows each flight model to be adjusted seperately without it effecting the other two flight models so I look forward to more tweaking in the realistic flight modeling Right now the main programmer from Russia VR1_Aerobatic and his American counterpart are having a fluid dynamics discussion on how the flaps should effect the flight model when they are deployed. That stuff is something my cousin would understand as he is a Naval Commander working on Submarines who has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and who has studied fluid dynamics and other engineering principals. LOL.
But there is a lot of math that went into the FA 2 flight modeling and FAIII is even more complex and better IMHO. I have played and had fun in FA all versions, War Birds, Aces High and in many boxed games where I set the realism to full real.
Basically we tend to like what we get used to and think that is the best and it's hard to get anyone to change. That is just our human nature.
-
"That is either at or BELOW eye level, depending on design. "
No they're not. Good cod. They're right AT eye level and the guages just below them close enough to be called the same. What are you six foot six and seeing things from your perspective? Try it from a 5'4-8" man sitting in the pilots seat.
We're so far on different poles on this issue that there is no way we'll see eye to eye. I spent time to gather what I call irefutable evidence and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise that FA3 is right.
As for using using a button to change views? That's not a "glance." By changing your view that much you've introduced head movement. My eyes can glance well enough on thier own without any need for an artificial and badly unrealistic immitation to do what I would in real life be able to view easy enough.
Westy
-
Okay, this isn't easy to do - I'm no 3D modeller, so I don't even begin to claim this is entirely accurate.
But this give an *idea* of the amount of deflection required to read those instruments if you're sitting with the gunsight at eye level.
As you can see, it is quite a bit of distance required for the eye to travel...and far, far more than anything like which is modelled in AH.
IRL, you have to take your eyes OFF the action in front of you to see what's on your instruments - what's happening beyond your cockpit doesn't even register on your peripheral vision...as modelled in FA.
-
That's a good aproximation. Your gunsight line of view angles up fart too much. IT should actually angle down towards the nose more as aircraft do not fly completely level in flight. That line makes the lower angles look to be much more dramatic than they would be. But even then it's still close enough for the disucssion. But when flying in combat the pilot only has to look at the pertinant dials in the top row - if any at all. But he would not have to move his head to do so should he need to.
To look at the switches at the very bottom? Yes. But the top row would only require a glance. And there is a reason those switches are at the bottom and not at the top. That is they are not as important for the pilot as what was placed up close to his forward pov. :)
And the diufference between that picture and what one sees in the 3D cockpit of AH is not "quite a distance" by any stretch of the imagination. If I was sitting in that seat (as I have in a P-47 and an F4U) I trust it would look very much like what I see in the AH. Just as the P47 or F4U do.
Westy
-
Add all the “realism” you want. It’s an arcade game and always will be.
BTW, I’ve been checking your advanced arena every so often. Looks like the average is, ummm, let me see. ZERO. I’m sure the 5 regulars that used to be in it are still frequenting it.
There is nothing wrong with FA other than it appeals to a different kind of SIM player. Code to the advanced side and I’ll still bet good money those arenas will almost always be empty.
Pimp FA all you want the fact remains; it’s still an arcade game. Oh and also, did you all not learn anything from WWIIOL? Maybe you should wait for its release before making comparisons. Yes some AH and FA players have made comments about an unfinished product. Who care’s? This mine is bigger than yours is crap is boring.
If I forgot to mention it, when it is finished, it will sill be an arcade game. Did I say that before? Hmm, seems like it needs repeating.
Keep it to your own news groups and forums. When you feel the need to come to AH and post something about FA how about this:
FYI - FA3 has been released to the public. Come check it out.
Zippatuh <---Former FA2.5 flyer and no, I doubt that I will be returning. Although I will check it out when it's done.
-
The plane is parked and is a tail dragger, so the line of sight appears to be angled up under those circumstances. I took the parallax cues from the edge of the cockpit, bottom left hand corner.
BTW, the top two (and largest) are the compass and false horizon, which - given your statement that they were then the most important - does reinforce my claim that the instruments were chiefly of use during cruise and climb. Neither of those would be used in combat.
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Therefore the angle of deflection required by my eyes to move from straight ahead to dash was considerably greater and I was required to refocus - and adjust to the change in brightness - to look at instruments...
