Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Duedel on November 01, 2001, 04:12:00 AM
-
I'm new to AH and like this game very much (in contrast to my girl friend :D ). One week ago
i downloaded the IL-2 Demo and was very impressed. The graphics are unbelievible and i think it gives me a closer feeling for flying a real AC. But i think its harder too among other things caused by the View-System. In the Bf109E i cant see anything and the head turns around like slow motion.
My Question is:
Which flight sim (WB, AH, MS-CFS, IL-2, AW) is the most realistic in terms of the flight model and the View-System?
Anyone here has experiences in real WWII-AC?
Thx for reply
Duedel / Düdel
Sry for bad english im german
-
First you have to define realism. there's two approaches, taking to extremem examples:
There's the type of realism whereby every thing *looks* real - every gauge and every switch in the cockpit is shown, and from the outside every screw and bolt is in the right place and the paintwork is exact.
Microsoft Flight sim is a good example typeof this type of sim.
Then there's the physics - how far does a particular plane fly on it's fuel, and how fast. How quickly it accelerates, how quickly it turns, and so forth. Airwarrorior is a good (older) example of the type.
There's no one example that has both a perfect cockpit *and* perfect physics yet.
However, AH is the best compromise of the two I've seen, and as far as I can see (not a real pilot) it's certainly the "most real" of the online sims.
-
This debate has been done a million times. The only right answer is that there is no right answer.
Welcome to AH, BTW! :)
-
Thx for fast reply Seeker
IMO realism is mainly the physics but also the simulated physics of the cockpit (borders, instruments - not that all instruments have to be at the right place, they only must work!), the weather, the pilot (his views, black outs...). For me good grafics dont play the leading role but are nice to have and give the game more density.
I've never flown a real AC so i can't compare the FM of AH or other sims to the real world.
As an example: in AH i could make a loop in a C-47. Is that realistic :confused:
I don't know.
There's no one example that has both a perfect cockpit *and* perfect physics yet.
Including IL-2?
Duedel / Düdel
-
Could you please give me a few links to sources Dowding? AH has awakened my interest in WWII and flight sims.
This debate has been done a million times. The only right answer is that there is no right answer.
BTW my intend is not to get the one and only answer of which is the best sim (i know its 42). I'm only interested in how they differ. Might be that i should've chosen another topic :D
Duedel / Düdel
-
I saw a video clip of a Boeing-747 doing a barrel roll once... Sooooo... yeah... if a 747 can do a barrel roll, sure, why not? A C-47/DC-3 might do a loop :D
-
I’m divided on how "real" ANY flightsim is, although the hands down winner on balancing gameplay, 250 players online smoothly, and basic aircraft FM characteristics goes to AH. No question.
F4.0 post Microprose, ala after market/patched version has got to be a achievement in realism, but I don’t play anymore because of the headaches to get it running, and lack of a massive multiplayer experience.
I’d like AH to have real gauges, and IL2 graphics, which I would pay for gladly in their online format in fees and computer upgrades. But I’ll take the smooth gameplay and the extra 75% of sim guys that can actually log in without restriction of my wants.
It’s a trade off, always.
Thing is, I notice the trade off hardly ever in AH. Fun always cancels it out. You’ll notice the guys that it doesn’t REAL soon. :)
-
One thing does puzzle me about the "realism extremists" in AH - they (perhaps correctly) want ever last weapon load out and ballistic factor modelled, but they never mention the fact that 50% of the A/C in AH have their gauges in the wrong language and the wrong measurement system.
It's no big thing, but I'd like to see Japanese, German and Italian cockpits more authenticaly portrayed; for one thing it would make it easier to compare the models with the test docs without having to convert units back and forth.
I had a look round the sim market before I jumped into AH, did any one else notice you can push more G's than pull in FA? In otherwords, you can turn tighter in red out than black out? That's the sort of gross error that almost every sim has in it somewhere, and HTC seems to avoid.
-
A lot of people confuse realism in simulating physical details with realism simulating pilot's experience.
There are many areas where we cannot simulate pilot's experience no matter how realisticly we simulate the details. Quite the opposite - producing unrealistic details often makes for truer simulation of pilot experience.
