Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: udet on November 05, 2002, 08:19:54 PM
-
Of course you like it, otherwise you wouldn't be playing it, but just how does it rate compared to real flying?
-
heheh, loaded question. Sim drivers are going to tell you its just like real life, etc.
There are similarities, but its kinda like comparing driving a go-kart at the local amusement park versus a Formula one racer in a race.
Take a P51 expert from AH, put him in a real life P51, he would die, that is if he could get it off the ground. Most likely he would pile it up before reaching flying speed.
Dago
-
My experience includes about 70 hours in light cessnas, around 12 glider flights, about 800 hours in the T-37, 130ish hours in the T-38, and 550ish hours in the F-15E. I started flying Confirmed Kill back in the early-mid beta phase in 1995, and converted from WB to AH as a member of the early AH closed beta team.
The first time I flew a real life taildragger, I had 30 hours civilian time and I sucked. I couldn't keep the taildragger on the taxiway. Then I flew WB and AH for a few years, and got another chance to fly a real taildragger. It was no problem. Of course in that interim I got about 1000 hours jet time, but it was only my second flight in a real taildragger and it felt easy. AH feels a little easier to handle on the ground than a real taildragger, but I guess that's one of the tradeoffs you have to make to get people to play the game. If it was as tough as real life, nobody would play because RL flying is actually fairly difficult to do without damaging the equipment or killing yourself.
For what is modelled, AH feels pretty good. Balancing historical accounts against personal weaponeering training I've gotten in the USAF, lethality seems a little high (or the damage modelling is too "all or nothing"), but I honestly have no actual data so all I can really say for sure is that for gameplay purposes I'd like lethality turned down a bit, or progressive airframe damage added into the mix.
Dihedral effect seems to be somewhat lower in the game than in RL, same goes for the effect that yaw has on swept wings, but overall the flight model appears sufficient to "feel right" to me.
The biggest frustration for me with AH realism is network lag. In RL, if someone is actually pointing their guns at you and it's not a true point-blank shot, they simply can't hit you. They MUST pull lead and shoot ahead of you in order to hit you. With network lag in the mix, you can SEE the enemy pointing behind you on your computer, yet on his computer he is pulling lead and shooting you. This plays hell with my personal "eye" for such things in the game since I keep my BFM reflexes based on real life training. The average gamer won't care since they never have to compare it to the real life "you're about to die" view of another fighter, but it is one difference between RL and the game.
-
Be interesting to see what HiTech would say. I think Hitech's a pilot.
I have flown only UltraLights ( QuickSilver and Rans S-12)
My Dad's Aero Commander as a kid ( just steered it)
The sensation of gravity and the realization that you could kill yourself spring to mind as big differences to me...... but Im not a real Pilot
-
"Take a P51 expert from AH, put him in a real life P51, he would die, that is if he could get it off the ground. "
Heck, he'd be doing good if he could even get the engine started :)
J_A_B
-
Well, I'm just shy of 2100 hours real world flight time, spread out over a period of about 24 years. I am single and multi engine and instrument rated. 99.9999% of it is in various general aviation aircraft. A smattering of some jet time here and there in military jets as a cadet in Civil Air Patrol (fun rides in which I managed to talk the pilot into letting go of the stick).
The smallest plane I've ever flown is a BD-5 (powered by a 500cc Kawasaki motorcycle engine) and the largest plane would be a DC-3 (during my days of sky diving). In between are various other small aircraft, everything from cessna 150's, 172's, piper cherokees, barons, bonanza, seminole, decathlon, citabria, D-25, T-34, T-6, stearman, pitts s-2, steen skybolt, piper cub (which I currently have unlimited access to), ultralights (Hurricane, quicksilver and weedhopper), hang gliders, and others. Pretty much anything I can rent, borrow or talk someone into letting me fly!
I also have about 35 hours of rotor time, although I gave it up...primarily because it got too expensive and autorotating is a very scary process of trying not to die...that and the Robinson R-22, contrary to popular belief, is a nightmare to fly :eek:
From a pure flight dynamics point of view, AH is very good. Still not the same as a real plane, but considering the limitations of sitting behind a computer screen with no real world tactil feel, it's not bad at all.
