Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: funkedup on August 01, 2001, 03:43:00 PM
-
We obviously have a schism between the gamers and the simmers. How about a new arena to make both crowds happy errr less whiny?
-
And to cut the #'s in half. =( In the AM there are about 50 or so pilots on. I think it would hurt a lot to split this # into two arenas. When I left 3 or so months ago I thought AH would be large enough to have 2 arenas by now... but it looks to be about the same #.
-
the gamers don't mind putting their insufferable preferences and gameplay concessions upon the simmers but the gamers are totally against the simmers leaving their quake arena and having their own arena upon which to sneak around in and fight historical matchups
-
AGREED FUNKED....
10000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000% :D :D
make an ultra realistic arena, with No icons... (or heres a dumb compromise.. A red or green dot "." ) over the plane telling if they are friend or foe.... THATS IT..
Make realistic Engine Control... Mixture/rpm... Overheat.. (REAL COCKPIT MANAGAMENT STUFF)
ULTRA REALISTIC FLIGHT PHYSICS
NO DIMMING DOWN OF CONTROLS..
GET RID OF the "DONT MOVE YOUR CONTROLS TO RAPIDLY" message.
others to follow ..
-
Deez: Some of those are a bit extreme and I'm not sure they would work. And some of them are already in place. In any case, the specifics of the arena setup are best left for another discussion. Obviously some experimentation is required. But as long as we have just one arena with settings that never change, this experimentation can never occur.
The important part is this: It's clear that there is a substantial group of players who like arena play but would like some significantly different settings than what we have in the MA.
Paxil: Did it occur to you that part of the reason AH is not large enough for two arenas is that fact that AH does not offer some sort of history-based alternative to the MA? I personally know of 4-5 guys who did the AH free trial but left for this very reason. They loved the graphics, flight models, gunnery/damage models, but couldn't stomach the gameplay concessions. These aren't guys who posted on the BBS, just guys I knew from elsewhere who came quietly and left quietly. I wonder how many more guys like that HTC loses every two weeks?
You have a valid point though - underpopulated arenas could drive players away. But if you have 50 online and can't find a fight, something's wrong. Maybe the map is too big? In the end it's a compromise that HTC have to work out themselves. What's worse, the number of paying accounts lost due to decreased per-arena populations caused by opening multiple arenas, or the number of paying accounts lost due to lack of an alternative arena for less "gamey" flying?
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Agreed Funked... and good post.
We need a HA.
-
Having an HA is a-ok with me.
Think about what you are saying though when you bring up simmers vs. gamers. When it all boils down, it's still only a different form of gameplay as funked has eloquently pointed out in his response to DZ.
The gameplay that is being sought in an HA is certainly a more challenging style of flying and fighting. That doesn't necessarily make it anymore realistic.
Don't ask me why this gets under my skin :). I haven't psycho-analyzed myself. Maybe its because that being labeled a gamey-quake-lover makes my skin crawl since I think of myself as a simmer! Maybe I think of myself as a historian who cares about historical accuracy when things are mentioned in the name of historical accuracy! I don't know. Anyhow...I've said my peace :).
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: dtango ]
-
Well the historians can never agree on history so it seems likely that a bunch of flight sim geeks won't always agree completely on how to simulate it. :)
-
LOL!!!! Very well put my friend, very well put!
-
We need a MA
We need a MA with no dar
We need a MA with dar and no icons
We need a HA
We need a HA with an early planeset
We need a HA with no icons no dar and an early planest
We need........
My point lets not get into too many details yet DeeZ...start with a basic Historical Arena with realistic radar and perhaps short range icons.
THEN butcher the toejam out of it so nobody but you and three others THINK it's fun.
-
ROFL Skernsk!
-
I would rather have the most realistic (wich is more challenging by the way) Arena that RIDS of ALL "GAMEPLAY" options...
I am a HARDCORE Flightsim enthusiast. IF poeple want to have LARGE placards above the plane that they are tracking in the sky, well.. that is thier preference. I have never seen a Huge placard in the Sky when I have gone up in reality, and From what I see here in Aces... THE distance/size issue,... Is not an Issue to me. Hi res/low res.. I can still see the plane just as well.
range Finders... Please rid them... Poeple rely on them when to shoot. This is unrealistic. (and makes it Easier) (less judgment on the pilots part)
Radar, Have it.. but have it as it were in WWII. If pilots could not see exact locations of where the enemy was, then we shouldnt either. Possibly implement option to query the tower, as well as general radio chatter from allied forces to create the "Grapevine" network, that information is passed along. That would be more realistic, as well as create the need to work more as a cohesive unit.
Historical matchups,... Enable those maps that have historical fighting going on, and a separate part containing a different theater of operations. Something to the likes of a dueling arena, but alittle larger with a Separation between worlds.
People who are willing to actually be wingman, and fly missions, that are enveloping. not just go bomb that base and try to get a goon there. ( this is already being adressed with more strategic targets.."trains com to mind") <S> HTC good idea cant wait to see how it turns out.
Airbases/Naval groups(ships) allow for Every single fleet weapon to be HUMAN controlled. NO AI. THIS includes FLAK...
more to follow these are just a few
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
I would rather have the most realistic (wich is more challenging by the way) Arena that RIDS of ALL "GAMEPLAY" options...
I am a HARDCORE Flightsim enthusiast. IF poeple want to have LARGE placards above the plane that they are tracking in the sky, well.. that is thier preference. I have never seen a Huge placard in the Sky when I have gone up in reality, and From what I see here in Aces... THE distance/size issue,... Is not an Issue to me. Hi res/low res.. I can still see the plane just as well.
Turn your enemy Icons off then, that option is there (friendly icons only)
range Finders... Please rid them... Poeple rely on them when to shoot. This is unrealistic. (and makes it Easier) (less judgment on the pilots part)
same as above... tho I'd be satisfied with a rate of closure indicator as opposed to a range finder myself.
