Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKWeav on September 16, 2003, 12:15:59 PM
-
http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiolhq/dg_message.jsp?group_id=8863&parent_id=3255137&BV_SessionID=@@@@1352637842.1063731910@@@@&BV_EngineID=fadcifjfjffebjjcgmcggichhl.0
-
"In short.. AI= Bandaid for gameplay problem elsewhere."
With that as a definition I imagine CRS would eagerly sacrifice thier first borns to be able to introduce and utilize AI like HTC can.
And Samart is incapable of not making things up.
-
Warbirds did the same thing re: AI, and for the same reason.
-
You can't have a realistic "online battlefield" without AI. Period.
-
In my best Sinefeld voice:
"Revvin"
(you know...like the way he said "Newman".)
-
Yup. And AI works well imo for that purpose. There are a lot fewer that prefer driving a two or four engined "bus" in these games than some would have us believe. AI does very well as a stand-in for human players when it comes to bombers, base defense guns, supply and ack-ack.
And also IMO, WWIIO sure could use AI for gun/troop haulering, supply convoys, trains and naval units/convoys just for starters. I mean, when they get trains, convoys or a navy of course ;)
-
AI has it's uses, for sure, provided they are not used in place of something that people would like to do, which is, I think, his point.
-
I can see that point if it were applicable. It's not. His point is moot as far as AH-II is concerned because AI isn't prohibiting players from flying bombers nor fighers or ground vehicles either. AI fills in the positions not manned by humans to ensure that the numbers are there for a "fuller" scenario.
IF AI was taking the place of human players then I would agree that a system such as that would suck. Might as well "fly" offline or with a box game that has limited MP.
-
Yep, and that has always seemed to me like the right way to run a persistant online war. Make it so the war goes on, even if no one is there to play, and allow people to jump into an AI's position at any point .
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
You can't have a realistic "online battlefield" without AI. Period.
yes you can, if it weren't for the stupid AI in the towns WW2OL would be what you said we cannot have....
and I think there are enought players to take up the slack too....
West,
when was the last time you checked the game out? I hope the army guys had a good time driving all those ships I strafed last night ;)
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
They're Talking About Us Again
That's cool. I tried my free week of WWIIOL. They can talk about us all day long over there and then we can talk about them. And then at the end of the day, we'll all just go back to playing "our" game :)
-Sik
-
Hi Udie. Been playing a lot this last week as I have a 2ghz plus machine this go round to try it with. Not able to get any "river boats" or the new DD's as I do not have sufficient rank. But a badly modelled river boat and a one shot kill all DD don't a navy make.
http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95978
While some such as you, Revvin or Gadly enjoy it I still find it has too many serious issues. Most of which have been there since day one and have not been addressed sufficiently or at all.
In the meantime other major changes have essentially made it so that new players either jump in with one of the first squads that invite them or they end up (like me) dissatisfied that they cannot just logon and participate in the "electronic battlefield" on thier own.
-
Westy-I will play with sticks and dirt and have a great time-so long as it is me and some friends doing it together.
-
Bah, Funked's right. Look at WW2OL -- what's the ratio of ground troops to tanks to aircraft in operation at any given time? How does that compare to RL? How often do you have _organized_ engagements of at least an infantry company on each side? What kind of logistics are there in WW2OL? Do you have enough people manning the repair depots, ammo dumps, POL facilities?
Basically, a "realistic modern battlefield simulation" involves a lot of people doing boring stuff. AI needs to be applied to take care of the boring stuff. Criticizing AH for having AI supply convoys is dumb.
-
Still can't compare to "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat".
-
I tell you what, the ratio has shifted. I see hundreds and hundreds of infantry now. In fact tanks are pretty rare. There are a lot of fighters to bombers, but in any given area, I would say the air/ground ratio is good.
And there are a lot of people doing guard duty now. Is it a realistic battlefield simulation? Of course not. Is it a playable battlefield game? Sure is fun to me.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Yep, and that has always seemed to me like the right way to run a persistant online war. Make it so the war goes on, even if no one is there to play, and allow people to jump into an AI's position at any point .
Yep.
-
Funked, you realize that there is a game out there, right now that does exactly that(with one tiny, tiny, little difference)?
-
What, OFP? :D
-
Basically, a "realistic modern battlefield simulation" involves a lot of people doing boring stuff. AI needs to be applied to take care of the boring stuff. Criticizing AH for having AI supply convoys is dumb.
Boring for whom? maybe if HTC brought out AI fighter formations..the shoe would be on the other foot eh? ;)
With that as a definition I imagine CRS would eagerly sacrifice thier first borns to be able to introduce and utilize AI like HTC can.
No, I dont think you will ever see that over there (other than AA which is where the line should be drawn imo), and if it is..my money will go elsewhere.
Just a show of hands, how many of you in this thread belong to Bomber squads?hmmm? Not fighter piots that fly bombers when the urge to conga strikes..but dedicated weekly bomber pilots?
