Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: miko2d on November 10, 1999, 05:26:00 PM
-
I am all for the realism. As long as we remember - we should be trying to realistically reproduce what the pilot felt rather then mechanically copy what he did - besides the fact that it is not possible in many cases.
Yes, trim and engine management is fine. When you fly the first few times you have to remember that - same as shifting gears in a car.
After a while you stop even noticing that you do it - like a driver does not even remember shifting gears or hitting breaks on downslope or accelerator when going uphill. It happens automatically using the special controls. You know by feel where the controlls are and how much to push them. The more you fly/drive, the less you notice the action.
Not like when playing with PC. Take trim for example.
A pilot (om certain planes) has trim wheels with handles. With experience he knows at which positions the wheels should be set at different speeds. If a plane is not trimmed, he can estimate the amount of movement, move the wheel in one motion to the needed setting and immediately feel the release of pressure on stick/pedals. It happens so fast that he will not even notice it after a while. On a 109 the elevator trim wheel was concentric with flap deployment wheel, so a pilot could turn both of them at once after take-off - retracting flaps and trimming elevator in one move!
Not so on a PC - most of us have to hunt for that key, hit it repeatedly and visually check if a plane is in trim. And only one trim at a time... It takes much more time and effort and is more irritating the more you fly, especially if you hit the wrong keys... People flying the same plane memorize the number of keystrokes for every speed or program multiple keystrokes into their controllers. Still it is not the same.
I am not proposing to abolish trim - it is a great separator of dweebs from aces now. But adding more stuff - cowl flaps, blowers, carburetor and cabin heaters, fuel mix...
It's OK to let computer automatically do some things for us that pilots did without much thinking. Just pretend you do that. Or put a fake button/lever on your table and pretend to turn on the oxygen equipment or lean the fuel mixture - even better since it does not cost CPU cycles or developers time.
Before asking developers to reproduce every single feature of the aircraft equipment, let's wait a bit untill we can all buy USB-based handles, wheels, levers, knobs and dials and the until the games support them.
Let them concentrate on really important stuff - clouds, strategy and better looking sheep.
Regards,
miko--
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-11-1999).]
-
Motion seconded.
-
yep thirded.... couldn't agree more
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Instead of sheep, could we have the sun bathing beauties? Now that's the clutter a fighter pilot enjoys seeing!
Butchawk
-
Miko,
I remember way back before AH was even open (well, not waay back, what a month ago?) someone put in a suggestion for engine management that was very well thought out. It allowed the player to decide how best to deal with it. If one was really into the management thing they could deal with all the crucial aspects of engine, props, etc. However, if a player wasn't interested in such details they could opt to have everything 'averaged' out. It was a very good idea, because it would give those detail-players a slightly better performance at the cost of managing their systems, while those who didn't want the work would have a slightly inferior performance, but better overall SA, etc. Or something like that.
Basically, it balanced out.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Second Leonid's comment!
-
I somewhat agree. I still don't see how someone can stick an integral part of high performance aircraft operation like 'blower control' in with the same heap with 'carb heat' and 'cabin heat'. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Hell if the 'Brand W' F4U had blower control we might even be able to get real world performance out of the thing at altitude. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I agree we don't need a B-17II type sim where every cockpit button is modeled & functional - but we also don't need 100+ plane types separated only by their flight models. I want my aircraft to have some CHARACTER for pete's sake! If I fly the Corsair I at least want to know the relative basics of how the thing worked -and not just be able to hop in - hit 'e' and full throttle expecting to get performance that matches some maximum performace data in "Jane's Book of Fighters". Give me dynamic control over the power generated by the beast. Mixture, carb heat, fuel dilution on startup, etc is of course rediculously distracting. OTOH manipulating the blower (that big part on the engine that creates a large part of its power) is pretty dang important in my book. I consider it as generic a necessity as proper throttle control.
My vote is to maintain a functional simulation by offering the virtual pilot the proper controls for maximizing the power output of his aircraft (not detrimental controls like 'carb heat' or 'gun de-icing'), and also offering a type of ez-mode for virtual pilots who just want to get up and through the fight as painlessly as possible. Of course, as Leonid pointed out, if I can successfully deal with the factors that others chose to give up I will have an ever-so-slight performance advantage in the fight (and bragging rights when I send 'em down in flames while dealing with increased pilot load) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)
------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~
VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
Skychrgr@aol.com
-
Corsair had a manual shift for blower??
Dont know much about Navy planes
-
Well on the 109 .. just a little thing .. the Trim wheel was installed so that you could cranck another handle together with it (or the other was round) but the other wasn't aileron trim it was the flaps (yea manually cranked flaps).. e.g so you could crank flaps up and down without changing the pitch force when doing so when you turned the trim together with it.
On the F4U:
Yes had a manual 2 stage blower (HIGH, LOW, NEUTRAL) which wasn't too easy too handle cuz it had liquid clutch for the highg blower (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) The shifting process was pretty complicated because it had no waste gates like modern superchargers.. so you had to redduce Manifold pressure first, shift to the next higher blower and then you could establish the desired Manifoldpressure.. for high blower operation they recomended retarding the throttle pretty far so you wouldn't stress the clutch..
