Wings Of Prey

[asparagin]

Hi diveplane,

 

How big are really the maps, and how's the performance?

 

Greets

[Feuerfalke]

Hi diveplane,

 

How big are really the maps, and how's the performance?

 

Greets

 

Performance for PC is probably very good, considering it's been made for consoles, which normally lag behind high-end-PCs.

 

At least there's plenty of options it seems:

 

Guess this also answers the Vignette-Question. ;)

 

 

Also note that beta-testers are only allowed to post positive comments. :music_whistling:

 

 

IMHO a lot of things are graphically overdone, though. Just look at the depth and spacing of the plating on this picture:

 

 

Or how the white cliffs of dover on a sunny day turn into gray.

 

Still nice, but IMHO there is a difference between realism (even in graphics) and eyecandy. To much hollywood for me, but that is just my personal opinion - hopefully there will be a demo.

[asparagin]

It's true the graphics are overdone, but i can't say they look bad. (thanks for the pictures)

I was wondering how big are the maps or if there are "no go zones".

Did I saw somewhere that the digital copy should be released in december?

[Feuerfalke]

It seems as if a release in December is still the goal. That is digital download-version. I only read that a DVD-release is planned for countries with slow or insufficient internet connections.

[Pilotasso]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP7XnrbpcPw&feature=related

 

another nice clip

 

looks a bit arcadish. Seems to me planes have got almost infinite climbing power. IRL shots were donne primary from the rear against other fighters but it seems in this SIM all aspec angle goes.

 

Relative speeds between 3D fighter seems to be too high or the models look too small (just the opposite problem of most jet fighter SIM's including LOMAC)

 

Also Some bad piloting in there :D, best attacking WWII tactic was to dive on a target that could not keep up the climb with you, specialy bombers, attacking them from the rear when you got the option for the position is realy realy bad. :)

[diveplane]

Hi diveplane,

 

How big are really the maps, and how's the performance?

 

Greets

 

performance is incredible imo , am running flat out full graphics.

 

great engine the sim has

 

maps are quite big yes. will recheck size

[mikoyan]

looks a bit arcadish. Seems to me planes have got almost infinite climbing power. IRL shots were donne primary from the rear against other fighters but it seems in this SIM all aspec angle goes.

 

Relative speeds between 3D fighter seems to be too high or the models look too small (just the opposite problem of most jet fighter SIM's including LOMAC)

 

Also Some bad piloting in there :D, best attacking WWII tactic was to dive on a target that could not keep up the climb with you, specialy bombers, attacking them from the rear when you got the option for the position is realy realy bad. :)

 

You are right the airplanes look like radio control airplanes, I guess that it is a problem with the camera location which is a little bit higher than the aircraft, in other words it is the same point of view than wen you are looking at your 1/8 scale radio control aircraft. In lomac the cockpit seems like it is too low, maybe because the runway is very wide? maybe better textures and lighting can enhance the scale feeling ?

[diveplane]

You are right the airplanes look like radio control airplanes, I guess that it is a problem with the camera location which is a little bit higher than the aircraft, in other words it is the same point of view than wen you are looking at your 1/8 scale radio control aircraft. In lomac the cockpit seems like it is too low, maybe because the runway is very wide? maybe better textures and lighting can enhance the scale feeling ?

 

all looks good on my screen.

[Vekkinho]

I can't say 'cause I haven't tried it yet but judging by the available videos and screenshots eye candy is within realism. Trouble is in the color of the video and pics.

 

So beta testers should start posting greyscale screenshots as most of the real photos and videos from 1939 were that way. Perhaps it would seem more realistic!

[Pilotasso]

When I said it was arcadish I didnt mean the graphics, nor the oustide view. The planes FM just inst believable IMHO. Looks like a space shootemup (I had quite a few too!).

 

looking at the videos You see targets get shot in every aspect and be sucessfull, while IRL it would be much much more difficult, and donne primarily from behind. Also planes climb like rocketships wich makes all that possible (along with probably large hit boxes).

[diveplane]

When I said it was arcadish I didnt mean the graphics, nor the oustide view. The planes FM just inst believable IMHO. Looks like a space shootemup (I had quite a few too!).

 

looking at the videos You see targets get shot in every aspect and be sucessfull, while IRL it would be much much more difficult, and donne primarily from behind. Also planes climb like rocketships wich makes all that possible (along with probably large hit boxes).

 

you played the sim yet to judge on it?

 

personally i think its very good. intense dogfights online so far for me . and this was in arcade mode.

 

spitfire turns very well compared to the bf109 , the 109 is faster on straight end speeds. and climbs.

i used the spits turning to my advantage at times.

 

 

 

arcade mode cuts out stalls

blackouts

redouts

has all the views enabled

and icons enabled.

wep setting is ai controlled and it does not give you infinite war emergency power.

 

 

 

and a simplified flight model . which to me is very good even in arcade setting.

yet to try realistic and simulator settings, currently enjoying the arcade mode online.

still a few quirks here and there in the sim, but in time with patches it wll be even better.

Edited December 18, 2009 by diveplane

[topol-m]

Is there a Horten 229 or japanese aircraft in the game?

[diveplane]

Is there a Horten 229 or japanese aircraft in the game?

 

this is planned for the future pacific addon.

