Author Topic: If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...  (Read 3109 times)

Offline quintv

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2007, 08:23:44 AM »
Having flown AH, IL2, WWIIOL, TT, etc, I would say that AH2 is the most fun from a flight perspective, and I enjoy its flight model the most; it does feel a bit dumbed down in various aspects of flight but in many ways thats what makes AH2 such a commercial success. I especially love how level bombers are portrayed in this game. Strat bombing in wwiiol for instance requires manual calibration, you actually have to sit there with a calculator and a map and determine and set your altitude and manually input your speed, etc. which makes it more realistic but less accessible to many players. And for all that is holy on earth there is no autoclimb there, so you actually have to sit there and climb your He.111 to 6km,,,yes you can trim using trim to set it into a climb but thats not really reliable.

I would like to see radiator usage, I would like to see engines burning out (having come from those other sims, I've been paying alot of attention to my engine temps in this game as I am so used to burning out my DBs in my 109s, little did I know its impossible to overheat without damage,,,,I will watch my temps anyway :aok ),  but I can live without it as long as I can fight and fly against 100s of people.

My perfect online game would be the ground game and strategic depth of WWIIOL with the flight model and huge variety of aircraft +loadouts  and strat bombing of AH2 with the naval game being Silent Hunter 3 like ..... lol...... maybe someday.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 08:27:40 AM by quintv »

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2007, 10:10:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
How do you fly to and back from Berlin with an unstable plane ? (when trimed obviously).


Some ships, such as the P-51, were indeed impossible to trim to be perfectly straight and level.  The pilot always had to be trimming.

I, too, would love to see realistic engine management (which, by the way, IL-2 does not have).  I've started threads on it.  Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the community does not. However, flight model is more important than avionics.  It is possible to have a perfectly realistic flight simulator with no avionics or engine modelled (though it would probably model a hang glider).  However, you cannot have a realistic flight simulator with no flight model (or a bad one).

At any rate, those who think that IL-2 has complex engine management are wrong.  Not only is it missing most of the details (even fuel tank selection, which Aces High II does model), but it's missing many of the basics.  The American fighters in IL-2 don't have mixture controls, which they should.  They don't have blower controls, which most also should.  Alll they have is R.P.M., manifold pressure, and radiator or cowl flaps.  Again, that's not much different than Aces High,

Moreover, you don't ever need to touch any of the engine controls other than throttle and radiator, even on "maximum realism."  Just like in Aces High, you fly until your engiine overheats and then you throttle back.  IL-2 makes you do it yourself, but it does pop up a big message telling you that you're too hot.  And when you're overheating, you only need to throttle down for a few seconds and you're good to go again.

The moral of the story is that flight model is far more important than avionics, and Axhes High is absolutely superior to IL-2 in flight model.  Moreover, IL-2 isn't much better about avionics than Aces High.  Only things it has that Aces High doesn't, really, is cowl or radiator flaps.  And it doesn't have fuel tank selection like Aces High.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2007, 10:28:29 AM »
I haven't played the entire Il-2 series, just Pacific Fighters, and this is my feeling on it:

Graphically, it's BEAUTIFUL. Some of the best visuals I've seen in a combat sim not made by Janes' (CURSE YOU EA!!!!).

I think its damage model is superior to AH. I enjoy the challenge of keeping my plane level with a huge gash in one wing, and watching the steadily declining responsiveness as control surfaces get chewed up. However, as a product targeted more towards a hardcore audience much like the more complex engine and fuel management (btw Benny, in Pacific Fighters, at least, you CAN set fuel mixture) they're able to implement features like this.

The views system SUCKS. It's like the Il-2 series superglues the pilot in place and tosses him in a straight jacket for good measure. There's no ability to shift in your seat to look around obstructions which pilots COULD do in the real aircraft (many times pilots loosened their harness once in the air).

Factors such as speed and altitude are nearly impossible to judge at a glance. While this isn't unreasonable when fighting over water, this same issue with perception continues over land, as well.

