Author Topic: aces high may not last long (Read 1259 times)

K West · « **Reply #60 on:** July 01, 2002, 08:53:26 AM »

Which of the threee runs best (and not too shabby at that!) on a PIII600 with a TNT2 Ultra 32mb vid card, costs less than the most expensive of the three, has superlative customer suppoort and has more variety and players online than the other two?

Westy

(p.s. WB III aircraft do look very, very nice in these external view screen shots. But not from inside the cockpit when looking out, imo).

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #61 on:** July 01, 2002, 08:53:46 AM »

NUTTZ, saddly my AH doesnt look like that.
Nice textures, they are 100 times better than the present ones in AH (that is, MA maps).

Ghosth · « **Reply #62 on:** July 01, 2002, 09:02:58 AM »

Mandoble you need to get out into the CT & SEA more often.

AH often DOES look like that.

Nuttz along with others have been doing fantastic work.

Take a look at tunesia sometime.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #63 on:** July 01, 2002, 09:18:46 AM »

I know Ghosth, what I cant understand is why these superb textures cant be used by actual MA maps. Actually, AH is MA, and MA is MA maps.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #64 on:** July 01, 2002, 09:28:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by poopster

Have the latest update over there, checked the Main, 70 people......

It echo's in there.

HT can look foreward to more pilots

Hehe, were those the MAC pilots?

Chanter · « **Reply #65 on:** July 01, 2002, 11:03:25 AM »

I just left WB after 4 years for AH. WB3 was the most anticipated release for us in years. Many spent hundreds or thousands to upgrade their machines to handle it. Many spent hours on dialup lines downloading the 100+ Meg files. Many kept the faith for over a year of "alpha/beta" play in the hopes that one day it would all come together. Many spent hours tweaking settings to be able to see a dot outside of 2000 yards. I spent most time squinting, trying to find the greenheaded fly against the green featureless ground, often times never finding anything....and yes, I set my .bgminrenderrange many different times.

Guess what? I spent 5 minutes downloading AH, including the help file. An hour reading the help file. The last 4 months enjoying the hell out of this sim.

I don't agree with the statements that AH beats WB3 in everything but graphics - it beats WB3 in everything.

Nilsen · « **Reply #66 on:** July 01, 2002, 11:56:28 AM »

I think graphics is excellent in AH, and they would prolly loose me as customer if they made AH so beautiful that FPS took a big hit.

Im surprised at the fact that I can play AH in 1024x768 16bit coulor and get 50-60 fps on my laptop.

They may loose other customers that also run on laptops and older computers.

WTG HTC for making such beautiful graphics and gameplay available for modist computers.
You must be excellent programmers, so keep ut the good work and don't forget us that doesnt have GF4 with 20000mb of ram.

Tried WB and it was like runnig throug glue...had 5fps WB sucks in playability and strat system aswell. AH rules the skies.

running AH on IBM Thinkpad T23 with 16mb S3 graphics chip with external monitor and bla bla bla bla bla

CptTrips · « **Reply #67 on:** July 01, 2002, 12:21:54 PM »

>Have the latest update over there, checked the Main, 70
>people......

>Hehe, were those the MAC pilots?

Hehe. I was thinking the same thing. The whole mac thing is their biggest mistake IMHO. Not very intelligent to limit what you can offer to the vast majority of gamers in order to pander to a vocal minority.

I can't believe, with the competition they are facing, that they are holding back all kinds of cool features simply because "the mac can't handle it."

If they had half a brain, they would separate the mac people into a mac arena and support it as much as the little machines can handle, then open up the flood gates on the PC only arena and give them every bell and whistle they can imagine. I can't believe there has not been more of a backlash from PC users being denied features because "the mac can't handle it." I guess there has been, but its been quiet. Players just quietly walk away, taking their pocketbooks with them.

Wab

Samm · « **Reply #68 on:** July 01, 2002, 12:37:02 PM »

Anybody know why my WBIII terrain looks like moldy old commanche terrain ?

Eagler · « **Reply #69 on:** July 01, 2002, 01:08:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
I know Ghosth, what I cant understand is why these superb textures cant be used by actual MA maps. Actually, AH is MA, and MA is MA maps.

Not for all of us..

check out CT this week. Catch it at sunset for a spectacular view.