The reasons for those are obgective. Here are few of those:
1. Computer cannot simulate aircraft - there is no body feedback, stick forces, g-forces, etc.
2. Monitor cannot simulate natural view.
3. Pilot usually has a few months of training before he is allowed on the mission. His perceptions of the same real aircraft are quite different before and after the training.
4. Pilots are selected by rigorous process - not everyone who can download AH would pass the requirements to become a fighter pilot.
5. Pilots fly the same aircraft model for many months/years - not switch them every few minutes.
Examples:
1 inch wide canopy frame 1 foot from you face does not obscure any field of view because at one of your eyes can see pointsobscured for the other one. So narrow or transparent or nonexisting canopy frames would be much more realistic in terms of pilot's experience.
If you make authentic japanese cockpit (unlike any other cockpit) with japanese symbology, I would feel much different in it then real life japanese pilot with hundreds of hours of experience.
It is not realistic for a fighter pilot to have to search for a gauge in a cocpit or have to convert units.
Of course if you spend as many hours in a cockpit of the same sim fighter as the real pilot, you would not have those problems but AH/Il2 are not training simulators but games that have to be financially profitable (in order to afford development). Most customers of such games have lives - jobs, families, children, other hobbies - and would not invest that much time in mastering the particular plane.
miko
-
Originally posted by Duedel:
(i know its 42)
Ahhhh a fellow hitchhiker
:p
Welcome!
-
Realism is subjective.
IMO it boils down to "how much does the program make you feel like you are having aircombat in a worthy replica of WWII aircraft."
AH is the one for me. AW, FA and WB 2.77 made use my imagination to fill in the missing blanks more than AH did. I've not flown WBIII enough to even comment. But the mush-birds FM did not make me feel all warm and fuzzy that's for sure. And WWIIO was the worst of the lot for aircraft immersion. The P-39 in the IL2 beta was completely unflyable for me and the lack of any drag on the other aircraft did not give it any good points in my eyes. But IL2 is a box game and I'm not interested in flying offline by myself. The limited capacity multiplay is buggier than BC3000 ;)
IMO, of course
Westy
-
OK, i'll try to detail my intense of this topic. I'm with you moki / creamo. I dont want AH get into an training simulator. Also i dont want AH get into an application that needs the new Cray computer to fly with.
My interest in WWII flight sims come from
my grandfather who was a a Heinkel HE111 bomber pilot in WWII. I like to get a little bit of the feeling he had when he was flying and therefore to know how realistic is the FM of the different Sims. Which Sim models the different AC and the whole "flying" good and which not. Its obvious that you'll never get the feeling of a real flight.
So my question (in other words):
Where are the differences between real live and sim regarding the flight physics?
Where are the differences between the sims?
<Edit>
(was typing this post and havent seen Westy's:
how much does the program make you feel like you are having aircombat in a worthy replica of WWII aircraft
Thats it! Thx Westy :)
</Edit>
To AcId:
In germany they called the cocktail in the bar at the end of the universe "Pangalaktischer Donnergurgler" :D
Whats the english word for it?
And dont forget your :cool:
Duedel / Düdel
[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Duedel ]
-
Good observations.
They boil down to this:
Computer simulations have two parts: the "simulation" in the sense of the program that runs in the dark of the computer, and the "interface" that represents that simulation and provides input.
If we're talking about simulation, then it's easy to talk about realism. Here's a list:
A. Flight Physics.
B. Weapons Ballistics
C. Environmental Effects
D. Damage Modeling
For some of these, such as how much damage a 20mm shell does to a tailplane, there's room for interpretation, but most of the factors you can put down on a list and compare.
So, for example, while WB fans may think their guns do more "realistic" damage -- and we can't challenge that -- the fact remains that their guns only model 50% of the rounds fired out of them, whereas AH does 1:1.
Another common mistake is to confuse difficulty with realism. For example, how many of us have seen this argument moving from such a premise:
It's harder to land in Sim X than in AH.
Therefore Sim X is more realistic than AH.