The process of developing gameplay is simple,its all a bunch of "whys" untill you cant say why anymore.
We need AI Bomber drones
why"
Cause there ant enough humans that want to do it
why?
Cause the bomber model/ gameplay for the bombers is unapealing.
Then we need to fix it.
If you only get as far as:
We need to have AI bombers
why?
Cause there arent enought humans that want to do it
And leave it at that, then..its a bandaid.
I really enjoyed neeting many of you ingame, and had some fun here, but I'll not fly in a sim where AI are an acceptable medium for the lack of appealing gameplay for some, but are'nt ok for others. Especially when the comercial touts " play with thousands from around the globe" instead of "play with many AI drones from nowhere"
and best of luck
Maj blkmgc
XO 550th BGH
-
IL2-the teeny little difference, is, of course, that it is not persistant. As a scenario designer, though, I can tell you that the IL2 model is pretty much faultless, within it's limitations in regard to what we are talking about.
-
Raises hand!
-
heh. you seem to equate my criticism with a defense of AH.
-
Hardcase still makes me laugh. :lol:
-
Never spammed..i was banned for responding to a ww2ol thread in the general forums..apparently HT thought I started the thread..btw..I am back in just under a diff name and another IP.
Quick! Look for post-newbie WW2OL fanboys!
-
who cares.. those fanboys can stay with that pos they play. They can't hold their own on our servers so they have to bash us to justify their game.
-
Yo, Sunking, that is a double edge sword you are swinging there.
-
Yeah yeah Gadfly.. but mind what board we're on.. Just go back over there if you're gonna defend it so valiantly.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I tell you what, the ratio has shifted. I see hundreds and hundreds of infantry now.
Which begs the question... Why compare AH to WW2OL?
Might as well compare IL-2 to Quake.
-
There is no comparison, which is the funny part of the whole argument. IL2 is not AH, AH is not WWIIOL and WWIIOL and WB are not IL2. WB, AH and FA are in the same niche, I guess, but even then, playing one does not mean you can't enjoy another.
-
Defend what? I play what I like, and so should you.
-
edit... not even worth the argue..
-
blkmgc I think your attitude towards AI is probably the most short sighted uneducated dribble I've seen for ages.
What could AI do for WW2OL? For a start, road and ship convoys providing a logistics infrastructure and that affects fuel, ammo, and vehicle supplies. And much much more.
The funny thing is, when I asked about this in WW2OL (logistics infrastructure) I was told it was a planned 'thing'. So AI is going to be implemented on a similar scale in WW2OL too, just perhaps not in buff formations.
WW2OL doesn't have the numbers to run those sorts of things without AI. If there were no AI the map would be reset every night. Last night I was part of large attacks on a couple of towns (Tienen and Leuven), we rolled those towns with virtually NO resistance, at most we had EI or ETs spawning once we'd captured depots, killed the AI, and had a dozen panzers sitting in the AB.
-
You've got to admit the whole thing is funny. How Hardcase spammed this board like a good 'un for a couple of years detailing 'features' in WW2OL superior to AH, that have been proven to be either porked beyond belief or simply non-existant.
If AH was a female tennis player, Hardcase would be the nutjob in the front row, with a knife in his hand and a crazy glint in his eye.
-
Some of the people on the linked thread seems just as silly as some over here.
-
*Waves to the WWIIOL crowd*
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Some of the people on the linked thread seems just as silly as some over here.
I agree, and wish they'd really just stay over there.
MiniD
-
People all over the world (everybody)
Join hands (join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (all the world, now)
Join hands (love ride)
Start a love train (love ride), love train
-Sik
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Basically, a "realistic modern battlefield simulation" involves a lot of people doing boring stuff. AI needs to be applied to take care of the boring stuff. Criticizing AH for having AI supply convoys is dumb.
Boring for whom? maybe if HTC brought out AI fighter formations..the shoe would be on the other foot eh? ;)
With that as a definition I imagine CRS would eagerly sacrifice thier first borns to be able to introduce and utilize AI like HTC can.
No, I dont think you will ever see that over there (other than AA which is where the line should be drawn imo), and if it is..my money will go elsewhere.
Just a show of hands, how many of you in this thread belong to Bomber squads?hmmm? Not fighter piots that fly bombers when the urge to conga strikes..but dedicated weekly bomber pilots?
The process of developing gameplay is simple,its all a bunch of "whys" untill you cant say why anymore.
We need AI Bomber drones
why"
Cause there ant enough humans that want to do it
why?
Cause the bomber model/ gameplay for the bombers is unapealing.
Then we need to fix it.
If you only get as far as:
We need to have AI bombers
why?
Cause there arent enought humans that want to do it
And leave it at that, then..its a bandaid.
I really enjoyed neeting many of you ingame, and had some fun here, but I'll not fly in a sim where AI are an acceptable medium for the lack of appealing gameplay for some, but are'nt ok for others. Especially when the comercial touts " play with thousands from around the globe" instead of "play with many AI drones from nowhere"
and best of luck
Maj blkmgc
XO 550th BGH
AI bomber formations have nothing to do with "bomber guys". Regardless of how "bombers" are modelled they arent a "big draw" and the fighters folk will almost always out number or at the very least be in equal numbers.