Radar, Have it.. but have it as it were in WWII. If pilots could not see exact locations of where the enemy was, then we shouldnt either. Possibly implement option to query the tower, as well as general radio chatter from allied forces to create the "Grapevine" network, that information is passed along. That would be more realistic, as well as create the need to work more as a cohesive unit.
I agree with the principle. Not sure on best implementation for this.
Historical matchups,... Enable those maps that have historical fighting going on, and a separate part containing a different theater of operations. Something to the likes of a dueling arena, but alittle larger with a Separation between worlds.
fly in the historical events!! My squad has parents(meaning some people ARE parents and have to juggle flying time around time spent with children), people who work weekends, etc, and they all seem to make an event here and there. Some of us only miss our designated squad event once every few months. (this is to say that everyone can make an event once in awhile.)
People who are willing to actually be wingman, and fly missions, that are enveloping. not just go bomb that base and try to get a goon there. ( this is already being adressed with more strategic targets.."trains com to mind") <S> HTC good idea cant wait to see how it turns out.
I agree that more needs to be added to the "simmer" crowd in terms of targets for missions.
Airbases/Naval groups(ships) allow for Every single fleet weapon to be HUMAN controlled. NO AI. THIS includes FLAK...
yes on allow all to be mannable. absolutely 100% no on no AI flak. A TG in AH has how many total fleet weapons??? You want everyone of them to be manned??? Same with all the airbases. So you don't want anyone flying planes anymore... interesting... We need AI flak, tho maybe it shouldn't be as accurate.
more to follow these are just a few
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]
-
havent read all the thread but essentially i totally agree with funcked.
Bring a HA or at least an arena where theres much more strat and planning needed and id return to AH in an instant.
as it is i used a friends account to have a fly the other night and although there were new maps it was exactly the same 'game'.
sorry not for me at the moment.where are the roads,tracks,bridges,trains? :)
seemed like nothing had changed at allto me just the landscape and if anything even more furballing :(
-
I like donuts.
Cobra
-
I agree with funked. I'm tired of hearing people whine about changing the MA to make it "more realistic". I think HTC should add an HA so we can listen to people whine about how nobody is in it.
Hooligan
-
what hapanening this treheat was caled before WHine when we asked for it??????????
well finaly wtg
-
Well that’s a new one. Guys (Hazed) whining about the AH MA after they quit, while playing off someone else’s account! Amazing. That’s got to be a recorded first.
Anyway, I see no reason not to put in a HA for 1 tour. 1 tour, and when people get sick of the low numbers, and start fuming about what that HA needs, etc… they can start a whole new bunch of threads on something else.
These “Woe is me because AH isn’t catered directly to me and my tastes” are interesting discussion, but get kinda old fast.
And who knows, the HA might work, and what would be so bad about that? I’d try it.
-
Hooligan, now that was funny.... and so true!
Yep, start up an "ultra-realistic" arena designed by some guys that have no ratings at all and 10 hours in the backseat of somebody else's airplane.
Should definitely be the "real thing". ;)
-
I reckon we should have some kind of set-up that creates historical 'events' that have realistic match-ups and arena settings.
We could run them at weekends and weekdays and I bet they will be filled to the brim with all the HA protagonists. All those great guys who left legitimately complaining of a quake-like MA would be catered for and everyone will live happily ever after.
Anyone else think it's a great idea?
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
I think Dowding's hit the nail on the head here.
Why didn't anyone else think of this? I'm sure the support such events would recieve would dispel any lingering doubts about the viability of a fully populated HA, and the need for one NOW!
:rolleyes:
Vladd
-
But Dowding.. how in the world would you ever get that setup working? I mean, that must be some kind of new technology requirement right there.
..and the people to run it... sweet jebus, where will you find people actually willing to run these historically recreated events?
..and the arena, what arena will you use? I mean, I only see the TA, DA and MA up... There's another arena but the title is in some cryptic writing... "Special Events Arena"... What in the hell is that for?!?!?!
..and the radar and icons.. How on earth will you EVER get radar and icon settings that these realism nut jobs are screaming at the top of their lungs for?!?!
Let's take this one step at a time Dowding, how do you plan on going about running these events and on what days?
-SW
ps: For the extremely thick and/or dim, if this post were an animal and my words were water... it would be considered drenched with sarcasm.
-
Funked, with all due respect, I totally agree with DZCamp. Now is the time for those of us who want ultra realism to define what we mean by it. Deep down inside I don't think it will happen because of commercial considerations. However, here's what I'm talking about; if you don't have real life flying experience you ain't going to like the kind of arena I would want. Without real life flying experience and extensive cockpit management skills you will kill yourself each and everytime you attempt to take off, land or maneuver the airplane outside of it's performance envelope. When I get killed in my dream arena, I want to know deep down inside that I'm getting killed by somebody with truly professional pilot skills and not by some dweeb whose skills come because somebody gave him a gameboy for a christening gift. REAL means that when you fly an FW190 you can expect it to stall/spin out if you look at it funny or that you'll groundloop a 109 for the same reasons or that a CHOG will be truly an ensign eliminator. Make the flight models truly 100% realistic and all the arguements about armament will go right out the window. Alas, we will not see this kind of realism.
Beeg
P.S. For starters I would settle for a HA with no icons except maybe the suggested red or green dot (shows up at firing range). Maybe the terrain could rotate between Europe and Pacific and plane sets split among axis/allies lines.
Originally posted by funkedup:
Deez: Some of those are a bit extreme and I'm not sure they would work. And some of them are already in place. In any case, the specifics of the arena setup are best left for another discussion. Obviously some experimentation is required. But as long as we have just one arena with settings that never change, this experimentation can never occur.
The important part is this: It's clear that there is a substantial group of players who like arena play but would like some significantly different settings than what we have in the MA.
