quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
So here we have another Ubisoft aircraft game. Will the planes be an accurate representation of the FACTS and their real world counterparts? Or simply another case of developers thoughts on how it "should" be?

If we look at Blazing Angels as an indicator, I am going to say no. Take a look at the P-51 Mustang for example.

We will, in most cases, be forced to play with a "balanced" aircraft selection. And IMO, that's an easy way out.

Here is a list of things that should be considered before giving each aircraft it's own specifications while the game is still in development.

1 - Cost of the aircraft. The old saying of "you get what you pay for" is even more prevelent in airplanes. Money equals capablities. IE - A 100 million dollar airplane will bring more to the table then a 20 million dollar one.

2 - Is the aircraft in question a testbed or an "X" plane? Lets be honest here people. An actual military aircraft in production will differ from a prototype airplane of one or two examples. Testbeds prove theories in controlled environments, while production aircraft deliver capablities under war time conditions. If one testbed is offered, ALL should be selectable as well. One or two types of an airplane do not put it in the same class as a plane with hundreds in military service.

3 - Stay true to the real world counterpart the virtual plane is being based on. Do not take an airplanes advantages away to balance the game out. Certain aircraft are PROVEN to better platforms.
3A - Stealth. Certain planes possess better L.O. characteristics then others.
3B - Avionics. Not all radar suites are created equal.
3C - Weapons systems. Stay true to what each platform can deliver.
3D - Thrust to weight ratio. Huge performance indicator.
3E - Combat wing loading. Clean wings equal low drag.
3F - Range - Air combat burns fuel. So does Mach air speeds in all but one plane.
3G - Manueverability. Here is another tough one for devs when it comes to flight games. Some planes can out turn others. Some have thrust vectoring. Some even have advanced super manueverablity.

4 - Do your homework. The internet is a wonderful place for facts on airplanes. You can find their engine thrust, avionics capabilities, etc., with some research. If the internet is in question, buy some research material.

5 - Don't screw the gamers over due to greed or being cheap. If a certain company want's money so you can create a digital version of their trademark warplane, spend the money on it. It is a drag not seeing your favorite plane on a game's aircraft roster due to a game company not wanting to spend the money.

6 - Whatever you do, don't pull a Blazing Angels 2. Don't offer us "on the drawing board capabilies" that are decades away from being fielded. It can ruin a game.

With all this being said, I would love to see the developers prove me wrong and give me a Tom Clancy style Ace Combat. You know, outstanding visuals and controls, but without the 100 missiles.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
So here we have another Ubisoft aircraft game. Will the planes be an accurate representation of the FACTS and their real world counterparts? Or simply another case of developers thoughts on how it "should" be?

If we look at Blazing Angels as an indicator, I am going to say no. Take a look at the P-51 Mustang for example.

We will, in most cases, be forced to play with a "balanced" aircraft selection. And IMO, that's an easy way out.

Here is a list of things that should be considered before giving each aircraft it's own specifications while the game is still in development.

1 - Cost of the aircraft. The old saying of "you get what you pay for" is even more prevelent in airplanes. Money equals capablities. IE - A 100 million dollar airplane will bring more to the table then a 20 million dollar one.

2 - Is the aircraft in question a testbed or an "X" plane? Lets be honest here people. An actual military aircraft in production will differ from a prototype airplane of one or two examples. Testbeds prove theories in controlled environments, while production aircraft deliver capablities under war time conditions. If one testbed is offered, ALL should be selectable as well. One or two types of an airplane do not put it in the same class as a plane with hundreds in military service.

3 - Stay true to the real world counterpart the virtual plane is being based on. Do not take an airplanes advantages away to balance the game out. Certain aircraft are PROVEN to better platforms.
3A - Stealth. Certain planes possess better L.O. characteristics then others.
3B - Avionics. Not all radar suites are created equal.
3C - Weapons systems. Stay true to what each platform can deliver.
3D - Thrust to weight ratio. Huge performance indicator.
3E - Combat wing loading. Clean wings equal low drag.
3F - Range - Air combat burns fuel. So does Mach air speeds in all but one plane.
3G - Manueverability. Here is another tough one for devs when it comes to flight games. Some planes can out turn others. Some have thrust vectoring. Some even have advanced super manueverablity.