I dont think anyone could learn to fly in AH and then go fly a real plane, but there are certain aspects to real world flying that would carry over from AH experience.
The two biggest issues I have with the flight model in AH are:
1. The rudder. I don't think the rudder in AH acts like it is supposed to. It just doesn't feel as authoritative as it should.
2. Effectiveness of elevators when pulling over the top or, pulling when slow and/or inverted. To me it feels like airspeed is the sole governing factor for stall/elevator effectiveness. When one is inverted, or coming over the top of a loop slow, pulling back on the stick should cause the nose to drop faster than it does. That big heavy engine up front and gravity should pull the nose down harder.
I now many would puke at the thought, but random engine problems or failures, and even weapon jams or failure to drop (bombs) would add an interesting factor to the mix as well.....
-
I am Instrument Rated and have approx 200 give or take hours in wwii fighter trainer/texan/t43/Da20/Pa28/172/etc.. with other civil counter parts.
X-plane has been the primary focus, or rather eye catcher for me in the Flight model department. Nothing simulates to the level of detail that i have seen there. Nothing for a personal computer.
I have flown the B2 stealth multimillion$ level D full motion sim and it highly resembles xplane in many reguards.
-
Aces High is a great "game" in many ways, it does like I have said before give a good representation of flight.
It is missing the Very important fluidness of flight though, the very essence of interaction of simulated airflow.
There seems to be no simulation of ground effect in aces, as well as other compressablity/decreasing of induced drag areas of the flight envelope.
The Stalls in Aces High, are for lack of a better term, "gamey". Not very onset, pronoucned. Even for those planes whose stall characteristics are noted for being relatively easy going.
The damage model seems horrible, in many ways. I had previously felt it was very well done untill the release of Il2.
As eagle had stated earlier, their is a Seemingly on/off way of doing it here. Damage should not be binary in this sense.
Dynamic as well as realisitc damage should be implemented.
I have seen far to many times where a plane is litterally "cut in two" by 30 calibre from Ranges upwards to 1.2K yards out!
This is very gamey, and most certainly did not/does not happen when two materials meet.
There are many things that aces has going for it... To me it is the networking aspect as well as the planeset with the fairly descent flight model.
-
AH is the best multiplayer game I have ever played. Nothing is close.
So to HTC!
-
i think the AH P-51 flys heck of a lot better than the cessna 150 i learned on
-
Im not a licensed pilot, but I have been able to talk one or two people into letting go of the stick. :cool:
From my meager experience, which probably amounts to about 2 hours of flight time total in small, single engine AC - I can say the obvious - in a real AC, you feel conected to it - every movement of the stick/yoke has an effect on the AC and the movement of the AC has an effect on you.
This, I think, would be the big problem for some of the better sim pilots in the game had AH suddenly been turned into real life flight - the rigorous activity of actually flying the plane takes endurance (especialy WWII birds from what I hear) In AH, you just sit in a chair. Other than that - I think HTC has created the finest flight model around - although the "over the top" arugement I find myself argreeing with.
-
Originally posted by eagl
and 550ish hours in the F-15E. .
.........slacker;)
-
I have a lil more than 1000h prop time, and I appreciate AH for how it feels. I have a lot of fun flying it. I just wished it would be more "complicated", with management of the mixture/turbochargers/cowl flaps/coolants/mags/oxygen ...
-
Originally posted by eagl
My experience includes about 70 hours in light cessnas, around 12 glider flights, about 800 hours in the T-37, 130ish hours in the T-38, and 550ish hours in the F-15E.
Eagl, you a zoomie?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I have a lil more than 1000h prop time, and I appreciate AH for how it feels. I have a lot of fun flying it. I just wished it would be more "complicated", with management of the mixture/turbochargers/cowl flaps/coolants/mags/oxygen ...
you are a slacker too, but we already new that:D
Edit: (spelling)
-
I have limited experience (got my license not long ago) in a lot of different planes: Robin 200-120, Robin 400, C172N, C182, PA27 (twin), and the CAP-10 (aerobatic).