Paxil: Did it occur to you that part of the reason AH is not large enough for two arenas is that fact that AH does not offer some sort of history-based alternative to the MA? I personally know of 4-5 guys who did the AH free trial but left for this very reason. They loved the graphics, flight models, gunnery/damage models, but couldn't stomach the gameplay concessions. These aren't guys who posted on the BBS, just guys I knew from elsewhere who came quietly and left quietly. I wonder how many more guys like that HTC loses every two weeks?
You have a valid point though - underpopulated arenas could drive players away. But if you have 50 online and can't find a fight, something's wrong. Maybe the map is too big? In the end it's a compromise that HTC have to work out themselves. What's worse, the number of paying accounts lost due to decreased per-arena populations caused by opening multiple arenas, or the number of paying accounts lost due to lack of an alternative arena for less "gamey" flying?
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Beegerite ]
-
Originally posted by Beegerite:
Make the flight models truly 100% realistic and all the arguements about armament will go right out the window. Alas, we will not see this kind of realism.
You're right, you won't see that kind of "realism" (accuracy) in the flight models.
Personal Computers simply do not have the computing power to run all of the formulas for a 100% accurate flight model.
As for the other stuff, about the 190 stalling for no reason or the 109 ground looping, or the F4U being an ensign eliminator. You must not be paying attention.
The 190 will spin out if you push it beyond it's flight envelope. Simple as that.
The 109 will ground loop if you push too much rudder on take off and allow the plane to get too much drift.
The F4U would be an ensign eliminator if it weren't for the fact almost all of us have thousands more hours playing these games than an ensign had at the controls of a F4U.
-SW
-
Beegerite: Whatever! :)
I'm not going to talk here about what the settings should be. The point is that we clearly have two groups of players, and two arenas would give HTC a chance to make one of the groups less unhappy while keeping the other group happy. Let's get the second arena before we start making declarations about hyper-realistic settings, etc.
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
PS SW: The computing power is part of it. But the real truth is that the formulas for simulating an aircraft (or just about anything) 100% accurately do not exist.
And even if you could get those formulas, fat chance getting all the data to plug into those formulas.
Flight test data from that era was very limited. Many of the planes of WWII are unflyable today or are simply extinct. Even if the planes were available, flight testing them or taking them apart for measurement and testing of components and subsystems is not something any computer game developer could afford.
100% accurate flight models are a pipe dream.
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Well I assumed that formulas for the flight part existed... however the atmospheric conditions and such are another matter.
You would have to model it per particle, and that would require too much RAM, too much computing power, WWAAAAYYYYYY too much programming and wouldn't be worth it. If it would ever be possible to model anything per particle (hmm maybe more on an element level.. YIKES!), it simply wouldn't be worth it.
You can get "advanced" flight models but you will never see a 100% accurately modelled flight model for one plane, let alone 50.
-SW
-
BTW, while I may be a MA dweeb because of what I say/do. The time I've had to fly on the weekends, I have spent in scenarios.
I look forward to a "WW2 Recreationist" Arena as a deviation from my MA fun.
-SW
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
We obviously have a schism between the gamers and the simmers.
Hmmm... I thought we were all "simmers."
Oh... will there be any "alt-monkeys" in this historical arena? ;)
[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
the biggest flaw with eth flight model is the lack of appropriiate force feedback controls with large throws like the real ww2 airplanes had. teh moment arm shoudl be bigger, and we would need a hydraulic force feedback device along with complete atmospheric modeling. not anytime soon.
it would be cheaper to spend 350 grand on a yak and go fly that way. more fun too :)
-
the real problem of an HA is basic and has been ignored by all the "historic" crowd.
In A real HA, the only way to have an HA is to have one person in charge and he will order the "missions". If you don't have missions and finger fours and such then nothing you do from then on will be anything like historic. These things are step one and allways ignored except in scenarios.
lazs
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
100% accurate flight models are a pipe dream.[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
WHAT?
Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe!
What about WW2OL?
Why, I read right here on these boards that WW2OL was going to be the absolute final word in flight models! You mean it didn't turn out that way?
I'd wager next month's paycheck that most of the folks yammering about "reality" have few if any hours actually flying an aircraft.
It's a GAME, not a SIMULATION. Once you can get your mind around that and be at peace with it, you can have a really, really outstanding time playing it. (...and for those of you whose fingers are even now twitching while waiting to type a reply, please start your post with how many hours you have in an actual FAA or Military accredited flight SIMULATOR... thx)
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
the real problem of an HA is basic and has been ignored by all the "historic" crowd.
In A real HA, the only way to have an HA is to have one person in charge and he will order the "missions". If you don't have missions and finger fours and such then nothing you do from then on will be anything like historic. These things are step one and allways ignored except in scenarios.
lazs
Well, most of us have our squad to wing with, and is easy to coordinate with other squads. noone needs to tbe the boss in such an arena.
HA with bar dar extending 1 sector away from the most near field, no dot dar, and no bar dar for cons under 500 feet.
HA with accurate FMs and GMs. No gameplay concessions whatsoever.
HA with enemy icons under 4K, with "bar" rangefinder (not numeric laser rangefinders). The icons in WWIIOL are the best for an HA IMO.
HA with RPS, historical matchups, no perk system.
HA with NO comat trim, NO auto-fuel tank selector, NO engine EZ-mode, etc
HA with REALISTIC head movement limits.
HA with DECENT AAA IA, not the fortune teller gunners in MA.
etc etc etc.
BTW some people use the events as an excusse and ignore the basic fact: Not everyone can make it to the events, NOT all the events are of the same interest for hte people...and over all events take a very small time of the total paytime of AH.
He who pays for AH, pays 30$/month, no 30$/12 official special event sessions. There are 30 days a month, with 24 hours each day. Not 12 days with 12 events of 2-3 hours each, with a schedule that for some people is hard to attend.
Its an easy case of difference between what some people want and what does AH offer.