CT

Turbot · « **Reply #70 on:** July 01, 2002, 02:43:57 PM »

AH looks pretty good, and performs a hell of a lot better in the fps department. I think warbirds is not going to be around much longer - how long can the afford to keep running with so few players?

I hope they hang around - competition is good, better product and keeps prices down

cobra427 · « **Reply #71 on:** July 01, 2002, 02:50:41 PM »

WBIII doesnt support as many video cards as it used to

Hristo · « **Reply #72 on:** July 01, 2002, 05:02:28 PM »

Take SWOTL and AH. Which one does run better on DX286 whatever ?

For every ugly screenshot of WBIII I could get 3 ugly screenies of AH. IMO, of course.

Kratzer · « **Reply #73 on:** July 01, 2002, 05:38:48 PM »

The graphics in AH are the most useful out of all three of the games mentioned. They are clean, crisp, you can tell what something is at long range... It seems to me that a lot of graphical features that are added by some games to improve the 'realism' actually muddle the view, and while at first glancing look more 'realistic', are in fact poorer representations of what the human eye can truly see.

AH is very easy on the eyes, very playable, and I think strikes the perfect combination for the current technology level. In a few years, when graphics cards can really push things to a truly photorealistic level, then all this realism stuff will have a place, but at the moment, it hurts more than it helps in a lot of cases.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #74 on:** July 01, 2002, 06:35:48 PM »

Hristo, I downloaded WB3 last night to check out the difference.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest which is better. But I DO like to see both sides of the coin.

First : I can't really comment on the FM's WHY? Because I am no expert, I couldn't tell you who's is right or who's is wrong. MY expertese is what I see visually.
But personally I like AH's.
Also I would like to add that "IF" a flight sym was to recreate ww2 planes FM to a T, it would be to hard to fly for me and probably 99% of the customers and if it means 'scaling" back for playability and enjoyment while maintaining some degree of difficulty and learning curve, I think HTC has it PERFECTLY!!!!

I do like Il-2 But since massive online flight syms have a trade off for connection and end user computer specs, I would like to compare apples with apples and leave IL-2 out of the discussion.

IMO, althou WB planes were nice, I would hardly say they were ahead of the graphics game. Now this is just my personal prefrences. I actually liked a few of WB's planes , very nicely done, But I personally like the vass majority of AH's planes better.

Terrains: Hmmmmm One plus WB's has over AH is Bitmapping within a vortex. (some maynot follow this , some may) and I 'm not going to explain it.
Trees: AH wins hands down.
terrain ground textures: We'll I am bias on this answer because I have played with the Terrain editor and made a few maps. But AH smacks a grand slam in this department.

SKies & clouds: I havent seen any clouds yet in WB's so my comment will only be from the screenshots i saw.
AH clouds Are freakin' awsome at times and horrible at others.
Below and above the clouds in AH it's so realistic looking, Once inside the solid "grey" is not to pretty:( I'm not sure if this is intentional for low end computers or not but "I" personally would like to see transparency to some degree..
WB's clouds can't comment, but look nice from the screen shots.

The shadow the storm front cast could also use some work.

SKies: I like the high altitude cloud look of WB's better than AH "plain Jane" blue fade.

Flying at low level: WB's gave me a better feel for speed over AH I would have to admit, BUT this is a big BUT. The availability to turn on this "clutter" as HTC calls it, IS there in AH, and from what I have heard THIS Can be changed for every map. Althou I have had no luck changing this clutter, and HTC's default clutter does nothing for me. Once this "clutter" hurdle can be jumped I would give the edge to AH. But as it stands Wb's low level flight has a better immersion ( under 500 feet) with HTC's clutter off, Although Clutter over AH's water is done pretty nicely I like the water clutter but not the land.

I can't comment on tech support but HTC's is Unmatched and so personal, they make me feel like "I AM" their best customer whenever i call. The only comment i can give about Wb's is some responses I've seen on the thier BBS, and it seems some are defensive, short tempered and down right rude. ( I am not talking about players who post on the BBS).

This Is just my perspective , and Althou i know this will be looked at by some, and i'm sure arguements for both sides will be posted. I want to stress this is just My personal views, I wish WB's and their community all the best and know many fly both.

I can't wait for what HTC has instore for us around the corner, I feel I've been spoiled with a great product, continuing upgrades, and unrivaled staff at HTC.

NUTTZ