Author Topic: aces high may not last long (Read 1263 times)

Griego · « **Reply #75 on:** July 01, 2002, 06:47:55 PM »

Il-2 Terrain sure like the way the rivers look with the sun glint off of them and the tree lines look great.

WarbirdIII plane skins graphics.

AW cockpits with realistic gauges still think AW had some great looking cocpits.

FM: WB and AH are very similiar.Il-2 can't get Force Feed to work in demo. so not sure about FM. AW well we all know it was planes on rails but lot of fun for it's time.

Il-2 cockpit are very detailed like that.

Playablity AH strats. and sheer numbers of players.

If WB and the clouds of AH would be great.

FPS: WBIII on a 600Mhz duron with a Geforce2 Pro 64mb card at 1024x768 res. 50- 90fps
FPSl AH on a 600Mhz duron with Geforce2 Pro 64mb card at 1024x768 res. 29-65fps

Had to upgrade processor to get better framerates in AH. Now fps is 68 on runway to 100 in air and not lower than 30 with intensive graphic load. WBIII droped in fps near towns also when there was a lot of Planes in the area to 15-25fps
AH did the same before upgrade but not with as many planes as WB had in one place.

I like seeing lot of missions with lot of bombers and escorts. AH has them now WB 2.77 or earlier had them then.

Reason for being in AH sheer number of Targets LOL. Price was second with graphics coming in last. Wish cockpit graphics were better since we tend to see them more that anything else.This would be a plus. Damage model being one of the reasons i left AW to play WB's is also very important. I like the bullet riddled cockpits of IL-2 just AMAZING. Dont like the oil stain glass get some glass cleaner for Il-2.

I guess i could go on and on. I have to stop myself.

Kevin14 · « **Reply #76 on:** July 01, 2002, 06:55:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Griego
...and not lower than 30 with intensive graphic load. WBIII droped in fps near towns also when there was a lot of Planes in the area to 15-25fps
AH did the same before upgrade but not with as many planes as WB had in one place...

Dang, your lucky, I get 40fps at the best times, and it usually goes down to about 8 in combat, I'm used to it though. With such high framerates it must be like playing Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat. I have two computers, I play AH on the older one cause the new one doesn't work with the joystick for some reason, it sucks cause old one is POS, constant lcok-ups, while new one is PIII with about 2GhZ or something.

Stridr417 · « **Reply #77 on:** July 01, 2002, 06:58:45 PM »

Quote

it beats WB3 in everything

No way. The single biggest thing that rules AH right out for a lot of folks that play warbirds is that its a ALWAYS 1945. Simple as that. Nothing could be more dull than a persistent arena that never changes. The lack of S3's in AH is another issue

Stridr

Ozark · « **Reply #78 on:** July 01, 2002, 07:30:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stridr417

No way. The single biggest thing that rules AH right out for a lot of folks that play warbirds is that its a ALWAYS 1945. Simple as that. Nothing could be more dull than a persistent arena that never changes. The lack of S3's in AH is another issue
Stridr

Thank you for that well informed firsthand account.

Swager · « **Reply #79 on:** July 01, 2002, 07:44:38 PM »

I flew WBIII. I do not find the graphics better than AH. AH seems more playable to me!

IMHO

Chanter · « **Reply #80 on:** July 01, 2002, 07:58:28 PM »

"No way. The single biggest thing that rules AH right out for a lot of folks that play warbirds is that its a ALWAYS 1945. Simple as that. Nothing could be more dull than a persistent arena that never changes. The lack of S3's in AH is another issue

Stridr"

Hiya Stridr.

Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. The MA might be stocked with the latest, greatest planes available, but so was the old WB MA - nothing but ponies, spits and doras as far as the eye could see. However, if you want the greatest machine available here, you have to pay for it. Controls things nicely.

The CT is a varying time period/theatre in which Axis vs Allies compete. The maps are absolutely fantastic, with everything from Stalingrad to the South Pacific and everything in between.

S3s? Well, the TODs are certainly as good as the S3s with high numbers, great flying, registered squads...blah blah blah, so I don't see the difference.

FWIW I used to be opposed to AH also. I had many (incorrect) pre-conceived notions about it. I was horribly mistaken (in my opinion) and am very happy here. Warbirds was my home for years, I begrudge it nothing and wish it well. Aces High is my new home.

~~Stridr, my regards to 417.~~

Taiaha · « **Reply #81 on:** July 01, 2002, 08:19:27 PM »

Chanter, good points--MA in Warbirds also suffers from uber plane overkill. When I started playing WB3 last year every second plane was a 262, it was ridiculous.

Nuttz, I haven't been back to WB3, for some time--do they have shadows yet? That was always a minor irritation for me. Plus, the water looked like crap, even in the last update I saw.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #82 on:** July 02, 2002, 12:33:56 AM »

water to land transition, well In WB there wasn't any. Absolutely is my worse nightmare, I HATE the lack of water to land, the abruptness. When I see water in a line to land I don't feel the immersion, I feel as if i am flying in a coloring book or on a chess board.

Il-2 has IMO the BEST water reflection against the sun absolutely increadable, But also have that abrupt straight edge to land with really i can't stand.

The water to land transition is the BEST thing IMO HTC did for the game.

