Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

 
next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Archives   » EAW Archive 1   » explain this one.... (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: explain this one....
S|im
Member
Member # 1377

posted 12-13-1999 01:48 PM     Profile for S|im   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I've just recently gotten back into EAW, for numerous reasons including lack of time, devotion to other games and more, I havent had the time nor desire to really concentrate on playing.

Anyhow, I'be just recently been killed during a campaign(I fly until I die, no matter what type of death, if I die..I end the campaign, delete the pilot and start a new one) I dont believe in reflying, in real life you didnt get a second chance either. Therefore I feel this keeps you awake and more aware that you must play/fly smart!

Anyways, to the point..with completly full realism, realistic gunnery, ace pilot skill, campaing settings: long, hard, and limited supplies, I scored myself 48 kills on 26 missions. Now this seems a little..how shall I say..out of proportion. But I guess the think you have to remember is you/me..as the pilot am already that much more experienced then the greens coming into the unit.

But my question is...why is that, that even on hardest difficulty settings, after 26 miossions, I still only revieved 11356 points? And btw I had flown three missions as Squadron Leader before colliding with a goddamn ju88-c over the target area escorting heavies on a railway strike. I didnt even see the chap, made a 45 degree bank, pulled on the stick...and BOOOM!

When I looked at the hall of fame I was last, with only 11000 points? After all that??

SO someone explain exactly how this scoring system works..like I said have been away from it for a while, and just recently statred visiting these boards again.

Thanks

PS. I do have one major complaint though! The trade off between realistic gunnery and unrealistic is way off the mark. An example..with unrealistic gunnery is very easy to take out every enemy aircraft on your own, on ACE difficulty. Yet on realistic, half the time your bullets will hit am aircraft, sure as hell what should be a hit..but it does not register as a hit...and that is how they model the realistic gunnery. I am not impressed by this, as this is highly unrealistic. Because your bloody wingman can do what you cant if you watch them attack a bandit.

So there is a way to change this?

And once again, thanks


Posts: 122 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
DBond
Member
Member # 37

posted 12-13-1999 03:08 PM     Profile for DBond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Check out Major Lee's site. He has a great article on how to win the VC. It goes into detail on how the scoring system works. If you want alot of points, you have to hit the right targets. Oil storage and tanker cars come to mind. Aircraft are only worth a hundred a pop. And always land your ship. It counts for a hundred more.
Posts: 814 | From: Mays Landing, N.J.,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 12-13-1999 10:17 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Slim...With unrealistic gunnery your bullets fly directly to the aim-point. In other words, where the sight is, is where your bullets will hit. In realistic gunnery, other factors are considered. ie...bullet drop, angle of deflection, the relative speeds and directions of both the target and your A/C, and so on. All these factors combine to determine the point of aim you must take to hit your target. Also, realistic gunnery reduces the size of the "hit" area of the target. Realistic gunnery is just that...realistic. IMHO...
Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 12-14-1999 08:57 AM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
As I understand it, "Unrealistic" Gunnery also does one more thing: the target you are shooting at is not an airplane---it's an elongated cube! Your target area is a box the width of the target's wingspan, the same height as the target aircraft, and the same length (from nose to tail). With mg bullets and cannon shells going to the exact aiming point, obviously this makes it VERY easy to hit the target (actually make that: pound the target into oblivion!). With Realistic Gunnery switched ON, you have an actual airplane to shoot at. The target aircraft is now composed of different parts, each of which can take damage. Engine, radiator (for inline eng.s), tail section, wings, cockpit, fuel tanks/lines, etc. Peripheral hits on the wings or fuselage probably won't do much damage. By contrast, hits ANYWHERE with Real. Gnry. 'off' contribute to a cumulative effect.
Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Buzzard
Member
Member # 1399

posted 12-14-1999 12:12 PM     Profile for Buzzard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Sim,

you state that 48 kills in 26 missions is kind of unbelievable. Well that is not very unusual for a simulation game.

As you say it yourself you already have the advantage of being an experienced player.

If you compare your score to real WWII-pilots your doing quit well. Compare your score to Richard Bong's score (i believe the highest scoring ace in the USAAF): He shot 40 planes. But the greatest difference is the number of missions you've flown: you fly 26 missions, Bong flew 146 missions. The reason why we only fly so few missions is playbility. Imagine playing EAW in real-life modus, that means flying several missions without seeing an enemy or fighting against an enemy who outruns and disappears in the clouds. (That would be a rather boring game) If you want to see a game with a ridicolous kill ratio then play Total Air War: I managed to have 60 kills in 12 missions.