For me, the best thing about AH is the view system, it feels very natural. Of course there are a lot of things missing, and some of them are impossible to simulate correctly due to hardware limitations, such as trimming.
Also I think pilot fatigue should be modelled to some extent, since, for example, aerobatic sessions hardly last more than 40 mins and I'm limited to 4-5G and -1.5G, and boy do I end up tired.
Anyway, I fly AH for the sheer fun of flying with friends and against friends, and I fly IL2 for the landscapes :-P
Daniel
-
I have around 85 hours, mostly in Cessna 152 and 172. Nothing high powered, but I already developed a natural sense of control in flight.
The only reason I play AH and not any other flight sim is: the view system.
Such a simple feature makes a world of diference for me.
As for the flight model and physics: AH feels pretty much like I would expect one of these fighter planes to react.
But I really cant tell you AH is a very accurate simulation because I really believe there is no way you can simulate flight in a computer. I bet all pilots here agree with me when I say that a big part of flying is the sensation, how your body feels and reacts to gravity and momentum, how you control the plane when you FEEL the power of these outside forces that you simply have no way of percieving in a simulated enviroment.
-
Great topic!
what about IL2 FM? How it feels to the real life pilot?
Yes, IL2 head-top-of-the-pole views feels too tight, but its not FM issue.
Thanks
-
mjolnir - yes.
-
IMHO the AH FM doesn't model enough drag in turns, or with engine at idle, or with flaps and gear down. Just my feeling, no numbers to back it up. Il-2 model feels better in that way.
ra
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Take a P51 expert from AH, put him in a real life P51, he would die, that is if he could get it off the ground. "
Heck, he'd be doing good if he could even get the engine started :)
J_A_B
Whadaya mean? Just hit "E" duh!
What? No Keyboard? How the hell are you supposed to talk to the tower then? Sheesh.
-Sikboy
-
I have my my ATP, (airline transport pilot rating) and former CFII (certified flight instructor-Instrutment) with 3000 plus hours.
Been flying sims since 1995 beginning with Air Warrior.
AH is the best gaming flying SIM I have flown. I fly just like I do in RL, I always adjust prop speed and Manifold pressure, usually use full flaps for landing, try to land on a 3degree descent. Also for the fun of it, I will practice my instrument flying i.e. not looking outside and using the instruments only.
I have never flown a ww2 airplane and cannot compare these aircraft to RL.
A couple observations with this and RL:
P factor/torque is not as realistic but it is modeled some, ie usually have to apply some rudder to stay on centerline on takeoff.
The spins, stalls, and snaps of the AH planes are pretty good as the recovery from these is fairly realistic.
1 big difference
NO G force effects and you cannot "feel" the aircraft, btw something that could never be modeled unless we all bought very expensive 3 axis sims, but even those are not as accurate. If G force could be done, most people in here would quit and have barf bags next to them. :) Your equilibrium and successful management of it, is a major factor and player of RL flying.
I think AH has done a pretty good job with the technology that is available for an affordable flight sim.
ATC
(http://www.damned.org/images/ddemo1.gif)
-
No idea... but I wonder if my bellybutton would get all sweaty in a real FP as compared to my pixel based one?
xBAT
-
My flight experience is just in the piper cherokee
There are similarities obviously, the biggest difference to me is the feeling of flight, landing in AH is simple. Taking off is simple IMO in real life.
They biggest difference to me is the feeling of flight and a cross wind on landing, highest crosswind for me was 22 knots, I really had to fight to keep it on the centerline. Very exilerating (scary as hell), flight sims definately helped me though I knew all the instruments, all basic flight stuff, really just had to learn radio procedure and landings (in wind).
I haven't flown a tail dragger yet though so I imagine taxiing would be much more difficult.
-
eagl:
What do you mean by dihedral effect? Is it the tendency for the
aircraft to return to neutral from a rolling input due to the wing's dihedral? I'm not a pilot, I've only books to rely on, and it seems most of all WWII aircraft had some dihedral and would exhibit some tendency to "unroll" say, when an air current bumps one wing and not the other... Is this right?
mauser
Originally posted by eagl
Dihedral effect seems to be somewhat lower in the game than in RL, same goes for the effect that yaw has on swept wings, but overall the flight model appears sufficient to "feel right" to me.