LOL! Of course you had to refocus! You weren't looking at a 2D monitor. In AH you don't have to refocus because the eyes are ready focused. The 3d in a sim is an illusion, not real.:rolleyes:
Oh yeah, and how did you come up with the convergence point for the vectors in your picture.
-
Taking the stick as sitting between the bloke's legs, you work out roughly where his head/eyes would be. You can then take a parallel from the side of the cockpit to work out the angle through the gunsight.
I had to play around with the perspective distortion feature in photoshop until it seemed about right in regard to the 3d positioning in space infront fo the sight - hence the reason some of the lines down don't stop dead on some of the instruments - but the angles still seem about correct.
I think you made my point for me re AH cockpits, Thrawn...thanks.
-
That point is probably a bit too far forward in the cockpit. Army helos aren't WW2 fighters, but I can tell you that I never had any problems with glancing at gauges and still keeping an eye outside. It certainly didn't require any effort that would totally cut off my forward view. And you could get a good impression of where the readings just through your peripheral vision. All the gauges were canted so that if the readings were normal all the needles pointed in basically the same direction. You didn't really look at the specific readings, you just looked for the one that didn't look like the others. Only took a glance to do that.
-
Taking the stick as sitting between the bloke's legs, you work out roughly where his head/eyes would be. You can then take a parallel from the side of the cockpit to work out the angle through the gunsight.
I had to play around with the perspective distortion feature in photoshop until it seemed about right in regard to the 3d positioning in space infront fo the sight - hence the reason some of the lines down don't stop dead on some of the instruments - but the angles still seem about correct.
Roughly?? Seemed?? Ah, so you guessed...you made it up. In desperation to defend your point perhaps?
I think you made my point for me re AH cockpits, Thrawn...thanks.
You think wrong, I did not...and neither have you.
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Okay, this isn't easy to do - I'm no 3D modeller, so I don't even begin to claim this is entirely accurate.
But this give an *idea* of the amount of deflection required to read those instruments if you're sitting with the gunsight at eye level.
This was the qualification I made at the top of that picture post. I never claimed it was anything other than an educated guess.
But, please....do your own version and show me how far off the mark I am.
It possibly is a little far forward, but it did prove exceedingly difficult to try to define a position in space in this way, much harder than I thought it would be, to be honest. I don't think it is far off though - maybe 6 inches or so at most.
Cockpit design became an issue during WWII in the sense of ergonomics. This was not something that had ever been considered much before.
I recently read one WWII pilot mentioning how some planes had very good cockpit layouts which allowed you to read the important stuff at a glance, while others were appalling.
The layout, good or bad, was usually more by chance than anything else, but the pilots' feedback began to make itself known to designers post-war. As a result, most 50s+ aircraft have far better cockpit ergonomics that just keep getting better and better.
Hence, I would suggest, your positive experience in helos, Raub. You have WWII pilots to thank for it - those who were able to identify good cockpit layouts and those who had to live with poor ones.
And of course it led eventually to the creation of Head Up Display...makes you kinda wonder why they bothered when it was apparently so easy to see the instruments normally, eh? ;)
-
But, please....do your own version and show me how far off the mark I am.
Okay Smoo, let me get this straight. You want me to disprove evidence that you have already admitted is completely manufactured. Evidence that has no place in reality, but is a figment of your imagination. Ya know, I don't any need to disprove it for some reason.
It possibly is a little far forward, but it did prove exceedingly difficult to try to define a position in space in this way, much harder than I thought it would be, to be honest. I don't think it is far off though - maybe 6 inches or so at most.
Where did you get the number 6 inches? Oh let me guess...you made it up. Educated guess? Do you have an engineering degree? Any sort airframe tech diploma? If you do then accept my apologies.
And thank you for showing us the lengths you will go to to "prove" FA is more realistic than AH.
-
I'm not asking you to disprove anything. You seem to know better, so I would like to see your version of where the lines of vision would meet.
You don't need an aerodynamics degree to visualise in 3d. If you did, there would be a whole lot less sportsmen in the world who could work out how to catch a ball thrown through the air.
Anyway, here's an easier pic for you to understand which shows pretty much identical angles of deflection, except this time in a 109.