Posts: 3 | From: Leuven, Belgium | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Opa
Member
Member # 125

posted 12-14-1999 12:17 PM     Profile for Opa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Full realism means no HUD, right?
Just checking

------------------
Der Opa



Posts: 710 | From: Sandnes, Rogaland, Norway | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Leeman
Member
Member # 1100

posted 12-14-1999 12:36 PM     Profile for Leeman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Buzzard,

You wanna talk about unrealistic kill ratios? I remember playing an old WWI sim called "Knights of the Sky". I had over 100 kills in my first 8-10 missions. I bought "Knights" about two weeks before Red Baron came out. I bought Red Baron the day it hit the shelf and never played Knights of the Sky again!


Posts: 36 | From: Seekonk, Ma. USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG26(P) von Vampr
Member
Member # 1198

posted 12-14-1999 12:50 PM     Profile for JG26(P) von Vampr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Herr Opa ,

If it doesn't it should ! I hear people complain online when we want to play a "no-hud" game online , referring to the lack of situational awareness when playing with no hud . I believe flying a WWII flight sim with a heads-up display would be like flying Falcon 4.0 with Tie fighters . Full realism means no h.u.d. IMHO .

von Vampr

------------------
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

[This message has been edited by JG26(P) von Vampr (edited 12-14-1999).]


Posts: 33 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Opa
Member
Member # 125

posted 12-14-1999 01:12 PM     Profile for Opa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Das ist korrekt.
I believe I and TonyH were labeled "Masochists" during the discussion on realism in EAW....

------------------
Der Opa



Posts: 710 | From: Sandnes, Rogaland, Norway | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Pharaoh
Member
Member # 1123

posted 12-14-1999 01:46 PM     Profile for Pharaoh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Have to agree with NO HUD for full realism. The other hard core fliers and myself at Kali have all but gone over to flying ECAO1.2 with no HUD. There is ongoing discussion of making this the "semi-official" wargames setting, which is fine by me.

The only difference is setting ID something like Squadron designation or something like that so you van at least maintain a visual with your wingman.

As far as "unreralistic" kills, before I had a computer, used to come up with a multitude of excuses to be over at a friends house so I could fly "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe." Hard to believe, looking at what we have now, that I "lived" for that game. But REALLY!!; over 300 kills with maximum realism settings!!?? Eric Hartmann I am not. Became very discouraged after while with how easy it had become.

------------------
"A mind is like a parachute; it only functions when it is open." Sir Lewis Dewar


Posts: 2180 | From: Harrison, AR,USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
DBond
Member
Member # 37

posted 12-14-1999 02:26 PM     Profile for DBond   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Gotta agree. When flying single player, I don't use the hud either. Nothing on the screen but the cockpit and the sight. Somehow, in multiplayer I don't seem to care if it's on or off. It's just too much fun to care. Removing the targeting aids is essential if claims are made of full realism, IMO. Simply having the flight options cranked to the max isn't full realism, is it? I saw in a thread similar to this a while back, there was a guy or two who swore they didn't even use padlock, just panning. Now, that's hardcore. I do use padlock, but to make it as *real* as possible, I don't use straight six view. That makes you really start to appreciate the ships that had good visibility from the cockpit. Part of the reason I like the Tempest so much. But only part of the reason I also do not use the "target next" or "target closest" enemy commands. I use panning to scan and have "padlock closest to center" mapped to a key on the joystick. Just pan around, and lock on when the airplane you want to padlock is in the center of your view. Then padlock around as normal. I found that once I started playing this way my kill totals plummeted. Just like in real life, you can't really tell if the airplane you have padlocked is friendly or enemy until you can vusually identify it. Or try to make out the profile. Sometimes you can simply tell by what it's doing. If it's firing on your own bombers, you can be pretty sure it's the enemy. But you can never really tell with EAW AI, can you?You can no longer easily pick the enemy planes out of the crowd. Play this way and you will start to be happy when you return safely to base with 1 kill. But I'm sure many of you already do. I myself can't make claims to full realism. You can see by the above, the lenghts I go to to make the combat as *real* as possible, but I fly with mid-air collisions and tourqe effect off. I would use it to make the takeoffs and landings harder if we were just able to trim it out. I just get tired of turning right. Kinda like NASCAR in reverse.
Posts: 814 | From: Mays Landing, N.J.,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TonyH
Member
Member # 110

posted 12-15-1999 05:25 AM     Profile for TonyH   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
"Hardcore" is the ONLY way to play EAW. I play cos I want extreme realism. this means...

All settings on (Ace level etc)...

Absolutely NO HUD. That means on bombing missions to, I get to coords from ground control. I only use targeting for a second to tell my wingman to attack something, then its off...

