Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: -lazs- on June 09, 2000, 08:23:00 AM
-
Flown WB for a long time and AH for a month or so...
AH is a much slower game. It is a mid/late war time and planeset. All the planes turn about the same with only a few exceptions and much slower than WB. Ah seems to have a better acceleration/climb curve(s) for the planes and better all around FM... No warp rolls or stick stiring to speak of. Fighting style is pretty much limited to B&Z due to slower turn. Guns are very leathal and contribute to "timidity" of players and frustration of newbies.
WB is faster with more fighting. Fast turn rates make for more varied fights but warps and poor inverted FM cause frustrating warp rolls and stick stirring. Guns are about 60% as deadly and can change leathiality on a whim but they prolong the fight... they also give warpers and stick stirrers a chance to show their stuff. Much more friendlie game to newbies and better turn rate makes it less prone to sameness.
Features... AH has 3 sided war with no color icon advantage, much better than WB. AH has film... No contest. AH has Zoom key, very neat. Ah has cool engine shut down. AH gunnery is kinda more fun for me... more deadly for sure. View system.... NO CONTEST. AH has fuel modifier... kinda like it. Ah has vehicles.... I guess.
WB has faster turn... more fun, more fights, more variety of fighting and less timidity. WB has RPS or "generation" allows more types/era planes... no contest. WB has right click 6 call, very cool... WB has CV's. WB has more planes and is not hung up on "being different".
Anyway... Just my opinion. I think certain types will be attracted to each. I play both and do about the same but find myself bored more often in AH. Others get frustrated more in WB.
lazs
-
Version 1.03. Simply and unequivocally THE biggest reason that all other sims take back seat to AH. When was the last time FA, WB's or AW get such an update? With such an amazing set of features? And AH already had a better set of features than the others to begin with. And from what I've read and heard AH won't be delegated to 'maintenance' mode while they work on BlackJack Ace Gambling Casino and Bop the Bunny With the Mallet.
So..... you'll be back some day? FWIW, even AW3 has faster turns... more fun(well not sure about that), way more fights, more variety of fighting and much less timidity. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) But the "flying" and the aircombat experienced here is MUCH better than there.
Just saying....
-Westy
(I notice a definate lack of "all planes turn same" here)
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
I especially like the clipboard in AH where you don't have to ask anyone "Whats down at Field XX?" simply look at the strat, highlite the field in question, Viola!
I like the current smaller community, as I did when CK came out up to about 1.11, when WB's population really exploded after 1.11. This 'small community' won't last though at the rate HTC is going.
I love 3D cockpits, I play WB's in HTH mode, and personally I feel empty afterwards with restricted head movement, after all, head movement should be more liberal (Did Rip say liberal?!?) due to the flat 2D monitor we have to play with and lacking peripherial vision that the real jocks had.
In the experiences I've had with single engine and twin engine A/C that I've had the opportunity to take control of in the real life air, I think AH's flight model is closer to what I would think the real A/C might be, just my opinion though.
I love no otto, both as a bomber, and a fighter pilot.
I love the vehicles.
I love the scenarios in both WB's and AH.
I loved the historical arena in WB's.
I frankly, became bored with WB's.
I like several different features from AW, WB's and AH.
IMO, theres no "better" sim..they are all different in one aspect or another. Regarding the FM, don't matter to me, I adjust my ACM for it, one thing that never changes in all three is ACM.(In regards to 'non-engagements', a historical fighter pilot always used his head before just jumping right in..I heard people whine in WB's about everyone in a low alt fight and not enough in high alt fights, the reverse is now a standard in alot of cases in AH. I think as your data base of fighter pilots get more experienced, some tend to use alt as an advantage, since historically that's what gave you the choice to lead your enemy, rather than your enemy lead you.)
------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
~GeschwaderKommodore~I./JG2~Richthofen~[/i]
CLICK>> JG2 INFORMATION (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/JG2inquirer.html)
Panzer Group Afrika~15th Panzer Division~[/i]
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/ripsnort.jpg)
I spare no class or cult or creed,
My course is endless through the year.
I bow all heads and break all hearts,
All owe homage-I am Fear.
-------------General Patton
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-09-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Fast turn rates make for more varied fights
humm you flight in easy mode, no ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Fast turn rates make for more varied fights
m, haven't got experience with WB, but did play EAW a lot. The FM there allows fast turns with little E bleed. Unfortunately the fighting was pretty much the same, turn turn turn and z&b tactics not very effective.
I find that fights are varied in AH but that's due to pilots, no FM. When I meet Citabria for instance, I can tell. Mostly because I suddenly find myself saying "F%&%, how did that 38 do *that*?".
Sure, some guys fly in a boring way and my repetoire of tricks isn't as large as more experienced sticks.
Maybe I will try WB offline to see what you're getting at.
------------------
StSanta
II/JG2
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/santa.gif)
-
Let's not forget $2.00/hr for WB, vs. flat rate for AH. This may have more to do with the different fighting styles, than any differences in flight models or plane sets. At a flat rate, players are more likely to climb to altitude and be selective about their fights.
The main feature that is making AH more fun than WB for me is the community. There seems to me to be less (cough) frustration among players in AH, therefore the mood online is more upbeat. Why? Not sure. For me, it's three things:
I like giving my money to a small company of people who love the game, rather than to a corporation that just loves my money.
I found the stick stirring in WB to be THE most frustrating problem in an online sim since the DOS AirWarrior Spin Turn (TM).
New stuff. WB has been stagnant for years. AH brings something new every couple of months.
BTW...Flew a Spit V to the nearest furball and hooked up with Cars in his cannon Hog -- fun combo. We got ten kills between us before I ran out of ammo and he ran out of fuel. Did a lot of turning.
popeye
[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
Lazs, I would say that your view is a pretty accurate assessment. The T&B'er's would probably have more fun in Warbirds. But, in short order, HTC has shown that AH is going to surpass WB in almost every aspect(except HA and Scenarios).
For me, the view system alone makes such a huge difference in SA, that I can't see myself ever going back to WB unless they come up with a view system at least as advanced as AH.
-
Originally posted by banana:
HTC has shown that AH is going to surpass WB in almost every aspect(except HA and Scenarios).
.
Which, I might add, is done by the community not by IEN. This took 2-3 years to develope in WB's, whereas it will take about 2 years or less in AH to develope an equal if not surpassing, HA and Scenario game play.
-
<<<All the planes turn about the same with only a few exceptions..>>>
There is quite a range of turning ability in AH even with the current limited planeset. But the E bleed makes turning an expensive propostion. A Spit 5 can turn on a dime if he's bounced by a 190, but if he turns too much he won't have enough E to handle the follow-up bounce. To me this is both more realistic and more fun than WB.
ra
-
lazs, I think your comparison is very close to my current view of the two sims. I know you like to hunt and kill, but that becomes old and boring after awhile.
I would suggest that you dig a little deeper into the strat of the game. Go bomb a field with your closet friend in a goon and try to sneak it. The nuisance can be very staisfying and you never know who or what your gonna run into out in the remote areas. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Makes the game a bit more challenging for me anyway.
wizzer
[This message has been edited by wizzer (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
I've played WB for two years (ouch! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)) and am in the third day of my free two weeks (ironic that's the length of the trial? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
WB still feels better to me, but I can't say that's because I'm more used to it. I like AH's fuel system. For a dedicated Pony driver who does buff escort, being able to "punch off" my drop tanks and dive in is a complete rush. Very immersive.