If HT sticks to his plan and Ah2:ToD starts with an 8th airforce setup then the numbers of bomber pilots per mission required to maintain any kind of "historical ratio" will be large. Much larger then you ever saw in WBs or AH.
AH did a "Big Week" scenario with 150 b17s, that still wasnt enough as us lw (2 guys in my squad had 20 kills in 2 frames) killed almost all of them. In our BoB event we had 150 Ju88s. That still wasnt enough.
With missions running on the hour or half hour and the average mission taking about and 1 and a half you will need many many bomber pilots.
AI just supplements those numbers. A player can join a mission as a bomber pilot (not just man the guns or be the bombadier but fly his bomber) and then fly in formation with AI and other human pilots.
Not only is a larger formation better able to defend itself (HT said their will be auto gunners for the AI) but the human bomber pilot wont necessarily take the brunt of the attack. This is very important because bombers being very easy to kill, as they should be (unlike buff tough, lethality roulette like in WBs), the bomber pilots need to have chance of surviving. As a part of a larger formation their odds of survival increase.
Even if their were 300 "dedicated" bomber pilots in AH its not enough to keep missions running on the hour. AI will still be needed. So yeah there isnt enough human bomber pilots. I dont care how well bombers are modelled in any game, you wont ever have those kinda of numbers.
Il2/FB online wars use a lot of AI. Despite some of the bugs in Fb AI does a good job filling rolls where they are no humans.
Ah2 wont have Fighter AI (there really wont be that great a need for it). However, tank attacks and "real" bomber" raids will require larger numbers.
Theres lots things AI could do in wwiiol, things that usually dont get done if there is no human willing to do it. Transports for one. Imagine the guy who makes a mission slects an AI truck, he sets way points and once loaded the truck drives there and dumps off the inf or an at gun. etc. No more virtual jogger.
Say some one makes a 50 plane bomber mission. AI fills out those slots where there are no human pilots. They would need many escorts and would need many attackers to stop them. It would change the nature of the air war where by escort and intercept become more normal then fly to the closest enemy airfield and vulch.
Their could be AI supply convoys, AI shipping convoys etc.......
AI can have a meaningfull role whether in an enviroment like wwiiol or IL2 or wbs or AH. AI doesnt take slots from humans but takes up those roles that dont get filled if there arent enough humans who are willing to do it.
Thats one thing that box games have shown.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I agree, and wish they'd really just stay over there.
MiniD
that didn't get you any points... you're everyday just making sillier of yourself
-
"I tell you what, the ratio has shifted."
True. There is more infantry because unless you have rank you can't be much more at all. It would be like AH forcing everyone to fly the A6M2, MC202, P40B, 109E etc etc unless they had a LOT of perk pionts to fly something better.
"even then, playing one does not mean you can't enjoy another."
Absolutley. But it seems posting ones opinion here (certainly can;t post it on their boards can I?) is heresy and not allowed? I always post what I like (not much. mainly the terrain) and do not like about WWIIO (which is quite a lot). And now as in the past I get whole discertations and caustic rebuttals from the fanboi's such as Headcase, Fishu or ZilchAce as to how it's my problem and not CRS's or WWIIO. And that my opinon is trolling bullsh&t or outright lies and disinformation posted to discredit CRS and the game.
"short sighted uneducated dribble"
That''s been his trade mark for quite some time. That's my honest opinion. Not just a flame.
Still, in response to his bent logic line of "why's". Why don't more players want to fly bombers instead of fighters? It's very simple. For the same reason more players do not drive infantry trucks or tow vehicles in WWIIO and why AH and WB players don't fly the C47 or JU "missuns".
Using a motor vehicle analogy I believe it would be the same reasons most players wouldn't drive a slow, unexciting UPS truck or Metropiltan bus to some destination in order to drop off or pick up passengers or packages is because it's inherantly boring. Most player want to drive the hi performance cars and race against others which is something more exciting to do and requires more skill in the long run.
In WWII combat games players want to fight against others. Not just deliver a lethal coupe de gras against tool sheds or run resupply.
"Hardcase still makes me laugh."
To be honest Hardcase has a serious medical condition and the resultant medication regimen he takes makes me believe he's incapable of remembering accurately what he does.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
that didn't get you any points... you're everyday just making sillier of yourself
That's OK fishu... I believe that at the daily rate I'm going, I'll need another 47 years to make it to your level.
Some day you'll come over here to do something other than critique AH or its community in an attempt to make WW2OL look better. Then you can start the daily process of looking less silly.
MiniD
-
I thought fishu played AH?
-
He did a long time ago. Back in the day, he was THE master of the volcano kill streak.
-
Westy and Vulcan,
I am sorry that you lack the class and maturity to post without insult. I read my post, ther was no banner waving on my part for anybody, too bad some cant express opinion without degredation or insult.