NUTTZ

Quote

Originally posted by Taiaha
Chanter, good points--MA in Warbirds also suffers from uber plane overkill. When I started playing WB3 last year every second plane was a 262, it was ridiculous.

Nuttz, I haven't been back to WB3, for some time--do they have shadows yet? That was always a minor irritation for me. Plus, the water looked like crap, even in the last update I saw.

sutpid · « **Reply #83 on:** July 02, 2002, 01:34:55 AM »

I'd like to see AH have and offline play like in Wb thats all i played or atleast add planes that fly and shoot unlike the ones that just circle around and do nothing. i like to practice bombing offline but theres no challange. but i found with wb the nme planes seem to have killed me alot more than i would have liked.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #84 on:** July 02, 2002, 02:17:07 AM »

One of Nuttz's great works of art

Taiaha · « **Reply #85 on:** July 02, 2002, 07:47:02 AM »

Roscoroo, that's awesome, which terrain is it from?

Nuttz, you do good work man.

ra · « **Reply #86 on:** July 02, 2002, 09:14:33 AM »

A lot of people seem to think WB's graphics are somehow better than AH's. Here's my 2 cents on graphics:

- cockpit graphics: I don't care how photo-realistic the cockpit graphics are, I want gauges I can read without squinting or having to pan down. In a real plane the pilot is not even concious of glancing at his instruments, but in a sim with realistic gauges he is, because realistic gauges on a 17 inch monitor are too small to easily read. I like HTC's decision to go with unrealistic looking, but functional gauges. Maybe in a future release HTC could have an option for realistic cockpits for those who want them. I'll stick with the Mickey Mouse cockpit.

- plane graphics: WB's plane graphics are crisper and more detailed, but this is only noticable when you zoom in for a screen shot. If your oppenent is 50 yards or more out the differences between AH and WB airplane graphics are negligible. As one of the few people still using a stone-age computer I don't have a problem giving up a tiny bit of eye candy. People who have excess capicity on their CPU's/video cards always want more graphics.

- clouds: AH clouds sure aren't perfect, but they have the desired effect of allowing you to hide in them and sometimes escape an opponent. I've had some really cool cloudfights. In WB AFAIK there is only a haze layer which divides low alt aircraft from higher alt aircraft, they aren't really clouds.

terrains: IMHO AH's are better.

Anyway, if graphics are that important to you, Il-2 is your game, the graphics there kick butt.

ra

Kweassa · « **Reply #87 on:** July 02, 2002, 01:43:52 PM »

IL-2 is a lot of things, and I dare say it is about the second best flight sim game I've ever played.(AH is still #1 to me

) I actually enjoy flying IL-2 as much as AH, and in some aspects IL-2 is better than AH(personal opinion).

The general FM in fact feels a lot like AH(they feel very simular to me..), but in some subtle areas the IL-2 planes perform in a bit 'unpredictable' way compared to AH.

Maneuvering is crisp and joyable in AH(probably has to do a lot with combat trim, but even with combat trim off it's pretty 'crisp'), but I think I like the feel of "unpredictableness" in IL-2 better. This 'unpredictableness' or 'not-so-crispness'(but I don't think you can call it 'mushy' either.. I just can't find a right word...

) adds a lot to immersion and pilot skill.

For example, in AH, when you put up a Bf109G-6 against a La-5FN, you know the La-5FN turns better than the G-6. Unless the pilot in the G-6 is VERY skilled, or the La pilot totally sucks, in a turn fight the G-6 most usually loses, and the 5FN wins. The results within set parameters are predictable - because it's crisp and very clear.

In IL-2, tight turning takes a lot more work than AH, and the results are not always clear, because there somehow seems to be more factors working in the FM. Besides, the stall characteristics are treacherous in IL-2, very hard to recover.

To put it simply, it takes a lot more effort and practice to reach "the edge of the envelope" in IL-2 than AH.

The gunnery model in IL-2, I think, is better than AH too. Now, some pilots like funkedup claim they get same range hits in IL-2 as AH(500 yard shot would be about .50 range in IL-2). I believe what funked says, but the thing is, in my case, I can get 500 yard shots in AH but not in IL-2. I can't dream of hitting anything further out than 300 meters, unless the target stays totally level. The "get in close, then go in closer" really has some meaning in IL-2. I think this means skill levels in gunnery show more drastic results in IL-2 than AH. Pilots like funked have way better aim than someone like me, but I can get 500~600 yard shots in AH despite the difference. In IL-2, the skill difference shows.. funked can get those shots in, I can't.

..

But what IL-2 lacks so much is a good multiplayer environment. Those hyperlobby games are as dull as it gets.. AH might be a little worse off in subtle areas such as I mentioned, but overall, for a MMOG, AH ranks absolutely first. If I get two hours to play every day, I'd gladly put every single second in AH rather than IL-2.

I hope AH will continue its awesome evolution.. (and hopefully implement some of those things I liked in IL-2 into the game)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #88 on:** August 30, 2002, 10:27:22 AM »

Update, Sutpid is *still* flying AH. Ever try WB's Sutpid?

Revvin · « **Reply #89 on:** August 30, 2002, 12:12:06 PM »

Why would he want to do that? it's just full of problems left by the old team's code according to Hotseat explaining why the latest addition to their planeset the P39 climb's like the space shuttle in a hurry. Comes to something when they have to blame a team that left WB around 4 years ago now?