-
Dihedral.
consider the (very basic) diagram below. Red arrows represent the lift generated by each wing. During case 'A' level flight the angle of the lift produced by each wing is equal and hence there is no roll produced.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stant.family/Aceshigh/dihedral.gif)
In case 'B' a small amount of bank is shown. The lift produced by each wing stays the same but the angle at whivh it acts is now different. Considering the vertical components of lift for each wing, one now produces more vertical lift than the other. Roll is induced which will tend to return the aircraft to level flight.
Large Dihedral angles tends to make aircraft want to fly nice and level. Good for paper aeroplanes ;)
Gatso
-
simply, what can be done in aces high can not be done in modern real life flight and what can be felt in real life flying can not be felt in Aces high
AH is fun. it has the mechanics down of flying quite fine. it is quite simply the best flight sim game ever made.
but it is but a small piece of the experience that flying is. and by the same token real flying is but a piece of what air combat is. and outside of military experience the two can not be combined.
the first time i flew a world war 2 warbird was a few months ago when i took some training flights in a t6 texan originally used by the us navy as a ww2 trainer.
there is just so much that cannot be portrayed on a little computer screen when you are at the controls of one of these aircraft, all of your sensory organs are getting stimulated instead of just your eyes and ears when you are flying the real thing.
You touch the aircraft as you walk around it, you think of all the people who learned on this plane and went on to fly hellcats wildcats and corsairs.
you feel the wind from the half open canopy as you weave around the clouds. with each bank and turn you are no longer confined by gravity but you feel its effects as you loop and roll through the sky. the visceral experience of seeing the world revolve around you as you look out from the wireframe canopy, watching the ground rush toward you as you pull out of the loop and twist into a roll.
and yet with all this sensory ecstasy inflight you land with no trouble thanks in part to all the times you landed a taildragger in aces high.
then after the flight is over and the rush from your experience subsides you wonder what it would be like to be in the shoes of a ww2 pilot flying in a formation of wildcats being bounced by zero's.
and we are left again with the realization that what can be done in aces high can not be done in modern real life flight and what can be felt in real life flying can not be felt in Aces high
-
Originally posted by gatso
Large Dihedral angles tends to make aircraft want to fly nice and level. Good for paper aeroplanes ;)
Gatso
Balsa wood too....
You know what's really cool? Get yourself some balsa wood of assorted pieces(lots of thin flat ones to use as wings, long thick ones to use as a "body), hot glue gun, and non-exploding, non-screaming bottle rockets....
It is so fun launching those things across the lawn, or down the street.... or into a neighbors house....
For extra enjoyment, get the exploding bottle rockets...
-SW
-
Good responses from a lot of experienced guys. AKWarp struck as pretty dead on. Of course, Eagl is just a rookie, whats he know? :D
Yup, crosswinds, G forces, stick responses, torque, these things all add up to a very differant environment when flying a real plane.
All in all, I think AH is an excellant sim, and I think in many ways if flys very accurate, but its wise not to think it has prepared anyone for a real aircraft.
BTW, one of the few real life flying practices I bring to AH is occasionally I will fly a real pattern before landing, or if I am adventurous, I will try the overhead break to landing circling approach.
Of course, I rarely land an aircraft in AH. :)
dago
-
thanks for the feedback guys. Like many of you said, I think the main difference is that in RL you feel every movement of the aircraft.
From my very limited experience, though, I felt quite at home flying a glider versus flying a Cessna 172. A glider is more responsive than a GA aircraft, and has a stick for control.
The feeling was close to what I experienced when flying in AH, with the difference that slipping and skidding were more pronounced than what AH shows.
-
Excellent post Fester
-
I think it's a game, played by people who play it as a game. It has only a passing resemblance to real flying, tactics and weapons.
-
It feels close enough to me... I understand the limitations of a simulation, and accept that as such.