Toad, you say this is a GAME not a SIMULATOR. if both are so different things why the oposition to a HA where it is a SIMULATION, and not so much of a GAME?.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
first of all, and most important... fix the semantics of what you're asking for. Lazs is right, you're not asking for a "Historic" arena. You're asking for a Axis vs Allied arena (only two sides I'm assuming, and not breaking the Axis and Allied into their component countries) with different radar and icon settings. Lazs is not saying anything against having a separate arena with different settings (well, in the post a few above mine anyways.) All he is saying is you're asking for a "Historic" arena without it actually being historic, save for it being axis vs allied. Don't even start bringing that other horrible word in either, i.e. "realism." The problem is that both words seem to be used almost interchangeably when it comes to arena setups. Also, both words are objective, yet they tend to be very subjective when it comes to this game (mostly due to game limitations and mechanics.) You are looking for "immersion," which has so many levels, and is completely subjective.
Anyways, get what you REALLY want (such as what Beegerite did) specifically, and go from there. Just saying we want a "historic arena" isn't gonna cut it. :)
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]
-
please start your post with how many hours you have in an actual FAA or Military accredited flight SIMULATOR... thx)
Well I have about 5 in an OFFICAL FAA approved miltimillion$$ Full virtual reality,Hydraulic sim. THE B-2A STEALTH BOMBER Whiteman AFB.
You know what the funny thing is, A little sim called X-plane does the same that flight propogation as that one.
If it would ever be possible to model anything per particle (hmm maybe more on an element level.. YIKES!), it simply wouldn't be worth it
I know of a program.. and so do you that does this on an element level. You willing to try it yet?
Yep, start up an "ultra-realistic" arena designed by some guys that have no ratings at all and 10 hours in the backseat of somebody else's airplane.
wow toad you are truely amazing on your elitist, narrow focused, and ignorant comments.
I guess someone like my self with a measly 30 hrs of flight time, has no idea of what flight is about, nor any understanding of what Feels realistic, or gives a good impression of realism. :rolleyes:
According to your ignorant, snot-ass, remark, I guess you feel that because of all your o0o0o experince you feel you must suddenly know more about what IS more realistic.
I guess you just know more toad, With your logic I guess anyone who has in some form or way an ACCREDITED form of acceptance they are obviously better versed in the subject at hand. :rolleyes:
So in short that is like saying someone who has a college degree is more intelligent than someone who doesn't.
give me a break...
-
DeeZ, what elements?
-SW
-
I sure hope you are not referring to these elements:
"1: Element Break-Down
Done only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down into a finite number of elements. The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Eight elements is the maximum, and studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements."
Maybe you are using their definition of elements.
I am referring to the true definition, you know the table of elements. (http://site.ifrance.com/okapi/periodic3.htm)
. The basic thing you learn in science class.
I clearly stated elements in the atmospheric model. THat does not include plane parts, and calling them "elements". I mean the atoms that make up the atmosphere.
Please stop plugging this software when you don't even understand what it's doing, except for what you read on the website.
-SW
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
The problem with your post Wulf is you have not the ground to stand on to hold up your words. You have yet to try te program,... and untill you do... well you talk of defense for HTC.. thats great.
THE FACT IS X-PLANE HAS A MORE REALISTIC FLIGHT MODEL... try it and FIND out..
then TALK... DO not TALK about IT UNTIL YOU TRY IT and MAKE a COMPARISON.
That is the bottom line.
I have compared the two... Version X is more realistic flight wise.
What have you compared?
-
In a truly historical Axis vs Allied arena, of course, people would have to adjust to flying many different aircraft for different countries. I assume that everyone supporting this type of arena would have no problem with that -- trading the FW for a Yak when numbers balance dictates for example. And, of course, there is the Pacific air war which will be in place 50 percent of the time.
Personally, I have no problem with this. I can even role play the Axis side a bit, regardless of the strong revulsion I feel for the banal evil these countries projected on the world. People who are ture fans of history, and not overly fixated on one side of the conflict or even one particular plane, will have no problem with this concept. Of course, sim history suggests (AW for example) that most people will stay in the MA doing what they have become accustomed to, leaving a HA empty. I suspect that this will be true even with many of this board's "history buffs," when the history gets beyond the narrow scope of their interests. Too bad, but giving it a try for a tour or two would certainly put an end to the speculation.
For my part, after flying primarily the Spit in the last tour as I got used to AH (It suits my impatient fighting style, even with its many disadvantages), my goal this tour is to try to become an Ace in each aircraft in the MA, and take part in the historical events (as often as I can as my wedding approaches), flying wherever my presence would do the most good for the historical recreation.
Charon
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
I have compared the two... Version X is more realistic flight wise.
What have you compared?
Compared what? Feel? Give me a break.
The only thing you compared is what is written on the website. It sounded better, therefore you thought it was better. Oh, yeah and you thought it "felt" better.
Whatever, I'm done with you in this thread. This is about an HA, not your silly idea of what is better despite your lack of checking the data versus real world performance.
-SW
-
As several have pointed, historians can't agree, so why do we expect the sim participants to agree?
Funked just posted an old interview with HTC and HTC mentioned 'rolling planesets' as a possible addition. That would be fun, but we really don't have the planeset do we? Aren't most of the birds late war models? Sure would be fun though!
Concerning DAR and icons, guys, they're gameplay concessions and while HTC may fine tune them, they are not going away. Login some morning around 4 A.M. CST and you'll find 25 Aussies/Asians in the arena. Can you imagine them trying to find a fight w/o DAR?
Getting rid of DAR (the dots) works great in scenarios. You have specific objectives, the bad guys know your objective and position themselves to prevent your success.
After thinking about all of this (including Fester's poll), I am convinced of the following:
1) An arena w/o dot-dar would be a disaster in times of low player density.
2) Rolling planesets require a substantial enhancement to our current planeset.
3) Icons could be tuned ... but think about this. Many of the current participants are first-time participants. You can tell a new guy "shoot your guns around 300 yards" and he/she can follow those instructions, but anything else would be unworkable for the newbies. I guess we could try to talk HTC into the following: Give all participants with less than 20 hours of flight time icons out to 6k with distance attached. After 20 hours of flight time, change the icons in some way (maybe reduced size w/o distance markers.)