Well, if Sim X doesn't model ground effect, but AH does, of course the landings will be rougher.
---
Now to the Interface. The problem with flightsims is that the physics model and the interface often overlap.
Take, for example, control reversal and similar phenomena.
Our controls sitting in a living room are spring loaded and plugged into a computer. If we're lucky, they've got tiny motors in 'em.
Flight Controls are hanging out in the wind. Trim is used to fix them to a position (not necessarily center). At certain extreme conditions, these controls on some planes will tend to move away from the center to the edges, often violently, and with unpleasant results.
So, how do we model trim? Currently it changes the relationship between the virtual stick and the real stick, not the position of the virtual stick.
But this nonsense with the controls moving on their own gets lost entirely. So how do you model a spin where the controls lock in one direction?
You don't.
And there we have a big problem. Take, for example, the DOA Sopwith Camel argument from a few years back. They released a F1 with nasty stall characteristics. A big stink ensued with one party insisting that the Camel stalled something fierce, and the other saying, "No, look at these reports from guys who flew the Camel: if it stalled, just center the controls and it'll pull out immediately."
For us at home, centering the controls means letting go of the stick, or at most overcoming a small amount of force feedback. But it must have been something very different in a crate whirling around in a spin with the controls locked in a corner.
Furthermore, you have the problem of representing a full field of view on a television screen, icons and the rest.
Here we get into further shortcomings of the interface, and the use of analogical means to overcome them. The success and validity of each analogy is open to debate.
Finally, there's the issue of "Realistic" situations, and none of the MMP sims do a good job here.
So to answer your question:
Realism is said in many ways.
In some ways, it's clear which FS is the more realistic.
In others, it's a matter of debate.
Regardless, flying AH is a pretty safe bet.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa:
I saw a video clip of a Boeing-747 doing a barrel roll once... Sooooo... yeah... if a 747 can do a barrel roll, sure, why not? A C-47/DC-3 might do a loop :D
It wasn't a 747, it was a 707.
-
Ahem.
For those that want flight realism there is a solution. It's real simple. Take your pasty (insert skin tone of choice here) out from in front of the computer monmitor and go find a flight school. Get some lessons and preferably LEARN to fly for REAL. Don't spend a single nanosecond worrying ahbout the realism aspect of a computer GAME because IT AIN'T REAL AND CAN'T BE REAL!!!!! Real life is out there, go find it and experiance it, FOR REAL!! :rolleyes:
<rant off>
Mav
-
Originally posted by Duedel:
To AcId:
In germany they called the cocktail in the bar at the end of the universe "Pangalaktischer Donnergurgler" :D
Whats the english word for it?
And dont forget your :cool:
Duedel / Düdel
[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Duedel ]
PanGalactic Gargleblaster :)
-
As a licensed pilot and avid fligth simmer, there is one variable you are forgetting:
Your hardware
If you have a fast system that will run Aces nicely with lots of FPS, then I'd say Aces is among the most accurate. Stalls, etc...I'd have to say that for the most part Aces "feels" the best to me. Then again, my computer also runs Aces High quite nicely...if I had a slow system, I might have a different opinion.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Ahem.
For those that want flight realism there is a solution. It's real simple. Take your pasty (insert skin tone of choice here) out from in front of the computer monmitor and go find a flight school. Get some lessons and preferably LEARN to fly for REAL. Don't spend a single nanosecond worrying ahbout the realism aspect of a computer GAME because IT AIN'T REAL AND CAN'T BE REAL!!!!! Real life is out there, go find it and experiance it, FOR REAL!! :rolleyes:
<rant off>
Mav
uhmm. AH = $15/month. RL Lessons = $100+/hour. you do the math.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
It's real simple. Take your pasty (insert skin tone of choice here) out from in front of the computer monmitor and go find a flight school. Get some lessons and preferably LEARN to fly for REAL. Don't spend a single nanosecond worrying ahbout the realism aspect of a computer GAME because IT AIN'T REAL AND CAN'T BE REAL
I did just that in T6 Texan. One hour of aerobatics. That was the best $450 ever spent.