What I do find to be an interesting issue is the fact that R/L pilots will noticably fly within the game as they would in R/L... smoothly, and with minimal neg Gs, etc. Sim-only pilots will slam the controls all over during maneuvering, which in R/L would give them multiple contusions all over their skull from slamming into the canopy. :)
I've noticed that R/L pilots usually fly much better formations, also.
AKWarp, don't go spreadin' no lies about the Robbie! Seriously though, it looks like you had a lot of fixed-wing time before trying rotorcraft. I know many high-time fixed-wingers that fought with it, most gave up. My very first rating was Rotorcraft in the Robbie, and everything since then has been easy!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I think it's a game, played by people who play it as a game.
I dunno - sometimes I wonder if some don't take it a great deal more serious than that! (Kind of scarey actually)
-
Balsa wood too....
For extra enjoyment, get the exploding bottle rockets...
-SW
SW, ever hear of Jet-X? Totally cool tiny little reusable rocket motors perfect for strapping to balsa models. I used to have great fun of an afternoon making a no thrills balsa thing, strapping a rocket on and launching it. 4 out of 5 ended up in bits but that was half the fun. The motor usually survived unscathed.
http://www.samsmodels.demon.co.uk/jetx.html
Picking up on what people have said, 2 things I totally agree with and thats FEAR and winds. The wind and air in general inside AH is far more predictable and easy compared to what you get in RL, air isn't smooth, in a small aircraft on a warm day you bounce all over the place, turbulence, gusty winds, crosswind landings all make life interesting.
I have never been scared while playing AH. Sitting in a real aircraft with someone who knows what they're doing going through an aerobatic routine tops the list as the most scared I have ever been in my entire life. I can't say I've ever been at all fearful whilst playing AH.
Gatso
-
gatso: thanks for the explanation, that's what i remember from my readings long ago (high school).
Thanks for relating your experiences folks,
mauser
-
Comercial pilot roughly 850H TT + some 150h on gliders
i fly multi engine turbo-prop and i have quite a bit of taildragger experience from glider towing but as many have never flown and prolly never will fly a WW2 warbird.
My oppinion is that yes AH has very good flight modelling and it's coming close to what you should see .. but that's it.. unfortunately seeing is only about 1/3 of flying as fester said... a lot of input can not be provided unless you're in a full flight simulator which then can only give you realsitic feel when you stay within the confines of straight and level flying.
i do however think it gives you a great tool for learning basic ACM and Energy management in it's purest form, undisturbed by fatigue and real stress. kind of like a labratory environement what we have here.
The only really really realistic part is dropping drunks ! Real skydiver will also jump regardless when you open the door and put the green light on :D
Cheers
Phil
-
I've got about 550 hrs (IFR/Pvt tickets only), with about half of that in acro/taildraggers. I think AH does an excellent job of modelling what you think/see/do from the neck up but of course doesn't (and short of a full motion simulator couldn't) provide any of the tactile feedback that occurs from the neck down and that's vital in RL acro (you need to know what a 3G pull FEELS like w/o having to look at the g-meter).
There is one aspect of AH regarding which I've love to hear input from those whose planes fly faster than my stringbag biplane. In AH above a certain speed the planes seem a bit reluctant to descend- for example, if you fly inverted in AH and pull into a split S, it seems to initiate at the same rate as if you were flying upright and pulling into an immelman (although of course once the maneuver starts you'll pick up speed). It's almost like gravity isn't always pulling at them the way it feels like in RL.
I've never handled the controls of a plane going faster than 250 knots, and I was wondering if that's an accurate model of how RL planes feel at higher speeds.
-
By dihedral effect I mean not only any self-righting tendencies, but also the tendency for the aircraft to roll if there is any yaw input. I have flown a real life cessna 152 with throttle and rudder only, after reading about someone actually landing a cessna that had a near-complete control cable failure. Rudder input *should* cause an initial yaw followed by a rolling motion in the direction of the yaw. That rolling tendency should increase as angle of attack increases or speed decreases. AH models the ailerons losing effectiveness as AOA increases and speed decreases, but the effect rudder has on yaw/roll seems somewhat downplayed.