-
Westy step back a bit and listen you what you are argueing. I am just about ready to solo in a trike (no cockpit at all) and if I am going to turn right or left I have to turn my head completely sideways to check the sky. There is no way I can see even half of whats in the field of view of AH.
The view in AH is fun to use and it works and allows you to track a plane without padlock but to say it is more real is not a valid argument.
If a pilot had on goggles his view would be even more restricted. In real life a pilot moves his head to follow a plane and keeps moving his head to check instruments. If he is looking down he will not see the guy breaking down from 12 high nor will he see the guy at 10 o'clock level if he is looking 2 oclock level. You cannot see the whole front view and instruments just by stareing straight ahead.
In a game you cannot simulate this so Padlock and wideview are two ways of getting around that.
To claim one is more real is not only wrong (neither is real) it is pointless.
You can argue that Padlock gives you an advantage if it locks on unseen planes. That is a valid point. You can argue that a wide field of view helps you line up shots easier. But don't say one is better because it is more "real".
-
Good stuff Smoo, that picture is much better.
Unfortuately is disproves your point. I'm sitting down right now, looking hortizonally across at my monitor. If I look down, without moving my head, I can see almost see my crotch, although a bit blury. As far as clarity is concerned, I can deflect my view downward, without moving my head, 70 degrees and it's picture perfect. Try it yourself, see if you come up with something different.:D
Buddy in the picture only has to deflect his view by 32 degrees (yes, I used a protractor). So the pilot does NOT have to move his head in order to see through the gunsight and look at his instruments. He has to glance down, much like you have to in the view system of AH.
Ya know, with your love of realism and dedication to it, I think you would be quite at home here.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Good stuff Smoo, that picture is much better.
Unfortuately is disproves your point. I'm sitting down right now, looking hortizonally across at my monitor. If I look down, without moving my head, I can see almost see my crotch, although a bit blury. As far as clarity is concerned, I can deflect my view downward, without moving my head, 70 degrees and it's picture perfect. Try it yourself, see if you come up with something different.:D
Buddy in the picture only has to deflect his view by 32 degrees (yes, I used a protractor). So the pilot does NOT have to move his head in order to see through the gunsight and look at his instruments. He has to glance down, much like you have to in the view system of AH.
Ya know, with your love of realism and dedication to it, I think you would be quite at home here.
-
Hm, about the view thingy. The analogy of a car is useful, if somewhat limited.
I'd like to make another analogy or two, taken from real life experience of having to watch gauges.
First: skydiving. There are basically two places you practically can place your altimeter: on your chest in the chest strap, or on your hand. Students usually have it on the chest strap, as they have a tendency to move their hand when they want to check their alt, and as a newbie, that might make you unstable in the air. Veterans tend to have it on their left hand.
When it is on your chest, it is akin to having a "look down" key to check instruments in a WWII flight sim. You duck down your head, lose contact with the horizon, essentially losing your SA and bearings for a moment. Then you locate your altimeter, and then you try to find that needle which is very quickly going towards the red area. Actually locating the needle isn't effortless, because you've tucked down your chin and is trying to remain stable.
Alternatively, you have an altimeter on the back of your hand. When you want to check your current altimeter, you move your eyes slightly to the side, focus the quarter sized focus point (and that's all we humans have) on the altimeter, and you quickly pick up the needle. During this time, you've got complete cotrol of your position relative to the horizon and other skydivers in your formation. This is akin to having most of the instruments in forward view in a computer game.
Both are doable in ksydiving, of course. But in a plane, you don't tuck your chin down onto your chest and try to locate an instrument that is wobbling in a 220 km/h wind.
Scuba diving, another of my hobbies. I got my dive computer on my left wrist (so all the "obstruction points, i.e dry suit outlet etc are on one arm, making it easy to get out) and my pressure gauge I got clipped to my buoyancy compensator. Having more than a few dives below my belt, I can predict my air consumption depending on time, workload and depth - so I more often send a quick glance towards my dive computer, rather than locate my pressure gauge (which is at a very predictable place, but still out of view), tuck head down, and reads it.
I cannot imagine that in an environment where everything happens even faster than in skydiving, you'd wish for your pilot to have to "tuck down" very much - lose your bearings, even for a brief period. And when you have these "press key to check instruments, lose bearings" solutions, I find it to be impractical as well as misrepresentative of reality.