I was surprised how familiar I felt and how true the WB2.7 (then) flight modelling was.
If you have the full stick/throttle/pedals setup, after you get accustomed to hat views you can be sure that WB and AH provide pretty realistic flying experience.
miko
-
Well, realism.
(http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/pic.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1t.jpg)
Here you got a 31 victory Messerchmitt / Curtiss Hawk ace flying WarBirds III. He got into "touch" rather quickly, even though the joysticks aren't exactly like those he had in the old warplanes, and was maneuvering very well in the skies.
He told later that "many things in the simulator were well done" but his main gripes was that you had to use instruments for flying. "I never watched the instruments or the ball" he said. In some respects our current sims are close. In other, not.
Larger picture of the above here: http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/picture.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1.jpg (http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/picture.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1.jpg)
Full article: http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/article.php/1004453490.html (http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/article.php/1004453490.html)
-
I think AH has the best flight and gunnery physics models of any massively multiplayer online sim that is currently on the market. That's my $2.00E-02
-
Originally posted by Grendel:
Well, realism.
(http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/pic.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1t.jpg)
Here you got a 31 victory Messerchmitt / Curtiss Hawk ace flying WarBirds III. He got into "touch" rather quickly, even though the joysticks aren't exactly like those he had in the old warplanes, and was maneuvering very well in the skies.
He told later that "many things in the simulator were well done" but his main gripes was that you had to use instruments for flying. "I never watched the instruments or the ball" he said. In some respects our current sims are close. In other, not.
Larger picture of the above here: http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/picture.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1.jpg (http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/picture.php/artikkeli_ilmailupaivat2001/herrat1.jpg)
Full article: http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/article.php/1004453490.html (http://edome.fi.soneraplaza.net/php/article.php/1004453490.html)
Any chance of an English translation to that article?
-
Wow, interesting posts.
Originally posted by Maverick:
... and go find a flight school. Get some lessons and preferably LEARN to fly for REAL.
:D ROTFL I'm afraid of flying (NO JOKE) :D
Every time i sit in these f*§$ing jets i pee in my pants. The only medicine for me are 5 Whisky Coke before starting and one drink for every hour flying. Maybe i should better order one PanGalactic Gargleblaster (thanks Raubvogel)
So, good suggestion Mav but not for me :D
Originally posted by LePaul:
I'd have to say that for the most part Aces "feels" the best to me
Yep, i agree. For me it feels best too. But as i stated before i've no idea whats "real"
To Grendel: very interesting post but i dont understand nothing of this artikle too.
Please could you post an english (or better german :) ) translation.
Duedel / Düdel
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel:
PanGalactic Gargleblaster :)
Sass that hoopy frood, he knows where his towel is.
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
Any chance of an English translation to that article?
I'm not translating the article in English, but there will be a photo gallery and english report from us sim freaks' viewpoint. I'll post url to it when it is done :)
-
PanGalactic Gargleblaster
in Danish Pangalaktisk Galdeknalder :D
Also a Hitchhiker ;)
-
Duedel wrote:
Every time i sit in these f*§$ing jets i pee in my pants. The only medicine for me are 5 Whisky Coke before starting and one drink for every hour flying.
And those don't make you pee?!? ;)
Lots of interesting responses in here. Nice and civil, too, not sure that you'd have had as many pleasant replies at AGW. <G>
Having flown all the online flight sims, and being current in most (with the exception of AW which may not be with us longer) I'd have to say that Westy was right on the money: It's the one that most helps with your personal suspension of disbelief that's the best. That is -- it depends on you more than the game itself. :D
Uh oh. I think I hear a discussion of Oscar Wilde and the nature of art brewing up. ;)
Seriously, for some it's cool graphics, others it's flight modelling, for some a realistic combat environment, and for a whole bunch of people its about community and where their friends are (a whole whack of people played Air Warrior for a very long time when by all accounts it was behind in all areas but community, but -- combined with price -- it was enough that they were reluctant to leave). All the sims differ in these areas.
Personally, I like the way AH combines a lot of stuff well to make for a cool overall experience. I miss my squadies from WB like the dickens, though. [sniff] On the other hand, other people don't like HTC's generic cockpits and that's enough to turn them off. So be it, they don't bother me. It's very subjective. I simply love AH's viewing system because it's so versatile, and for me that equates to realism. For others it doesn't...
WBIII looks really pretty, but I don't like the mushy controls though they are less troublesome to others. AH has come a long way in a short time and right now it's tops for me.
IL-2 Sturmovik, while very cool on a lot of fronts, simply won't have the massively multiplayer aspect of AH unless they make a new game based on the same engine. In terms of boxed sims, I think it will be the new benchmark.
Remember, AH is only a 22Mb download. It packs one hell of a whallop per MB. Or, to quote from HTC's main page:
The title strikes a near-perfect balance of detailed flight simulation married to enjoyable game play. In short, Aces High throws one hell of a party!" Dogfighter
He he he. ;)
Cheers,
phaetn
[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: phaetn ]
-
Kweassa:
I saw a video clip of a Boeing-747 doing a barrel roll once... Sooooo... yeah... if a 747 can do a barrel roll, sure, why not? A C-47/DC-3 might do a loop
I am pretty sure you didnt see a film of a 747 doing a roll, what you saw was a film of Tex Johnson rolling a 707. Its a pretty famous film and stunt, he did it when Boeing rolled out the 707 in Seattle and demonstrated it to the airlines.
dago
-
Originally posted by Kweassa:
I saw a video clip of a Boeing-747 doing a barrel roll once... Sooooo... yeah... if a 747 can do a barrel roll, sure, why not? A C-47/DC-3 might do a loop :D
Blenheim could loop ;-)
Eino Estama, a Finnish BL/Ju88-veteran, told about the occasion when he decided to make a loop with the Blenheim with his bombardier. Or course they didn't tell anything to the gunner back there. And he pulled such a "lazy" loop that the gunner was hanging upside down in his post, hanging from loose belts ;-)
http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/WW2History-OuluVeteransEnglish.html (http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/WW2History-OuluVeteransEnglish.html) http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/WW2History-EstamaBrothers.html (http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers/WW2History-EstamaBrothers.html)
-
What Dago said. Wait, did I just say the “D” word?
Anyway, he’s right.
And on a related note, one day I got a call from Maintenance Control, and they informed me to pull the Flight Recorder from a Jetstream31 on the flight line and do a hard landing inspection. As it was a slow day, I said “Sure! No prob, already done, take it easy.” And promptly went about the task to do it and change flight recorders.
The subsequent major inspection showed no signs of overstress which involved a lengthy process of removing panels to the wing spare etc., and of course the flight data recorder changes and ops checks.
Turns out, a reposition flight from one city to the next several flight legs ago had a 2 man crew and one deadheading captain on board. Apparently the captain on board knowing he had no passengers decided to do a nice barrel roll mid flight. Needless to say, the deadheading off duty captain in the back was not impressed. He called the FAA. Hence the call to me later in the day to pull the recorder and make sure nothing was stressed.
Well to make a long story short, I flew to Sacramento for the official court case where they stripped him of his wings. The lawyer pre-trial briefed us and the flight recorder showed a perfect 0 G barrel roll. He didn’t even spill his drink.
And when I got back, I was reprimanded for “Not inspecting the aircraft.” I was told that I said “it was already done” when mtx control called me.
Moral of story? Good pilots are GOOD, but it’s these cowboys get in trouble.. And always say like a mechanic hick, “Yup, I’ll do that when I have a chance, a, duh.”
True story. Carry on.
[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
I work on Uniteds full motion 6 axis sims with 180 deg visuals and even these cant model the real thing completely, so for WWII online sims pick the one ya have the most fun in and enjoy it!
-
Beer for TYRO.
I want your job.
-
I'd have to say that Westy was right on the money...
Woooo HOOOOOOO!! :D I figured sooner or later that if I sat at the keyboard and kept pounding the ivory enough in replying to all these questions and posts that sooner or later I was bound to get something right. Even just once!