Batz.
Thanks for your courteous reply. Your kind of posts perpetuate rational discussions.
Now onto the meat. I was under the impression that these are flight sims.. Its been in my experience that there still is'nt any flight sim that offeres a correctly modeled bomber airframe. Then you have ,as you mentioned, 2 pilots with 20 kills in 2 frames. How unrealistic is that? Bomber pilots always get the short end of the stick where dammage model is concerned. 5 hits, the whole tail falls off, or the wings come flying off ect ect ect. There is no model for things like flying a fighter at 20k+ in freezing temperatures where getting on the slow 6 of a bomber would bash a fighter with so much turbulence that it would be too uncontrollable to shoot anything. Buff tuff? hehe, imo thats an ongoing bandaid. I think that if the ammount of work was put into a decent dammage model that was necessary to make attacks realistically marginally survivable, that there would be many more bomber pilots.What do we like? Simple. Long well planned missions ,with escorts preferably, that we have a slight chance to survive. Do we expext no losses? Absolutely not. In all 3 sims, I have experienced such well thought out and organized attacks on very large bomber formations by very excelent squadrons that deserved to get kills..and many times did. But when an aircraft can launch from a field that your bombing and within 10 minutes or so pull up like he's refeuling and kill you with 6 or 7 hits...its crap.
AI:
I have no problem with AI doing ground resupply, ships and railroads ect.Hey, thats great...gives evreyone else something to go after. And I would have no problem with with AI bomber formations as long as its done as a place holder in leu of actually researching and developing a decent bomber FM/DM with the hopes of actually having mass human formations eventually carrying out the task.
blkmgc
-
Too often the words class and matuirty get tossed around by people. Especially when they haven't a clue what they mean.
"But when an aircraft can launch from a field that your bombing and within 10 minutes or so pull up like he's refeuling and kill you with 6 or 7 hits...its crap.
I'd have to agree that would be b.s. if it were the norm in AH but I'm more convinced that the bomber pilot that this happens to just plain sucks or is legally blind.
(no added as would indicate some measure of respect given and I reserve that for those who at least have earned it - even minimally - and will not waste it on anyone who has always talked from between the cheeks of their posterior)
-
MiniD,
LOL, you're downright silly.
I haven't played WWIIOL since april and top of it all I've been dissing it all along since v1.8 and even worse after v1.9 :D
What comes to complaints of AH, does it mean you can only complain of game issues if you're siding for another game?
I wonder what game I sided with back then when AH was newer and I critisized certain issues.
Which of hizookas and .50cals were already back then an issue, nothing that I came up with after the WWIIOL :D
And no, I don't dis AH players.. I dis certain kinds of people, regardless of the game.
Toad,
Sorry, I still don't know how the volcano thing happened, other than knowing there was a bug with the volcano.
I only became aware of it when the guy ... was it "Jim.." something did it, however never got to know how it exactly worked.
Perhaps you should go to check the time / kill ratio of my 278 kill streak in Fw190A8? it was quite low, definately not something you'd get with volcano. (bugger, they don't show the time per kill score anymore in the stats)
If the volcano bug even existed anymore by then.. cannot remember the timelines anymore.
Besides the fact of flying other planes as well for some and in different sides.
I wonder how you'd excuse my other continuous streaks :)
Like for example in Dawn of Aces I had 96 kills during 14 flights and 1 death... that wasn't even the best of the streaks in DoA (47), it was just the amount of kills per flight to death ratio.
It's just too bad you've became such an unhonoured person.
You weren't like this back then.
Survival just happened to be my fun back then.
You should ask Kieren, he could probably remember the time he almost cut off my streak by giving a bunch of .50 cals into my A8's bottom, which miraculously didn't break a thing and he got shot down when turning his back at me - sure of the kill.
And from the tour I had 7 kills in a B17G - the guy was wulfie * 7.
and I think it was Widowmkr (or something like that), who cut the tip off my A8 when I shot down his B17, but I managed to land at a field straight ahead.
Got even a screenshot of it somewhere.
-
"You should ask Kieren, he could probably remember the time he almost cut off my streak by giving a bunch of .50 cals into my A8's bottom, which miraculously didn't break a thing "
THAT'S UNPOSSIBEL!!! Everyone knows the Aces High "laser" fifties will shred your airplane with only a mere round or two hitting it!! ;)
-
From 1600 yards at that.......
-
..if not more!!!
-
Heheh, when I posted the link I had no idea it would take off in the direction it did. I was more interested in one post in that thread.
Copy from a ww20l post from the linked thread:
"WG: I see. I don't know if you've had a lot of time to think about this, but after Aces High II is released, what are the next couple of major changes or additions you have in mind.
DA: There's still the same list that's always been there. I mean, after Aces High II is released and stable, we'll be back to adding more aircraft and more items along with it. I've always wanted to get to the "first-person-shooter" stuff. The Aces High II engine supports that really, really well. So that will be one of them. And then we'll be back to submarines. I want both of those in the game."