No padlock, I use the number keys or the mouse to look around. How else would you lose sight of an enemy???.....

No rearview, except in planes that really had it, like the Tiffie or the P51d...

Look after your wingies. This means breaking off an attack to help your mates if the situation dictates so. Also on close escort, it means just that. Stay close to the bombers...

If ground control or your leader tells you to go home you do so, unless there are calls for help...

Also recently I've played with other constraints on myself. If my wing gets shot off and I spin, thats it, I'm dead. Career over. Very few, if any, pilots bailed out of a violently spinning crate and lived. If you bomb or strafe a target, its ONE pass and thats it. Real pilots did one or two passes and then home. I've started flying without a map too. I'll get ground control to direct me. This leads to some interesting missions...

I play like this cos I really don't see the point in playing otherwise, personally speaking. I don't want to be 'ace of the universe'. I want to feel something of what it was like...I know it still doesn't come close.

TonyH


Posts: 287 | From: Dublin, Ireland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Papa Hotel
Member
Member # 996

posted 12-15-1999 08:08 AM     Profile for Papa Hotel     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I respect your view on realism TonyH (and also from others) but for me it's taking it a bit too far. I run the game at 1280x1024 and I have a hard time to recognise planes, even at close distances. By that I mean distances I can always spot and name type when I fly in the real world. IMO there should be ways to make sure that at normal visual range the aircraft can be identified for you to make up for poor screen visibility. And for long distances it's left up to you. That's where I agree that HUD is completely unreal. I fly with HUD on because I have other things to do besides EAW, and do not wish to waste time on identification. The time I have to play must have compressed real time action
Well, these were my $.02

------------------
"If it ain't much it ain't Dutch" :)


Posts: 80 | From: Groningen, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG26(P) von Vampr
Member
Member # 1198

posted 12-15-1999 08:50 AM     Profile for JG26(P) von Vampr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Papa Hotel ,

You are right , E.A.W. is just a game . And I also have a life other than E.A.W.(as I'm sure most others here do). That being said , the reason I bought a "simulation" and not a arcade game was to try and get a feel for what it was like to fly a fighter in WWII . That's not to say you are wrong for wanting to dumb-down the game for convenience . If thats how you enjoy E.A.W. , more power to ya . Some of us are looking for more than the kill them all , shootem' up , arcade style melee's . That's why we join squads , looking for more immersion , more of a feel for what it was like . I sure we all know that you can never know how it really was unless you were there , but we try to get as close as we can . Full realism means no hud , lasers , F16'S , SAMS , or any other modern or futuristic weapons of war . Just one person , in a cockpit , with limited visibility , trying to figure out who's who and what the hell is going on . From what I've read this is how it was . Having a tough time indentifying planes is not unrealistic . Again just my humble opinion .

von Vampr

------------------
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread


Posts: 33 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Opa
Member
Member # 125

posted 12-15-1999 02:01 PM     Profile for Opa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
We need to make a sort of virtual helmet we can use while playing EAW, for max realism. Suggest we pick out the members that posts the most on this forum, since they're obviously the ones with too much spare time on their hands, and force them to begin with this project.

------------------
Der Opa



Posts: 710 | From: Sandnes, Rogaland, Norway | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Papa Hotel
Member
Member # 996

posted 12-16-1999 05:58 AM     Profile for Papa Hotel     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Von Vampr, I respect your view. What I would have liked to see in the sim is something which would identify a plane at 400 to 500 meters (1200 to 1500 feet) for you, to make up for the monitor. The 400-500m range I think is a reasonable range. Beyond that the sim should leave identification up to the pilot. That way you could IMO enhance realism. Of course knowledge of planes you will have to have then, otherwise it's still cheating.

Opa, I'm also eagerly waiting for the helmet. Wouldn't it be awsome?!?!?! I wonder, just like in the combatsim.com article about this subject, if you could get motionsickness from such a device.

------------------
"If it ain't much it ain't Dutch" :)



Posts: 80 | From: Groningen, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
TonyH
Member
Member # 110

posted 12-16-1999 06:31 AM     Profile for TonyH   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hey Opa, if someone made a helmet like that I'd never leave the house...........
Posts: 287 | From: Dublin, Ireland | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tannethal
Member
Member # 666

posted 12-17-1999 03:38 AM     Profile for Tannethal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Also No HUD and no target nearest enemy.
Due the late recognition of nationality insignia I sticked to somewhat more colorfully skins, where you can somewhat easier distinguish between friend and foe.
Must say sometimes I end up following one of the wingies for some time just to find out he is friendly.
But hey that's life.