4 - Do your homework. The internet is a wonderful place for facts on airplanes. You can find their engine thrust, avionics capabilities, etc., with some research. If the internet is in question, buy some research material.

5 - Don't screw the gamers over due to greed or being cheap. If a certain company want's money so you can create a digital version of their trademark warplane, spend the money on it. It is a drag not seeing your favorite plane on a game's aircraft roster due to a game company not wanting to spend the money.

6 - Whatever you do, don't pull a Blazing Angels 2. Don't offer us "on the drawing board capabilies" that are decades away from being fielded. It can ruin a game.

With all this being said, I would love to see the developers prove me wrong and give me a Tom Clancy style Ace Combat. You know, outstanding visuals and controls, but without the 100 missiles.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
So here we have another Ubisoft aircraft game. Will the planes be an accurate representation of the FACTS and their real world counterparts? Or simply another case of developers thoughts on how it "should" be?

If we look at Blazing Angels as an indicator, I am going to say no. Take a look at the P-51 Mustang for example.

We will, in most cases, be forced to play with a "balanced" aircraft selection. And IMO, that's an easy way out.

Here is a list of things that should be considered before giving each aircraft it's own specifications while the game is still in development.

1 - Cost of the aircraft. The old saying of "you get what you pay for" is even more prevelent in airplanes. Money equals capablities. IE - A 100 million dollar airplane will bring more to the table then a 20 million dollar one.

2 - Is the aircraft in question a testbed or an "X" plane? Lets be honest here people. An actual military aircraft in production will differ from a prototype airplane of one or two examples. Testbeds prove theories in controlled environments, while production aircraft deliver capablities under war time conditions. If one testbed is offered, ALL should be selectable as well. One or two types of an airplane do not put it in the same class as a plane with hundreds in military service.

3 - Stay true to the real world counterpart the virtual plane is being based on. Do not take an airplanes advantages away to balance the game out. Certain aircraft are PROVEN to better platforms.
3A - Stealth. Certain planes possess better L.O. characteristics then others.
3B - Avionics. Not all radar suites are created equal.
3C - Weapons systems. Stay true to what each platform can deliver.
3D - Thrust to weight ratio. Huge performance indicator.
3E - Combat wing loading. Clean wings equal low drag.
3F - Range - Air combat burns fuel. So does Mach air speeds in all but one plane.
3G - Manueverability. Here is another tough one for devs when it comes to flight games. Some planes can out turn others. Some have thrust vectoring. Some even have advanced super manueverablity.

4 - Do your homework. The internet is a wonderful place for facts on airplanes. You can find their engine thrust, avionics capabilities, etc., with some research. If the internet is in question, buy some research material.

5 - Don't screw the gamers over due to greed or being cheap. If a certain company want's money so you can create a digital version of their trademark warplane, spend the money on it. It is a drag not seeing your favorite plane on a game's aircraft roster due to a game company not wanting to spend the money.

6 - Whatever you do, don't pull a Blazing Angels 2. Don't offer us "on the drawing board capabilies" that are decades away from being fielded. It can ruin a game.

With all this being said, I would love to see the developers prove me wrong and give me a Tom Clancy style Ace Combat. You know, outstanding visuals and controls, but without the 100 missiles.

The whole reason for all the missiles is because you're fighting entire Air Wings and Ground Divisons, duh.

quote:

Originally posted by mmikej1:

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
So here we have another Ubisoft aircraft game. Will the planes be an accurate representation of the FACTS and their real world counterparts? Or simply another case of developers thoughts on how it "should" be?

If we look at Blazing Angels as an indicator, I am going to say no. Take a look at the P-51 Mustang for example.

We will, in most cases, be forced to play with a "balanced" aircraft selection. And IMO, that's an easy way out.

Here is a list of things that should be considered before giving each aircraft it's own specifications while the game is still in development.