I absolutely hate the tracer smoke in AH. It's not realistic. Sorry, I've shot several thousand rounds through .50 cals and tracer doesn't smoke like that. I'll argue it all day long. I've watched several hours of guncam film. The only tracer which regularly smokes like that is early British tracer.
But, the biggest thing which keeps me playing WB and is more important to me than the above mentioned "features" is the SL's and especially the S3's. Yes, I realize that they are player-run events. But, the SL organizers are compensated for their work.
However, S3's, SL's, and EMC's won't really shine in AH they way they do on WB until the planeset expands a little. True, right now a rightous D-Day era ETO airbattle. 8th AF -51D's and -17G's, 9th AF -38L's (although it should be a -38J) and -26's, even use Spits to escort the -26's and the LW '44 rides. And even a small Russian front scenario or PTO. But, that's about all AH can do. That leaves 3 to 4 years worth of airbattles AH can't do.
Of course I realize that these planes will come in time. But, until then, WB will have a decided advantage to me. While some people may be happy with just MA-furballing, anyone who has ever flown a S3 will tell you, its the absolute ultimate flight-sim experience. There is just nothing better than spending a week putting a plan together, flying with your squadron, flying smart because you only have one life, and know your doing exactly what your RL heroes did. It's the closes we can come to RL IMHO.
BTW, for those who don't know what a S3 is, here's the link: http://personal.smartt.com/~barbell/S3main.html (http://personal.smartt.com/~barbell/S3main.html)
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Dune, AH has 21 planes and vehicles, in one years time. Number will be 25 in two weeks. How long do you thing it will take them to surpass 50? My guess is 1 year. It took WB's 3 years (4?) to get that many.
BTW we do have SL's, take alook to see whats on the menu at the Jokers low page. Not as extensive, since we have approx. 1/4 of the player base (player run SL's) that WB's does.
Tracer option to toggle off comes end of this month.
[This message has been edited by Soup Nazi (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
Laz. Most of your complaints disapper in the 8 player H2H. Kill shooter is off most times. The long flight to another base is gone,and the TnB rules.
There is no score, or kill messaaage. So if your ego is involved its not much fun. But if you are an action junky (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) it solves the other problems.
-
"Fighting style is pretty much limited to B&Z due to slower turn."
I think it's got more to do with the 5 mile icons and inflight radar, which are both crap IMHO.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-09-2000).]
-
I fly both with equal enthusasim, and have never compared one with the other,nor will i compare the two. They are different because there not the same.
And i like them both for that very reason...
Dog out...
-
DANM, my spit has a flat tire again
-
Hi lazs...
You have asked a fair question that unfortunately has a long answer to ensure that the concept is not lost in the emotional and irrational flaming rhetoric that often accompanies these boards. This whole concept of which program has the potential to be more realistic has to be removed from the realm of user emotional "feel" and into a more logical approach, based upon facts. I have posted some of this to you and others before when this AH/WB comparison thread starts every week, but either people don't understand it, or simply don't want to let those facts get in the way of them preaching their version of the Gospel.
Warbirds and Aces High are competitive products with a dynamic and vocal group of proponents, who on many occasions have attempted to compare the merits of each. I have read a lot of volatile threads on the AGW, iEN and the AH BBS environments, filled with anecdotal information. I also have read as much as I could find in both written and on-line electronic publications that have reviewed both of these fine products. The thing that struck me the most in digesting all of this material, was the complete lack of base empirical data, or real time flight experience with any of the equipment represented in either simulation.
To validate the flight experience viewpoint, I posted a topic a few weeks ago on both AGW and AH BBS titled "How much real Warbirds -time on type- do you have?". I wanted to find out if there was anyone who actually had stick time on these aircraft. The closest I got to reasonable "air time" was a virtual pilot named AKNiteflyr who has logged 50 Hours second in command time of a B25. So, the conclusion must be that the rest of us are actually using manufacturer's flight test data combined with war office type testing white papers, in order to draw conclusions about the validity and realism of these simulators.
That lead me to my own POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) for my 1974 Cessna 172M. It clearly stated many of the test results and parameters for this aircraft, including the flight envelope that a real life Cessna 172M "test" pilot was able to perform certain maneuvers within. I guarantee you, my aircraft today does not perform up to any of the numbers indicated in this manual on any metric you wish to examine, plus my flying skill does not in any way come close to that of a test pilot. Why do the published numbers not match reality? First, they were simply averages themselves affected subsequently by everything from original manufacturing tolerances, to normal aging of engine and airframe components, to how well the last mechanic setup and tuned the engine. Add to this, things that pilots have done while flying it such as overstressing the airframe and you easily end up with a situation where no two aircraft are the same. I then went around the airport and asked owners of various planes from Cessna's, Piper's, Pitt's, Gulfstream's, you name it. None of the pilots I spoke to said their planes met the POH numbers and many said that no two planes of the same type would perform the same anyway. I think they thought I was peculiar for asking such an obvious question. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Just because the POH of a 1944 P-51 says that it does Xmph at X,000 feet, or the secret war office papers on a captured 190 show the results they achieved with that particular plane using a test pilot, doesn't mean that all planes of that type simulated by some computer programmer's code in the year 2000, should perform exactly that way. Obviously, certain fundamental airfoil design results would hold true, such as a Spit 9 turning better than a 190 and so on, which is true in both games, but a lot of the adversarial discussion I read was more about which program was more true to realistic flight dynamics.
So, what does all of this mean? To me it left a dilemma of asking myself, how would anyone ever be able to present any data on these medium, or in reviews that was meaningful at all in saying what is realistic or not, then go about trying to use such questionable data within the context of comparing two flight simulation products. As a result and with all due respect, I don't think any mathematics expert or historical librarian approach to determining flight characteristics will ever work in this software driven world of flight simulation.
Trying to think outside the box I began to wonder if there was any other way of approaching these two products that would permit the viewer to clearly see a reasonable comparison, but not be left with an overwhelming amount of conflicting data. It dawned on me that a spreadsheet given to the two organizations who produce these products, iEN and HTC, might be workable. It would take an objective approach that at no time drew any subjective conclusions.
The base data will be objectively clear and no qualitative conclusions are attempted. The only issue open to question is, does the product either do or not do what has been listed. I have so far built up over 10 major categories and 25 sub categories, filling in the physics logic and data that each vendor's product has used or programmed. It has recently been expanded to cover more than just flight dynamic program equations and now includes other categories covering items such as gunnery model, collision model, damage model, view system, supporting tools, graphics options, platforms supported, etc. I have vetted it through outside eyes and had very positive feedback with a number of people saying "wow..I didn't know that!".
Example:
The software programming approaches of both games, specifically relating to ONLY ONE element of the flight model programming demonstrates the following:
Warbirds v2.76r0
============
Overall System =Full force 6 degrees of freedom.
Basic System = 2 point lift and drag model.