Posts: 537 | From: Olbernhau Germany | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG26(P) von Vampr
Member
Member # 1198

posted 12-17-1999 07:23 AM     Profile for JG26(P) von Vampr   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Papa Hotel ,

Agreed! It is without a doubt harder to indentify planes in the sim from the cockpit than it was in real war . I think your suggestion about limiting the H.U.D. after 400-500 meters would make a sensible compromise . There is obviously a need for some kind of H.U.D. , thats why the designers put one in .

Tony H
I'm with you ! If one of these things ever comes out and is affordable , I'll probably become a hermit with a long beard !lol!!

von Vampr

------------------
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread


Posts: 33 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
HarryM
Member
Member # 1395

posted 12-17-1999 09:55 AM     Profile for HarryM   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I guess I'd better turn off the HUD...

Actually I think something like the "zooming padlock" of FSSDOE (which I haven't seen)would be perfect. You could padlock the "bogie" and then have a "squint" key to focus, which would bring up a pop-up view to approximate what you'd really be able to see at the planes given range. (a fuzzy line with a blob for an engine, instead of a 1 pixel dot) No auto ID at all.


Posts: 1130 | From: Salinas, CA USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Blade
Member
Member # 295

posted 12-17-1999 10:43 AM     Profile for Blade   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
About the rear view option. I know, you should have limited view out the back. This would be accepatble if there were rear view mirrors in EAW as was fitted on many fighters in WW2 and beyond. Since EAW does not feature rear mirrors, IMO the rear view seems to be fine if you want to use it. HUD? well in a real cockpit you can move around some what and in some case the pilot seat can be raised to get a better view which is not possible in EAW. So the HUD kind of compensate for the lack of the realistic quick movements that you can do in real life and cannot on a computer screen. But again all these features are options so use what ever that suits you.

Just some humble IMO ramblings

Blade

Also for full realism, you will need some way of generating G forces. In in WW2 AC G forces were a factor. Come on guys, its only a simulation to a point its fundamentaly a game to have fun with.

[This message has been edited by Blade (edited 12-17-1999).]

Above mixed up the HUD with no cockpit option. HUD can be used to compensate for small monitor and lack of real HiRes in computer tech today as Papa said.

[This message has been edited by Blade (edited 12-17-1999).]


Posts: 158 | From: Nepean, Onatrio, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 12-17-1999 10:44 AM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes Opa, I remember being labeled a masochist along with you guys.

MASOCHISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!

Sisu


Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
BodyBag
Member
Member # 253

posted 12-17-1999 12:19 PM     Profile for BodyBag   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hi guys,

As a result of my demand for realism, (no replays, full difficulty)I have only managed to retire two (2!) pilots to date from their tour of duty alive, and not POW.

But in that way the game stays fresh, and I always have a goal for my pilots to strive for(I would love to get that VC or CMH!).

The best career was 34 sorties and 48 kills, becoming a Colonel in USAAF with 25.205 points, before I was killed by train-AA near Parchim on 19/7-'44.

Back to the airfield...


Posts: 19 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 12-18-1999 01:41 AM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
BodyBag, that sounds a lot like the information in a review of LeRoy Gover's Spitfires, Thunderbolts, and Warm Beer: An American Fighter Pilot over Europe that I read (the review, not the book). This is the following excerpt: "Of note, a picture showing Gover's OTU training class featuring 43 pilots out of whom only the author and two others were able to survive the war intact. Of the remainder, 7 were injured to the point where they were deemed unfit to fly and the remainder....killed"

The review (for U.S. pilots) can be found here:
WWII Aviation Booklist/US Pilots

WWII Aviation Booklist

[This message has been edited by JWC (edited 12-18-1999).]


Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
S|im
Member
Member # 1377

posted 12-18-1999 05:01 AM     Profile for S|im   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I would like to clear up the point on realistic gunnery.

As stated above about how I feel it is not modeled correctly..or lets say could be done better. How I mean is...Im sure everyone of you has seen actual gun camera footage, and there for one, is my exact point at hand!

I can be in pursuit of a bandit, close up to within 300ft of the target so my shots are not wasted, yet...when I say pulled lead on the engine or cockpit and let loose..whether it be long burst or short conserative bursts even though the reticle is placed over my desired area or slightly leading, where the rounds will in fact SHOULD hit without a doubt!! only a couple rounds will actually hit..and the rest will literally 'fly through' without making an impact. Now if you tell me this isnt true, then you dont pay enough attention! I've been playing this title since its release last year and have seen practically everything there is to see in the game, which makes me wonder why this exists and why not correctable? Has anyone tried? Is it even possible?

