Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RearGunner on May 21, 2001, 09:54:00 AM
-
I've been playing AH for a couple of days, but I have been playing CFS (Combat Flight Simulator from Microsoft) for a while now. Now, both these games claim to have "realistic flight modelling" but I find major differences in the way the planes handle. The biggest difference is in CFS the planes fly smooth. They turn smoothly and nose up/down smooth as well. AH I find has a lot of bobbing and the plane seems to fight you every turn and change of nose attitude. Now, which one is the more realistic, smooth or resist? I would prefer real pilots to answer, but even non pilots who are experts on WW2 planes, because I know quite a few of you are. Unbiased opinions also please as people like me will never get to fly planes and will always have this doubt in their mind.
-
much of the nose bounce in AH can be adjust out through proper joystick settings. It took me 2 months of tweaking to lose the nose bounce.
Krush
-
Heya Krusher - care to share the technique? I've been tweaking mine too and it's better but still not good.
-
S!
Could use some basic tips to setup the stick for example 109 and 190(main rides of mine).
About realism.CFS2 and AH are quite different in FM.Some moves that are possible in CFS2 are not possible in AH and vice versa.Hammerhead is one.In AH it is hard to do it without strange twisting and stall.In CFS2 U can do it more easier and make the plane turn without flipflop.Landings are more hard to do OK in CFS2 than in AH,same applies to take-offs.But comparing these 2 is not fair since both have so different approach of modeling things...I like both in their own way.
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
My stick is constantly bouncing and whatnot. It was worse before, I've tweaked it many times and its *somewhat* better. But its not as smooth as I'd like it to be. Krusher, if you could explain what you did to perfect your stick, I'd greatly appreciate it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Oct
Maz203@aol.com
-
Its probably their energy modeling differences. The bouncing of nose happens, when direction of movement and the direction of nose has too much separation. Then ofcourse direction of the plane is bounced back to movement, becouse the airflow pushes the wings to their optimum position.
This will happen in all movements; bigger G:s you pull, the bigger is bounce . Thats BTW why rudder always kicks back when you release it.
I find CFS2 flight model very annoying, since im unable to feel the energy state of my plane (thats why i deleted it after 2 weeks). To me CFS2 feels too relaxed and easymode. The direction of movement and the direction of plane nose seems to be quite a same thing in CFS 2; not realistic.
[This message has been edited by Tuomio (edited 05-21-2001).]
-
Just a note.
Planes in real life DO bounce around IF you handle them roughly. A smooth hand is always appreciated by the passengers no matter how large the plane. An game emulating flight that doesn't allow for a rough ham fisted pilot isn't modeled correctly. Making the plane go where you want smoothly is a process of learning that doesn't happen overnight. Thousands of CFI's who ride with neophyte pilots can attest to that fact!!! Hats off to those who sacrifice their equilibrium to train new fledgling airmen (or women)!!!
Mav
-
Thanks for all the responses. I'm still slightly confused though. Now I'm not sure if it's my joystick settings or the flight model was designed to act this way. I can understand when you say that real planes do bob around when ham fisted pilots use em, but in AH I seem to move about a lot just turning into a bank or changing nose attitude by a few degrees. I have been flying Spitfires (in AH) and this plane was based on the Supermarine race plane so I thought it was meant to be flown quite violently, also the shape of the wing was designed for better manoeuvaribilty during extreme circumstances. That's why I'm going with the tweaking of the joystick that isn't set right.
On a different note, I don't know why a lot of people talk down CFS. I think it is an excellent game/simulator. I may not be speaking from a pilots point of view, but I have been playing flight sims for a few years. In CFS, when you change from flying a Hurricane to a Spitfire, you instantly notice the difference with better handling on the Spity, even though engine performance doesn't change much due to the fact they both had the same engine (RR Merlin 3) fitted. That's another thing that baffled me. For example in AH ,why does the Spitfire MK1 (1030 hp) have the same performance as the MK5 (1440 hp) and the mk9 (1710 hp)? Maybe I'm just nit-picking, but I would expect there to be a big difference from the MK1 to the MK9. You would notice 700 hp surely? Oh well, I suppose all games have their strong and weak points. I like the cockpit views more in AH than CFS, also another thing I like more with AH is that you feel that height gives you a great advantage over low planes.
-
????
AH doesnt have a Spit Mk1. Only the Spit MkV, MkIX and Seafire.
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
Sorry, I meant the Searfire Mk2. Even though, this is basically a Spitfire Mk1. Same specs I believe and the same RR Merlin 3 engine. Someone correct me if I am wrong please.
-
First, im a private pilot. And yes, planes bob. Mav, only planes w/ hydraulic controls give a real *smooth* ride; all WWII planes had mechanical linkages, so you DID have to put effort into a turn-as well as planes w/ mechanical linkages to the control surfaces do today.