I dunno guys -- from my very limited perspective, HTC is a well-tuned engine humming along. Why attempt to repair something that isn't broken? Many of the suggestions in this thread would make AH completely unplayable for large segments of the globe (time -- population) and unreasonably difficult for new guys.
I have an idea! Take out your pocket knife and cut your left arm in 4 different places.
Spend 95% of your free time picking scabs off the healing wounds. Spend the other 5% of your free time in SEA w/o icons or DAR.
Hell, we'll all be a lot happier and if you're really faithful, the wounds will never heal and you'll have constant entertainment!
AKcurly
-
I don't want to start another "Dogpile on Deezcamp" but I can't resist. He hijacked my thread, so he deserves it. :)
B-2 flying wing is not at all comparable to WW2 piston jobs. Furthermore it's completely fly-by-wire with artificial feel on all controls. The feel of the B-2 simulator is... whatever the engineers wanted you to feel. :)
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Oh geez, I just noticed Deez going off on Toad.
You are a fool for that Deez, Toad has much MUCH MUCH more experience than you do.
I WOULD digress to Toad's comments Deez, Toad is a very smart man.
-SW
-
Ram,
Find a post where I ever said I was opposed to a HA.
Want to wager on whether or not you can find one?
Check my signature... it applies to arenas as well.
You may remember from some of the earlier threads... I'm the guy the DOESN'T try to make everyone fly the way I think they should.
:D
-
Well, Deez, then how does your 5 hours in the B-2 sim compare to any $2000 desktop PC running a flight game? How's the keyboard compare to the actual cockpit switch layout mockup in a time/motion way? How does the 19" monitor compare to every window actually showing what you could see from the plane? How does the desk chair compare to six-axis motion?
...and you are right Deez. After reading some of the garbage you've posted, I've come to the conclusion that your massive 30 hours of flight time, some of it just riding along with a rated pilot, has left you with little idea of what flight is about, nor any but a minimalist understanding of what Feels realistic, or even gives you a good impression of realism.
I'm not too impressed by 30 hours, most of it just along for the ride. IIRC, your logged dual time is under 10 hours?
So another 30 dual/solo logged and you'd be eligible for a private license so you could actually BEGIN to learn about flying.
Because getting a private ticket IS just the beginning. Ask around... you'll find that's a pretty universally held view.
Not elitist enough for ya?
I'd rather be elitist in this sense than be a smug "know-it-all about flying" after my massive 10 hours of instruction and 20 hours of joyriding with others.
No, Deez, here's the difference between you and me. After flying professionally and recreationally for the last 29 years I realize that I DON'T "know it all about flying".
This one cracked me up though...
According to your ignorant, snot-ass, remark, I guess you feel that because of all your o0o0o experince you feel you must suddenly know more about what IS more realistic.
Why would I think that flying airplanes for 28 years would give me ANY idea at all about what it really feels like to fly airplanes?
At least you finally wrote a line that really made me laugh! :D
-
I did a RTS on a MD80 for a AT/SC disco last night TOAD, and let me tell ya, them controls were possessed movin around and all by themselves! You got 28 years watching them do that?! ;) (Thats a inside joke btw...)
Piss off R4metzasst. WWIIOL needs the "General" back.
--
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Nah, Creamo, I've spent 28 years with my feet up on the dash dreaming about the day X-Plane would be available to the masses on a $600 PC. I always fly with my eyes closed so realism won't intrude.
;)
-
The feel of the B-2 simulator is... whatever the engineers wanted you to feel.
I guess then, if you are right funked up, we are putting UNTRAINED pilots into the REAL DEAL.
You See funked, I was in the Air Force, and At Whiteman, The pilots would goto what is called FTD. "Field Training Detachment." THIS is where the PILOTS of the B-2 Were trained on ALL system functions of the B-2 Oprations.
They were then Taken to the Avionics sections, where we have the Multimillion $ simulators for their HANDS ON TRAINING. This TRAINING is what they would do PRIOR to even stepping into the plane. Untill they became Proficent with their assigned mission commander,the plane,and the Technical orders that describes everything down to wiping your oscar, the pilot would not fly the real deal.
THE simulation is About as real as it gets.
IT is the actual crew compartment,every display,dial,knob,button,safty switch, everything down to even the ejection seats (obviously explosives removed). when you look out of the windows, you see the world, a complete SGI wonder. NO split screens. IT is a single wrapped view of the world. Complete periphal vision, with full motion hydraulic actuation.
You know what Simulation replicates this almost to the tee? If you dont know by know its most likely because you havnt tried it.
Compared what? Feel? Give me a break.
The only thing you compared is what is written on the website. It sounded better, therefore you thought it was better. Oh, yeah and you thought it "felt" better.
Whatever, I'm done with you in this thread. This is about an HA, not your silly idea of what is better despite your lack of checking the data versus real world performance.
-SW
Wulf YOU ARE REDICULOUS. YOU MUST BE THE MOST THICK HEADED INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. YOU SEEM TO BE SUB-IDIOT.
IF YOU ARE SO WILLING TO TRY AND PROVE YOUR POINT WITH THIS FLIGHT MODEL CRAP. WHY ARE YOU SO UNWILLING TO TRY X THEN?? IF YOU ARE SO RIGHT (AND SURE OF IT) then.........DISPROVE ME.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE??????????
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO STAND ON. TRY SOMEHTING BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT... IF YOU DO NOT TRY IT, YOU ARE THEN A HYPOCRITE THEN TALKING of only WHAT YOU "FEEL"
IT IS SIMPLE.
YOUR POINT IS ABOUT AS VALID AS DIRT.
here is an example of your thought.