My only guess is that they are trying to model the the uncertanity of actual combat and arial gunnery. But still, from 200-300ft out, with your bullets laying directly on the tartget...you do not miss like they portray. You literally waste ammo, on what should have been hits. If you still dont believe then give it a go, and actually try. It dosent do it all the time...but it does enough to make it feel very unrealistic and frustating, to know what should have been some easy kills because you completly pepperd the cockpit and engine with about 100rds is/was nothing more then 2 tiny puffs of black smoke...like come on!!

Also, is there a way to change to tracers to be more realistic looking? I mean, the bombers guns look spot on, but to see your fellows pilots lay waste to a bomber formation they just hold the trigger and sway back and forth. The tracers look like a steady, long line of yellow/orange stringy yarn or something...there is not adequate spacing between each round and tracer fire, and the rds dont burn off within 2seconds of leaving the barrel like they should. I was actually discussing this with my grandfather yesterday, who flew hurricans then Spitfires for Canada, said that on average tracers were placed between every 15-20 rds, reason being, is that if you had a traget close enough to kill, when you started firing you werent going to stop till you flamed your opponent. And with good reason...you fire off a couple short bursts and make your opponent aware, then that just degrades your chances of making that kill, and increase your chances of being on the recieving end of Jerry's fire.

[This message has been edited by S|im (edited 12-18-1999).]


Posts: 122 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Reese
Member
Member # 156

posted 12-18-1999 11:51 AM     Profile for Reese   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Slim, Are you using ECA? Charles Gunst has fixed the tragectory of most cannon and machine guns. Using the lastest version of ECA (Enemy Coast Ahead) will make leading and scoring on deflection shots much more consistent. After flying many hours with ECA I find I can't hit squat online when I'm flying a clean version. The German planes are especially bad (for me). Try ECA, pull up behind an opponent at about 300 ft and watch the smoke pour or the wings fly. Try it, you'll like it. Good luck. See you over the Channel.
Posts: 131 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Der Fremd Fokker
Member
Member # 806

posted 12-19-1999 02:54 PM     Profile for Der Fremd Fokker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Herr S|im, I agree with you 100%. With the 'realistic gunnery' setting off, your rounds have to strike the aircraft to register as a hit. (I'm not sure what's so unrealistic about that) With the 'realistic gunnery' setting on, your rounds have to hit a silhouette that's smaller than the aircraft itself. As you discovered, this means a lot of rounds will pass right through the plane without having any effect at all. (Now that's realistic.... )

Obviously this doesn't match up with what's written in the manual. I think Microprose intended to make the 'easy' targeting silhouette slightly bigger than the actual plane and 'realistic' targeting silhouette the right size but they stuffed it up. Instead they made the 'easy' targeting silhouette the right size and the 'realistic' targeting silhouette way too small.

Now, before all you 'masochists' flame me for this, make sure you do the experiment first. Pause the game as your rounds strike the target, go to an outside view, and zoom in. You'll see what I mean. The 'easy' mode is realistic and the 'realistic' mode is... well.. not.

But if you think it's unrealistic on the Allied side, give the Luftwaffe a try. (I usually fly the 109E) All those 20mm cannon rounds are duds, with no more punch than a 50 cal. And you get less guns with a lot less ammo and a lower firing rate. Not to mention all that extra weight you get to carry around.

I tried the Spitfire and Hurricane for the first time tonight. With no previous experience, I doubled my kills flying the Spitfire and trebled them in the Hurricane! I couldn't believe how much easier it was. It's amazing how much anti-Luftwaffe bias there is in this sim. I really don't know what to think about it. Intentional or accidental?


Posts: 107 | From: Perth, Western Australia | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Casey
Member
Member # 873

posted 12-19-1999 07:54 PM     Profile for Casey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I gotta say, we should remember the limits of the flat monitor screen.

As Blade (I think) pointed out, we don't have mirrors in EAW and we can't peer around cockpit metal or adjust our seats up a notch or two while flying. Obviously, removing the rear view restrictions on an aircraft which had an extremely restricted view is a big cheat; it saves you from having to actually move your plane to one side to check six.

But overall, I don't feel guilty using the HUD and target IDs in EAW and here's why: the instruments are not entirely readable and your targets aren't really what they're supposed to be until you are very close. At default low res, the instruments do look better, but at higher unsupported settings, when the cockpit goes "virtual," you know what I mean.

In CFS and SDOE (though I think EAW is much better), I DO feel guilty when I use the HUD, etc. because the instruments are clear and easy to read and target characteristics are noticed at realistic eyeball distances. From a real cockpit, you don't see a black box, which suddenly becomes a black "T" and then, a second later, becomes a grey FW-190!