An aircraft with a swept leading edge will also exhibit this behavior, as yawing one wing into the wind will increase it's lift just like you see with dihedral effect. The T-37 is quite flyable with rudder and throttle only if it's even approximately trimmed in pitch and roll, and most other non-fly-by-wire aircraft also have this rolling tendency with any yaw present.
That said, the effects seem to be in AH, just understated. If the planes were fully "realistic" at high angles of attack with respect to torque, thrust-line, p-factor, slipstream effects, adverse yaw, dihedral effect, swept wing effects, and rudder effectiveness, many people would find the planes excessively difficult to fly at the "edge" of the flight envelope.
Which IMHO wouldn't be a bad thing since in RL the ability to consistently fly "on the edge of the envelope" is the mark of a superior pilot and not everyone can do it, but it's a game and you'd see hundreds of complaints about how the plane "always spins when I turn!"
-
Dux, I was only half kidding about the r-22 (primarily for your benefit as I know you fly them ).
Actually, I did the time in the r-22 after I had about 100 hours of fixed wing time. I just thought being a rotorhead would be way cool, and to a great extent, it is...being able to hover and all is a lot of fun. I just didnt like the r-22. Maybe it's a phobia, maybe it's an unfounded bias, but I just have an aversion to piston powered verti-birds.
Since my r-22 time, over the years, I have managed to grab a few hours here and there in a UH-1 and even a bit at the controls of a blackhawk (auto-throttle is the neatest invention since tits and beer!). Now THAT'S heli flying...I could live with those birds.
When I was stationed in California back in the mid 80's, a bunch of us skydived every weekend at Fort Ord. The normal lift bird was a UH-1 and occasionally, some blackhawk jockey needed some stick time and the Army would allow them to come out and lift jumpers. Since I was one of the jump masters for the MWR program, I got to know the pilots pretty well...and of course, managed to sneak in some time at the controls.
A good friend of mine is a pilot for the Maryland State Highway Patrol. His bird is a Dauphin...never got the chance to fly it though. He loves it. I admit, it's a slick looking egg beater.
As far as I am concerned the best flying in the world is aerobatics. Well, ok, being a fighter jock would rank right up there too. I had high hopes in my younger days of being an f-16 jock and ultimately being a Thunderbird. I had a full-ride scholership to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, was going to go ROTC and grab an engineering degree. Since part of my ROTC and course curriculum included a flight program, I underwent the Air Force flight physical. I have 20-10 vision, 100% depth perception....but.....I also have a "color deficiency". At that point I had taken, and passed, a 1st class FAA physical every two years for the previous 4 years (started flying in CAP when I was 14). Needless to say, I was immediately disqualified for anything aviation related in the military. I lost my scholership too.
-
Ahh.. I get it. Thanks for the info eagl
.
mauser
-
That said, the effects seem to be in AH, just understated. If the planes were fully "realistic" at high angles of attack with respect to torque, thrust-line, p-factor, slipstream effects, adverse yaw, dihedral effect, swept wing effects, and rudder effectiveness, many people would find the planes excessively difficult to fly at the "edge" of the flight envelope.
Which IMHO wouldn't be a bad thing since in RL the ability to consistently fly "on the edge of the envelope" is the mark of a superior pilot and not everyone can do it, but it's a game and you'd see hundreds of complaints about how the plane "always spins when I turn!"
Interesting. Guys tend to lose the longer drawn out fights in our IL-2 LAN matches due to just that. Either departure into fatal low alt spins, or just departure to where the other guy then gains the edge, and the advantage, then wins. The description really sums up alot which I couldn't put my finger on.
-
Hey Eagle its really impressive that u keep the faith with all of us "wannabees" lol :)
I bet 90% of us would toejam in the panties if we would face any real combat situation.
I would look for the eject button :) lol
-
Interesting. Guys tend to lose the longer drawn out fights in our IL-2 LAN matches due to just that. Either departure into fatal low alt spins, or just departure to where the other guy then gains the edge, and the advantage, then wins. The description really sums up alot which I couldn't put my finger on.
Yes creamo.. Il2 is more realistic.