War Thunder

[Saxman]

You guys want to compare Aces High's 17 mile view range over 512 square mile terrains to another game using a 5 mile view range and 15 square mile terrains.  Right.

Wow, three times the view distance? I underestimated, lol!

I don't think any of us are saying we'd rather have smaller arenas and view distances and better graphics, tho. In fact my point was that AH's draw distance and map size is by far superior.

[-aper-]

You guys want to compare Aces High's 17 mile view range over 512 square mile terrains to another game using a 5 mile view range and 15 square mile terrains.  Right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Thunder

"The average size of maps in the game currently range from approximately 65 km x 65 km to 100 km x 100 km to 200 km x 200 km, although the engine powering the game is likely to achieve larger map sizes in the future, estimates are said to be about 300 km x 300 km."

[Bear76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Thunder

"The average size of maps in the game currently range from approximately 65 km x 65 km to 100 km x 100 km to 200 km x 200 km, although the engine powering the game is likely to achieve larger map sizes in the future, estimates are said to be about 300 km x 300 km."

A) it's wikipedia
B) We're talking about view range.

[GScholz]

In WT dot range is 30 km. The dot changes to a plane at 3 km.

[JOACH1M]

Played for the first time this week. Graphics were cool but didn't out way how garbage the fm was :rolleyes

[JOACH1M]

Hammer heads are still a problem for me in the 38.  Can you give me the sequence of throttle and rudder.  I do have separate throttles.

dude u have a 38 with dual throttles... How much easier can it get? 

[titanic3]

I feel like comparing AH to WT isn't really a fair comparison. Both are meh games that does its own things relatively well. Rise of Flight and AH would be a much more interesting comparison. The map sizes are nearly the same (excluding some of AH larger maps, like Trinity), yet RoF graphics are 10x better. The flight modeling for RoF is decent (never flown a WWI plane but hey), maybe even excellent. I play with max settings and get 30-60FPS depending on the amount of players within visual range. One thing to note, even at 30FPS, the game runs smooth and fluidly. AH at 30FPS is next to impossible to play, while it has one of the worst graphics seen in a game during this time and age. Triangle hills, blocky textures and a myriad of other flaws is some 2005 stuff.

[-aper-]

Played for the first time this week. Graphics were cool but didn't out way how garbage the fm was :rolleyes

Are you playing in Arcade Arena ? From level4 you can go to Full Real Battles - FM is good there.

[Bear76]

I feel like comparing AH to WT isn't really a fair comparison. Both are meh games that does its own things relatively well. Rise of Flight and AH would be a much more interesting comparison. The map sizes are nearly the same (excluding some of AH larger maps, like Trinity), yet RoF graphics are 10x better. The flight modeling for RoF is decent (never flown a WWI plane but hey), maybe even excellent. I play with max settings and get 30-60FPS depending on the amount of players within visual range. One thing to note, even at 30FPS, the game runs smooth and fluidly. AH at 30FPS is next to impossible to play, while it has one of the worst graphics seen in a game during this time and age. Triangle hills, blocky textures and a myriad of other flaws is some 2005 stuff.

bye

[Triton28]

One thing to note, even at 30FPS, the game runs smooth and fluidly. AH at 30FPS is next to impossible to play, while it has one of the worst graphics seen in a game during this time and age. Triangle hills, blocky textures and a myriad of other flaws is some 2005 stuff.

FPS is very relative.  When I was playing on a laptop, I only started to think the game was unplayable after it got into the teens.

I'm curious though, how does it make sense to you that the same FPS is smooth and fluid on one game and completely unplayable on another?

[Easyscor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Thunder

"The average size of maps in the game currently range from approximately 65 km x 65 km to 100 km x 100 km to 200 km x 200 km, although the engine powering the game is likely to achieve larger map sizes in the future, estimates are said to be about 300 km x 300 km."

Then you should follow the source links for those claims. They appear bogus when I follow them. Also, using some common sense, with only 32 players in an arena, how are they going to find each other in 90,000 square miles.

