Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on December 07, 2002, 06:15:33 AM
-
I know that FM is a terribly sensitive issue, and normally it defies compariosn between two different products in the sense that crap games or excellent games, the producers still worked hard to depict FM as correctly as they see fit.
However, I feel I must speak up about the landings and take-offs, and ditches and belly-landings. I'm pretty much convinced that as a part of checking out rival products even HTC staff have tried out IL-2 extensively.
While many things people attempt to compare between IL-2 and AH, some of them would be valid comparions, and others would be not. However, in the case of the difficulty of take-offs and landings depicted in IL-2, I must say, while I have no experience in actual flying, I'm very convinced even those with experiences in real planes would appreciate that landings and take-offs were much more difficult in real life than AH, and IL-2 provides much more convincing versions of these situations.
There have been many small discussions considering this, one such being the runway/ditch discussion and etc.
....
IL-2 is the first WWII sim game I've tried to take-off half-heartedly, and as a result crashed upon take-off. The precautions one must take, careful taxiing, speed controls, torque compensations, flap use and etc are very much needed, since you can't just ram up the throttle to max, give a bit of rudder and the plane just takes off. This pretty much matches accounts of what I've read about WWII plane take-off procedures.. and in the case of the 109s depicted in that game, it was the first time I could really understand what the textbooks said about 109s when it was commented "twitchy and difficult take-off/landing characteristics, causing many accidents".
The landing procedure, in IL-2, is even more hard. I would not think of trying to land a plane somewhere other than a runway because even just trying to land because of low-fuel requires real concentration, and "stick-to-the-rules" type of slow, lengthy landing procedures to ensure no accidents happen. Trying to put down a damaged plane is even harder.
In AH, if your speed is under 200 you can ditch any plane on almost any surface(even on a hill side!) People just land planes everywhere. Heck, you can even do a "quick-landing" to intensionally break the undercrriages at landings to shorten the time needed for the plane to slow up, without having to face the careful situations needed to control a plane near stall (land at 180~200mph with gears down, and then give full rudder to one side - plane breaks gears and belly lands, stopping within 2~3 seconds).
While the overall characteristics of AH FM is satisfying, quite excellent in fact, it seems the take off/landing procedures are quite simplified.. maybe for gameplay purposes?
However, I cannot really seem to understand what the "easy-mode" take-offs and landings would contribute to AH being a better game.
I am wondering if there is a possibility the take-off/land FM can be revised a bit - which people will surely come to appreciate proper take-off/landing procedures better, with more respect to runways on an airbase.
.. thoguh no answers I might receive, I feel many people would agree with me that this is an area that needs improvement, and maybe HTC should consider it not just light-heartedly.
I'm sure someone from HTC will look at this post, and though it may take many many more versions to finally get to this, I hope HTC gives it a real consideration.
Thx, HTC.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Heck, you can even do a "quick-landing" to intensionally break the undercrriages at landings to shorten the time needed for the plane to slow up, without having to face the careful situations needed to control a plane near stall (land at 180~200mph with gears down, and then give full rudder to one side - plane breaks gears and belly lands, stopping within 2~3 seconds).
Maybe I'm flying a different AH than you, but my planes usually stop faster when I use the brakes then when belly landing them.
Comparing two simulations and saying one's closer to real life than the other without any real flying experience seems strange. It's like saying sex with sheep is closer to sex with woman then sex with pigs when you've never had sex with a woman.
-
what Kweassa is saying is because landings and takeoff are harder in IL-2 than AH, it MUST be closer to RL.
maybe IL-2 is "over modeled"?
all i ever landed or took off was a cesnna 150 , and it was EZ , never used flaps , hardly ever hit brakes ( my instructor, a WW2 pilot ,who owned the plane , would holler if i touched the brakes, " them brakes cost money boy, take the next exit")
44MAG
knights who drink beer
-
Originally posted by john9001
all i ever landed or took off was a cesnna 150 , and it was EZ , never used flaps , hardly ever hit brakes ( my instructor, a WW2 pilot ,who owned the plane , would holler if i touched the brakes, " them brakes cost money boy, take the next exit")
And the power-to-weight ratio, engine torque, wing loading, landing speed, and visibility from the cockpit (to pick a few variables) of a Cessna 150 compare to those of, say, a FW-190 or F4U how?
-
what Kweassa is saying is because landings and takeoff are harder in IL-2 than AH, it MUST be closer to RL.
maybe IL-2 is "over modeled"?
Yes I admit.
That is also a possibility.
But I find it hard to belieive that you can up a WW2 plane, even a game plane, by just firing up throttle to max and just pulling stick as soon as it reaches over 100mph... or, landing a WW2 plane in almost every possible conrtion, be it bumpy, hilly, sandy terrain.. people have absolutely no respect for runways save the fact that it is the only place "landings" are admitted(except a few exceptions).
In IL-2, maybe it is overmodelled, or maybe that's still too easy, who knows? But if you ever tried landing planes like you would in AH, even on runways, you'd experience a terrific ground loop. How many people actually use flaps and three-point landings in AH? I know I have to go for 3-point landings with flaps in landing configuration if I have to land in IL-2. Not so in AH.