Here's the hook line that grabbed me: Sounds like they are heading into direct competion with WWIIOL:eek:
-
I don't think so, Weav, for a lot of reasons. Mainly, WWIIOL has aircraft as a sideline, not the main game. Secondly, there are no scripted missions, just a sandbox full of toys. I am excited about AHTOD, though, to me it is in direct competition with IL2.
-
I don't think so either. But it's interesting that some of them think so.:D
-
"it's interesting that some of them think so."
Because for a large portion of the player base over there WWIIO is thier first online game. In thier eyes WWIIO was first, everything else came after and is of course a WWIIO "wannabee."
BTW, I will be curious as to how WWIIO will handle the six view in aircraft like the up and coming P39 as well as the Typhoon, 190 or bubble top P47 and P51's.
From what I understand the six view just doesn't exist in WWIIO due to that intitial, short sighted frenzy for "realism." Like the illthought out "Gauge view" (although I think part of it was to save players form a larger FPS loss in the stock forward view). So essentially right now any "unit" you spawn in (soldier, truck, gun boat or airplane) you're able to get a close 5 or 7 o'clock view at best but in thier passion to eliminate the "6" view they forgot to model the pilot/driver/soldier/gun crews ability to twist thier torso and turn thier neck. (But wow! They spent a lot of time and resources modelling a useless graphics gimic like moving control stick and levers! :eek: )
-
Actually Westy the pilots in wwiiol do rotate their torso, they do move their head out to the side, and the viewpoint is as close to the canopy as is possble without positioning the pilots skull outside the glass.
At least that's how it was designed and the spit I and 109 set up and carefully measured. The later planes should be that way too unless mistakes were made.
And canopies are produced in actual scale, which defines what you can see in a forward view. Instrument view was added so you could get a better look, as we try to use realistic instrument size and location and accurate scale and head position which means they will not all be in forward view with a 90^ FOV. Especially things like trim wheels etc. Some guages are even in the right/left views if that's where they were in the real aircraft.
Maybe we should have gone with generic guages, and just positioned them so they would all be in view in every plane? Maybe we should allow custom head positioning where you can place your head 6" through the cockpit glass or into the gun sight in front of you? But we decided not to.
-
I don't know about whether head positioning allows for anything past the canopy, but I enjoy it. I think the view system in AH is the best thing out there to date and one of the best things about the game itself. I'm not a big fan of the generic gauges though, and would love to see historically accurate gauges (in placement, design, and language), but that's definitely not a deal breaker for me.
-
Originally posted by CRS Killer
Actually Westy the pilots in wwiiol do rotate their torso, they do move their head out to the side, and the viewpoint is as close to the canopy as is possble without positioning the pilots skull outside the glass.
At least that's how it was designed and the spit I and 109 set up and carefully measured. The later planes should be that way too unless mistakes were made.
And canopies are produced in actual scale, which defines what you can see in a forward view. Instrument view was added so you could get a better look, as we try to use realistic instrument size and location and accurate scale and head position which means they will not all be in forward view with a 90^ FOV. Especially things like trim wheels etc. Some guages are even in the right/left views if that's where they were in the real aircraft.
Maybe we should have gone with generic guages, and just positioned them so they would all be in view in every plane? Maybe we should allow custom head positioning where you can place your head 6" through the cockpit glass or into the gun sight in front of you? But we decided not to.
There's your hardcase right there
-
Hiya Killer!
Long time, no see. This is the "Killer" that is a principal in CRS, right?
Are you guys going to open up your boards to presently non-subscribed members?
Thanks!
-
How do you know he doesn't play AH?
-
"There's you HC"
That's not HC. Neither HC nor any of the other fan-bois would impersonate him or any other CRS employee to post here IMO.
"Are you guys going to open up your boards to presently non-subscribed members? "
lol. Yeah right. I'll hold my breath! Watch....
CRS_Killer I'll concede that what WWIIO has 5 and 7 oclock views that are pretty close to realistic for the aircraft with a fuselage like the Spit and 109. The view is a close approximation of the end of any torso and neck motions but WWIIO does not in any way model "movement" beyond that one forever fixed angle view.
And while AH may have too generous a view in some of the aircraft I'd much rather have it that way than have no movement at all. The explanation given was it's a compromise for the lack of rear view mirrors and the inability to model on a PC monitor the encompassing view and peripheral vision that pilots had. While I still think that some need to adjusted I would rather live with the few excesses than go backward a decade to fixed compass point views from a decade ago. The old "head nailed to a pivoting board" system, ala AW, WB's and WWIIO, just doesn't come close to any semblence of realism any more (for me). I do give CRS a "wtg" on not modelling Linda Blairs head movement though.
IMO with the efforts CRS made in the attempt to create realistism or immersive (such as moving control column, levers, icons, no linda blair 6 view) I am surprised CRS did not advance past that age old view system as AH has. Kudos on the innovative icons too.
