poll: what do real-life pilots think of Aces High

[udet]

Of course you like it, otherwise you wouldn't be playing it, but just how does it rate compared to real flying?

[Dago]

heheh, loaded question.  Sim drivers are going to tell you its just like real life, etc.  

There are similarities, but its kinda like comparing driving a go-kart at the local amusement park versus a Formula one racer in a race.

Take a P51 expert from AH, put him in a real life P51, he would die, that is if he could get it off the ground.  Most likely he would pile it up before reaching flying speed.

Dago

[eagl]

My experience includes about 70 hours in light cessnas, around 12 glider flights, about 800 hours in the T-37, 130ish hours in the T-38, and 550ish hours in the F-15E.  I started flying Confirmed Kill back in the early-mid beta phase in 1995, and converted from WB to AH as a member of the early AH closed beta team.

The first time I flew a real life taildragger, I had 30 hours civilian time and I sucked.  I couldn't keep the taildragger on the taxiway.  Then I flew WB and AH for a few years, and got another chance to fly a real taildragger.  It was no problem.  Of course in that interim I got about 1000 hours jet time, but it was only my second flight in a real taildragger and it felt easy.  AH feels a little easier to handle on the ground than a real taildragger, but I guess that's one of the tradeoffs you have to make to get people to play the game.  If it was as tough as real life, nobody would play because RL flying is actually fairly difficult to do without damaging the equipment or killing yourself.

For what is modelled, AH feels pretty good.  Balancing historical accounts against personal weaponeering training I've gotten in the USAF, lethality seems a little high (or the damage modelling is too "all or nothing"), but I honestly have no actual data so all I can really say for sure is that for gameplay purposes I'd like lethality turned down a bit, or progressive airframe damage added into the mix.

Dihedral effect seems to be somewhat lower in the game than in RL, same goes for the effect that yaw has on swept wings, but overall the flight model appears sufficient to "feel right" to me.

The biggest frustration for me with AH realism is network lag.  In RL, if someone is actually pointing their guns at you and it's not a true point-blank shot, they simply can't hit you.  They MUST pull lead and shoot ahead of you in order to hit you.  With network lag in the mix, you can SEE the enemy pointing behind you on your computer, yet on his computer he is pulling lead and shooting you.  This plays hell with my personal "eye" for such things in the game since I keep my BFM reflexes based on real life training.  The average gamer won't care since they never have to compare it to the real life "you're about to die" view of another fighter, but it is one difference between RL and the game.

[NUKE]

Be interesting to see what HiTech would say.  I think Hitech's a pilot.

I have flown only UltraLights ( QuickSilver and Rans S-12)

My Dad's Aero Commander as a kid ( just steered it)

The sensation of gravity and the realization that you could kill yourself spring to mind as big differences to me...... but Im not a real Pilot

[J_A_B]

"Take a P51 expert from AH, put him in a real life P51, he would die, that is if he could get it off the ground. "


Heck, he'd be doing good if he could even get the engine started  


J_A_B

[AKWarp]

Well, I'm just shy of 2100 hours real world flight time, spread out over a period of about 24 years.  I am single and multi engine and instrument rated.  99.9999% of it is in various general aviation aircraft.  A smattering of some jet time here and there in military jets as a cadet in Civil Air Patrol (fun rides in which I managed to talk the pilot into letting go of the stick).

The smallest plane I've ever flown is a BD-5 (powered by a 500cc Kawasaki motorcycle engine) and the largest plane would be a DC-3 (during my days of sky diving).  In between are various other small aircraft, everything from cessna 150's, 172's, piper cherokees, barons, bonanza, seminole, decathlon, citabria, D-25, T-34, T-6, stearman, pitts s-2, steen skybolt, piper cub (which I currently have unlimited access to), ultralights (Hurricane, quicksilver and weedhopper), hang gliders, and others.  Pretty much anything I can rent, borrow or talk someone into letting me fly!

I also have about 35 hours of rotor time, although I gave it up...primarily because it got too expensive and autorotating is  a very scary process of trying not to die...that and the Robinson R-22, contrary to popular belief, is a nightmare to fly  

From a pure flight dynamics point of view, AH is very good.  Still not the same as a real plane, but considering the limitations of sitting behind a computer screen with no real world tactil feel, it's not bad at all.  

I dont think anyone could learn to fly in AH and then go fly a real plane, but there are certain aspects to real world flying that would carry over from AH experience.

The two biggest issues I have with the flight model in AH are:

1.  The rudder.  I don't think the rudder in AH acts like it is supposed to.  It just doesn't feel as authoritative as it should.

2.  Effectiveness of elevators when pulling over the top or, pulling when slow and/or inverted.  To me it feels like airspeed is the sole governing factor for stall/elevator effectiveness.  When one is inverted, or coming over the top of a loop slow, pulling back on the stick should cause the nose to drop faster than it does. That big heavy engine up front and gravity should pull the nose down harder.  

I now many would puke at the thought, but random engine problems or failures, and even weapon jams or failure to drop (bombs) would add an interesting factor to the mix as well.....

[jbroey3]

I am Instrument Rated and have approx 200 give or take hours in wwii fighter trainer/texan/t43/Da20/Pa28/172/etc.. with other civil counter parts.  

X-plane has been the primary focus, or rather eye catcher for me in the Flight model department. Nothing simulates to the level of detail that i have seen there. Nothing for a personal computer.

I have flown the B2 stealth multimillion$ level D  full motion sim and it highly resembles xplane in many reguards.

[jbroey3]

Aces High is a great "game" in many ways, it does like I have said before give a good representation of flight.

It is missing the Very important fluidness of flight though, the very essence of interaction of simulated airflow.

There seems to be no simulation of ground effect in aces, as well as other compressablity/decreasing of induced drag areas of the flight envelope.

The Stalls in Aces High, are for lack of a better term, "gamey". Not very onset, pronoucned. Even for those planes whose stall characteristics are noted for being relatively easy going.

The damage model seems horrible, in many ways. I had previously felt it was very well done untill the release of Il2.

As eagle had stated earlier, their is a Seemingly on/off way of doing it here.  Damage should not be binary in this sense.
Dynamic as well as realisitc  damage should be implemented.

I have seen far to many times where a plane is litterally "cut in two" by 30 calibre from Ranges upwards to 1.2K yards out!

This is very gamey, and most certainly did not/does not happen when two materials meet.

There are many things that aces has going for it... To me it is the networking aspect as well as the planeset with the fairly descent flight model.

[NUKE]

AH is the best multiplayer game I have ever played. Nothing is close.

So to HTC!

[john9001]

i think the AH P-51 flys heck of a lot better than the cessna 150 i learned on

[Saurdaukar]

Im not a licensed pilot, but I have been able to talk one or two people into letting go of the stick.  

From my meager experience, which probably amounts to about 2 hours of flight time total in small, single engine AC - I can say the obvious - in a real AC, you feel conected to it - every movement of the stick/yoke has an effect on the AC and the movement of the AC has an effect on you.  

This, I think, would be the big problem for some of the better sim pilots in the game had AH suddenly been turned into real life flight - the rigorous activity of actually flying the plane takes endurance (especialy WWII birds from what I hear)  In AH, you just sit in a chair.  Other than that - I think HTC has created the finest flight model around - although the "over the top" arugement I find myself argreeing with.

[Monk]

Originally posted by eagl
and 550ish hours in the F-15E.  .



 

.........slacker;)

[SFRT - Frenchy]

I have a lil more than 1000h prop time, and I appreciate AH for how it feels. I have a lot of fun flying it. I just wished it would be more "complicated", with management of the mixture/turbochargers/cowl flaps/coolants/mags/oxygen ...

[mjolnir]

Originally posted by eagl
My experience includes about 70 hours in light cessnas, around 12 glider flights, about 800 hours in the T-37, 130ish hours in the T-38, and 550ish hours in the F-15E.  

Eagl, you a zoomie?

[Monk]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I have a lil more than 1000h prop time, and I appreciate AH for how it feels. I have a lot of fun flying it. I just wished it would be more "complicated", with management of the mixture/turbochargers/cowl flaps/coolants/mags/oxygen ...

you are a slacker too, but we already new that:D

Edit: (spelling)