Oh, just one other thing - some chap mentioned that none of us had flown a 109K4, and therefore everyone of us could be right (that was the essence of his argument). I'd like to call the BS on that one - I haven't been shot, but I have a good idea of what it'd be like, or cause. I haven't burned my finger off, but I've burned it, and I know enough to say "that's BS" if someone tells me it's next to painless or will feel like an "icey" sort of pain.
That line of argumentation is fallacious - it's an attempt to reach absolute relativism (nice contradiction in terms, eh?), and then use *this* as an argument to suggest that the claimants point is actually less relative, and more right. Fun type of argument, really.
lastly, I wonder why this fighter ace chap spends so much time preaching to us, and taking cheap shots that aren't really insults, but surely are disrespectful, and at least in my eyes represent an attitude that is a wee bit offensive.
Perhaps he should go back to his own camp. We've heard you, we've listened, we've commented. There's little more to say.
-
"here's little more to say."
Agreed :)
I was pretty much prepared to get more pictures, draw a few lines and offer a few more analogies and examples but I realised that even if you brought Smoo personally to a WWII fighter, had him sit in and to actually SEE the layout he'd still maintain that guages should be blurry and you need a seperate view. That's the way of a dyed in the wool sycophant.
What I see in the FAIII beta is a small group of players that are very much like a mirror image of IL2's 'Cult of Oleg.' The FAIII developers all have similar credentials too! Imagine that!! ;) Unfortunately (for them more than anyone else) FAIII is not any where near the artistic and profesional level of development that IL2 was in it's earliest beta release.
At least the FAIII people aren't as detrimental nor the liability to thier game as the WW2O 'fan boi' are.
Westy
-
Westy the gauges are sharp and clear. You can watch the rudder peddles move and the stick as you maneuver. If you saw blurry gauges then you have not seen the game in a long time.
Fan boy? Moi? I was one of the original fan boy bashers in WWIIOL. I told them their arrogant attitude and "Don't let the door hit you on the bellybutton on the way out" comments were going to drive the casual newbie out of the game.
I guess it took Chapter 7 (or was it 11) bankruptcy to waken up that community to the fact that the more people that play the game the more healthy the game will be.
Oleg is a very remarkable man and so is his IL-2 game. The FA 3 crowd is not in the least like that games community. I know I was a closed beta tester for it. FA 3 is more competitive. People seem to just want to win dogfights in it. I guess it dates all the way back to the 1.0 release and the bsk'ers who showed up from other games. Everyone wants to be the greatest and most feared dog fighter.
Smoo makes a good argument. You should be happy he is willing to take the time to debate his points intelligently here. Makes a nice change of pace from the flame wars that you usually see in these forums.
(edit to fix spelling and grammer.)
-
Originally posted by K West
I was pretty much prepared to get more pictures, draw a few lines and offer a few more analogies and examples but I realised that even if you brought Smoo personally to a WWII fighter, had him sit in and to actually SEE the layout he'd still maintain that guages should be blurry and you need a seperate view. That's the way of a dyed in the wool sycophant.
Westy
Westy, please don't let this degenerate into name-calling - it's been a fairly mature discussion up to now.
As you obviously don't believe me (and why should you, after all?), please look at page four of this site.
http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/includes/ga/13aleafl.pdf (http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/includes/ga/13aleafl.pdf)
This is from the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK equivalent of the FAA.
It clearly states the area of human FOV focus is just 10-15 degrees, it takes two seconds to refocus from outside to inside and head movement is required to scan instruments etc etc...It also states on page nine that military pilots spent three seconds scanning instruments for every 18-20 seconds scanning outside to maintain level flight.
But I guess CAA are just FA sycophants too...
-
Hey Smoo, nice document there. What I lacked was references to studies regarding the human eye - i.e how they've gotten the info in that document.
My father is an eye doctor, I'll check with him. He also has a specialty in psychiatry, so he should be qualified on the matter.
We had a discussion similar to this some time ago - basically it was about how quickly the eye and brain could coordinate when one is driving a car. My example was looking at the instruments (speed) and then going back to scanning the road. IIRC, the time this would take was substantially less than two seconds.
