Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: stava on August 20, 1999, 09:06:00 AM
-
Just some suggestions for the record....
My biggest complaint about Warbirds and most
flight-sims in general is the absurd FM. The only game that got this right last year (and the graphics blew) was MS WWII FS. They carefully studied actual WWII gun camera footage to get the flavor/scale just right. Having flown real aircraft I know that flight controls tend to have a more gradual response time - not this "Rubber Band" response we see in WB. Check the FM in Microsofts WWII FS - its the closest I've seen yet.
The second gripe is the redundancy of WBs gameplay. After a year or two of taking the same airfields back and forth it just gets pointless and boring. The HA seemed a good solution - but hardly anyone flies there.
Just my 10 cents...
-
The second gripe is the redundancy of WBs gameplay. After a year or two of taking the same airfields back and forth it just gets pointless and boring.
Ummm, just a suggestion, but have you tried any ACM with other players yet? In fighters? I always thought that was a great feature of WB.
DH
-
"They carefully studied actual WWII gun camera footage.."
Oh. this is a new one <snork>. FM's based on ambiguos data retrieved from watching
movies.....
Why didn't any other sim maker think of this.
<rolls eyes>
Could have saved them all the expense and paper in having to deal with recorded datum and actual test pilot reports.....
-Facecious
-
“Oh. this is a new one <snork>. FM's based on ambiguous data retrieved from watching movies.....”
Gun camera footage had NOTHING to do with the flight modeling in CFS. We looked at guncam footage and said “How can we look like this?” To think that flight model decisions were made based on 10 seconds of film is ludicrous.
------------------
Roy "BadMan" McMillion
4th Fighter Group
335th Fighter Squadron "The Chiefs"
Fourth but First!
-
Ok kids, calm down. What prolly happened is that he's talking about two different things (FM, and views/perspective) here, eh? The brain is mightier than the pen, but only if actually used... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
TKoKFKA-OZDS-
[This message has been edited by Ozymandias_KoK (edited 08-20-1999).]
-
Get a PDPI digital gamecard...bye bye
rubberband
-
I also think Stava was presenting two different ideas in one paragraph.
When I first read it, it seemed to me that he was saying he liked the MS WII FS Flight Model better than WB, primarily due to its control response. He also said its "flavor/scaling" was better, which I took as the WWII ambiance...the feeling of "being there in WWII" and it's plane sizing (scaling) were an improvement over WB.
After I re-read it, I still think that's what he was driving at.
I can't comment on his FM observations because I never loaded the MS game...I have it, just never found time to play it.
As far as "scaling", I don't know about WWII FS, but neither AW or WB give the player the realistic visual cues you would see from an airplane cockpit. They may be precisely "mathematically correct", but they _in no way_ accurately represent the visual detail that you will see in the air. So, here I side with Stava.
Look at it this way:
Think of a "slider" bar in the Game Options section of the program.
At the left end of the slider bar is "most 'mathematically correct' scaling".
At the right end of the slider bar is "most accurate visual representation of WWII ACM as seen from the cockpit".
Right now, in almost all the games, the slider is welded in the "mathematically correct" position.
This position is great if you're seeking the true purity of the mathematical experience. If you love graphing calculators, you'll love this presentation.
If, on the other hand, you want to see what the Heroes of the 1940's saw when they looked out of their plexiglas perch, then you want the slider to move to the right. If you're in search of the feel and flavor of flying and fighting in a piston powered airplane, the "mathematical" model just won't do it. In order to get to "historical realism" we're simply going to have to skew the math.
Best Regards,
John
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-24-1999).]
-
I gotta disagree about the FM stuff. I haven't tried MS CFS because I have FS98 (which CFS is based upon). And quite frankly, that flight model sucks. First and foremost, it doesn't feel right (don't ask me to explain that). Second, even the numbers and stuff are just plain wrong. (I could give you examples here...).
Still, to me, TOSKAWB does the best job of simulating the responsiveness of a real aircraft. I do agree, however, that WB feel s alittle bit like a rubber band, unless you've got a good gamecard. Once that is done, WB definately feels like a real aircraft. Of course, the only difference is that I can't feel the shudder when I snap the wings level in WB like one can on occasion in RealLife (tm).
I will concede, however, that the view/perspective stuff Toad oh-so-elegantly explained is correct. TOSKAWB does make the planes look teeny weeny even at close ranges where in RealLife they would appear to be HUGE. Of course, TOSKAWB does a good job in that they're dots for a long time, then airplanes, then dots again...much like RealLife!
-blk-- <JG5>
-
You're too kind -blk-- Thanks!
I'd like to hear more on this gamecard stuff. I've got everything plugged into a SB Live soundcard.
What can I gain by going to a card and which brands/models are highly suggested?
Thanks
-
Well, I'm no authority on the gamecard thing...
My Force FX was plugged into an AWE64, and it felt just a tad rubber-bandish. When I installed an ACM card (Thrustmaster's gamecard), it tightened up just a bit. I'd be willing to bet that the PDPI Lightning card would do even better.
It's also interesting to note that the problem (like it's real big...what sissies me be) got better when I upgraded from a P2 266 to a 400MHz box.
-blk-- <JG5>