-
Seafire MkII = Spitfire MkV + some weight for carrier landings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Spitfire MkIX was a Spitfire MkV cleaned up to take advantage of the newer, more powerful engine
-
make sure combat trim is off too,i have noticed at a friend's house (who uses CT) there is much more bounce using CT,i assume because it is constantly trying to trim you correctly during manouvers and at the end of them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Thanks for the correction. I don't really know much about the Seafire and considering that it's a Seafire Mk2 in AH. But I don't understand what you mean by a Mk IX being just a Mk V smoothed over for a bigger engine. In that respect, a Mk IX is a Mk I with a bigger engine. The only difference between a Mk I and a Mk IX is 40 cm in length presumably all on the nose to accomadate the bigger engine. They are all just versions of each other. But I think you should feel the extra 300 hp somehow.
[This message has been edited by RearGunner (edited 05-21-2001).]
-
I've tried switching off combat trim. I only feel a slight difference though.
-
Originally posted by RearGunner:
Thanks for the correction. I don't really know much about the Seafire and considering that it's a Seafire Mk2 in AH. But I don't understand what you mean by a Mk IX being just a Mk V smoothed over for a bigger engine. In that respect, a Mk IX is a Mk I with a bigger engine. The only difference between a Mk I and a Mk IX is 40 cm in length presumably all on the nose to accomadate the bigger engine. They are all just versions of each other. But I think you should feel the extra 300 hp somehow.
[This message has been edited by RearGunner (edited 05-21-2001).]
There are actually several changes to the airframe in the Mk IX. The most notable of these is the addition of a radiator intake on the starboard wing, in addition to the one already on the left. The plane is significantly heavier than a Mark I, the fuselage is a bit more cut down, the wing design is slightly improved, etc. etc. etc.
Additionally, 40 cm is fairly significant as an increase in size goes, it being enough, AFAIK to change the CoG of an aircraft.
Could be wrong though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE!
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE!"
- Old chant used to time saluting of guns on ships
-
I don't know where you get your info from, but wherever, it's all wrong. The extra radiator air intake was already on a Mk1 as you can see in this picture.
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/spitpix/ar213_l.jpg (http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/spitpix/ar213_l.jpg)
Also, the only changes to the wing was for different gun types. The only changes to the airframe in respect to versions after the MkIV is that it was strengthened. Also other special versions, like those used in Africa. All the major and minor changes are metioned in the SpitfireSociety web page. Not once does it mention what you said. The link is here:
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkI (http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkI)
-
Bah...just realised that is an oil cooler on the Mk1, from the Mk 7 onwards did the symetrical air intakes appear. Ok, I'll give you that much, but show me evidance of the other things you said.
-
To properly tweak your joystick controls, you gotta do something like this:
1) Calibrate the stick, throttle, and rudders in windows control panel.
2) Enter AH setup, and calibrate the controls. Make sure you APPLY the new calibration.
3) Go to the stick adjustment setup in AH, and look at the little box. Wiggle the stick and rudders around and notice what happens to the little cross and lines in the little box window.
4) Adjust the sliders, deadband, and dampening until the little stick and rudder symbols move SMOOTHLY as you move the stick. The deadband should be as small as possible while preventing an position jiggling when you center the controls. Start out with the dampening set to zero, and adjust that LATER based on if you get excessive nose bounce or find yourself rocking the plane back and forth in roll while lining up for shots.
Some people have to adjust the stick scaling to all 100, some use a linear adjustment (10,20,30,40,50...), some use a convex curved adjustment (10,12,15,20,30,50...), some use a concave curve (10,30,45,55,60...), but I had to continually tweak my scaling in a non-linear fashion to make it so the little stick position cross moved smoothly and predictably when I moved the joystick. These settings will be different for each person.
Apply the changes after each scaling slider change. I also recommend starting out with the roll damper set to zero and all roll scaling set to 100.
After you get things set up, fly some offline. Try to line up shots on the drones. If you find yourself overshooting your roll angle, try adjusting the roll dampener. If you find you have pitch nose bounce and are shoving the stick fwd and back to try to line up your shots, adjust the pitch dampener then try again.
If you find that you only have pitch bounce when the stick is near center, adjust the first few scaling sliders down a bit. If you only have bounce near half-stick, adjust the middle sliders a bit. If you are near full aft or fwd stick and have nose bounce, you are not trimming enough (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hope this helps. I spend about 2 hours at the last con adjusting my stick settings before the dueling tournament, and I found that my gunnery improved dramatically after I spent the time making adjustments. When I got home with the sticks I won at the tourny (hehe sorry LLB) I again spent some time adjusting the settings. It's time well spent and your flying and gunnery will definately improve if your stick is set up the way YOU like it.
------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!