"person a asks person B.. "do you like pepsi?" Person B says "NO"
Person A says.. "Have you tried it"
Person B says.. "NO"
WHERE IS PERSON B'S REASONING?? THErE IS NONE... THERE is ALSO NO FACTOR OF WILLINGNESS TO PUT ANY SUBSTANCE INTO YOUR DEFENSE.
WALK THE WALK DONT JUST TALK YOUR TALK.
-
Toad you know what .. I HAVE NEVER ONCE said that I know everything about flight.
So dont put words in my mouth.
I could care less if you have been flying for 150 years. Through all of your years what have you learned? Something new each day right?
But guess what... ARE YOU SEEING NOW that FLIGHT PHYSICS or the FEEL OF FLIGHT HAS CHANGED?
NO....
SITUATIONS as well as new expericences BUT THE UNDERSTANDING of HOW FLIGHT FEELS is the same.
Maybe in your case you have been actually desensitized to it becuase it is almost habit to you. TO YOU it may seem no more special than getting into your car and heading to the nearest WALMART.
Sorry BUT your TIME THEORY doesnt hold up as to what ONE can and is capable of feeling.
Heres a simple anology for you.
Thats almost like saying you know more about how eating a peice of apple pie tastes/feels just because you have been doing it longer.
Gimme break,... You may know more about the apple pie, and ways to eat it, but Feeling, and taste is still the same.
:rolleyes:
This CAN be applied to anything... Want to try Bicycles?
-
Won't wash, Deez, but nice try.
You think or know or assume that you are now totally familiar with flight physics and flight feel after 10 hours of instruction and 20 hours of riding along?
Talk to me again when you have 200 minimum. That's a generally accepted milestone where pilots are assumed to have a beginning understanding of what they are doing.
As our old UPT instructors told us when we left with our shiny new wings... "You've got 225 hours... just enough to go kill yourselves with style."
If I think back to all the things I "knew" about "flying physics and feel" when I had 10 hours of stick time and 20 hours of riding along, I laugh out loud at how misinformed I was.
Enjoy your pie! I'm outta here.
-
DeeZCamp,
Back off man. You're only antagonizing people.
As far as having done it more, meaning that you are more familiar with it, that is the general way that things work.
If it isn't, then go grab a bicycle and win some competitions against stunt bike riders, mountain bike races and street races.
What you setup with your pie and bicycle suggestion is a strawman argument. It had no bearing on the discussion at hand.
You are, in fact, quite clueless as to what realistic is. You may, or may not have a good idea of what a realistic flight model is, I don't know. But other than that you, and most of these other "realism" nuts, are staggeringly clueless.
1. You assume that crude graphics and a 19" monitor provide as much information as SA as reality provides to a pilot. You do this by repeatedly demanding that icons be turned off.
2. You assume that radar in WWII had very poor control and accuracy. The fact is that radar was very accurate in WWII. In fact, it provided more information than we are now privided. True, I would love for a true simulation to be modeled. That would remove the dot-dar and replace it with audible information being given to you by the program. Information provided would be : Range to target, altitude of target, heading of target, speed of target and bearing of target. I have no idea how many wave files that would take, but it would be an impressive ammount. That is a system that I would like.
3. You seem to arrogantly assume that AH is set to easy mode and there is a realistic mode hidden in the software somewhere. I've seen no evidence of HTC intentionally dumbing down the FM in AH.
About X-Plane: I will try it when it models a WWII aircraft that I have spent enough time in other simulators to tell the difference. Last I saw it modeled many civilian aircraft, the P-51D, Bf109 and then weird bellybutton German aircraft like the Do335 that no game models. As the P-51 and Bf109 are not high on my flight list, the differences would be transparent.
About the WWIIonline range indicator: A friend of mine, who does not play flight sim games, bought WWIIonline and after tanking for awhile, took a Spit up. After downing a 109 his take on the bar was that it was the "hit point" bar of the 109 and as he had progressivly damage it, the bar had shrunk. Newbies find that system confusing at least some of the time.
-
Deezcamp you missed my point. What I'm saying is that the control feel in the REAL B-2 is completely artificial. It's generated by a computer. It's got nothing to do with the control feel on a WWII prop job.
Saying that Sim A's WWII prop jobs feel more like the B-2 simulator than Sim B's WWII prop jobs is about as meaningful as saying, "My cat's breath smells like cat food."
THE simulation is About as real as it gets.
IT is the actual crew compartment,every display,dial,knob,button,safty switch, everything down to even the ejection seats (obviously explosives removed). when you look out of the windows, you see the world, a complete SGI wonder. NO split screens. IT is a single wrapped view of the world. Complete periphal vision, with full motion hydraulic actuation.
You know what Simulation replicates this almost to the tee? If you dont know by know its most likely because you havnt tried it.
Please tell me, because I really want to try it. I will eat my hat if there is a PC simulator which has ANY of the features you listed.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
a b2 is a flying wing with fly by wire control. its flight characteristics won't even closely resemble a ww2 fighter.
-
Toad.. I am not disputing with you that you have more EXPERIENCE in flight with me. You have been flying for 29 years thats a long time. YOU have had all the time in the world plus some to understand how each of the aircraft you have either controlled, or sat in feels when in flight.
What I am saying is this.. IT does not take much time at all in order for a person to be FAMILIAR and have a knowledgeable undstanding of what is occuring around them.
I agree with your Instructor, And I agree with what you are saying about THE EXPERIENCE PART.. this is only applicable as to what/how you have to do in order to fully understand your Plane and how IT REACTS so in that you are going to survive.
BEING a passanger, operator or otherwise, will give anyone an EXCELLENT IDEA of how things are occuring around them. IF YOU DISPUTE THIS, then it may be that you do not feel(interpret environmental forces/factors apllied to yourself) a self anylization.