Handling of individual aircraft is suspect as well. The F4U was noted for its capability to snap-roll, however even ATTEMPTING such a thing in PF results in a flat spin (add that to the fact the R-2800 engine overheats in seconds at any throttle setting over 50% even with radiators full open). The generic flap modeling (all aircraft have the same four settings: Up, Combat, Takeoff, Landing) also detracts from the distinctiveness of each aircraft. Recoil in the .50cal is just LUDICROUS. Loose just one gun to a jam or damage and even short bursts make it impossible to put any sort of sustained fire into a target (the F4U is a 6-ton aircraft. The Ma Deuce didn't have anywhere NEAR the kind of recoil to significantly slew around the aimpoint of something that massivie!) Tracers are virtually impossible to see in some guns (once again, the Browning) so the gunnery model is made even more difficult to learn.

Sounds are AWFUL. Engines, generic flap/landing gear actuators, weapons fire are totally weak.

In-flight communications are nothing short of confusing. I don't like they use terms like: Altitude 3 and give EVERYTHING in metric with no option to get them to say things like, Altitude 20,000ft, or angels 20 or something like that. Oh yeah, and the fact that you hear the radio chatter for ALL friendlies, not just intended for your own flight without any sort of differentiation. Many times I've followed the in-flight headings and altitude instructions only to end up WAY off course, or have been looking for bandits that weren't there, because they were intended for some bombers squadron 50 miles away. At LEAST have callsigns for each group so they can differentiate who a message is intended for ("Bulldog Flight, course two-eight-zero, altitude angels 15," etc).

The built-in campaigns are, similarly, awful. I tried playing through the default Guadalcanal campaign, and found the objectives at times vagues. I'm being sent out loaded with ordinance, and no idea what I'm supposed to be hitting! And don't even get me STARTED on the frelling air spawns timed to arrive behind you...

The control interface I think it substandard. It's much less intuitive to set your controls since you actually have to PRESS the button you want to assign a given function to (and this includes the axes of motion!!) This is especially an issue with eight-way switches where some positions are difficult to hit without hitting another one in the process.

As beautiful as the game is, just SEEING can be an issue. While a known problem in ever simulator, other aircraft even at close range can be downright impossible just to see, much less identify.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 10:36:15 AM by Saxman »
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2007, 10:36:29 AM »
I like the Il-2 series eye candy, but I found the game itself to be an exercise in getting frustrated. The engine management is really just busy work (click a button, click another button, click the first button again), and I couldn't stand the view system. I think AH has ruined me on other flight sims/games.
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline Fruda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2007, 11:36:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
Sounds are AWFUL. Engines, generic flap/landing gear actuators, weapons fire are totally weak.


Yeah, the sounds are pathetic. It really seems that they recorded them in native 64kbps, 22khz, mono. They sound absolutely horrible.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23873
      • Last.FM Profile
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2007, 12:27:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I think AH has ruined me on other flight sims/games.


Same here. I did enjoy the original Il- when it came out.
After flying AH2 for a year I reinstalled Il2 just to find out that I can`t stand it any more. And the only reason is the crappy view system, regardless if with our without TIR.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2007, 12:44:00 PM »
IL2 is great for makin films.


thats about it.
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2007, 12:59:32 PM »
The supposed offline missions were stupid. "Fly this P-39 this way, kill any 109s you see"... Only the randomly generated missions ran out of things to do after mission 5. By mission 79 it was REALLY boring as hell. 5 out of every 7 missions in a row were the exact identical mission you'd just finished. Including one ace in the enemy aircraft always being the same craft, including spawn points, including enemy alts.

No frakkin' thanks! The fact that you never progress to a new plane *inside* a campaign was pissing me off as well. I don't WANT 100+ missions in a 109E dammit! I want to start in the E, move to the F, then the G, but NOOoooOOOoooo.... You have to do 100+ boring missions in one plane then start an entirely new set of 100+ boring missions in the next.

Ah is far better in all things except damage. IL2 goes too far the to the other extreme with damage. Even the engine overheat in IL2 is arbitrary, IMO, so folks can't say "engine control is better in IL2" -- because it's not, really.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2007, 02:31:39 PM »
Quote
Yeah, the sounds are pathetic. It really seems that they recorded them in native 64kbps, 22khz, mono. They sound absolutely horrible.


 You do realize, that none of the in-game sounds we're hearing, that really do sound better than IL2, are actually a part of AH itself, don't you?

 ...