I'd really like to see all the features modelled in the sim . but well in a seperate arena.. otherwise too mayn people would be turned away from it because of too steep a learning curve.. there is no fun in having to learn to FLY the aircraft...
DW6
-
I'd like to see the removal of icons foremost. The worst plane types can become very effective killing platforms if proper pilot tactics and SA practices are used. Bombers have greater effectiveness and longivity, basically the whole experience becomes much more realistic.
WB's MA would be given new life if they setup the same icon settings as the HA over there. A major realism jump for this game is a very quick fix if more guys and gals would get behind it. With long ranged icons anyone in a manuverable aircraft can be effective, remove those icons and the true
list of experten becomes very short. That's most likely why many shy away from that kind of pure realism.
Scenarios did that for AW years ago as well. Not many could carry over their MA performances to the scenario experience, likewise, long ranged icon removal would chase a large number of swimmers back into the shallow end again. Come on, lets lose those chicken sheet life-jackets and see who the real sharks are! ;-)
-
Duckwing said :"there is no fun in having to learn to FLY the aircraft..."
Oh yes there is! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There is no point in learning to FIGHT in an aircraft that you can't FLY. On the other hand, I agree with 99.999 % of what you, Windle and Leonid say ...
Cheers
Teapot
------------------
Phoenix Squadron
-
By saying "there is no fun of learning to FLY the aircraft" (lol kewl never had to quote myselfe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) i actually meant that 80% (or more ) of the potential "gamers" (no pun intended) wouldn't have fun doing so .. i'm A REALISM FREAK! i would have FUN learning to master that beast just like you Teapot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (even have the F4u's Pilots manual at home (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
DW6
-
I think we all run into the problem of having different definitions of "realism".
Personally, for one example, I don't think there should be auto management of fuel burn. If you engage and punch off your drop tank without selecting another fuel source your motor should quit. That is a "realistic limitation" to me and part of SA. Others probably don't agree.
I'm with Drum on icons..don't want ANY of them. I fail to see the "realism" of having icons in close, however. If anything, it should be the reverse. Maybe you should get an icon at a distance at which you really could ID a bogey but present technology or programming can't hack it. You sure shouldn't need icons in close where present technology allows you to visually ID the other plane.
See, lots and lots of ideas about what "realism" is. <g>
-
To Windle:
There is no contradiction. As I said, I want a game to reproduce what a pilot felt. If on a particular plane a pilot was switching his blower all the time, by all means put it in for that plane.
On a plane that had the first variable pitch propeller and could achieve significant performance advantage at the cost of heavy pilot workload, sure model that.
Those are the unique and significant features, that gave some planes their character. Myself, I would love to have a radar-equipped Bf110 with slanted cannons!
But do not put those features on every plane. Those who cannot afford a programmable controllers to fly those fancy planes will always have a choice of simpler planes to fly.
Making automatic option for some feature is a great idea, but it should not be average, it should be 95%. So a great pilot would actually put himself at a disadvantage using it until he learns to do it perfectly. Encourage it by a score multiplier. Or do it just for fun!
miko--
-
Miko2nd,i tend to agree with your post.We simmers now enjoy on-line flying that delivers a high degree of fidelity.The flight modles are very good.The desingers do a steller job of giving us belivable aircraft.
While im not a WW2 air combat vet,and therefore would'nt know how the planes should react,I am a combat vet.As such i do know there is much more that needs to take place before these games begin to aproch anything like reality.Combat is a test of Men And Machines.It does very little good to modle the machine and ignore the man.Factors such as fear,morale,fatiuge and the overwhelming need to live through it are missing.
The human element of combat needs to be adressed.Without some thought givin to HOW IT FELT to be in a combat enviorment,we really have nothing more than a childs view of ACM.
-
Chester:
Miko2d means "miko two dashes" as my handle is miko-- (416 RCAF) in WB and some boards only allow alphanumeric characters in a name.
You are absolutely right. I used to post similar things until I got tired. I do have some military experience myself - as a gunner through platoon commander of the T72 main battle tank. We had a joke that completely describes the priorities regarding the balance of technology and humans (loose translation from Russian):
- Question: What is the most important thing in a tank?
- Answer: The most important think in a tank is not to toejam your pants.
The fact of not sleeping the night or having inhaled too much smoke from the gun barrel due to the headwind after the first few shots had more influence on my accuracy or ability to spot a target (or stay concious for that matter) then having a properly tuned stabiliser or using new laser vs older optical sight.
I imagine that a pilot who worked the stick of a 109 for a few minutes in a very small cockpit at high altitude had problems with precision lining up his shots.
P38 pilots were usually frosen solid by the time they saw action because of the problem of piping heat from the wing-mounted engines.
At the same time pilots of P47 with inferior maneuvrability had no problem keeping up with german planes because of huge cockpit (allows for leverage) and low stick forces.
I would really want to see the quality of input deteriorate (delay, random small inputs) depending on the amount of input and stiffness of the stick - to simulate pilot's fatigue. Probably a blackout should affect you sooner if you are tired.
