Something more realistic, less arcade.

[Ack-Ack]

And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.

Go look at a p38 speed and climb chart ack-ack.  Frankly you disappoint me with how you responded. I expected better from a person like you, dismissive and pompous. Yes, you were esteemed in my eyes.

What is wrong with the P-38 speed and climb rate?  HTC has it modeled pretty good in game, unless you have definitive proof it's incorrect (which you don't).  I'm sorry that you expected me to support your misconceptions but when a person is incorrect I am not shy in telling that person they are incorrect. 

ack-ack

[Tank-Ace]

Lol AKAK, really? Oh thats too funny  !




And brkfast, theres really very few inaccurate things about the game, at most you get things that seem maybe a little.... off, but not nessicarily wrong. Usually, thats just due to the virtual enviornment not being a perfect recreation of the real world.

[RTHolmes]

[more nonsense]

I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.

well its a waste of time if you're not going to bother reading and understanding the responses to your spurious claims.

[MachFly]

Brkfast, if you really think Aces High sucks so much why are you here?
You said Il-2 is a lot better.

[EVZ]

The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109.

And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.

wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.

I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate

1st I don't think you were wasting your time ... Insight is where you find it ... I found some here. I think the game  -IS- a COMBAT SIMULATOR, the plane models may not be perfect but they are close. Given the limitations imposed by computer / bandwidth requirements, game balance / playability, multi-mission capability, and other considerations, I think they've done a remarkable job. I played Airwarrior on a 486 with a  4M Grapics card ... things have come a LONG WAY since then ! 

[Krusty]

wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Isnt' that Kurfy's site?

Just as an FYI to others that are more receptive than 4brkfast, there's a few folks out there that have been laughed off of these forums and categorically disproven on technical matters. Yet, they harbor a long-smoldering grudge that the game isn't coded the way they narrowly perceive things. Hell, one bastion of festering discontent led to a forum where folks actively condoned and congratulated the people that developed some AH cheats (long since discovered by HTC and are now monitored for). Don't take any nasty commentary you might find about AH and condemn the game. Chances are you have run into one of these very polarized factions.

Say what you will about the game, it brings out the passions in folks. Sometimes too much so.

As for the youtube clip, you can actually learn quite a bit from it. You simply can't draw the conclusion that 4brk made, though. It's a high speed high G spiraling dive. You can tell from the condensation trails from pulling high sustained Gs. You don't get that at slow speed stall fights. Further, any time the video cuts it means the guns stopped firing for a while, and when the trigger is pulled it starts up again. 4brk seems to be taking it as a single continuous feed. That's not the case. The P-47 is on the film but then drifts off. You see a small jump-cut and it wanders back into frame. That's a different point in the fight when the guns were fired. Any number of minutes, manuvers, and sweating/cursing could have happened on both sides of the fight between these 2 cuts. It happens a few times. There's no way of telling what was pulled in this missing footage. Perhaps the 190 pilot yo-yoed up for a better position then saddled up again? Perhaps anything happened.

Also, it was all of 1 or 2 rounds that hit the wing. Hardly what you would argue in AH would rip a jug's wings off. As a regular 190 and 109 pilot in AH and a killer of many P-47s I can tell you for sure they are VERY strong. They soak up tons of fire.


Many spurious claims here, none really backed up. I think it's a massive misunderstanding on 4brk's side, and his ear being filled with nasty commentary by some folks who can't find an audience otherwise.

[Karnak]

wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Isnt' that Kurfy's site?

Erm, no, not in the slightest.  That is the one that started as "www.spitfireperformance.org", the one with all the scans of primary source documents.

[Wiley]

I wonder if HTC might be able to curb most (all?) of the whining if they were to just model the game based on that site, regardless of whether they've got better data or not.  Seems like most of the people who believe the game to be inaccurate use that as their primary source.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

I wonder if HTC might be able to curb most (all?) of the whining if they were to just model the game based on that site, regardless of whether they've got better data or not.  Seems like most of the people who believe the game to be inaccurate use that as their primary source.

Wiley.

A lot of the game is modeled on data that can be found on that site.

I don't think German fans would be happy though.  Spitfire Mk XIV's that turn as well as Spitfire Mk IXs?

[dirtdart]

The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around.  I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take.  IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...).  That would be where I would like tot see the improvement.  At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all.  Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing. 

[Karnak]

The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around.  I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take.  IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...).  That would be where I would like tot see the improvement.  At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all.  Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing. 

My understanding of this is that the visual damage does not match the lost lift points in the flight model.  In other words, the flight model is working with a wing that lost a smaller bit of its tip than what is shown graphically.

[Wiley]

IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...).

YDNRC.  Depending on the plane and what else is missing as well as what your attitude/speed is when it happens.  It ranges from 'somewhat controllable as long as you don't do anything too extreme' to uncontrollable.  Twin engine stuff can stop the opposite engine and have pretty good control, if slow.  Also, what Karnak said.

Karnak- I'm sure it is, but it seems a lot of the time when someone disagrees with the FM, it's because that was the first page that came up in google with official looking stuff.  My (somewhat tongue in cheek) point was, matching the game to the first thing that comes up in Google would negate a lot of the arguing because that's the extent of some of the 'research' people do.

Wiley.

[colmbo]

The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around.  I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take.  IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...).  That would be where I would like tot see the improvement.  At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all.  Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing. 

And then again:

[dirtdart]

Great Pic

I hope those guys made it.  I may post a film from a LA7 earlier to highlight my point. 

[Krusty]

Karnak: Some folks put the idea out that the loss of lift was modeled, but not the loss of WEIGHT for that wing, hence the very strong (and almost uncontrollable in some planes) roll to the missing wing.

I personally put forth that HTC doesn't properly model the jagged gaping shredded hole causing massive drag that would compensate for the loss in parasitic drag. My beef is that when you lose a part you gain 50mph.

In Rangoon I was winging with a 110C that lost one stabilizer. I think just the vertical stab on the port side but I'd have to check -- it may have included the corresponding h-stab with it. I was intact. He was going so fast on milpow I had to WEP to keep up with him! I could not fly formation with him! Edit: And I mean he was walking away from me like I was standing still!

That's just not right. There's too much of a benefit from losing parts, speed-wise. Outside of that I think they do take a lot into consideration and that the damage model is pretty fun. I have landed many a super-shot-up plane and hope to continue doing so.