-
I don't think my stick setup is all that special, I have seen others mention the same setup in other threads. If you want to see screen shot of my set up send me an email. I use a MS FF pro.
ratkrusher@yahoo.com
Krush
-
Rudder pedals... take the rudder off the stick and use rudder pedals or Keyboard. I saw my nose bounce improve tenfold.
xBAT
-
Flying flight sims since 1987, and flown real A/C in my life as well (However, never a "warbird"). CFS2 FM's simply stink. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-22-2001).]
-
I agree with batdog.....I have a "twisty" stick and I had to turn off the input of the stick and use the keyboard because of the bouncing that was going on. Just ordered a Saitek combo and am hoping to get the CH pedals along with it in a couple weeks....maybe that will change my status from just a regular target drone to a target drone with a new stick and rudder control. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
hiya all:
sling, when you get the peddles, remember to use them when your in a fight. LOL
I had rudder control on my stick and went out and bought peddles, and used an old stick I had. I like the stick much better but keep forgetting to use the rudder peddles when I get into a fight. and yes, I am a dweeb pilot, and proud of it.
wolf37
-
Originally posted by RearGunner:
Bah...just realised that is an oil cooler on the Mk1, from the Mk 7 onwards did the symetrical air intakes appear. Ok, I'll give you that much, but show me evidance of the other things you said.
Dangit... have to dig out Spitfire in Action again... btw, the CoG statement is a guess, I have never come across anything to that regard. I could be incorrect.
Alright:
Note: The letter designation following the Mk # of the plane denotes which wing type was used. A (8 .303 MGs), B (4 .303 MGs, two cannon w/60 r.p.g.) or C (2 .50 MGs, 2 cannon w/120 r.p.g.). Performance should be unaffected by various wing types, which were identical in size (yeah, you got me there RearGunner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
Spitfire Mk 1
Span 36 ft. 10 in
Length 29 ft. 11 in
Height 12 ft. 7 3/4 in
Wing area 242 sq. ft.
Weight, normal loaded 6,200 lb, wing loading 26lb/sq.in.
Maximum speed 362 mph (alt not given (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif))
RoC 2,530 ft/min (again no more specific info given)
Spitfire Mk Vb
Span 36 ft 10 in
Length 29 ft 11 in
Height 9 ft 11 in
Wing area 242 sq ft
Normal loaded weight 6,750 lb
Max speed 369 mph at 19500 ft
RoC 4750 ft/min
Spitfire Mk IXc
Span 36 ft 10 in
Length 31 ft 0 1/2 in, later versions 31 ft 4 1/2 in
Height 12 ft 7 3/4 in
Wing area 242 sq ft
Max speed 408 mph at 25,000 ft
312 mph at sea level
Initial RoC 4100 ft/min
Oddly enough, the fuselage seems to have been cut down in size between the I and V, but increased again on the IX.
The cutting down of the fuselage from behind the canopy occurred in the Mk XVI and later models. Oops!
So, it looks like I was about 60-75% wrong. Oh well, we learn something every day, no? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE!
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE!"
- Old chant used to time saluting of guns on ships
-
Yeah we do learn something every day. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I get things wrong often so you're not the only one, lol.
-
ispar,
The stats on your Spitfire MkV are WAY off.
The MkIX is simply a MkV with the minimum modifications to take a Merlin 61 engine. The height and width will be identical, length might be slightly longer on the IX.
A climb rate of 4,750 feet would have only been seen in the wet dreams of Spit V pilots or nightmares of 1941 Luftwaffe pilots.
Spit V should climb at just below 3,000ft per min.
RearGunner,
Spit IX introduced the symetrical radiators.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Pretty much al boxeed sims out there .. and being a R/L pilot i'd say that AH has one of the best FMs ...
I knind of dislike the simplified engine controls tho.
DW6
-
Easyest way to lose _all_ stick related bouncing / spiking..
Get an optical stick. F.E. M$ Precision Pro.. Gotta love the smooth action.
-
Karnak, I got my info at the SpitfireSociety:
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkVII (http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkVII)
It says:
Type 351-Mk VII
This introduced the 60 series Merlin engines, with 2-speed, 2-stage superchargers. The aircraft consequently had the symmetrical large radiators under each wing, rather than the asymmetric radiator/oil cooler combinations of earlier Marks, and a larger rudder.
Mk VII is same as Mk 7 for those who can't read roman numerals.
-
Thanks to all who posted stick tips. Switching to a setup with pedals did make an immediate improvement, and I now think part of my problem is having a not so good stick (TM Topgun Platinum - hey, it was free).
I think the other problem is that the AH stick setup is great (because it allows so much detailed tweaking) but not intuitive. So - appreciate the help guys.
Yoj
-
Heh heh Wolf37....dont know if the rudders will make that big of a difference. Maybe having my feet on the pedals will make me actually remember to use the rudder....as it is now I hardly ever use rudder input at all. Prolly explains my stellar kill/death ratio . (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
By the way, where the hell have you been?