No, I'm not a fighter pilot. But I have flown in small single-engine aircraft and I checked six and scanned the sky so I'd know what it looks like.

BTW, I've tried EAW in different res modes and while the overall graphics look much better at higher resolutions, I still think bandits sort of "pop" into existence.

Good hunting.

[This message has been edited by Casey (edited 12-19-1999).]


Posts: 636 | From: America | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 12-19-1999 07:56 PM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
S|im,
is there a way to change to tracers to be more realistic looking?.....don't burn off.....like they should

S|im, you can change the duration of tracers in EAW by using Jeroen van Soest's EAWAircraftEdit v1.06 (or an earlier version of EAWAircraftEdit or EAWGunEdit), available at EAW Index aka "the old page". The "new page" at http://www.combatsim.com/links/pages/Game-Specific_Indexes/European_Air_War/ doesn't have anything as of 2109 hours EST, Sun. 19 Dec. 1999.

You have to select each individual aircraft on the left, then click on the Gun Data Tab on the main portion of the window. Next click on the Tab for P-38H.FLT or SP09.FLT or whatever aircraft you are modifying. Tracer Duration/Range is at the bottom. I haven't tried this online but I think that this could only be done in offline play since this changes information in the .FLT files (file-checker!).

As for the problem with the tracers being spaced too close, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anything that can be done about it, at least not until or if Microprose releases the code for EAW.

There seems to have been considerable variation in tracer usage between different services, units, and even sometimes individual pilots. I think I've read some books where an American unit used tracers every 5 rounds. Other cases would be to use a heavy concentration of tracers near the end of an ammo belt, so as to warn the pilot of a low ammo state (ex. x seconds of firing time left). There are also quotes in Robert Shaw's Fighter Tactics concerning tracer usage. One states that tracers could indeed warn enemies of a pilots' presence if his first burst missed and consequently some pilots preferred not using any tracers at all! (one of the more popular rounds for American pilots seems to have been the .50 caliber API [Armor Piercing-Incendiary] which did not give off the tell-tale tracer streak, but which caused a shower of sparks when it hit metal......this would not warn an enemy pilot of missed shots but would allow the attacking pilot to know when he was hitting the enemy aircraft) The short and sometimes unpredictable burn time of tracers could also be misleading, causing a pilot to think that he was hitting the enemy when he was not. This caused (from a quote in the book, again) at least one unit commander to order all tracers removed from the unit aircraft. The pilot being quoted noted that it seemed as though the unit's gun hits increased by about 50% after the unit stopped using tracers.

Actually, that's one of the things I'd like to see in EAW; showers of sparks from USAAF .50 cal MG bullet hits instead of puffs of smoke!---I think it would be more historically accurate since the USAAF did seem to use API as a standard ammo load, as well as being more visually impressive!

[This message has been edited by JWC (edited 12-19-1999).]


Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Airbuddha
Member
Member # 227

posted 12-19-1999 08:57 PM     Profile for Airbuddha   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I was using some cheats that I wasn't aware of being thought of as cheats before frequenting this board. The sim is far and away better now and the immersion factor is unbelievable.

I fly with no hud, no indicators, no ID boxes, no range indicators, etc. I use padlock only after I've got visual on a bad guy. I have all settings turned to full realism. If there was one option that would tempt me to dumb down the game, it would be to turn off engine overheating, but I leave that set to realism as well.

Get headphones if you don't have a good sound system (I don't). Good sound will tell you everything you need to know about what's going on with your plane as far as stalling, etc.

Those changes evelated EAW from an enjoyable sim to an obsession for me.

Airbuddha - I ain't had so much fun since the hogs ate my baby brother!

[This message has been edited by Airbuddha (edited 12-19-1999).]


Posts: 430 | From: Slipper Gut, WV, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
S|im
Member
Member # 1377

posted 12-20-1999 06:44 AM     Profile for S|im   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
JWC, I have been thinking along the same lines as say perhaps...some more special effects when your rounds do in fact find there mark. The sparks would be nice..and realistic. I remember seeing actual gun footage my grandfather smuggled back with him from the 40's. There is about 11 hours with, of course not all his. But it was coriographed into a long reel for training for new recruits, and boy, when those cannons hit the target, the plane would litterally disengrate under the shells. For example I do remember one very vividly. And if I remember correctly it was a typhoon that was scoring hits on a Stuka? But it tore the fin off, then the horizontal stabalizer then you could see as the rounds were peppering there way towards to cockpit. They were in a rather shallow turn, no more then a 25 degree bank, but once those damn rounds hit that cockpit, you could tell the pilot had been killed. The canopy crumpled..literally in pieces and the plane nosed for the ground. This one sticks in my mind...because a lot of pilots believed if you had the chance your better to aim for the cockpit and pilot, as you would have a better chance scoring a kill..incapacting a pilot then wasting ammo trying to flame an engine. So in that case to think that if pilots would try and shoot 'you' and not just your plane, makes you feel a whole lot more insecure.