 If you guys weren't so readily biased and willing to knitpick IL2, you would have tried a more impartial comparison by pitting AH's actual default sounds against IL2's.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 03:30:06 PM by Kweassa »

Offline nirvana

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5640
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2007, 02:40:14 PM »
I agree Lusche, the main reason I didn't care for IL2 was that the views were totally FUBARed.  Good thing it was a demo, I'd have hated to spend any significant amount of money on it.  MS Combat sim 1 is a better game in my opinion.
Who are you to wave your finger?

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2007, 03:07:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Some ships, such as the P-51, were indeed impossible to trim to be perfectly straight and level.  The pilot always had to be trimming.
 


Define always : every 1 , 10 ,30  second or minutes ?

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2007, 03:10:30 PM »
yes, there is a lot more work in flying Il2 series than AH but personally I like it.  I wont get in a urinating contest about which one is better, i think that's always personal opinion anyway.  one thing that cannot be disputed is Il2s superior graphics engine.  The new "Storms of War: Battle Of Britain" takes that yet another step ahead.  If only they had 1,000 plane arenas...  oh well  At least I paid my 33 dollars with no monthly recurring charge.
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2007, 03:14:01 PM »
Aces High II is arcade ...

Now go explode!  :aok

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2007, 03:28:37 PM »
Quote
Aces High strikes a balance, in reality. It takes enough of the sim factor to let you believe that you're experiencing the kind of combat that the planes and pilots of WWII went through, but simplifies it enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format.


 This is interesting, in a very amusing sort of way.

 What you're basically saying is;

 "AH simplifies its realism/detail level enough to make it enjoyable in a competitive, MMOG game-type format".

 The reason this is so amusing, is the fact that the above explanation is what we usually refer to as "arcade", when us AH fans ridicule some of the other games such as Fighter Ace or WW2OL.

 Fighter Ace or WW2OL, on grounds of allowing easier access for casual gamers, simplifies their level of detail and realism regarding flight, to make it enjoyable in a "competitive, MMOG game-type format". Therefore, we regard their level of realism as inferior to AH, and we call them arcade. So if we call FA or WW2OL arcade, what's there to stop IL2 folks from calling our AH arcade as well?

 The FM can be subject of debate, but at least the modelling of the environment, interaction to objects, damage modelling, depiction of the plane on-board systems, weather effects, ground effect, take-off/landing procedures, and just about every other thing in IL2 is more detailed and realistic than AH. Heck, some people knitpick even the sounds, but try using AH's default sound.

 So, is that not enough for IL2 folks to call AH 'arcade'?
 Or at least, 'mostly arcade'?

 Your comments contradicts Benny's original post. If we take what you're saying at face value, then there's no denying that AH is 'arcade' or 'mostly arcade', when compared to IL2 - because for the same reasons, we ourselves call those lesser than AH in realism 'arcade'.

 So just what exactly makes up this level of 'realism' which AH is supposed to be at, that qualifies AH as being a 'realistic game' than compared with FA or WW2OL, but does not make it 'arcade' when compared with IL2?

 Truly amusing indeed.


Quote
Have you ever flown IL-2 or Targetware? Those are more about flying than anything. You must remember to set your mixture at takeoff. You can't forget to make sure your radiator vents are open. You must make sure that you don't strain your motor too much by flying everywhere at full-throttle.There is no MA's with fictitious, evenly three sided maps, ALL of the above mentioned are historical scenarios, with maps of North Africa, Europe, Russia, etc. Those games are more Simulator than game.


 So you're implying that the level of flight management in IL2 is so realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it.

 Okay, so just what is there in IL2's notorious "Complex Engine Management(CEM)", that is not in AH, that makes IL2 a 'sim' and AH a 'game'? Shall we actually try counting it?

* RPM/pitch management: also in AH
* throttle management: also in AH
* mixture control: not in AH
* supercharger control: not in AH
* radiator cowl control: not in AH

 Okay. Did I leave anything out? Should I put this in as well?

* managing engine temperature by throttle level


 Wow. That makes it a grand total of THREE more buttons to fiddle around in IL2, than in AH. If we add in the engine temp control, a total of FOUR more items to take care of.

 Golly, just how difficult is it to press three more buttons/keys? Let's see...

*mixture control... leave it auto rich. Lean out when plane drags fuel vapors
*supercharger control... memorize alt to kick in, and press button
*radiator control... leave it at auto. If no auto, leave it at 2~4. If engine temp high, 6~full open
* engine temp management... fly under 100% enroute. fly WEP at combat.