Please tell me, because I really want to try it. I will eat my hat if there is a PC simulator which has ANY of the features you listed
Funked, As far as flight model goes... X-plane has the most realistic feel/reaction/and as well visual indication of how an aircraft reacts in flight.(not the graphics) for PC
It was a 99.999999999999 representation of the aircraft I have flown in RL, as well as the Multimillion B-2 simulation
Flat out simple.. bottom line. (people are going to debate this) Most likey people who have never even tried X-plane.
I have mentioned this a quintillion times, but you can download and even create the aircraft that are in aces and do comparison.
www.x-plane.org (http://www.x-plane.org) www.x-plane.com (http://www.x-plane.com)
Now the graphix are only as good as you want to make it. so don be turned off from that.
If you want to see how the graphix are good and even better than this in some aspects look here
xplane and aces pics (http://jbroey3.tripod.com)
this is just a me262.
I am looking to put a video together that will reflect upon the aerodynamic forces applied to x-planes surfaces while in flight, as well as when a departure from controlled flight occurs.
-
Back to original topic..I would lovr to see another arena..It's most fun when numbers are around 50-100 anyway.
-
I think this thread was about a historical arena so I'll address that (not that I think anyone wants to listen mind you :)
Warbirds had (and I assume still has) a historical arena. Why not discuss how it played? My recollections were that I really liked the WB HA BoB arena. The 200 ft tall neon billboards of the MA turn me off. The lack of icons in the HA greatly uppped the "pucker" factor and good SA was necessary to prevent being jumped without ever seeing your enemy (like RL). That being said there are lots of disadvantages of the HA:
1) The number of players in the HA was often low (or even zero).
2) It has to be historical Axis vs Allies so that you know what planes are enemy. But that means someone has to fly Axis. I never would- and I recall that occasionally there was a scarcity of Axis players.
3) No radar worked OK in the BoB terrain. But in that terrain, it is almost obvious where the fight would be: Axis would come from Calais, Allies from Dover. It wasn't hard to find a fight. The HA sometimes used a more spread out terrain to simulate Russia. In that terrain it was quite a pain to find a fight.
I found that the WB HA was a lot of fun. SA was important. Much more of the radio traffic was "historical"- ie reporting on enemy sightings, and less was whining. Wingman tactics were more critical. It "felt" more like what one would imagine air combat to be. I would certainly try an AH HA (thats Aces High Historical Arena, not Ah Ha!)... that is, if I still had an AH account. I doubt that it would be difficult to create such an arena- its just another arena with some different settings that are already implemented. I don't think it would seriously impact the MA so why not try it? But the drawbacks might mean that it would be a failure in that only a few people would chose to fly there.
715
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: 715 ]
-
715... that is the way I recall the WB Hope for Action arena to have been. You were rarely surprised at wether a con was friend or foe and usually everyone would warn u anyhow. The times it was harder was at the bases when you knew some of each were around but it was still pretty easy.
I actually did about the same or better in the HA environment and enjoyed myself when everyone was taking off from two or three fields that were close together.. Just like the MA... people went where the people were.
When it got bad was when the faster planes came out and everyone hid from everyone else or the fields were many and spread out, those setups were, not coincidentaly, soon deserted. alt monkeys. No action. missions that nobody but the mission guys cared about. Tanks of fuel burned (WB tanks at that) without firing a shot.
I would probly go into the HA once every couple of weeks for an hour or so during early war periods. I would have fun or leave. I certainly never felt elite and I certainly never fought anyone who seemed better than the best in the MA. Most were worse. The lack of numbers did make for a more "polite" arena tho but that is not a big deal to me. I never felt anymore of a sense of realism or "history" in the arena it was still as gamey as any other just with less plane choice. It was nice that planes had to come down to see what I was tho.
There were still guys who fought and guys who only fought when they thought they had every tiny little advantage covered. the guys over or defending the fields were still the most fun and the weiners still complained about the HA being too much fun for those guys... "HA was nothing but a big furball last night... boo hoo".
that's what I recall.
lazs
-
Here is an interesting fact, tested and true about Radar in an online flight sim environment:
With no radar, or very short range radar, the fight actually becomes tighter! Laz's optimal furball arena would actually work better with no radar!
Strange but true.
-
Gadfly:
That would be a very interesting point if you were not completely wrong.
However you state it as if it were fact. Please present your proof so that I may be corrected.
Hooligan
-
Why should HTC make an HA?
Well I can think of some reasons.
Pros
1) A number of current customers may become more satisfied.
2) It may attract some new (possibly re-attract prior) customers
3) Cut down annoying whining on the BBS
Cons
1) It takes work away from other projects (i.e. new planes) which might have higher payoffs for HTC
My observations of the WB HA experience is that the pros simply do not come to pass. Instead of current customers who would prefer an HA becoming satisfied, in actuality they become less satisfied. The HA is usually very poorly populated and its fans complain loudly and endlessly about it. Furthermore, the loud ones do not stop trying to force HA-style changes on the MA. In fact some of the will additionally try to force MA closure so that the HA becomes more populated.
Maybe there is an HA configuration that will satisfy these customers. But frankly I really doubt it. All that is likely to happen is that HTC will go to some effort (which could be spent profitably elsewhere) trying to please a relatively small subset of their customers, and the end result will be that the customers become more displeased, more whiny and more demanding.
Funked: I need to know, do you honestly disagree with what I just said?
Hooligan
-
An interesting experiment might be to open the SEA with event-type icon settings and a historically accurate planeset and terrain for just a couple nights a week- say, 6pm to midnight CST on Sundays and Wednesdays.
I don't see how that would divert development resources.
The planeset is far to weak in Japanese aircraft for a serious PTO setting, but it might work for Fortress Europe or Eastern Front.
Make sure to publicize it though, so its a fair test. And run it for at least a month so we get reliable results. It'd been interesting to see the numbers in there, and how much of a dent it puts in the MA population.
BTW I'm one of those who's taking break- got tired of fighting the Spits, N1K2s and LA-7s that overrrun the MA, and $30 a month is too much for the few events I would be able to attend. Weekend afternoons are just a real bad time for me, and always will be.