ANyways...way off topic...but yes...some nice sparkels along the fuselage and wings to show were the rounds were laying down would be nice...those little black puffs of smoke and rather ridiculous in my opinion.

Even janes WW2 fighters did it better,,but Im assuming there is no way to correct this problem with EAW.

Btw...Im looking real foward to B-17II


Posts: 122 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG26*vonVampr*Gf
Member
Member # 1498

posted 12-20-1999 07:22 AM     Profile for JG26*vonVampr*Gf   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
S! Der Fremd Fokker ,
I must say I agree 100% !! It's funny that you mention this , but I had the identical experience . Obviously my slant is towards the Luftwaffe a/c , but I decided last Friday to try a career in the R.A.F. . I started in 1940 BOB . I (like yourself)could not believe how easy it was to rack up kills in a Hurricane !! I was shooting down Ju -87's and Bf-109's with reckless abandon and was never even close to being in trouble . My first mission I shot down 4 87's and three 109's ! I had never flown the Hurricane before !! All this with full realism . Has anyone else experienced this ?? Inquiring minds want to know . I sure hope B-17II does a better job of this .

von Vampr

[This message has been edited by JG26*vonVampr*Gf (edited 12-20-1999).]


Posts: 131 | From: Michigan , USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
S|im
Member
Member # 1377

posted 12-20-1999 10:36 AM     Profile for S|im   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Actually the funny thing here is..Microprose did not actually model the history aspect correctly if you ask me. Heres how I come about this conclusion.

We all know..or atleast anyone familiar with the combat experience of the Germans in the early 40's knows they were a combat hardened and experienced before going up against the Americans. Most with well over 3years of combat flying on both the Russian Front, the Spanish Civil war as well as to the North East..Asia or something?

Anyways, if you fly a campaign in the middle time frame you will notice that the resistance in the Germans is much more fierce, up until they start dieing away again in the 45 campaign.

Therefore, I feel what Microprose actually did, was give the Germans a green like skill level equivalent of the Allies. We all know that Germans combat experience was unmatched at this time frame. But before you jump me on this one..please note that it makes a big difference what Squadron you fly for as well as whether your using the enemy coast ahead mod.

In fact I was going to post another gripe..I dont want to make it sound like i dislike the again..because that is very far from the truth. I do infact have some things that should not have been overlooked.

A fine example is the Squadrons while flying for Britian. After three missions of bomber intercepting when three quarters of your squadron is no more....how in the hell do they figure they would send up ONE flight of THREE aircraft against 15+bombers plus another 10+fighter escorts? Even if you call for assistance and are actually granted it your backup consists of maybe another 5 spits or hurricans, definatly not enough to take on the enemy flight.

Bomber raids into England did not happen as often as they portray here...in fact not even close! But they still send up your flight of 3 aircraft against ton of enemy fighters...that is ridiculous and did not happen...unless the fighters were used as diversionary decoys or scouts to call for backup and give formation read offs. These missions would have been handed to another squadron with more available aircfta or a combined effort between squadrons which was usually the case. Usally a couple flights from combined fields that were usually within 30 miles of each on average..most mch closer, would join up to make an intercepting flight of well over 100 friendlies VS.

I realize they cant model that many aircraft due to system considerations.

But in that case...why are the bombers ALWAYS escorted? Especially with 109's? You cant tell me it didnt be put into thought, that three quarters of all german bomber fields were very far back of the front to as not be easily targeted by allied formations. Yet when you see the map they will have escorts with them that will have flown well over a 250mile radius from the bottom left of the map both ways combined, and correct me if Im wrong but a 109 dosent have that milage(did they even use drop tanks on a 109?)This is without using Alt+n to advance to next waypoint by the way, so you can get them over the channel sometimes. But the bloody jerry fighters will have had to turn for home by then, but there they are flying around like fuel is no concern.

Anyways...thats all for now :-) Like to hear your thoughts on those issues. I know other people have inquired about the same thing.

And, is there is a way to get keep more planes in your flight(withouth using squadron modifier program) or just simply have those missions taked onto another squadron until such time as your's is at an opertional status again.

[This message has been edited by S|im (edited 12-20-1999).]