Dynamic CofG (Center of Gravity) Changes = Weapons ONLY.
Moment of Inertia Changes = NONE.
Aces High v1.02
============
Overall System = Full force 6 degrees of freedom.
Basic System = Sectional airfoil component modeling, covering all components of the airplane. Also dynamically uses CM (Center of Mass) and CP (Center of Pressure) changes.
Dynamic CofG (Center of Gravity) Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Moment of Inertia Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Therefore, if one feeds EXACTLY the same empirical data specifications for any given aircraft into both programs, which program do you think should produce a more accurate result, purely from a physics software modeling point of view? Simply put, which one should fly more like the real world aircraft of the same type was actually designed to do? The ONLY unknown left would be what flight data specifications did HTC or iEN supply their respective program code as variables. Incorrect variables fed in will yield incorrect flight dynamics. Also, even with perfect figures and given the known deviance from POH and design statistics in all aircraft discussed earlier, the same randomness and under performance would probably make the resultant flight model appear better than it was in real life anyway. I would ask you, how could the WB v2.76 "sporty" turn rate be realistic based upon a limited "2 point lift and drag" flight model, that simply leaves you sitting in a virtual plane in the middle of two wings only? If people want realism, then lets talk realism, but this incessant wandering off into statements that something doesn't "feel" realistic is a waste of bandwidth. I'd sure like to hear what the aeronautical engineers using these games have to say about the two programs disparate approaches to being realistic, based upon the above formulae as an example, wouldn't you?
I would like to give this first draft to iEN and HTC programming staff for their input prior to publishing it on neutral WEB site. It would be my hope that this would become a living document and as the WB and AH products evolve and improve, the base premise this data represents would also be changed in real time as new versions of software are released. I'd also like to see MS CFS and WWII On-line flight component added to it as columns. The result is that the user community would have someplace to compare "apples to apples" as opposed to the current anecdotal, combative and adversarial flame fests.
This is not a be all and end all solution, but I think once you see some of the factual metrics and formulas used to actual write code and program these two flight simulation products, there will be some interesting and more positive community reaction. I hope to have the vetted, signed off and completed version ready within the next 2-3 weeks, but that time frame will dependent upon cooperation from iEN and HTC. HTC is in the process of analyzing it from their point of view as we speak. I needed to know from iEN, to whom should I send it for a similar evaluation for factual correctness. They did respond via private e-mail yesterday giving me their CFO's name and e-mail address, so I will send it off to him once I receive a final draft back from HTC, perhaps next week now.
Once the first iteration is complete, signed-off and published, it is my intent to turn ownership of this over to someone else within our community, who possibly flies both simulations and hopefully knows Hotseat and Hitech fairly well. Obviously, they should also be viewed by both respective communities as beyond reproach from a fairness and objectivity point of view.
Regards,
Badger
-
Wow Badger! I am totaly in awe! Really!
Mark
-
I'm going to take a vacation day on Monday so I can read Badger's post in it's entirety. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Eloquently stated as always Badger (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
A pleasure to read your insights.
By-Tor
------------------
"SCREAM'IN PTERODACTYLS"
-
badger it was not my intent to ask which sim was more "realistic" Both have their good and bad points. As you show... AH has the most potential for realism but planes still fly with one wing and climb inverted just as well as normal. WB has planes stick stiring with no penalty. We all know that neither sim is "realistic". WB 3.0 supposedly has yet another set of FM parameters. I won't jump around for potential realism.
No... What I was doing was comparing both as to features and gameplay. Most agree that 10% error on FM is acceptable..... Say WB has 10% to fast a turn rate and AH has 10% too slow (really closer to 20%+ for both IMO)... WB becomes a much faster playing game. Worse yet...The 10% or so is not straight across the board either... Some planes in both sims have a much greater or much less error. In AH for instance, the LW planes seem to have little or no error with the 190 actually a little better than +5% or so. This gives the LW planes a bigger advantage (over the others) in AH than in WB... If you like LW planes you would pick AH over WB. In WB the corsair climb and acceleration are porked a higher % than the others. The list is long and contributes to reasons to like one FM over another.
Yep, I like the clipboard and in flight radar. I like the WB RPS and don't see how AH can avoid it. Like the less otto thing in AH but find that acstars are just as prevelant in AH as WB.. I think that both sims have a lot of warts but that people on AH are a little more enthusiasic and sensitive/defensive about em.
Strat... I have never dropped a bomb in WB. Don't care who wins the war in either sim. The nature (people dropping in and out 24 hrs a day) and the time frame of flight sims negate strat IMO. Besides... i never was much of a team player.
lazs
-
In response to Dune's comment about the incendiary(tracer) rounds in AH. The smoke trails you see are phosphorous trails. As far as I know nobody had or used magnesium incediary rounds, which glow and don't smoke, before the 50's. A good example that most people have access to is the intro movie to AWIII, just try and spot any magnesium burning tracers in that footage. Although in AH those phos trails do manifest in some seemingly awkward angles, especially fom buff gunners . And they are HIGHLY visible even from a considerable distance .
-
Lazs,
Fighting style is pretty much limited to B&Z due to slower turn.
BnZ and TnB, AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! I hate those terms!!! There is no such things!!! There are only two kinds of air combat tactics, angles and energy. In any given fight a pilot must use BOTH to be effective. Energy can be spent to gain angles or angles can be given up to gain energy. I wish I could bomb the house of the guy that came up with BnZ and TnB.
Unless you execute a pure bounce unobserved, you are at one time for at least some time, going to have to convert to an angles fight to gain a gun solution. With that in mind lets conceder your "all planes turn about the same" contention.
I submit that there is a significant differance between some of the aircraft in AH with reguards to turning performance. Many aircraft in AH come to mind, the Spitfires and Niki vs planes like the Mustang and FW 190 come instantly to mind. I will agree that there is not a huge disparity between like types of aircraft in turning performance however.
For instance I find that there is no where near the differance in turn performance between say your beloved Corsair and the Mustang as there is in Warbirds. However I think I have a good feel for the capibilties of both aircraft and so keep them in the realm in which they were designed to operate. In short I don't ask them to do things they aren't designed to do.
As to fights being "slower" I think a better term is that a one on one fight covers a larger area than in Warbirds. I think you will find that in AH manuvers are overall larger in size (due to asymetric lift forces and sooner inducement of g forces on vision) than in Warbirds and therefor fights take place in a larger "box" so to speak. It is my personal oppinion that this is more correct than what you get in Warbirds. Remember these are supposed to be aircraft that weigh between 7 and 10 thousand pounds in combat trim traveling at 300-400 mph. One could hardly expect them to swap ends in the blink of an eye.
I remember talking to an airline pilot that flew AD-1s (Spads, Sandys) during Vietnam, and when asked what they were like he said, "even without ordinance it was like flying a Mac truck"
This isn't a flame mind you, but I often hear these things from people, and without really taking an honest look at it, people have a tendency to interpit these statements as proof that AH is all hosed up.
Are the FMs in AH perfect? No. Will the FMs in any sim be perfect? No. Learn the strengths and weakness of each of the aircraft and how to exploit them. Look within the confines of the environment a particular aircraft was designed to be used in and the environment of the sim arena before determining wether it doesn't perform against other aircraft the way you or others think it should.
Thanks for listening,
Sharky
------------------
Playboy Leader
307th FS/31st FG
You can run but ya just die tired
[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 06-10-2000).]
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
badger it was not my intent to ask which sim was more "realistic"........
Ok...you win lazs....I give up...
In some threads you're arguing with funked about lack of realism and tests that prove it. In other threads, you claim inaccuracy of these sims is ok, as long as it's within a certain percentage limitation. Finally, you seem to feel it's only about fun anyway, so you prefer WB (at least I think you do?) as it seems to give you more of that.
With all due respect, do you actually ever take a firm position on anything, or simply carry matches in one pocket and a can of gasoline in the other? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway, I admire your courage of conviction, even if I still don't know what your point is, so I'll stop responding until I can figure it out, or someone else can explain it to me. Apparently I don't get it, but it wouldn't be the first time.
I'll get the program data back from HTC, send it to iEN for review, then put it up on an independent WEB site for everyone's use.
Regards,
Badger
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 06-10-2000).]
-
Me and Warbirds went steady for three years.
I loved that babe. Simply could not get enough pink. Just couldnt.......
I guess I still love her and always will.
Why did we split up? Not sure. I had heard talk of this new babe in town and well....things just werent working too well with me and Warbirds. I could not get through to her on the phone and when I did, I would get cut off just as our conversations were getting steamy. Plus she seemed to stop maturing at the rate I was maturing.
Got wierd didnt it? ya....
When I finally got a glimps of the new gal I was floored. Fell instantly in love.
When I tried to tell Warbirds that I had found someone new I couldnt get through on the phone. That was the last time I tried.
Right now me and the new gal are doing great. She has her square corners and a few pudgy shapes but she is dedicated. She makes love in a totally different way and Im still learning how to please her. Meeting her friends has been a tremendously fun experience.
I still keep in touch with the guys from the old neighborhood but they are understandably angry. No one likes to feel they are getting the fat and ugly end of the deal.
I tell them about my new gal and they tell me about my old gal. Warbirds is going to get a great makeover they say. Be the best babe in town. I tell em good luck and I admit to my own fantasies, a secret meeting where we shag for old times sake just to see what its like but I dont know. Those things get kinda wierd you know.....
In the end we do what we like and hopefully, like what we do.
No hard feelings, friends forever.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-10-2000).]
-
Yuuuuuuuuuck (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Badger, I dont know you from Adam, but the more I read your post, the more I think your OK.
-
Badger, with a few exceptions, the AH and WB FM are surprisingly similar.
Stall/Spin model seems to be exactly the same.
Torque, Slipstream and Gyroscopic precission seems to be simplified in the same way.
Negative lift and drag are the same as positive. You'll need a lot more forward stick in AH and up elevator travel appears to be more limited, but inverted stall speed and climb ability appears to be the same.
The main difference seems to be the stick forces, which in general seems a lot higher in AH and the gunnery/lethality.
Yups, there's minor things like fuel changing the Cp and CoG, but compared to the holes mention above, they're minor things.
I wouldnt call any of the sims acurate until they fix that. (And you dont need sticktime in a real warbirds to know that..most of it is part of your basic PPL training)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
badger said "In some threads you're arguing with funked about lack of realism and tests that prove it.
In other threads, you claim inaccuracy of these sims is ok, as long as it's within a certain
percentage limitation."
---------------------------------
badger... I allways want realistic gunnery and flight models... The "10%" being talked about is a concession to all the people who claim 10% is no big deal. It is the opinion of the people on this board more than it is mine. Funked came within 10% or so on his AH turn tests and called it close enough.. The gameplay or "fun" part comes in when you have 2 sims that both have a 10% (i still say greater) error in turn rate then there will be a 20% or so difference in the sims... pick the type of gameplay you like and don't claim your sim is more "realistic". I read your entire post and have read it before about "realism" of AH vs WB... seems to me the only difference is the way the weight of stores is handled. Not enough to negate (percieved) poor gameplay for most IMO. I repeat... AH has some very screwy FM quirks like the ability to fly long distance with one wing. So does WB.... At this point, neither has enough of an advantage in FM "realism" to really matter IMO. Oh, take 20% off the AH turn rates and fix em on a comparitive basis and I would give AH the edge in gameplay.
sharky... I agree with you actually... Like I said, it's a gameplay issue. The FM "box" is bigger in AH but.... The timeframe the players have and the world they fight in is not... The way that AH limits gameplay with slower turns is that everyone waits for a huge advantage and plans their escape. This means everyone is jokeying for position all the time. If you go for a shot that is not a pure B&Z, you are taking a huge risk of having a horde of planes with more E on your six during your exit so... Less people "mix it up" since it puts them at a serious disadvantage. If you play AH for a while your perspective changes... You begin to feel that a very short fight (by WB standards) is a real edge of the chair, knock down drag out, palm sweater.
A lot of this has to do with the timeframe/planeset that AH has chosen and the gunnery but i was comparing the sims as they are not potential. Perhaps an early war set in AH would be far superior to an early war set in WB. Certainly, less warps and more leathiality would be welcome by me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I like the current smaller community, as I did when CK came out up to about 1.11, when WB's population really exploded after 1.11. This 'small community' won't last though at the rate HTC is going.
Thats something what I did like also, oh, those sweet memories, hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Daff,
Torque, Slipstream and Gyroscopic precission seems to be simplified in the same way.
Thats odd, I find those things much more pronounced than In Warbirds. For instance when I get a plane rolling down the runway in Warbirds, I can pretty much ignore the rudder, but in AH I find I have to mind the rudder all the way through to rotation.
Additionally I find in Warbirds, the rudder being out of trim makes little differance. For instance when on final approuch and engine at idle, in WB if I add throttle nothing really happens, but in AH I find I get a pronounced nose swing and roll.
I don't know if this is "more correct" than in Warbirds, but it seems correct to me.
Sharky
------------------
Playboy Leader
307th FS/31st FG
You can run but ya just die tired
-
Sharky - I have to disagree ...
Take a Spitfire (I,V,IX or XIV) up in WB and you have to stay 'on' the rudder or end up off the runway. Same with the Mossie and the 109s.
Unless you were in 'Easy mode' ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Cheers,
Rifle
-
Guys - keep in mind that WB is using the engine developed by (more or less) the HTC crew (I seem to recall that the actual program came from outside sources - talking about developing it for WB here).
For years it was THE most advanced sim engine out there. The HTC crew moved on and gave us AH. WB is still using basically 5 year-old engine...
Just read the Badger's post above - it lists all the things that WB is lacking in flight modelling. I hated AH FM at first and I still miss FF support but hey - what AH is lacking in quantity (fewer aircraft) it's giving back in quality...
I love the viewing system and engine start/shutdown (puff of smoke must be made mandatory! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), I love the planes and terrain, I love how the plane feels in the air and most of all I love the fact that so far HTC managed to stay away from prostituting themselves to any loud group of people who may feel strongly about one point or another.
There are 6 of them and I'd rather pay my money to people who know and love what they do than to iEN... Speaking of which - what was the number I need to call to close my WB account?
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
One thing that keeps getting brought up that bothers me is people saying you can "fly on one wing" in AH. That's completely untrue. If you lose one whole wing you will immediately spiral out of control, not continue flying as some have said. Not one plane in AH will fly in a controlled fashion with an entire wing missing.
On the other hand you can fly some of the planes in AH with 1/2 a wing missing. (Remember that 1/2 wing missing is just HTC's way of showing that that wing has taken damage.)
I've only flown Warbirds for about 10 minutes offline, so I won't comment on which FM is better.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Half a wing is just a way of telling you that it is damaged? Flying with half a wing is OK?
lazs
-
lazs - it's not OK and you are not (to fly with half a wing/flying with half a wing).
And yes, as bloom said - it's an indicator that you took serious damage in that wing and you might be lucky to nurse it back home or you might not be lucky. BTW, last time I checked in WB it was a "binary" model - "wing OK/no wing at all" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
Poking my nose in again where it's not welcome... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
What folks tend to ignore sometimes is that it ALWAYS comes down to two things eventually: do the planes match the "real" numbers, and do they "feel" right? You can crow all you want about which sim models what advanced flight physics "feature" and how this sim has a "new" FM and that one is "old," but the bottom line will ALWAYS be how it FEELS to the players and how it MATCHES the anecdotal and recorded data.
Discounting the flight manual performance data and pooh-poohing the comparitive tests on the basis of "oh it's all just average performance that no two aircraft will ever match" is tantamount to saying that the flight model itself doesn't even MATTER! Or worse, that the gee-whiz PROGRAMMING of the flight model is more important that what comes OUT of it! You HAVE to have a baseline to work with, and it HAS to be something the players will believe. That leaves only two options in my mind. You have to either use the REAL performance data as your guide, or the REAL comparison test data as your guide.
(OK, third option: use a single source like Jane's or AHT, and ignore anyone who has "better" data) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now, neither HTC nor iEN is in the habit of sharing their data with us, in even the smallest way. They both CLAIM to be using "real, primary sources," which, for business reasons, can't be shared with the lowly customers (a huge bite of cowcrap we've all swallowed for years--like telling us the top speed they consider correct for the FW-190 would bring the Godz' temple down on top of them) :P However, that said, I've plenty of faith that both companies are using what we would consider "good" data, that matches up well with anything we could throw at them, within a few percentage points.
The problem comes when the planes don't match that data. The solution is staring us all right in the face: if the "real" data is based on averages of varying performance of groups of planes and pilots, then bring that varying performance into the sim. Build your planes based on the "ideal" numbers, whatever they may be. Then simply build in a random deviance in the engine's power output (say, plus or minus 10% from ideal "standard"). Your engine's power output is determined at startup for that sortie only. Some days you get the hot rod, some days you get the hangar queen (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Just like the real thing. And as a bonus, you get an automatic explanation why that 190 outturned your Hog-dog on that particular day.
Oh, I can hear the wailing already: "I don't pay good money to have my spark plugs fouled!" Whatever. You're also gonna get "bonus" power on some missions, but I don't guess you'll complain about that, willya? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Amazing to me that no one has figured out a way to build this into their sims so far. (Well, no one except the hopeless dweebs who make the player-designed aircraft in Screamin Demons--we've been building in variable power and loss of engine performance from combat damage for months now). Anyway, my original point still stands. You have to have a performance standard to build the flight models to. It would seem equally logical that you should make that standard KNOWN to your customer base, so THEY can agree that you know what you're doing. I've never gone along with the "WE know the FM is perfect because WE built it and WE spent money doing it and WE are the ones who have been doing it since DOS AW and YOU guys don't know as much about flying as WE do, so just shut up and color" approach that BOTH companies use, and I never will. It's much more likely that showing us the shortcuts taken and errors considered "acceptable" would turn up the heat a lot more than they could stand.
A mite too arrogant for my taste, coming from a bunch of twenty-thirty-something software engineers whose COMBINED flight time in anything that doesn't have a stewardess isn't even into the triple digits yet... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Slinkin back under my rock now...
------------------
-
"...the bottom line will ALWAYS be how it FEELS to the players and how it MATCHES the anecdotal and recorded data."
Let's not forget: "Is it fun?" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'm all for realism, but we aren't trying to learn to fly here, so it isn't all that important if the FM hits all the numbers, or behaves exactly like the real thing.
Of course, my total RL flight time is 1 hour in an AT-6, so realistic "feel" probably isn't as important to me as it is to a RL pilot. And my daddy didn't go to war in a P-99, so I don't have a great interest in any particular plane's FM. As long as I can find a plane that suits my style of play, and the overall gameplay is balanced, I'll have a good time. Heck, I had a GREAT time in DOS AW, before I ever heard of AHT.
Of course, if I'm stuck in a particular airplane in a scenario, I may have a very different attitude. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
popeye
[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 06-13-2000).]
-
That's a pretty cool idea Jedi, having random performance that lies somewhere between the minimum and maximum levels from different flight test results!
"Now, neither HTC nor iEN is in the habit of sharing their data with us, in even the smallest way."
Well BZZZT sorta, click on some of the planes here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/p_and_v.html (http://www.hitechcreations.com/p_and_v.html)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-13-2000).]
-
Hi Jedi, it's yer old bud Baxl (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Your post got me to thinking....I wonder if HTC uses a software tool that puts a plane through a series of structured tests, to determine if the plane performs within a certain percentage to the actual numbers that they use as a benchmark? Or do they just "take it out for a spin?" and see how it flies? A tool like that would come in very handy when building vehicles and aircraft.
-
Nice idea jedi, but to play advocatus diavoli: How to do prevent that a "max performance geek" tests his planes on startup to find out when he has a #10% AC by exiting all hangar queens he gets?
Add a random factor into the game that can be felt by the players, and they (or some) will roll the dice unless they get the good rides.
Az
------------------
Si tacuisses, philosophus manisses.
-
<pulls big spoon out of trench coat, waves high in the air for all to see, Places spoon into pot, stirs!!>
AIR WARRIOR, AIR WARRIOR!!!!
He heeeeee, let the games begin!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Hmmm... Popeye seems to have said it best... is it fun?
Hmmm... been finding lately that I don't find either one to fit that bill. WB is just same-old, same-old and not so fun anymore. And, AH is... well... just "slow" and unfun (for me, if you enjoy it, more power to ya!), regardless of accuracy.
Haven't flown either one in two weeks + for the first time since I started online flight sims.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
snake.
Just admit you need to challenge yourself. That is why we get bored, the challenge isn't there, we need a new level to get the blood going again.
That is why golf is so addicting, there's always a new level to challenge yourself with.
-
To answer your question Lazs, no it's not OK to fly on 1/2 a wing in real-life. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
HTC just shows a 1/2 a wing to show you that you have taken heavy damage to that wing. Now obviously a better way to represent this would be to show an exposed wing spar and/or holes in the wing, but I believe changing the texture map to show this is not easy. For this reason they just remove the outer part of the wing. In AH it is also possible to lose flaps, ailerons, elevators, landing gear, rudder, etc which will show as you would expect and change the flight characteristics of the aircraft accordingly. (For example if you lose your rudder your plane will yaw severely and you will likely lose control and crash.)
I hope you didn't take my post as a flame to you, it wasn't intended to be. I was simply stating that you absolutely CANNOT fly on one wing in AH in a controlled fashion.
---------------------------------------------
Edit: I see above that you also said that "you can climb as well inverted." Again that's untrue. Flying inverted in AH burns E rapidly for most aircraft to even maintain level flight. In addition AH models the fact that you have much less elevator autority as well. These two factors combined with the red out (onsets much quicker than blackout) make climbing inverted much slower than climbing upright. I believe AH even models the fact that a wing produces less lift while inverted, hence you have to deflect the elevator a great deal to maintain level flight while inverted.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
[This message has been edited by bloom25 (edited 06-14-2000).]
-
All,
I try to stay out of these discussion as much as possible,
But I have just a few question's for our "Flight Model" & "Damage Experts"
How many of you have actually flown any of the aircraft that you are
complaining about or for that matter flown any aircraft?
And secondly how many of you have flown a damaged aircraft?
Just wondering...
------------------
!!! Heater !!!
(http://www.geocities.com/heater_nl/_private/heater1.jpg)
Shit Happens All The Time
"If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it's done."
[This message has been edited by Heater (edited 06-14-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Heater (edited 06-14-2000).]
-
Dunno, Bloom..try the La-5 and climb inverted...also stall speed is the same inverted, meaning that inverted lift and drag is the same as "normal".
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
Yep... In the end it comes down to fun. WB and AH ech promote a style of fighting. Like snake, I find AH much too slow a game with more chat than action. I also agree/think that most hobby ac "historians" have a pretty good idea of how planes should compare. Besides being "slow", Turn rates in AH do not match what i think they should be comparitively. this makes it less fun/immersive for me. WB has the same flaws but with climb and acceleration IMO.
lazs
-
WB has the same flaws but with climb and acceleration IMO.
=================
I recall a comment a few years back made by hitech me thinks, when answering a complaint about unrealistically high accell and turn rates in WBs. This particular response basically concluded that realistic FMs must sometimes be compromised for the sake of *playability*.
Although I find the observation that AH is somehow *slower* to be very interesting indeed, I say and believe completely that if what we have now promotes a more realistic behavior based on a more realistic and comprehensive flight model , be it slower or faster, then count me in.
In the end, I know that when I complete a difficult task for the first time, I usually screw up some portion of the job. When given an opportunity to do it better a second time, I usually ace the dam thing. My thinking follows that hitech has done a better job the second time around. My own personal observations of AH support this.
Yeager
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
......My thinking follows that hitech has done a better job the second time around. My own personal observations of AH support this.
Yeager
Excellent point yeager...
I feel the same way....
Regards,
Badger
-
Mistakes are ok as long as you learn something positive from them.
In other words I'm with yeager & badger on this one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I actually enjoy the sometimes (and only sometimes) slower pace of AH. Time to light a pipe, pet a kitten, chat with friends and arrive high at the fight.
-
All this"My G.I. joe has kung fu grip, and yours dont" stuff is pointless. There just isnt that much difference between these games. A top 10 guy from one could switch to the other and be right back on top in no time. The only meaningfull difference is the money. AH has all you can eat for 30bucks. WB trys to bleed you to death. If you can only play a few hours a month. Id say play WB. Otherwise the choice is obvious.
-
I think they made a better simulation of reality, but whether they made a better game would be subject to individual interpretation.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
I think they made a better simulation of reality,
but whether they made a better game would be subject to individual interpretation.
====
Well yes, if by better game you mean *easy fun game* vs *real difficult game* then of course we all make our individual choices based on what we want to accomplish.
This actually sums matters up quite nicely dont you think! Realizing that AH still lacks prop drag, ground compressibility and dive flaps coded into the FMs and yet rates superior to Warbirds as a simulation (by your own statement), then I am well and excited about the impending release of v1.03 where these elements will finally be added.
It is ironic that Warbirds has recently been labeled as *faster and funner* when less then a year ago it was the *most realistic experience* available.
Perhaps this is all part of some wierd scheme.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-14-2000).]
-
lazs
Now I'm even more confused than before. If thats possible. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What are you looking for in a sim/game? You don't like the strat, you don't like the Historical aspect (could care less myself), and realism is so so according to your idea of a perfect FM. If I have concluded correctly.
Soooo, My guess is that you want a fast, fun, semi-accurate, no thought to strat but ACM, and kill all that surround you. Hate to ask but, is that close?
My gut tells me that if thats' all your after,............thats all you'll get.
Hehe tanks must be like UFOs' to you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
wizzer
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
It is ironic that Warbirds has recently been labeled as *faster and funner* when less then a year ago it was the *most realistic experience* available.
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 06-14-2000).]
Actually the one that cracks me up is WB players complaining about our gunnery being so lethal while claiming that they want nothing more than an accurate gunnery model.
That and the fact they can score more hits. Ya think it might be due to the fact that we model every bullet individually? Nah.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Most plans are just inaccurate predictions.
-
"Actually the one that cracks me up is WB players complaining about our gunnery being so lethal while claiming that they want nothing more than an accurate gunnery model.
That and the fact they can score more hits. Ya think it might be due to the fact that we model every bullet individually? Nah.
"
I'm probably one of them, although what I've said is that it's too lethal compared to how easy it is to hit things...Just take a look at the thread about what range people shoot at...kinda says it all.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
wizz... think i made myself clear in another post. I don't think the slower pace of AH is any more "realistic" than WB both are off by a bout the same % but in different directions IMO... Ah also has worse comparitive (to each other) turn rates IMO.
I like to fight other humans in a situation where there is some parity and a lot of action. I want the FM's to be very close to what we would expect from "real" fighters so far as they are compared to each other in the sim.... A Spit v should turn better than a 109f and be slower than a P51 etc... Neither sim is perfect in that regard and I can't see that one is even better than another so, for the most part, I go for the one with the most action. I can pet the cat or chat some other time.
When I log onto AH I look for a lot of dots... If I don't see anything I log off. If I do I work my way over to em using the tools, and working with the limitations, that AH offers. I find someone who blew it and kill em or I get bored and don't care about my egress and die... I ask myself.... "Do I want to do this again?" Mostly, unless I have a squadie on, I say "no".
When I left the old Dos AW for dos WB I KNEW i was in a far superior sim... With AH and WB... It's a tossup based on how ya wanna play. time and size of player base will tell if people like the slower or the faster pace.
lazs
W
-
"Just take a look at the thread about what range people shoot at...kinda says it all."
I dunno, looks a lot like the ranges I've read about real pilots shooting at during the war.
-
I don't have any/many problems with AH gunnery.
I think every sim out there has had the problem of what to do with the LW planes.... They were an important part of the WWII era and a great many people have read the romantic accounts of em and their pilots. Unfortunately, for the most part, they make lousy arena planes... They either dominate by sheer speed advantage for their time period (190 and 262) or they are hoplessly outclassed in dogfiting/arena type play (exception being early 109's in an early setting). The way AH has addressed this problem IMO, is to pick a mid/late war time period that is LW friendly for arena use and then slow down the turn rates and "adjust" the turn rates of all the planes so that there is more parity. This works for a lot of people. It doesn't for me. I also believe that this approch is going to make it more difficult to introduce new planes. I believe that some adjustment will have to take place to keep/increase player base. Just my opinion.
lazs
-
Lazs you are making assumptions that are totaly incorect. We don't change the basic performace envolope of flight models for playbalance i.e. we don't slow turn rates from what we think the real plane should do.