The article suggests that we 'tend not to believe what we see out of the corner of our eyes'. I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here. There are various filters in our brain we use, but I haven't seen or heard about us not believing what we see at the corner of an eye. Zeroing in on movement and placing the object that moves into the very small focus area is done very much in an automatic fashion.
At any rate, the human animal can shift focus area very quickly - in fact, that's how we build up an accurate picture of the world around us. We continuously scan and then compose the separate bits into a big picture.
If you have to press a key to get to head down instruments view, you're really making it harder than it is in reality. First, you'd have to press the key. Then you'd have to scan for the correct instrument. Then you'd have to press another key. Then you'd scan out of the cockpit.
Compared to: focus outside cockpit, scan instruments, focus outside cockpit. The close proximity of a monitor to our eyes means we cannot have all instruments in the focus area - most is on our peripheral view. Requiring a key shift to see them clearly is akin to removing them from the periphery - i.e you'll have to turn your head completey around, then catch the instrument of interest from your periphery and move it into the area where you can see focused. Just ain't right.
AH got it right - with the limitations of monitors, it does a remarkable good job of mimmicking real life - have it in periphery, scan, go back to scanning outside.
Artifical unnecessary difficulty does not add realism.
-
psycophant is not a "name" but my apology of it offended you.
""Artifical unnecessary difficulty does not add realism."
Is what it boils down to. It matters not the circumstances, in combat or not, that a "glance" is being done when the fact is that taking your eyes off the sky (or road) in front of you to glance down at the dash (be it in a car or airplane) does not take any significant amount of time to refocus and it does not blind one to the outside world ahead of them. A seperate view to do so is pure "artifical unnecessary difficulty" and it indeed does not add to any realism.
Cockpit guages were not on the floor nor were they laid out by the pilots knees. They were out in front of the pilot and in almost all cases, as demonstrated in the pictures I showed links to, they were within the pilots line of sight.
If a few players want to stand by VR1's decision, right or wrong, on that then fine. That's thier perogative. That's why the term psycophant was used. But they'll never convince me (or others) who feel it is nothing but a bullxxx phony feature. Especially after being able to prove otherwise (imo) imply using the example of driving an automobile, or truck. Let alone having been in some of these actual planes.
Same with padlock. And also regarding the 109 and 190 roll rates ;) (re: IL2 discussion of the past here) Some folks will simply believe what they want and defend it to the end because they have this odd emotional stake in ensuring thier fave developer remains infallable.
Westy
-
Santa - Here's two links that explain a bit more about the mechanics of field of vision with reference to each other...
http://www.waltersforensic.com/human/vol4-no3.htm (http://www.waltersforensic.com/human/vol4-no3.htm)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/retina.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/retina.html)
Here's one further similarity with everyday life...your keyboard. It's in about the same position to your monitor as an instrument panel is to a cockpit view. Look at your keyboard (you probably dropped your chin slightly to do so BTW, but whatever...). Now while looking at your keyboard, type out my post. Oh, you can't, can you? Because you can't see the monitor clearly enough anymore now can you?
Westy, as the CAA identified, it takes three seconds to scan an instrument panel and one to two seconds to refocus. That's five seconds away from frontal view. Five seconds is considerably longer than the fraction of a second it takes in AH.
"Sycophant" isn't a name but neither is "idiot" or "fool" but I think you would feel I was calling you names if I used those terms.
Sycophants blindly follow without regard to the truth. If I suspect something is not right, I try to find out about it and make my own mind up. You should try it some time...
So - here is my cockpit-only view in the George. I can see most of the top row of gauges, but in the second post, if I want to see the rest of the dials I have to look down and take *most* of my vision away from whats going on in front of me.
All the research I can find suggests this is entirely accurate. My own flying experiences suggest this is entirely accurate. My own driving experiences (in works rally cars and Formula Ford) suggest this is accurate. Oh and I've also sat in a WWII warbird cockpit or two as well...
Meanwhile, you've seen pics taken with a wide angle lens and made your mind up. "A 28mm-35mm lens can fit it all in one pic, therefore that must be what it's like to fly..." Try taking a pics of a cockpit from the pilot's seat with a 55mm lens (the closest lens to human FOV and perspective) and see how many instruments you can fit in while looking forward then...
-
And here's the lookdown angle...