1 - Cost of the aircraft. The old saying of "you get what you pay for" is even more prevelent in airplanes. Money equals capablities. IE - A 100 million dollar airplane will bring more to the table then a 20 million dollar one.

2 - Is the aircraft in question a testbed or an "X" plane? Lets be honest here people. An actual military aircraft in production will differ from a prototype airplane of one or two examples. Testbeds prove theories in controlled environments, while production aircraft deliver capablities under war time conditions. If one testbed is offered, ALL should be selectable as well. One or two types of an airplane do not put it in the same class as a plane with hundreds in military service.

3 - Stay true to the real world counterpart the virtual plane is being based on. Do not take an airplanes advantages away to balance the game out. Certain aircraft are PROVEN to better platforms.
3A - Stealth. Certain planes possess better L.O. characteristics then others.
3B - Avionics. Not all radar suites are created equal.
3C - Weapons systems. Stay true to what each platform can deliver.
3D - Thrust to weight ratio. Huge performance indicator.
3E - Combat wing loading. Clean wings equal low drag.
3F - Range - Air combat burns fuel. So does Mach air speeds in all but one plane.
3G - Manueverability. Here is another tough one for devs when it comes to flight games. Some planes can out turn others. Some have thrust vectoring. Some even have advanced super manueverablity.

4 - Do your homework. The internet is a wonderful place for facts on airplanes. You can find their engine thrust, avionics capabilities, etc., with some research. If the internet is in question, buy some research material.

5 - Don't screw the gamers over due to greed or being cheap. If a certain company want's money so you can create a digital version of their trademark warplane, spend the money on it. It is a drag not seeing your favorite plane on a game's aircraft roster due to a game company not wanting to spend the money.

6 - Whatever you do, don't pull a Blazing Angels 2. Don't offer us "on the drawing board capabilies" that are decades away from being fielded. It can ruin a game.

With all this being said, I would love to see the developers prove me wrong and give me a Tom Clancy style Ace Combat. You know, outstanding visuals and controls, but without the 100 missiles.

The whole reason for all the missiles is because you're fighting entire Air Wings and Ground Divisons, duh.

well we should have to go back to base and rearm
Duh AC6 is for kids

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:

The whole reason for all the missiles is because you're fighting entire Air Wings and Ground Divisons, duh.

quote:

Originally posted by mmikej1:

You hit it right on the ass with your statements, way to go. Give us something good UBI soft

quote:

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
Ubi ruins most games in the name of "balance". They don't accept that there can be a "right tool for the job". They ruin Rainbow with balance, they ruin GR with balance....at least this is a new title, so they don't have to screw up a great previous game. But it'll be about "balance", you can bet on that. That's the difference between sim and action game, and they've already said this will be an action game.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:

Don't even get me started on Ace Combat!!!

My Captain America P.E.C.

quote:

Originally posted by silentstriderm:

Why bash Ace Combat, a game everyone knew was going to be an arcade flight game, for being an arcade flight game?

Ace combat was not a bad game... just not anywhere close to a sim, but it was never meant to be.


Other than that, excellent post maxpontiac!

quote:

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
AC6's form of balance fits the type of game it is (doesn't claim to be a sim or sim-like). It wasn't too bad: your loadout was proportional to your responsibility in some HUGE battles. Nothing realistic about the size of the conflicts, so the loadouts made sense.

From what I'm seeing so far though, AC6 seems less arcade-like than HAWX. Would be nice to get some real info instead of having to piece together articles from around the world.
As usual for a Ubi game, you get info on this forum about a week after it's released in a mag--and only because one of us found it.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:

quote:

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
AC6's form of balance fits the type of game it is (doesn't claim to be a sim or sim-like). It wasn't too bad: your loadout was proportional to your responsibility in some HUGE battles. Nothing realistic about the size of the conflicts, so the loadouts made sense.

From what I'm seeing so far though, AC6 seems less arcade-like than HAWX. Would be nice to get some real info instead of having to piece together articles from around the world.
As usual for a Ubi game, you get info on this forum about a week after it's released in a mag--and only because one of us found it.

I hope you are wrong bud. HAWX better not be heavier on the arcade side. That would be a bummer.