Ive been doing some more research as of late to the validity of our instantainious turn rates. Jurry is still out on it,and it is not a trivial issue to verify.
When we do make play balance consestion's we make it very clear what they are and why but the flight envlope has never been somthing we make consecions with.
HiTech
-
I've never known Pyro and HT to do anything but try, given the aerodynamic model in hand, and get the closet to the real world data on how these planes acted and flew.
I'm beginning to think filtering -lazs- might not be such a bad idea.
XX
-
it's too lethal compared to how easy it is to hit things
I'm not sure about that. When I was comparing these numbers awhile back, the gunnery %'s were much much higher in WB.
-
Fair enough HT... I will take you at your word when you say that you are staying with whatever model that you have and letting the chips fall where they may. I don't really care what is wrong but something is very screwy with the turn rates.... it makes em seem very close together and very slow with some planes performing much better than one would expect and others much worse.
The idea of this thread was to compare. I still believe that each sim gets some things very wrong and each sim has great "features" that the other needs. I believe that AH is the slower sim and appeals to a cetain type. I believe that WB turn rates are no more or less accutate than AH's but in a different direction (faster than real rather than slower than real)and that WB's faster game has a broader appeal. I think WB's comparitive turn rates more match anecdotal and "real" comparitive tests. I believe AH's comparitive climb, speed and acceleration more match "real", anecdotal and comparison tests.
The view system, Z key, in flight radar, dispertion, lack of warproll/stick stir and film are worth the price of admission in AH. The narrow band of combat detracts IMO.
lazs
-
Ummm... Hitech, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm going to put you on the spot.
When we do make play balance consestion's we make it very clear what they are and why but the flight envlope has never been somthing we make consecions with.
Would you consider spins to be part of the flight envelope? And would you say that it is accurate to describe spins as being "dumbed down?"
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Ok i'll compare the two Sims....er i vote monthly with my CC, AH is the winner(but lately games has made me very frustrated with wierd crappola con blows, shuddering FE really bad now, bumpy RW and ditches no matter where i land GRRRHHH!!!)I was a Nate's bellybutton away from deleting it and walking away.Phases aren't they lovely. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
I think every sim out there has "dumbed down" spins, and uncontrolled flight in general (except MS Flight sim which doesn't have spins at all). AH is one of the most challenging, though, in all aspects of the FM, and I also find myself making the same mistakes there as I do in a real plane. This is why I play AH instead of WB (and perhaps the pricing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ).
I took some hits last night, found myself in a pretty flat spin, tried to get out of it... dammit, won't come out. Looking back I notice that I have no rudder. Bailing. Oops, that sheep is awful big...
That at least _felt_ realistic (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Rickenbacker
-
Rick, I didn't say they didn't.
My point is that HT flat-out stated that they don't make concessions in the FM, and I'd like to see his response with regard to spins.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Hmmm... day rolls past, no resp, not surprised.
In lieu of an answer, I'll create my own: The answer is that all simulated flight models contain compromises for various reasons: because of the complexity of integrating it with the rest of the FM, for playability, and for a slew of other reasons. To flat out state that the FM will never be compromised for any reason is.... well... bullpucky. Sales talk from a marketing flack. Misleading. Etc...
Personally, I would have liked to have heard the Truth, which IMO would sound like... "All Sims and their FMs have compromises with regard to reality. AH is a simulation, but it is also a game, and there must be a reasonable balance between playability and reality. Having said that, I can promise you that AH is dedicated to being as real as possible within the context that it must also attract a reasonably-sized paying audience.... blah blah etc."
HT must have thought he was still at E3 or sumthin.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Snake, If I were HT I would have said that I don't make concessions on the FM for play *balance* because we *ALL* know that there are tons of FM concessions in regards to current technology. Spins are very complicated to model and I doubt our CPU's could handle an exact representation without sacrificing lot of other things.
-
SnakeEyes to my knowldege I've never called a player a dick in a public forum, but you realy make me want to have a first time.
The resone I havn't responded is simple. We have been putting lots of hours in trying to finish 1.03.
And no we don't compromise spins for the sake of playablity. Spins are one of the very hardest things to get to fall out accuratly in a model. We do them as close to how we think how the real plane would react with in the limits of what our flight model will do.
HiTech
"Beat it kid you bother me."
-
Flight Unlimited did a very nice job modelling spins..You didnt even have to pull more than 1G to do it.
While you here, HT, what about inverted lift and drag?.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
Sokey HT, I'm sure I could pass on the finger from BOOM your way. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In any event, I don't doubt that spins are exceedingly complex to deal with, nor do I doubt that they take many CPU cycles. Perhaps I'm just a bit perplexed that they haven't "improved" much over the 4 years I've been toying with WB and AH. Plus there's plenty of talk going *way* back about how spins were relaxed from some of the earlier versions.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 06-19-2000).]
-
LOL! Well that explains a lot about your posts. At least I know where you're coming from now.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Most plans are just inaccurate predictions.
-
The past few nights I have been in some very interesting spins in 38s and 51s.
1) Up against sh, both of us in 51s SW of 5 at around 25k. The initial pass is slighlty off -nose to nose, I sense he has better energy than I so I flat turn right, gentle like, as he goes for the loop. Im suckered in sure as toejam but manage to get enough nose pull to see him coming down very slowly into my front glass. I take the shot and see a single flash center of mass. He is now pointed down and away and Im doing about 80 ias more or less level with the horizon. Here I give rudder to get the nose down but manage to get into a nice inside spiral. I loose about 2k and recover with some effort going very slow. Sh by now is going up and over again with decent energy and I decide to go for another nose pull hoping to get a miricale burst as I know exactly what he is going to do, when, where, and why. This time he is a bit farther up and now sailing down for a good shot. I pull and see him come into my forward view but he is high. I pull a little bit more but feel my already poor speed ebbing quickly away. He comes closer to dead center but now I am without motion. My rear end falls first and im spinning looking straight up. I know this one will take too long to recover and wait for the inevitable. Indeed.
A few nights back I was grabbing sharp over 2 for altitude in a 38. At 12k I spotted a buddy a few Ks higher and to north. I wanted to get pointed in his general direction and heading but I was already just this side of the horn. That damned thing went into a violent spin on all three axis and nearly had me pissed. I recovered and said to myself, I said *shit*.............
Dont do that again numbnuttz.
The spins in EAW felt good and heavy but were a squeak to recover from even at high alt and tended to happen with the slightest pressure on the stick even with damn good speed. Got to be rediculous actually. Damn AI never spun from what I recall.
I manage to stay away from spins for the most part but they do get ugly on me from time to time.
Yeager
-
Snake, just curious....
What exactly do you expect from a spin??
-
What exactly do you expect from a spin??
His wizzo cracking his skull on the canopy with "you lost that loving feeling" playing in the back ground. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Kats LOL that's the third time in two days you've made me spray my monitor!