And yes, I personally would rather CRS had put the gauges (generic or otherwise) in the standard forward view as IMO that replicates a pilots peripheral vision and ability to quickly glance at guages (with just the eyes and not by moving the whole head) in the cockpit a lot more realistically than a seperate guage view. Again, when constrained by a 17" or so monitor replicating the view to the "world" for a game player.
I know my opinion won't sway yours or anyone elses at CRS and likewise yours with mine. These topics (six view and guage view) were discussed and argued over during the closed beta and on the old boards. The fact is these"features" are there and there's nothing I or any other player can do to change that. Well other voice displeasure and criticism with those choices during discussions. And for me when they're added in with some other serious flaws and other issues such as disappearing cons, enemy/friendly biasing problems and not being able to enjoy playing without having to join a squad, I also forgo the extra step of subscribing.
-
-
Originally posted by CRS Killer
...as we try to use realistic instrument size and location and accurate scale and head position which means they will not all be in forward view with a 90^ FOV. Especially things like trim wheels etc. Some guages are even in the right/left views if that's where they were in the real aircraft.
Maybe we should have gone with generic guages, and just positioned them so they would all be in view in every plane? Maybe we should allow custom head positioning where you can place your head 6" through the cockpit glass or into the gun sight in front of you? But we decided not to.
Good try but no cigar.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/109chickenpits.jpg
-
Explain those to me, Staga, I don't understand what I am seeing.
-
Ditto what Gadfly said.
-
Ditto what Toad said. Open your boards and let us have a chat with the guys playing your game.
As for what Staga posted - the lines I assume represent some sort of scale in relation to head position and dial size. He's basically saying that the dials are too small for the head position modelled in WW2OL.
-
Ummm, as someone with a foot in both I'm not convinced the 5/7oclock views in WW2OL are that bad.
It certainly allows for a sneak up on their low 6, it sometimes also give you spot to escape through. I get the feeling that the old 90% of those shot down never saw the guy that hit em is more realistic in WW2OL simply because of this.
I don't find the rest of the internal views restrictive either.
I find there is a lot more 'reacquiring' of the target in WW2OL.
I think the gauges are hard to read, historical or not, and the internal control movements are nice but a waste of poly's and FPS.
-
What Staga is showing is that Killers WW2 online cockpit is not realistic as he claims. Its close...but no cigar.
-
Vulcan, my point (perhaps worded or expressed badly?) regarding the WWIIO six view, or lack of, was not to say that a 5 or 7 o'clock view is unrealistic but that, IMO, the march made during development to be original with some "realismZ" features ended up causing a problem in that all "vehicles" in WWIIO share the same "view" attributes. In other words if you cannot get a "6" view in an airplane you also can't in a truck, as a soldier nor as a crewman in a gun. What are they going to do when a bubble or MAlcom hood equipment plane needs to be modelled.
Same with the "realistic" seperate "clear" gauge view. In a truck you need to look "down" with your head, not just glance with your eyes, to get a clear reading on the instruments. Do you have to do that in RL too? No of course not. But the WWIIO "feature" forces you to do that in order to see the readings clearly no matter what "vehicle" you're in.
As for Staga's pic? I think it shows that WWIIO has a cockpit more generic than real and that the guages are blurred on purpose in the forward view and is much worse than anything that a pilot in real life would have had to deal with.
-
-
Hardcase is my guess...Killer wouldn't come to a competitors board and do this.
-
Why not? he reads and post often on AGW in the off topic forum, as do many of the rats.
-
None of the games let you see as well or as you would in a real plane.. They all have some comprimises.. The guages for instance... you can take in all the guages in a real plane with a glance and still take in about 5 of the 'views" the sims have all in a nano second....
All the sims are about comprimise... Ah gives the best "comprimise to realism" ratio of any sim I have seen.
lazs
-
"Why not? he (Killer) reads and post often on AGW in the off topic forum, as do many of the rats."
These are HTC company web boards provided to thier players while AGW is a WB's fan created public board. Can't see the difference can you? Now when Killer or any other CRS employee posts anything regarding WWIIO on the iEN company boards then you might have some kind of a point.
But the really ironic thing is that I highly doubt that HiTech or Pyro are able to go to the WWIIO boards, as freely as Killer or DocDoom have been here on HTC's boards, to reply to WWIIO players comments on AH (assuming they'd want to).
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Why not? he reads and post often on AGW in the off topic forum, as do many of the rats.
Off hand I'd say it's because he's taking advantage of competitor's courtesy without offering the same in exchange.
MiniD
-
you guys, these are games....
:lol :rofl
-
Originally posted by Udie
you guys, these are games....
:lol :rofl
WTF! You bastard! Rationality like that will get you lynched! Now shaddap and watch the show.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Off hand I'd say it's because he's taking advantage of competitor's courtesy without offering the same in exchange.
MiniD
Thanks, Mini.
If I even had the remotest idea that something so obvious would need repeated explanation I'd have made a much, much more detailed post to begin with. My mistake.
I'll wager Killer got it right off the bat though.
But maybe, after you just spelled it out for them, the rest of them will get it. ;)
-
"you guys, these are games.... "
Sure. And it's only a discussion. It's not like there's a great village gathering collecting feathers and boiling up the tar ..... yet ;)
On the other hand I imagine I could leave this topic and go post in the other of the OT discussions, "you guys, this is just politics..."
-
I'm not nearly as optimistic Toad. You'd think such a simple concept would be painfully obvious... to the point of wincing when it's pointed out. But, there are still those that say "I do see what the problem is" as they participate in a discussion on this BBS because we can't participate in the discussion on theirs.
"Can you imagine what CRS would have to deal with if they allowed anyone to post on their forums?"
Yes I can.
MiniD
-
They can if they want to, I would even give them free accounts if they asked. The boards aren't going to open up though, they are for a purpose and the signal to noise ratio is high enough already. I believe the support forums are open, or were last I checked.
One of these days I may even have time to take Dale up on his offer to go fly with him till he makes me barf. :)
These are just games, an assortment of compromises to realism drawn on lines that each developer makes for their own reasons. Enjoy them for what they are and what they do, as each does different things better or worse or just different, and each has plenty of good things to enjoy.
To sit and pick any sim apart on any issue is easy, anyone can do it to any sim, but it really only accomplishes nothing but lessening opportunities for fun for people who do so.
And yes I read here and many other places, It gives a good idea of how people view my product and ideas on what to prioritize to fix. I also play other games, even games like EQ and SWG. I even post as myself on the SWG boards griping at their developers :)
-
Well, Killer, I'll disagree with you on the boards question.
They are your boards to do with as you will; I've got no problem there.
But, seems to me, if you truly wanted "a good idea of how people view my product and ideas on what to prioritize to fix", you'd open them up. Because then people like me would tell you what it's going to take to get me to subscribe. ;)
Signal to noise is ALWAYS high. It is here, it is on your board. The difference is you're blocking access to necessary info.
I like your concept in WW2OL. I'd like to keep watching it as it develops and I'd like to be able to read and post in your boards. I want to learn what's going on, ask questions, get answers and.. participate.
Yeah, I might even contribute "noise" now and then. ;)
But we all know that after a while each of us has built-in noise filters that work. We just ignore the scheisskopf posters as soon as we see them post.
But, it's your choice and I have no problem with that.
I do find it... ummmm.... interesting.... that you would post here, a place where anyone, anywhere, anytime can post but yet you're convinced your own boards need to stay closed to non-members.
-
Beautiful. So HTC can do whatever they want with their BBS, but not CRS?
Nowhere have I seen HTC say that this BBS is open to the general public, expect employees of their competion. And killer is part of the general public.
The CRS BBS is open to paying customers. There ya go, their BBS thier rules.
Edit: Cross posted with Toad.
-
" I believe the support forums are open, or were last I checked. "
Nope. I had some problems with using the keymapper and views that I could not post about anywhere on the WWIIO boards. I knew about AGW and found some of the answers there. Pity the trial players who don't and need help.
I get this error trying to post to all the forumns. Here's a copy of it just now from trying to post a question "support"
"WWIIOL Forums >Community Support (PC)
Sorry, but you cannot post to these forums. It appears that you are a free trial player. You must have a premium subscription in order to post to community forums."
-
My thought on the CRS board, if it matters. Have you guys ever seen how fast those boards move? I remember when the boards were open. I'd make a post and within 10-15 minutes the thing would be 5 pages back. That's one reason, in my view they closed them. ALOT more people post over there. The 2nd reason, again in my view, is/was people like the infamous "Blair" That dude was like MG and Weasel and ME :D all balled up into one irate customer. He would hijack any thread that might be helping somebody and start injecting his venom. Hell even Datter had to kick him off his board for the same thing.
-
Udie... you cite things that every BBS has to deal with. Individuals spamming? Nah.. never had that over here.
It's just funny to me that someone feels the need to go over to someone else's forums and defend the game they write/play and doesn't feel the same should be afforded to others. It's even funnier when they come here and try to justify why they shouldn't open up their boards while perpetuating those very reasons on competitor's sites.
But... it's theirs to do with as they will. I don't try to go there and criticize it and I don't try to circumvent it for reaction. I'll just continue to point out the desparity to anyone that thinks it shouldn't matter.
MiniD
-
MiniD,
WWIIOL forums has had a few times more posters than here, thats something you simply cannot argue with.
Another problem is created by the more diverse groups of players.
In my opinion flight simulator players are generally much more behaving than the ones from first person shooter games, like CS, Quake, Rogue Spears....
Of course theres rotten cases in the flight sim genre as well, but IMO far less.
In WWIIOL these groups gets mixed up and the noise is equal to it.
-
I think its safe to say that most flight simmers read all of the available sims boards. What the heck, we all look for cool stuff. I'm interested in AH 2 and I'll be trying it out.
Westy, I dont really know where your hatred of me comes from. I have never talked with you, played in the same area as you, or even remember seeing you in any arena ..anywhere.Vulcan either for that matter. For you to post such insults without any merit or knowledge of me other than a post on a UBB is very..odd? to say the least. I offered opinion without flag waiving or insult, nothing more.Unless you own part of HTC or are the officially appointed HTC UBB knight , I really dont know where your coming from.Sorry if I offended you in any way.
Udiee, I never thought of you like MG...maybe Hurric but......oops...here he comes!
blkmgc
-
"blkmgc I think your attitude towards AI is probably the most short sighted uneducated dribble I've seen for ages. "
Thats not an insult?
This is an insult:
"blkmgc, your pubescent regions are infest with the flies of a thousand sheep dags"
-
IN:D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Beautiful. So HTC can do whatever they want with their BBS, but not CRS?
Nowhere have I seen HTC say that this BBS is open to the general public, expect employees of their competion. And killer is part of the general public.
The CRS BBS is open to paying customers. There ya go, their BBS thier rules.
Edit: Cross posted with Toad.
High horse or just gay?
-
Play what you want, Play what you like,
but don't bash one or the other on each others board.
On the AH side though, atleast they respond to customer service requests, which is more than I can say for WW2Online in 4 tries.
-
And yes I read here and many other places, It gives a good idea of how people view my product and ideas on what to prioritize to fix.
Hey CRSKiller (if it really is you), ya catch this one? http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93503
I know it's a lengthy thread, but it should provide you with a few priorities.;) You might also check out ticket 9322.:rolleyes:
edit:
I believe the support forums are open, or were last I checked.
Whoops, I don't believe Killer is who he says he is. First, the support forums are not open. Secondly, wouldn't the head guy know if they were, or were'nt?
-
If any AH guys want to talk to any WWIIOL players and ask questions about WWIIOL just head over to the fourms at Simhq (http://www.simhq.com)
There are a number of people who post there. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. Its a fairly unknown place so you don't get any of the zealots out to compare apples with oranges.
Now, i've a question of my own ;)
I'm doing the free trial thing in AH right and have a n00b question of my own.
My engine cuts out after around 10 mins of flight. Its not overheating, and i sure a P51 does not run out of fuel that fast even with a half load.
What is it ?
-
TigerStolly,
If you're set to 25% fuel it will cut out pretty quick, not sure how fast though. If you're set to manual fuel managment and you drop your wingtank that's in use, it will make your engine cut out.
I can't think of anything else other than hitting the 'e' key :)
-
Originally posted by TigerStolly
My engine cuts out after around 10 mins of flight. Its not overheating, and i sure a P51 does not run out of fuel that fast even with a half load.
What is it ?
Bullets tend to shorten the life of any engine dramatically. ;)
-
Originally posted by TigerStolly
My engine cuts out after around 10 mins of flight. Its not overheating, and i sure a P51 does not run out of fuel that fast even with a half load.
Whenever you fly in AH, keep in mind that there is fuel multiplier in effect and consumes fuel at least twice faster than normal.
Which why you'll hardly ever fly spits, 109s... etc. similar planes without +75% fuel for anything further than airfield point defense.
-
I really havent the slightest as to WHY that multiplier is in effect..
TigerStolly, what's your ingame callsign? I'de be glad to show you the ropes, but i'm usually on pretty late at night. I'm sure there are others that wouldnt mind givin you some pointers, either. The training forum is also a good place to get answers, lots of helpful people. The training arena kinda sucks, but if you can find callsign 'Ren' in there you'll learn pretty quick.
-
RTFM eh guys ;)
Anyone care to link me to an online manual or tell me where the offline manual is and i'll go and educate myself :)
edit **
Thats a kind offer. Once i figure out the comms in AH i'll message you to see if you are around.
-
Oops
Here ya go TigerStolly.
http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AHHELP.EXE
-
OH yeah, TigerStolly, my ingame callsign is RUTT. Almost forgot. :)
-
There's no way you're running out of fuel after only ten minutes in the ma in a p51d even at 25% fuel. The only two things that will stop your engine at that point are damage and the 'e' key. Is your engine dying or are you just losing power? Maybe your throttle is drifting?
-
Heh well its conking out on me even before i get anywhere near harms way and i'm not hitting the E key.
Its something i'm doing though, some silly newb mistake. I'm gonna read that manual Rutilant linked for me.
Now i know its not something thats meant to happen i know its something i can do something about right ?
-
WxMan mentioned in another thread that it might be unintentionally switching fuel off auto. That's a good possibility. You have your stick programmed to do anything with shift f?
-
Make sure your fuel gauge says A-something. The A- means it's set to automatic fuel management. SHF F is the key to switch fuel tanks and to switch to/from automatic or manual fuel management. If you managed to hit this once, it would take you off automatic and your engine would shut off once one of your tanks is dry. Other than that, what everyone else said.
-
Yeah it was the fuel alright. I just didn't think a P51 would burn fuel so fast.
Thanks for the help guys !