Posts: 122 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 12-20-1999 01:53 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Not all BOB raids are escorted by 109s. I've flown against many stuka raids with only 110s for escort. Now thats what I call easy.
I actually find it easier getting kills in German aircaft. The 109e seems to have so much ammo, 8 or 9 kills in a mission isn't that difficult if you follow the RAF home to their base and shoot them before they land. They don't seem to keep a look out behind them when they're cruising back to base.

Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
S|im
Member
Member # 1377

posted 12-20-1999 02:38 PM     Profile for S|im   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I never said they were Nashwan. I used the bf-109 as an example, considering the fact it how the lowest combat radius. I have seen plenty if not most escorts are FW's
Posts: 122 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Gavin
Member
Member # 1127

posted 12-20-1999 03:21 PM     Profile for Gavin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I believe the problem with 109E fuel consumption is in the simplified way EAW models the Luftwaffe raids. Most of the fuel used up by the 109 was burned in forming up with the bombers and in the transit to the target. EAW makes the link-up simple, so no time or fuel is wasted. This is why the 109's arrive in England with 3/4 full tanks.

Also, with respect to sending up small groups of fighters against massive numbers of aircraft, this happened often. The numbers of enemy aircraft in the raids in EAW is slightly lower than most Battle of Britain raids. On many occasions, the formation numbered over 100 aircraft, yet we never see more than 25-30 planes. So if we scale accordingly, a force of 30 planes that is supposed to be 100 is intercepted by a group of 3 aircraft that is supposed to be 12, then we have something approaching reality. The RAF pilots often complained bitterly to their commanders about being sent up against overwhelming odds, but the small 12 plane foramtions gave the most flexibility. Many units would simply refuse to engage if they were in a bad tactical position (ie, below the 109 escorts).

As for numbers of raids, most squadrons in 11 Group were scrambling or flying patrols from first light to last, on every day, during the height of the battle. Exhaustion was a big factor. Many pilots jumped from a burning plane or belly-landed in the morning, only to be up again that afternoon for the last sortie of the day.

This is NOT modelled in EAW, and it's a shame. I'd LOVE to fly a Battle of Britain campaign where, after landing, they hurriedly refuel and rearm your plane and send you back up again.

------------------
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly
developed it may be." - Adolf Galland.


Posts: 370 | From: Victoria, BC, Canada. | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 12-20-1999 08:20 PM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Blade,

About the rear view option.....in a real cockpit you can move around some what

One thing.....if you're using a P-51B fitted with a Malcolm hood (I think there's a skin available for download somewhere) the regular "check six" view in EAW might not be so unrealistic after all. Apparently one of the reasons that some pilots preferred the P-51B (provided it had the Malcolm hood) to the bubble-topped P-51D was that the Malcolm hood was bulged outward enough that the pilot could stick his head well outside the canopy rail. This apparently provided an unobstructed view not only to just the rear, but also DOWN and to the rear. Since you had to move your head to the side anyway to see around the armor plate in the "D", rearward visibility made little difference whether you were in a bubble-topped D or Malcolm-hooded B, but the Malcolm hood allowed you to check your low six more readily.


Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Blade
Member
Member # 295

posted 12-20-1999 09:45 PM     Profile for Blade   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
JWC,

U'r right. Also there should be rearvw mirrors if this was a perfect world...


Blade


Posts: 158 | From: Nepean, Onatrio, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jamie Richards
Member
Member # 1405

posted 12-21-1999 01:05 AM     Profile for Jamie Richards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Slim,

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that German bomber raids didn't happen as often as they do in EAW, if that is what you mean. My grandfather was a boy in Liverpool during the war, and he remembers the bombers (usually Dorniers and Junkers) coming every night in successive waves, starting at sundown and ending at daybreak. He remembers how the German planes would swoop down low and strafe the houses with machine gun fire...just scare tactics...no one was ever killed that way, he says, but the bullets took big chunks out of the brick walls. He also remembers going out with friends to collect shrapnel and unexploded incendiary bombs. Anyhow, the raids came nightly...perhaps you mean daylight, escorted raids by large formations of He111's and the like? Just curious.

Jamie Richards


Posts: 588 | From: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 12-21-1999 06:00 AM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
S|im, from one of your earlier posts on this thread
only a couple rounds will actually hit..and the rest will literally 'fly through' without making an impact

You might try Jeroen van Soest's EAWAircraftEdit 1.06 (I think I've suggested this before! but it IS a great thing to have!). AE1.06 includes a damage modeling tab. I haven't spent enough time looking at it to see exactly how this works in EAW, but I think you could probably modify the damage areas to be larger and increase the number of hitpoints with this utility. (although again you CERTAINLY couldn't pass the file checker for online play like that---but it would be nice for offline)


Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved