Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Rutilant on September 08, 2003, 08:21:15 PM
-
It seems to me, that for some reason IL2 (Sturmovik, not sure of FB) has a much higher quality FM than AH? It seems much more realistic.. possibly from how it takes away from the "flying-by-rail" feel AH seems to achieve. Mostly for me, it just feels more real, planes don't turn around in a quarter of a second like some do in AH (IL2 in AH takes about half a second.)
I dunno, really. I'de just like to hear some opinions, reasons why it feels so much better.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Rutilant
It seems much more realistic.. possibly from how it takes away from the "flying-by-rail" feel AH seems to achieve.
according to those in the "know" - people who have actually flown warbirds, "riding on rails" is the exact feeling. these aren't your typical light general aviation planes where a fart will make it wobble.
-
At least what is clear is that both sims feel very very different in every aspect.
-
has olaf, oleg or whatever the hell his name is, ever flown (piloted) a real warbird?
-
Hmm......
Well I have both SIMMs. Ground handling is very different. FB is very sensitive almost spooky! In the air I don't notice all that much difference. Truth be known, the Graphics in FB are sooo good that I don't even need the combat to enjoy the flying. Very immersive.
I would offer this: We can't sit in either SIMMs planes, only at our desks. Our sticks can be setup in both SIMMs to respond more to OUR expectations. You may try re-configuring either or both stick settings. Do you fly with "Stall Limiter" and "Combat Trim" in AH? IN IL2/FB you must trim the plane manually. This is difficult for me, I am only a Virtual Pilot. An out-of-trim plane can be an ugly thing to control.
I doubt any of the game makers have flown more than 1 or 2 WWII planes if that.
-
Well, one thing for certain..
Takeoffs and landings are a hell of a lot more exciting in IL2! Wheeeee!
-
Personally.... I don't notice much of a difference at all between IL-2 and AH. I don't even notice a difference in the shooting... I can land a snapshot at 350 yards in IL-2 just like I can in AH. Maybe people have their joysticks set up differently in the two games?
-
the fms are real similiar imo as well. I cant hit the shots urchin can but even gunnery isnt that diffferent. You do find less spray and pray and d600+ kills but other then that they are similiar.
-
The flight models feel the same to me as well. I find that the restrictive view system takes getting used to, but actually flying the plane in IL-2 comes naturally after flying AH.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Batz
the fms are real similiar imo as well. I cant hit the shots urchin can but even gunnery isnt that diffferent. You do find less spray and pray and d600+ kills but other then that they are similiar.
If gunnery isn't that different, why less spray and pray? Something to do with the super-obvious AH hit sprites, maybe?
-
Well, there's an obvious difference in the stalls. in AH if you yank the stick, you'll snaproll usually. Depending on the plane, of course. Yank the stick in anything except the IL2 in Sturmovik, and the tail of your plane 'slides' under you and you begin to tumble to the ground in a stall.
I'm not sure which one is more realistic, but AH seems to have a very pronounced 'limit' of how far you can pitch instantly..
Anyone still following? I hardly am. :confused:
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
If gunnery isn't that different, why less spray and pray? Something to do with the super-obvious AH hit sprites, maybe?
Lethality seems higher to me in Sturmovik.. The tailgun in the IL2 will quite often explode the offending plane outright.
Also, in realistic gunnery (i can only hope everyone plays on this setting ;)) the bullet spray looks more spread out to me than in AH.. at least compared to lasers and hizookas
-
The general feel of flight, I agree that it is pretty simular to AH. It's just the teensey bits of subtle differences that are just a bit more detailed than AH, that people come to enjoy when flying in FB. I dunno how exactly to describe it with words.... the feeling of 'momentum'... how the pilot's body and head moves with differing G loads... the slight buffeting in hard maneuvers.. the small contrails at the wingtips during hard maneuvers.. the slightly harder process dealing minor inputs etc etc..
The difficulties in landings and takeoffs, however, are a bit more pronounced, and it gives the pilot a good immersive feeling. Landing the twitchy Bf109s really take more concentration, while planes with wide landing gears like the P-47 or the Fw190, feel really different. The characteristic differences of planes, are better portrayed, and it is an enjoyable experience to feel each planes are different from other - whereas landing and takeoffs in AH feels really generic, with the possible exception of the F4Us in AH.
In gunnery, landing hits at distances between 350~500 are also possible, but the frequency is a lot lower than in AH, up to the point of not being practicll at all ... It is unlikely you will deal fatal damage with the 'long shots'(whereas the 'long' in AH, is defined further out, 600~800yards).
In AH, if you are caught by something like Hurri2C behind you at 350yards, you are practically dead, because that's the 'normal firing range' where you can expect to down planes. In FB, 350 yards is pretty much the limit you can expect to kill something.
The differences in flying also have a lot to do with the views - it is like said, a bit too restrictive. But having no direct 6 views, and being forced to check left side and right side individually is a nice touch, and it really brings out some interesting situations.
I don't think the two games are wildly different. But the subtleness of depicting the 'small stuff', generally ignored for gameplay purposes in AH, is in FB really immersive and impressive.. and the eye candy factor adds more convincing. Last time I was hit and got a fuel leak, I was forced to an emergency landing. As I landed and checked my plane, I saw the long white streak of fuel fade away, and the fuel gushed out from the side of my fuselage where it was hit... wow!
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The general feel of flight, I agree that it is pretty simular to AH.
For me they are similar as far as both simulate planes, instead one planes and the other submarines.
-
Originally posted by Shane
according to those in the "know" - people who have actually flown warbirds, "riding on rails" is the exact feeling. these are you're typical light general aviation planes where a fart will make it wobble.
That is right, here is a story of a Mustang flight:
http://www.wannafly.com/crazy_horse/ride.htm
The writer actually uses terms like "rock solid" and "tracks in the sky".
-
Something I notice about Il-2 lately, Once you get the thing trimmed proper you can shoot. Though it doesnt like staying in trim. I was flying a P-39 and taking 1.2k potshots at an He-111. I'd then slow it to 1/4 speed and switch to the 111s external. My shot would come in fly an inch or so over his wing and graze the front end. Next one passed a foot by top turret and then went between engine nacelle and fuselage. 3rd went between Horizontal stabilizer and wing. In AH you can fire a 3 round burst at the plane and ALL will hit the wing. When I shoot at the wing in Il-2 at 300 maybe 1 in 20 shots hit.
I prefer AH though in one way, when I trim my plane its trimmed. Instead of Il2s trim simulation.
-
Originally posted by Rutilant
It seems to me, that for some reason IL2 (Sturmovik, not sure of FB) has a much higher quality FM than AH? It seems much more realistic.. possibly from how it takes away from the "flying-by-rail" feel AH seems to achieve. Mostly for me, it just feels more real, planes don't turn around in a quarter of a second like some do in AH (IL2 in AH takes about half a second.)
I dunno, really. I'de just like to hear some opinions, reasons why it feels so much better.
:confused:
Ever flown before?
-
Im sure he has lotsa time in FW's Rude.
Get to the the point that you aren't going to make very well.
-
For me, it's the incredible effect that proper cowl flap management has on an engagement. The true aces were masters of the cowl flaps. There's some great books out there about cowl flappers.
-
Alright toad, you've been tugging on my pant leg for 4 months on that one. Every good puppy that yips and yaps often enough finally gets my attention... out of pure annoyance.
So explain the cowl flap thing and be done. I'd assume it's because you haven't bought FB and it's a goof on a stupid computer games attempt at realism.
But do explain already. Or get all excited that I noticed you and don't.
-
Tweaked.
-
Il2 FB has some nice touches but then it requires a fairly decent machine to run properly for most of the eye candy. From what I've seen of AH2, it'll be pretty close to FB minus some visual effects.
Il2 FB can afford to have all that eye candy because it's not a MMOG so for what it's worth, I think HTC is gonna come out doing really well with AH2.
The one thing that I like about Il2 and would love to see incorporated into AH2 are the hits and how they're represented.
I've watched ww2 gunnery footage and I must say that Il2 comes pretty darn close to what I've seen depicted in those films.
The smoke from cannon hits is great along with the little explosions from cannon rounds and of course the smoke contrails from the cannon rounds, all very well done.
Using MGs in Il2 is kinda sucky at least from what I've seen by the AI, was watching a p47 unload on a 190, it takes loads of MG rounds I'm talking 10 second bursts, quite a bit hitting the target nicking it to pieces but not doing much damage.
Just did some flying in a p47 against a 190 and some buffs in FB, didn't have any trouble downing them, must've been a sucky AI pilot that I mentioned in previous paragraph.
There are the occasional lucky shots where the guns take a wing off or saw a plane in half but it doesn't happen very often IMO. Guess I'll have to find out for myself, I've only been flying cannon/cannon and MG planes since the latest version came out.
As for the FMs, I prefer AH though FB has improved a lot, still think E bleed during maneuvers in FB doesn't 'feel' right, could be my incorrect perception of what it 'should be like' and the fact that I'm not accustomed to reading KPH though.
-
The only major flight difference that comes to mind between IL-2 and AH is the lack of combat trim in IL-2 and the resulting fact that the neutral stick position will cause some change in attitude in IL-2, depending on your airspeed. I actually find this unrealistic, because in real flight, the plane shouldn't start to move by itself as airspeed changes, it's the neutral position of the stick that becomes off-center. Since a computer joystick never changes its neutral position, the reverse happens in a flight sim, making maintaining simple level flight more complicated than in should be. Since some aircraft in IL-2 don't even have trim tabs, it can be very aggravating.