-
Smoo
Thanks for the links, but those two links were more mechanism descriptions of the eye itself. Was hoping for links where the entire sensory system was examined - i.e the brain and the eye working ín conjunction. Specifically, I wondered about the assertion made about us not 'believing' what we see in our periphery.
My keyboard is at angle of around 75 to 80 degrees from my eye. The pics Westy have posted illustrates that the same isn't true for most of the instruments in a fighter - they aren't placed on your lap, and there's a reason for it.
-
IMHO i think Smoo got an point here...
-
He does. Those screen shots are fine by me. The first is much clearer than what I'd had but if I could see it as well as he can then it would more than be fine. Moot point now imo.
But about taking 5 seconds to read the dash? Hogwash. Maybe for a full blown, complete system status check but... Well, just imagine being in a bomber formation, or finger four of fighters and taking your eyes of the planes near you for at least those five seconds he claims the study says. It would be one sure way to get a buddy and yourself killed. And if you accept that logic and report at face value when you have to consider that your eyes will need 2-3 more seconds to refocus back to the outside world when taking
them off the dash. Doesn't wash with me.
In my car I have to glance down at a greater angle to check my speed, revs, eng temp and make sure no warning lights are on than most WWII fighter pilots had to for doing the same with thier cockpit dashes. My head nevers moves, my only eyes glance down for one second AT MOST and I have no problems with focusing what so ever. Even a motorcycle driver has to glance down further than all of us and it would be suicide for them to take thier eyes off the road for 5 seconds plus. And finally, my eyes are at best 20/70 and also in my late 30's. I'm not 21 with 20/20 vision and lightening fast reflexes as a real WWII pilot would be. So with my real life tests and experience it shows that report you refering to to be bull or completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Westy
-
When you are actually engaged and fighting for your life how many of those instruments on the dash board will actually help you survive?
Think the vacuum is vital? Clock?
A quick glance at a very few of the important ones is all you need. A moment.
I have and do fly WW2 trainers in fingertip formation and various maneuvers. I glance at a few instruments when I need too. It doesn't take me 5 seconds to figure out my airspeed coming over the top, either.
I look forward to checking it out.. when it's done and during the free trial. ;)
-
Hi:
I think that Smoo makes a good poing about the FOV in the two different camera lenses. I use both those lenses to take pictures and the 35mm lense shows a much wider field of view that the human eye see.
Also the mouse can be used in the FAIII 3D cockpit veiw to show more or less of the instruement gauges. And the Seat can be set back some with the 4 key helping to see even more of the instrument gauges while still looking out over the dashboard. The seat can even be raised with the page up key or lowered with the page down key. The pilots head can be moved either to the left or to the right also. All this can be done while in the Ctrl F4 or 3DCockpit view.
-
Version 3.5 is out and it even better than 3.0. Much better graphics than Aces High and an excellent flight model.
It is good to see WW2OL AH and FA all alive and kicking a year later.
-
how can we test it ?
didn't found a download ...
-
Dunno bout this, I have perfect good colour vision to the edge my periphery vision. I have clear vision with about 90 degrees field of view as well.
So I tend to find AH's FOV a little limiting :)
Originally posted by SmooMonster
The problem with FOV is the focus thing. If you look straight ahead and pick the edge of your focussed vision, it will give you a FOV of around 45 degrees (as modelled in FA). However if you include your peripheral vision, which is not in focus (and actually in black and white IRL - peripheral vision does not pick up colour, fact fans), then it expands to about 60 degrees or so (which seems to be roughly what you have in AH). However in AH, you have perfect vision and clarity throughout the 60 degree FOV.
-
Your convergent point is too far forward, and to the right too much.
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Okay, this isn't easy to do - I'm no 3D modeller, so I don't even begin to claim this is entirely accurate.
But this give an *idea* of the amount of deflection required to read those instruments if you're sitting with the gunsight at eye level.
As you can see, it is quite a bit of distance required for the eye to travel...and far, far more than anything like which is modelled in AH.
IRL, you have to take your eyes OFF the action in front of you to see what's on your instruments - what's happening beyond your cockpit doesn't even register on your peripheral vision...as modelled in FA.
-
Originally posted by straffo
how can we test it ?
didn't found a download ...
They are selling it as a box game now with a free 3 month sub if you buy it.
If you have any old version of the game and and old name you can download it for free but have to pay 10 a month to play.