[topol-m]

oh great :thumbup:

[diveplane]

nice fireball shot i took taking out enemy

 

[Vekkinho]

When I said it was arcadish I didnt mean the graphics, nor the oustide view. The planes FM just inst believable IMHO. Looks like a space shootemup (I had quite a few too!).

 

looking at the videos You see targets get shot in every aspect and be sucessfull, while IRL it would be much much more difficult, and donne primarily from behind. Also planes climb like rocketships wich makes all that possible (along with probably large hit boxes).

 

Yes I noticed such things, (players don't pull enough lead to gun but shoot straight into the target and score) however I also noticed that most of the videos show arcade game mode (3d person view). So it may be a console version of the game 'cause I don't believe after all the realism with previous lL-2 sims this one's gonna go HAWXish!

[Chibawang]

Yes, you don't really need to lead shots in the easier modes, and even when you do there is an icon of where to place the pipper. You don't have to worry about energy very much either, but I think "infinite rocket-like power" is a bit exaggerated.

 

I'm not an expert on WW2 aerial combat, but the simulator settings seem pretty close to the real deal to me. You have to be very careful with energy management to avoid stalls, and trimming is neccessary. Firing solutions and lead distances appear to be accurate or at least convincing, from all aspects.

 

The only optional helpers you're given are automatic prop pitch, radiator and fuel mixture control; the justification being that during the heat of battle, pilots rarely fiddled with their engines. The computer does a fine job of managing these, but I still like to leave them on manual, as it gives you greater control and flexibility. Oh, and of course to keep my integrity as a hardcore sim-snob intact. :music_whistling:

 

Some have complained about the lack of an option to takeoff/land in every mission. Usually, I would agree and cheer them on, but this is one case where I think it was a necessity of design. The campaign attempts to accurately recreate some of the most famous missions from the war, and often a flight would be in the air running lean for hours before reaching the target area. Even I would rather skip that bit, and I would much prefer the mission to start mid flight than the alternative of throwing believability out the window and placing a friendly airbase adjacent to the enemy.

 

In the easiest settings, I would say this is by far the best aerial combat game I've every played, striking a very nice balance between believability and acessibility. In the harder settings, I would say it's got enough depth and difficulty to satisfy all but the most stubborn and finicky of the "simming elite."

Edited December 18, 2009 by Chibawang

[Vekkinho]

Thanks Chibawang!

[Pilotasso]

Interesting post Chibawang.

 

But let me add this to dispel a misconception your speach reminded me of. Difficulty is not the same as realism, and Realism is not a plane that flies like crap. (realy hate it when players and some developers associate both as synonyms) Realism comes out from fidelity. Thats it.

 

Further I preffer a SIM where realism is the deffault. Otherwise it will attract those who want an airquake quick (and dumb) shots, and those will always outnumber the hardcore guys by far, I.E. I will never see much realistic combat online (if that SIM can deliver that), and MP is the only way for me for a long time.

 

Personaly I think Olegs new WWII SIM is more interesting in these 2 fronts.

[Chibawang]

I agree, realism does not necessarily equal difficulty, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it did. Falcon 4 is a good example: the most hi-fi/realistic simulation available of one of the most technologically advanced war planes in the world, and it's almost boringly easy to fly. (F4 fans: don't jump down my throat, I'm only making a point. I know it's not easy to be a Viper pilot.)

 

I also prefer developers who embrace realism as the norm, but I also think they might be able to stay in business longer if they considered the "airquake" crowd a bit more. We are a rare breed, and in this day and age you have to accept it as a necessary evil of sorts.

 

You may be right about SoW, and I'll definately be picking it up as soon as it's available, but that's not going to be anytime soon. In the meantime, I can only recommend this to anyone who's interested.

[diveplane]

made a nice clip of some of the action .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPp9wLInEFY

[weasel75]

...Otherwise it will attract those who want an airquake quick (and dumb) shots, ....

 

Pleaaaase, stop it! Why is everyone bashing AirQuake?!

To some degree it had a more believable flight-model than e.g. "HAWX"... so please, bash some other game!

 

;)

 

But that aside, I fully agree - a simulation is not (necessarily) an aircraft difficult to handle, but the lack of pre-rendered scenes, repetative moments, routine, etc.

A simulation (just as real life) has (almost) endless outcomes, just defined by all the possible steps and moves the participants could perform in such an encounter.... an equatation too complex to grasp, with too many variables to predict the outcome.

 

Salute!

[topol-m]

made a nice clip of some of the action .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPp9wLInEFY

 

Wow amazing! The explosions of the AAA shells - beautiful. The way the aircraft disappears from sight when it enters a cloud :music_whistling: When is this game coming out? I think that would be my first WW2 sim. And a request, plase make a video with some of the jet fighters, Me-262 in particular :pilotfly:

 

Edit: Oh and one more thing. Compared to FC and BS how are the FPS?

Edited December 19, 2009 by topol-m

[Vekkinho]

Beautiful video, I really liked it!

[asparagin]

 

Edit: Oh and one more thing. Compared to FC and BS how are the FPS?

 

diveplane mentioned early in the post that the performance is good.

 

But this question still stands: Exactly how big are the maps, is it like hawx where after 15 minutes of flying in one direction you hit the wall (there really is a wall if you are wondering).