-
Guys, all I'm saying is that BOTH sims have incomplete FM's and that one plays a lot faster than the other. I don't think either one is any better than the other but I prefer the faster play of WB.... I like certain features like film Z key right click for six call, left for tune, of both sims but.... To wave the "realistic FM" flag, by supporters of either sim, is just plain silly at this point.
When I left Dos AW for Dos WB I KNEW I had moved to a far superior sim.... When I came to AH, I knew I was in a different sim. Last night in WB I got a dozen or so kills and half as many assists in a couple of hrs. In AH I would be lucky to get a fourth of that. My K/D stays about the same for both games and I actually find that AH is the easier sim to fly.
It all pretty much boils down to whether you enjoy a lot of action and dogfiting or if you enjoy a lot of jockying for position and planning your egress. For both sims gameplay is smoke and mirrors and it is done with turn rates and leathiality. Slight adjustments to turn rates and leathiality give the game it's "nature". You can use the same two (and both do IMO) factors to make one plane more "popular" than another.
lazs
-
Lazs,
Lets talk again after v1.03 release when prop drag, ground effect and dive brakes are *finally* added to AH.
As to the *percieved* speed of play between the two sims, I have been involved with both sims and dont see this subject as relevant in any substantial way with regards to combat. Time spent gaining advantageous altitude is time well spent from my perspective.
Regarding the comparitive values of AH FMs: are you saying that inaccurate, dishonest data (cant think of any other way to put it) is being used to give any particular FM unfair advantage over any other FM?
Yeager
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
Regarding the comparitive values of AH FMs: are you saying that inaccurate, dishonest data (cant think of any other way to put it) is being used to give any particular FM unfair advantage over any other FM?
Yeager
C'mon, guys...we've all seen Lazs' posts over the last couple years, hell, go over to AGW and see his 'latest whine' of the 109 being too tough!
Lazs, you need a flight sim where all the FM's are identical, then you can whine about how someone is hacking the code after they whoop you into submission.
-
Only a guy with a below average brain could doubt that:
- AH/WB are a compromise between realism and play;
- AH is still in full development (where was WB after 8-10 months?); hence, AH has some annoying bugs and things to fine tune;
- WB is a great sim;
- there are a lot of ex-WBers here that really enjoy flying and fighting in AH.
Banalities? Not at all! Read Lazs and Snake posts. Plz guys, leave HT and PYRO alone and quiet. We all can live without your silly posts.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Lazs, you need a flight sim where all the FM's are identical, then you can whine about how someone is hacking the code after they whoop you into submission.
I know that game.. it's called Flying Circus. www.simguild.com (http://www.simguild.com) He'd fit in just fine over there. :-)
-SW
AKSeaWulfe+
-
yeager... lets not talk about 1.03 or 3.0 till they get here eh? Also,the slower gameplay is not a matter of perception... It is very real. for example, taking off from 10,000 feet does not speed up AH... the slowness is a function of the turn rates and leathiality. You can't get away if you lose the advantage so never do anything unless you have the advantage... You can't turn and you can't take any hits.... You don't have a lot of options... You seem bright enough, so I know you can see that.
As to FM's being fudged.... Well, both sims do it for various reasons but... A lot of the weirdness is due to the FM's of both sims being incomplete. It makes some planes turn better or worse or climb or accelerate better or worse than they should both in the numbers and compared to each other. Both sims have warts and I can't say that either is more "realistic" than the other but they do play a lot differently.
Ya know, when it first came out I tried FC and did pretty well in it. Guess that makes me unskilled.
On the WB 109 thing.... Probly shouldn't complain just because the 109e is twice as tough as it should be but..... it's fixed now...again.
rip.. could you possibly do a tough guy act any worse? Take some classes or something.
lazs
[This message has been edited by lazs (edited 06-20-2000).]
-
I expect them to be harder to get out of then they currently are, Wells. They seem too EZ to get out of, especially when some of these a/c were known to be real monsters in a spin.
If it's simply a matter of the complexity of modeling a spin vis-a-vis other features that could be added, so be it...
PS - I do take what I hear with a grain of salt, Pyro, but I figure there's probably a little fire in the vicinity of that smoke. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Lazs says...... "yeager... lets not talk about 1.03 or 3.0 till they get here eh? Also,the slower gameplay is not a matter of perception... It is very real. for example, taking off from 10,000 feet does not speed up AH... the slowness is a function of the turn rates and leathiality. You can't get away if you lose the advantage so never do anything unless you have the advantage... You can't turn and you can't take any hits.... You don't have a lot of options... You seem bright enough, so I know you can see that."
I don't think I have seen a paragraph on this board that I disagreed with more than this one. The only thing that takes longer for me is getting to the fight, because I've become used to climbing to 25k so I don't get bounced by other smart flyers. You want to see a fast knife fight lazs go to the assasigns home page and d/l the duel films of hblair and myself. Very fast rolling scissors on the deck and stuff like that, and we were in 190's. And how would leathality effect the speed of gameplay?
I have lost the advantage on probobly 25% of my kills and still been able to come back for the kill. It must be possible to win an advantage back, or you would never be able to lose the advantage in the first place (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) That's the time when a good wingman comes in handy too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Spins I didn't were in the game until last weekend when I got a new stick. It's a new TM that doesnt have the 20lb springs like my old TM. I spin alot now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I will admit that it does seem a bit easy to get out of them, but that could be because of 5 yrs of online flight.....
udie
-
I've yet to find any aircraft here that I couldn't get out of a spin in less than 2 rotations once I started to fight the spin. I suppose that if I threw the trim totally outta wack, it might be a bit more difficult...
All the flight sim aircraft that I've spun react more like a Su-26/-29/-31 in spins than what I would expect from a WW2 fighter a/c (well, the WB Ki84 has a real nasty spin, but that's the exception not the rule).
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Kats said: That is why golf is so addicting, there's always a new level to challenge yourself with.
Yeah, have you ever heard of a spud launcher (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Gimp
-
oodee, you said two kinda contradictory things about the gameplay in AH. first you say that you have good fast films of fast rolling scisors... That is a 1v1 situation and i take it you were close to the deck... You say a wingman helps... If you have a 1v1 in AH low on the deck you will be meat for every timid AH player waiting for just such a situation. If you have a wingman the situation (1v1) will not exist anyway..
As for leathiality... The higher the leathiality the less you can afford to engage and the more effective B&Z becomes. Anyone who engages an nme in AH is blood in the water for the sharks unless he is flying with several squadies. If you can reverse an attack in AH then the people you are fighting are very lame or very desperate or in much slower planes.
Add slow turn rates, late war only rides and high leatiality together and you have a very slow paced game. Make 190's outturn Corsairs and P51's (or anything) and you have a lousy game for most.
I think that there are many people in WB that would love AH with it's LW friendly turn rates and slow pace and I also think that there are a lot of people in AH that would be happier in WB with it's faster pace and turn rates that compare with each other in a more realistic fashion.
lazs
-
"You can't turn and you can't take any hits.... You don't have a lot of options... You seem bright enough, so I know you can see that."
=====
Thanks Lazs for the uh, compliment (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Yeager