Buying the box is the best deal as you can usually get it below $30 which is cheaper if you decide to keep playing it. Also if you can return the game to the retailer then you can play it for a day and then send it back if you do not like it.
-
I already have an online ww2 flight sim that keeps getting updates.
-
I normally stay out of these pissing matches, but what does it say about a sim when its users go out to recruit others on their respective boards? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that theres a problem.
Once I did push AH in its infancy, it NEEDED players. It frankly needed alot of features, and we eventually received them. But no use in doing it now, since the sim speaks for itself (as well as the die-hard folllowers/supporters)
Whenever I see another sim being "pushed" by its users on this BBS, red flags go up and tell me intuitively to "stay away from THAT one, they feel the need to recruit, then theres something fishy about the sim" or "Its incomplete, not ready for prime time"
So, I guess what I am saying to the FA folks..."Thanks for the warning!" ;)
-
Why is it that when I read Smoo's posts praising FA I imagine he's an evangelist somewhere preaching to the non-believers.
"Yes, my friends, thou hast sinned. Thou hast been tainted by the unholiness that is AH! But there is hope, my friends. I have seen the light, and I am here to teach it to you! Your souls have been corrupted by HTC, the devils they are. I shall pray for you. Convert to the light! Be forgiven for your sins! Join me and we shall acsend into flight sim Heaven together!"
FA is crap IMO...AH is where it's at...
-
Looks like you cannot upgrade from 3 to 3.5 without a paying account?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Looks like you cannot upgrade from 3 to 3.5 without a paying account?
I am pretty sure you can. Just try it and see what happens.
Regarding the other replys.
In my opinion AH has a much better online community than FA whose online community is being run by a couple of power hungry bananas. There are also a few real whiners in the game but then again AH has some as well.
However FA seems to be fun to play and the eye candy is nice. Flight model is pretty nice too.
When I started taking real life flying lessons this past summer my instructors were ready to solo me after 5 hours but I had to keep on building time until I had the minimum required. All the stick time in these games is why I suppose.
-
ok so were expected to listen to a person who has only played FA3 and cfs2 (cfs2 is in my opinion rated slightly above ace of aces ni all respects)
as for the graphics well...lets just say i like my fps ABOVE 2 (hell they dont even look accurate or good...i think chubbs has made more historically acurate skins)
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
Hmmm - first one looked so nice I thought it was actually an FA3 screenie until I noticed there was no texture mapping on the planes. Ah well.
If nothing changed in the last few years...
texture mapping is a technique used to fill faces with data from a bitmap. AH, like almost every 3d game released after 1996 does that.
Maybe you're talking of something else ;)
-
Originally posted by SmooMonster
The problem with FOV is the focus thing. If you look straight ahead and pick the edge of your focussed vision, it will give you a FOV of around 45 degrees (as modelled in FA). However if you include your peripheral vision, which is not in focus (and actually in black and white IRL - peripheral vision does not pick up colour, fact fans), then it expands to about 60 degrees or so (which seems to be roughly what you have in AH). However in AH, you have perfect vision and clarity throughout the 60 degree FOV.
If I look straight ahead and strech my arms out left and right I can see both hands at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I am pretty sure you can. Just try it and see what happens.
How? The link says to login to update to 3.5. When I start to create an account so that I may login I am asked for a credit card.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How? The link says to login to update to 3.5. When I start to create an account so that I may login I am asked for a credit card.
I don't know. Can you sign up for a 1 day sub and get the download for the cost of 1 day?
I play WW2OL mainly so I am not an expert on this. I was just going to get the box version when it came out.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I don't know. Can you sign up for a 1 day sub and get the download for the cost of 1 day?
I play WW2OL mainly so I am not an expert on this. I was just going to get the box version when it came out.
I doubt they'd bill me for just one day, probably for a month. Guess I won't be taking a look at it. Was only mildly curious anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Habu
They are selling it as a box game now with a free 3 month sub if you buy it.
If you have any old version of the game and and old name you can download it for free but have to pay 10 a month to play.
Buying the box is the best deal as you can usually get it below $30 which is cheaper if you decide to keep playing it. Also if you can return the game to the retailer then you can play it for a day and then send it back if you do not like it.
sorry Habu but in France it wont work this way ... there is no possibilty to return software :(