-
Well, I do not have raw data, Hooligan, but I am sure that you know some WB CM's or maybe ICEMAN. Ask them. It is a given, and I have seen it with mine own eyes, many times.
Here is the assumed logic:
Given an arena of persons looking to find a fight, and a large number of fields.
If radar is large enough to encompass many fields the fight will spread out to those fields.
If it is not, the fight will concentrate at either a base under attack(enemy will show on radar), or at the 2 closest bases.
-
Well I have seen my country lose radar many times in AH and it is my OPINION that after this event, finding fights is harder while the radar is down.
However I am not attempting to pass my opinion off as a fact, which is exactly what you are doing.
Hooligan
-
Well, Hooligan, I am not talking about Strategic utilization of Radar, I am talking about arena setup.
If you doubt this empirical data, ask the CM's or ICEMAN. I hate to keep using WB as an example, but it is all I know(and I don't see why it would be different here).
In the War room Arena, this holds true. In the WWIIA it held true. In the HA it holds true, and in every arena-type event that I have run it holds true.
edit-Spelling, and:
When I design an event, I take this in to account, and use it to direct the battle. Just the fact that I am able to do this this somewhat proves the point, but, I will acknowledge that it is opinion, rather than fact.
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Gadfly ]
-
Here is another way to look at it, Hooligan. In AH, with the arena wide radar as normal, are the fights condensed to one or two bases or are they spread out over the map a bit?
If I was wrong, wouldn't arenawide radar tend to bring everyone in the arena into one small area(at least up to the point where inviso-planes and lag dissuaded people from joining the furball)?
-
Originally posted by Creamo:
Well that’s a new one. Guys (Hazed) whining about the AH MA after they quit, while playing off someone else’s account! Amazing. That’s got to be a recorded first.
whining? recorded first? I take a flight on AH and see nothings changed, read this post and agreed. no whine mate.er..how else do you suggest people ask for new stuff?
you describe what you like, then what you dont like then you ask for whatever you want to see.The idea being HTC read them all and try to design the game to gather more customers(more profit).
your veiw of what i say means nothing unless you dont want the HA because it would ruin the game for you and would therefore leave,removing money from HTC.Thats the only time your veiw as a customer is relevant.Stranger still,in the same breath of calling me a whiner you say you'd play the HA?!? make your mind up, either you dont want change or you do, stop riding my bellybutton for asking for what id like to see eh?
there i did it...I resisted the temptation to tell you to diddly off!..oops :)
btw you ARE PAYING right? not just commenting on the MA from the H2H lounge still right? :)
Dowding: just read what you said and totally agree.that sort of thing would be perfect.It would provide 'enough' historical stuff to fend off that repetative MA feeling which originally drove me away.It wasnt a fault with the engine or the FM.(both the best available)
the point that low numbers in 2 arenas may cause problems in attracting new customers is a valid one but as it stands HTC lost my $30 a month because there wasnt enough scenario/historic type playing to keep me here.What you(dowding) suggest, i think, would.
Im only guessing but id predict too much historic flying would also get tiresome for most of us if we just get that all the time.So the mix of MA/HA would be great to maintain interest.
Take other games online like operation flashpoint where one night you feel like doing missions sneaking around with stealth then another night you just wanna blow something up! :) when theres a choice in the style of play you tend to remain interested in the game.
sorry was that a whine also? CREAMO! CREAMO!...would you come over here and let me know? :D
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
I used to play warbirds.
I spent nearly 0 time in the MA because i thought it was a stupid arena not worth 1.50 an hour.
but the HA was well worth the price and always a fun time to fly historic terrains with historic enemies from similar time periods.
the AH MA is just as stupid as the old WB MA was and its not worth the price either
-
Okay Citabria I am curious. Why are you posting on this thread under both Fester and Citabria?
Hooligan
-
you assume to much hoolijerk
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]
-
Heh, tweak out man.
-
gadfly.. u didnt read what i wrote. In the WB HA, when the fields were few and close together and it was early war with slow planes... people tended to fight between a couple of fields.. Late war and fast planes the fite spread out. It wasn't no dar in WB it was tower only dar and a 2 sided war with very small numbers of players. It was also very difficult for a lone suicide bomber jerk to close one of those very active fields. they tended to try for the back fields and if one was captured it was just another close field to fight at/from..
AH is different... fields are made usless instead of being captured... 25% fuel, unable to take off etc. Radar is turned off for only one country when it is... they are blind, no info at all. That is what spreads out the fite. We don't even have early war planes but I bet when we get em we won't have people flying 2 or three sectors. they will tend to fite between 2 or three close fields... bombers will still be the spoiler in AH tho making it easy for the arena to go sour for early rides.
lazs
-
festabria... u have developed a skill that is not only unrealistic so far as real WWII combat but more importantly... out of sinc with 90+ % of the players in AH. While I have no problem with you pushing ideas that would further your agenda and make things simpler for you I think that it is obvious to all that, like the LW, what is good for you is probly bad for the rest of us.
lazs
-
Laz, it holds true in the WWIIarena, no matter the terrain or plane set or number of people.
-
Cit:
That is why I am asking questions, to clear up assumptions. Are fester and Citabria not the same person? Did you lose and recover the Citabria BBS access? Are you going to answer my question or just limit yourself to personal attacks?
Gadfly:
Are you ever going to get past the point where you pretend that your opinions are facts?
Either start providing proof or start including "IMO" or "I think" in your posts.
Hooligan
-
What proof do you want? All I have to go on is experience.
If you are the WB Hooligan, then simply email ICEMAN and ask him. He won't give you "proof" either, but he will give you his experience.
-
I know you can't provide any proof and so do you. I would be happy to see you stop presenting your opinions on AH (a game that you do not even play) as if they were proof.
Hooligan
-
I think I made clear that it applied to any online flight sim, and I also seem to see a post up there were I say it is opinion.
Let me turn it around for you:
Prove me wrong.