BTW, whadditeye win? ;)
Westy
[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Whaddya win?!? A free subcription to Dogfighter.com! <kidding, kidding!>
Honestly, I know that posts with responses from Westy and Dinger are sure to be ones worth reading. I'd have to say that they are two of the most reasonable flight simmers I know and I don't think I've ever seen their shorts all tied up in knots about anything.
Westy, what was the last Beta version of IL-2 you tried? There have been some FM changes since the beginning and the demo was unfortunately based on a quite old build. Some departures were a little odd for a while, particuarly some really high AoA stalls.
Duedel, the pan views are quicker now, too. Still, one can't shift the point of origin of the viewpoint like one can in AH (one of the latter's real strengths). In AH I really get the feeling that I'm craning my neck to look around a spar and that feels particularly satisfying. So is the idea of being able to save custom head positions and not being forced into defined views (I don't like WWIIOL for that).
Cheers,
phaetn
[whoops - got rid of unnecessary sig]
[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: phaetn ]
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
uhmm. AH = $15/month. RL Lessons = $100+/hour. you do the math.
Nifty,
I did do the math. I also realised that something worth doing was worth WORKING for. Believe me, flying for real beats AH hands down. No offense to HT or AH but I find real life preferable to virtual life. YMMV however and your limitations may prevent your enjoyment of life. Just don't impose the limitations by choice.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Whaddya win?!? A free subcription to Dogfighter.com! <kidding, kidding!>
:D Well, so far it has been! Or I've just had good luck as I've not had to do the logon thingy to read the articles. Nope! I won't tell you what browser product I use ;) But DF is looking nice and you've got a lot of good articles!
Honestly, I know that posts with responses from Westy and Dinger are sure to be ones worth reading. I'd have to say that they are two of the most reasonable flight simmers I know and I don't think I've ever seen their shorts all tied up in knots about anything.
lol. I think my name got in the as a typo ;)
Westy, what was the last Beta version of IL-2 you tried? There have been some FM changes since the beginning and the demo was unfortunately based on a quite old build. Some departures were a little odd for a while, particuarly some really high AoA stalls.
I worked Saturday and it took me 6 hours (on a lan to boot) to download the official IL2 beta that came out in September. I'd tried the old, unofficial demo that got leaked a few months prior. I've not had time to try it but I have it now and I'll definately give it a "go"
Thanks Phaetn.
Westy
-
Originally posted by phaetn:
Whaddya win?!? A free subcription to Dogfighter.com! <kidding, kidding!>
Honestly, I know that posts with responses from Westy and Dinger are sure to be ones worth reading. I'd have to say that they are two of the most reasonable flight simmers I know and I don't think I've ever seen their shorts all tied up in knots about anything.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!! You kill me !
(Hi Westy :)
MD
-
He did have a good funny, no? :D
Hiya MoonDog :)
Westy
-
Okay, so maybe Westy's unreasonable, but I always like to read his posts. :D
Westy, forget the IL-2 Demo. Both the official demo and the earlier "leaked" demo were both based on quite old Beta builds, and there have been lots of changes since then. They are good to see the level of graphics, sounds, etc., but the actual flight modelling and AI behaviour has changed significantly.
Dogfighter.com will do a full review when the retail release nears. No login, eh? <G> You sure there's not a cookie there somewhere?... :)
Anybody here use Opera? Is it worth trying?
Cheers,
phaetn
-
Most Realistic Flight sim ?
Go to:
(http://webprd.flightsafety.com/images/topbar/top_nav_bar_copy.gif) (http://webprd.flightsafety.com/)
it's pay/hour .. and kindda pricey but some folks say that keeps the punks and dweebs out :rolleyes:
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Duckwing6 ]
-
Thanks Phaetn. I don't mind cookies at all :)
Well Oleg sounds to have come through on his words about changing the FM. Kind of makes the IL2 contingent seem silly with all thier proclomations on how accurate and real the two demo FM's were? ;) So I wasted a cd burning that last demo? Sheesh. I know two guys who wouldn't be too thrilled as I owe em a couple of cd's on stuff for a while now.
Westy
(Opera is really, really good! And fast)