Some more input from more real life pilots would be much appreciated. I know I could be wrong!
-
"How many people actually use flaps and three-point landings in AH? "
Me for one.
Play IL2 every day for the next 6 months and I gaurantee that landings in IL2 will seem as "Easy" as landings in AH. New players to AH often have a very difficult time landing.
J_A_B
-
"How many people actually use flaps and three-point landings in AH? "
I do if I still have flaps and gear, things that I have been missing an alarming ammount of the time lately.
In the last week I've had to land a Ki.67 without gear, and two other Ki.67s missing a flap. The first one I didn't realize I was missing a flap and it got all wonky on me just before I put it on the ground.
I always try to do a correct landing.
As a note of interest, about a year and a half ago my sister got a ride in a biplane for her birthday. When she was down here she commented than the landing had scared her because the aircraft was moving so slow as it decended. Just for kicks I booted up AH and took off in an A6M5 (the most biplane like aircraft in AH at that time) and had her watch me land it. She said it looked the same to her, way too slow.
-
As a programmer, you can throw every number, every law of physics, and every principle you can think of into the equations that make up a flight model.
You can't, however, numerically account for "feel". In Real Life™, the are thousands of subtle and subconscious cues that make flying as much of a visceral experience as anything else. It's actually much easier with those subtle cues.
Just like driving games are kinda hard at first... they don't quite feel like what you're used to.
I think AH does a pretty good job at simulating this feel.
-
I agree with Kweassa that Il-2 models more nuances in the takeoff/landing area. In AH you can land a F4U on a carrier while chugging a beer. In Il-2, one slip up and you'll damage your plane. Il-2 seems more real to me, not just because it's harder.
ra
-
When i came from AW to AH i fount landing horrible hard.
I was so lucky when i brought my firstr p47 down. Boy i tell ya i was so happy :)
-
What's missing is flurries/gusts. Lot's of them.
-
Student pilots find landings difficult. There's lots to do, lots to watch and you need to do it right.
20,000 hours later, the pilot and copliot still have time for one quick hand of 7 card stud from the outer marker to touchdown with the center pedestal as the table and the flight engineer can eat an entire coach meal in the same timeframe.
^
'
'
'
Relax; it's a joke.. but like most jokes, there's an underlying truth in it.
If you flew the most realistic simulator available and you flew it a lot eventually it would seem quite routine and easy for you.
Besides, did you come here to land or fight? ;)
And the fighting part is modeled pretty darn well.
-
From my experience (small), AH Landings are way too easy.
I have recently been learning to fly a CAP-10B, aerobatic two-seater, tail-dragger, and it doesn't have a rudder... the damn thing is so huge you could call it a sail.
The airplane in question is quite difficult to land. VERY sensitive, very light, good power/weight ratio and not very forgiving.
It took me close to 10 hours to land it properly (no bounces, good timing/altitude for the flare, etc...) and I can tell you that AH landings are very different to the real thing (ie MUCH easier).
Now, IL2 landings are not perfect either (control of the airplane seems to be too dependent on a definite airspeed), but they are more difficult, hence closer to the tension you have in Real Life.
My .02 € anyway.
Daniel
-
well ... In AH you don't have physical feed back ...
The Cap 10 is a nice beast to bad Mudry is no more :(
-
Hehe a little off-topic, but as much as I love the CAP, I'm waiting to have enough hours to have the clearance to fly the real jewel of the club, a Zlin Z-50 ;)
Single seater, more than 300hp, approved for +9G/-9G and, from what I'm told, a dream to fly.
(Not an actual pic of the one I'll eventually fly)
(http://acro.harvard.edu/ACRO/images/sp_aer_2.gif)
Daniel
-
I've done some acrobatie (no alone ;))
in a stampe : (http://www.aerokurier.rotor.com/akBilder/AKEINMOT/Stampe.JPG)
lovely little kite
-
I've heard several times on ch 1 somthing like "I can't even get my plane off the ground. This game is stupid. bye." Depending on whether HTC wants a realistic sim or to make more money, it might be in their interest to keep taking off simple.
Personally, I'd be happier with a higher quality piece of work rather than a few dollars in my pocket.
-
i think what we see in take off and landings is the fact that AH is a computer game, and therefore limited.
It is my experience that with any computer game, after you've played for a while, you get the 'knack' and it becomes easy. I do remember that landings were a little hard when i started in Warbirds, and then they just got so easy that i rarely fluffed one, even with ridiculously steep angles and lots of energy to dump.
In AH we've got fantastically varied and unpredictable things to shoot, i.e. other people, so we get spoiled, and expect other things to surprise and challenge us too.
When it comes down to it, there just aren't enough variables, wind, etc. to make landing unpredicatable. On top of this i imagine that HTC made a deliberate decision to keep take-offs and landings relatively simple so as not to scare people away, it's an air combat game after all....
i say all of this as someone who would love to see more complicated controls on our aircraft, mixture, prop pitch, guns jamming under hi G, harder navigation, etc. but i know that's because i'm a simmer as much as a gamer.