And of course the Fear of Death! I never (almost never) did things in real life or in WB scenarios that people have no problem doing in the main arena. I did try to play for survival in MA and it was very interesting for me. Not too many kills though - have to RTB after any ping, only attack with advantage and clear retreat line, run avay from any contact with alt advantage... Nobody came up with a good idea how to program the FoD outside a scenario... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
How about introducing random shaking of the stick and lower rudder responce (weakness in the legs) after seing enemy tracers pass nearby? Just in the beginning if the tour of duty, if the number of sorties is low, to simulate an inexperienced pilot getting scared. Or a chance of a spontaneous bailout - some pilots did not remember how they did it after seing an enemy on their 6 - so scared they were. Or vomiting all over your gunsight after barely escaping an uncontrolled dive! Or daring not to get out of the vehicle before the crewmen brought you clean pants? I bet the real WWII pilots remember those moments better then twiddling with some obscure control. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
miko--
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-11-1999).]
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-11-1999).]
-
OK, Jedi Whacked-out Idea #327 (or was it #328?) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Well, not everyone liked my old "small performance penalty for choosing Easy Engine Model" idea, but maybe this will be better...
Say you were actually moving all those switches, levers, etc to tweak your beast for peak performance. It'd take TIME, right? So...build in a DELAY. You want max power, just push the throttle up, BUT, it's gonna take a bit of time for R2D2 to set your engine up for you. If you choose Easy Engine, you get a rookie R2 unit, so you don't get instant full power or instant cruise power or instant landing power setup.
If you don't choose Easy Engine, you get to do it all yourself, and the delay would be programmed so that someone who practiced could beat the speed of R2 and get that itty-bitty edge.
After all, EVERY pilot knew how to set their engines up. It's really a simple matter of memorizing the checklist steps and repititious practice. But the sim should reward guys for becoming "experts" on their aircraft type. Being able to quickly manage your aircraft systems in combat would be a definite edge; it could certainly be modeled in the sim.
--jedi
-
Why model something as esoteric as fear in combat ??? Now we really are going way off beam IMO, and that would be modelling complexity for complexities sake. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As a WWII aircraft buff (heck .. I love anything with wings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) my primary interest is in what was done from a mechanical perspective. I have no interest in modelling things like fatique, because levels and reactions to fatigue vary greatly! I've seen people perform wonderfully in the face of fear and fatique, I know the feeling myself, and to suggest that you could somehow model it on a computer is silly to the extreme! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What can be modelled with a degree of precision is the combination of actions, procedures, which lever or button should be followed or pressed to achieve a desired outcome in a 3 dimmensional fluid environment.
The REAL challenge of online aerial combat is (for me anyway (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) who can get the best out of their beast, to vanquish the enemy, ... that beast being the virtual approximation of our favourite aircraft!
If you did model fatique and fear, let's have the hero model circa 42, or the first - time pilot, or the guy who got a dear john the night before his mission, or the pilot who drank too much the night before etc etc etc .. hehe... but no thanks.
Blackout and redout effects are about as far as we should go with the physical limitations of a human being in a sim. Modelling psychological factors would really turn it into a gamer's game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Cheers
Teapot
------------------
Phoenix Squadron
-
Since we are all aware of the elasticity of the timespace continuum, we should by now all know that time slows down for you
a) the faster you go
b) the closer you are to a source of gravity
Therefore, I think that we should model this effect in the sim. How about it, HTC? Say I'm fresh off the runway in a spit, and some half-dog/half-carrion eating bird swoops down from on high at 400 mph to vulch innocent little me. He just zooms on by filling my plane with SUPER fast bullets and ruining my paintjob. Well, relativity states that the offending birdie should actually be moving slower than me from my point of view! Not to mention his bullets which by dint of their speed should be travelling backwards in timespace and straight into his guns!
Now thats realism and I won't be satisfied until its modeled here. Remember, the quicker you say no, the longer your response actually takes to reach me.
------------------
Swoosh of the Skeleton Crew
-
I was one of those arguing for optional advanced engine management before the beta started.
We got the necessary dials included in the planes from the beginning and that was a big step in my opinion, not just having a ‘power meter’ but actual RPMs and manifold pressure, and the fuel management.
What we need now is the optional controls to effect the way the engine is set up under any given condition. I mean the planes fly now, but it should be possible to make the power plant operate more effectively, fuel efficient and get a slightly better acceleration or sustained climb rate if we could do things like manually lean the mixture or change the prop pitch.
I want the option to override the automatic systems and set things up as I want it, while risking overheating or blowing up the engine if I go too far. I my opinion system management was a big part of flying and fighting in a WWII era plane and should, optionally, be so in a simulation of that as well.
For those who don’t want to mess with it, the automation will always be there. But for me it would add a lot to the immersion, depth and addiction factor of the sim. What I would get in reward, apart from the extra enjoyment, for using the advanced systems would be better range and perhaps slightly shorter takeoff and better sustained climb. No real edge in a dogfight.
-Jinx
The Flying Pigs