 Wow! My head is bursting. This is so complicated that IL2 must be only fit for tech-geeks.. AH is soooo much more simple without four items to manage. Or. is it?

 How many pilots in AH memorize the optimum alt best for their planes?
 How many pilots memorize optimum speed for flap engagement?
 How many pilots use different levels of flaps by situation and feel?
 How many pilots use cruise settings, or other forms of fuel conservation?
 How many pilots memorize the steps to landing on a carrier?
 How many pilots memorize the septs to take off a fully loaded F4U from a carrier?

 I don't know about you, but the above 'conditions' to memorize about IL2 CEM, doesn't seem all that much more complicated than some of our own knowledge in plane management and ACM that we use in everyday AH flying and combat.

 The only reason some of the CEM features are considered as a 'sim' stuff in your comment, is because your comparisons between AH and IL2 is inherently biased towards the favor of AH, in the sense that your definition of "complexity" is entire based on AH alone. The very same "too complex and difficult, and unsuitable for true MMO gaming" argument you are using, can be used against AH in the exact same manner when compared to FA or WW2OL. Perhaps rightfully so - since empirically most people who play games such as BF'42 or FA or WW2OL have much more difficulties in trying to adapt to AH, which is considered a more serious 'simulation', from their point of view, and not a truly enjoyable 'game'.

 In other words, the dividing line between 'sim' and 'game' you are using for IL2 and AH2, is incredibly arbitrary. As we've seen, the CEM is hardly 'complex' at all. The CEM is nothing but merely three ~ four more points of management where we simply memorize and press a single button according to the situation at hand.

 Saying the CEM is complex enough to make it a 'sim' (and therefore its functions not desirable in a MMOG), is like saying pressing the "G" key to manually raise gears is too much complex simulation, and must be unsuitable for MMOG than compared to auto takeoff.

 Think about it. The take-off procedure. How many procedures of take-off do we naturally memorize by the time we become a seasoned AH pilot? Think about your very first day in AH, and then now.

 First you 1) lock tail-wheel by pulling stick, 2) engage throttle, 3) see speed, 4) memorize the speed which is suitable to lifting from the ground, 5) use flaps if necessary, 6) pull back the stick and up, 7) press the G key to retract flaps, 8) retract flaps as well, if they're used. That's an eight step process which for someone unfamiliar with flight sims as a whole, can be considred much too complex. But in the end, with experience, it just comes naturally. CEM is nothing different.

 If you want to see a really difficult, "simulation" level of engine management try flying a Bf109E-3 in Flight Simulator X. If that were the case then clearly your argument would've made sense.

 But in reality the level of flight management isn't all that different from IL2 and AH2. The only difference is IL2 has 3~4 more things which AH just casually leaves out, and the level of technical detail concerning those 3~4 stuff can't be anymore 'complex' then memorizing how one takes off manually in AH2.

 Therefore, the whole;

 "IL2 is too realistic and complicated that it satisifes only people interested in serious flight simulations, and not suited for MMO gamers, but AH is simplifed and compact enough to fit the needs of online gamers but still retain enough realism into it"

 ..argument falls apart.

 IL2's every bit a game as AH is. The only difference is one is package based and has a limited multiplayer session, and the other is played upon an online server and has a basic MMOG interface and a 'virtual war' in it. The different levels of realism, which AH clearly lacks in, can not be excused with an "IL2 is too complex, and AH is just about right" attitude.

 It is only a matter of preference. It's not something that needs to be either justified or discredited. There can be arguments that people in AH don't want CEM because they're not used to it, or they feel it tedious, but any argument which implies that an IL2-ish CEM is too complex and unsuitable for MMOG is pure bogus.


Quote
So really, when you hear people compare them, You're really hearing people that are actually comparing apples to oranges.


 Ofcourse, declaring the two uncomparable, is about the easiest way to discourage people from actually comparing something and learning that IL2 is actually a pretty great game.


...


[edit]

Here's the infamous FSX Bf109E-3 skin take-off procedure.

LINK: Bf109E-3 Takeoff Procedure

 6:30 seconds required for take-off...
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 03:47:24 PM by Kweassa »

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
If I hear one more IL-2 fanboy say Aces High II is arcade ...
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2007, 03:34:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
First you 1) lock tail-wheel by pulling stick

...er....you do?

- oldman (learn something new every day)