In one of the first videos I saw, there was a quick view of the terrains CBM. After going to Google maps and comparing, each grid line in their CBM is ONE MILE. The terrain used in the video was 15 x 15 miles and pretty much matched the distances covered in the video. If someone wants to post some screenshots of their CBM, then we can talk about how big their terrains really are.

In WT dot range is 30 km. The dot changes to a plane at 3 km.

What's 30 km, 20 miles? Sorry, no way.

Also, someone mentioned trees. I don't know how their trees look from right underneath, but the trees in the videos posted on their site all look like 2D stage props to me. They're not bad, and yes, they aren't laid out in cookie cutter order, but AH trees with their alpha's look much better to me.

Actually, how about you guys who have accounts posting up some screen shots of their CBM/Kneeboard maps. I'm always interested in terrains from other games. Thanks in advance.

[Curly]

Aces and War Thunder are two completely different animals. Aces' really is the most approachable combat sim. It really walks the line well between a DCS and a War Thunder.  Where WT nails it is in the approachability of the game.

     The arcade setting in WT is just that, arcade. Its fun but it's not really a sim, its a 6dof shooter. I enjoy it but it has it's downsides and a lack of depth which really gives it no staying power with me. The other modes are also problematic too and don't do well what Aces does.

    The full real battles fall short of a DCS experience. The engine management, trim and view system on Full Real Battles isn't well implemented. Nor is it at the study sim level of DCS. So it's not a great simulation nor a great "air combat game", it's mediocre at both. The game play suffers because of the realism and the realism isn't real enough.

    The Historical Battles setting seems to be where WT is most trying to compete with Aces. In that they are attempting to provide an air combat sim with realistic aircraft performance, at level of simulation below a study sim. Though I find the execution lacking in WT. The mouse aim aspect and instructor skews it a bit to arcade-ish. While the controls and maps inevitably lead to a predominance of "boom and zoom" play. Which in the parlance of WT means climbing as a high as possible and diving on some one with a lesser climb rate.

WT doesn't do the fundamental things well that are necessary to translate a real world experience into a video game with authenticity. Is Aces the most authentic representation of reality, no. Though I think it's best blend of authenticity and gaming. WT skews more toward approachable and I think suffers for that. Though 30,000 some people who playing today seem to be fine with it. Again, it's all preference.

I am more surprised that Hi-tech never took their know how and understanding and developed an air combat game that skewed more approachable. Really it was wargaming and WOT that indicated there was a huge untapped demand for this game. Now it might to late, the market is pretty saturated with mouse driven flight games. Though if the did do one, they should cut the competition off at the knees, release jets as the  starting tier and go up all the way to current combat aircraft. 

[Randy1]

Skuzzy. glad you are see you are taking hitting back on this thread.

[Skuzzy]

We will never create a version of Aces High to cater to the 1% of the market.  If the priority of a player is the graphics first, then we are not going to attract that player.  WT will attract the twitch/arcade player who is in it for graphics first.  No doubt about that.  If we tried to get away what they get away with in providing temporary flight models, I cannot imagine how bad it would be here.  WT can get away with it because the players, generally speaking, do not care about the accuracy of the flight model.

Aces High and WT are very different games.  Do we wish there were 30,000+ players whose priority would be the flight model?  Sure we do, but it would mean sacrificing things we do wish to sacrifice.  We certainly could crank out things faster if we did not spend months researching the models, but it would not be something we would be proud of either.  This not just a game for us.  It is our passion.

Our priorities have always been the flight model first.  We are harder on ourselves than anyone could ever know, as it pertains to the accuracy of our flight model.  We also provide an environment when you can see and fight hundreds of planes/vehicles at one time.  This makes large scale events possible.  No other game/sim approaches what we have accomplished in this area.  No other game approaches what we have managed to do with such a small installation.  We do not have 6GB of artwork, yet our current generation of planes look very good.  Our old planes look like crap and we are working on that.  Yet, there are those in this thread who would post a picture of our oldest plane and represent it as a current model for the purposes of berating us.

We are not perfect.  We never will be.  The good news, neither is any other game.  For over 14 years, this is what we have been doing and this is all that we have been doing.

[zack1234]

I am saving my perks for the redone tempest