Jump to content

Welcome to Ace Combat Skies
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

ITT Drawfag translates new AC7 interview


65 replies to this topic

#41
FoxHoundElite

FoxHoundElite

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Plane:EA-18G Growler

OMG where have you been comrade???? long time no see :D


  • 0

#42
cegc135

cegc135

    Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Isla de Margarita - Venezuela
  • Squad:Azure Squadron, NEU Official Elite Response Unit
  • Plane:R-101 Delphinus I

DJbbAyF.jpg


Couldn't your graphic be explained by the following;

Standard missiles are IR-guided heat-seekers, so they will always 'follow' or pursue the heat source they're locked on to, while SPWs are radar-guided, enabling the interception-type performance? Just a thought. When running intercepts, we had the options of front, beam (side) and pursuit angles, the front angles being used by radar-guided munitions, likely. If anyone cares, beam attacks were with guns or unguided missiles (FFAR/HVAR 4" rockets).

Hope everyone's having a great New Year!

Actually, ever since the invention of All-Aspect IR guided missiles (like the AIM-9L onwards, the AIM-9M are the standard missiles on American aircraft, R-73 which are the Russian QAAM, Python IV and Magic II which are the standard French missiles), they also take an interception mode because they don't just track the heat coming out of the engines like Rear-Aspect missiles do (like the AIM-9P and older, R-60 which are the standard missiles in Russian aircraft, Python III and older, and the Magic I) but rather track the actual aircraft generating the heat and calculate the best interception course; it's also the reason why you no longer are obligated to get on the target's 6 to get a lock.


  • 0

#43
akiraacecombat

akiraacecombat

    Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F

Forgive me if I'm skeptical and I'd rather they stick to the core AC gameplay that works than trying to come up with silly "innovative" gimmicks. 

"Gameplay that works" as in eternal circlejerk?

 

The silly "Innovative" are just workarounds on how to solve the stupid circlejerk.

 

 

I'm happy they have competent engine with aerodynamic variables, because old AC games didn't had aerodynamic forces moving the plane around, which is both a functional gameplay element as well as a realistic element. They can work with surfaces affected by wind resistance being bounced around and stuff (because the physics model uses the same engine as KPS, which also models that).


  • 1

#44
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

"Gameplay that works" as in eternal circlejerk?

 

The silly "Innovative" are just workarounds on how to solve the stupid circlejerk.

 

 

I'm happy they have competent engine with aerodynamic variables, because old AC games didn't had aerodynamic forces moving the plane around, which is both a functional gameplay element as well as a realistic element. They can work with surfaces affected by wind resistance being bounced around and stuff (because the physics model uses the same engine as KPS, which also models that).

 

I'd prefer the prediction-based missiles from AC 3. Yeah, that stopped me from turning like a moron.


  • 0

#45
PositronCannon

PositronCannon

    very likely to be not ded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain
  • Squad:Funky Arrows Unit
  • Plane:EF2000 Typhoon

"Gameplay that works" as in eternal circlejerk?

 

The silly "Innovative" are just workarounds on how to solve the stupid circlejerk.

 

Nah, sounds like a skill problem to me.


  • 0

#46
Kaiten Sushi-kun

Kaiten Sushi-kun

    basic gameplay modes - $49.99

  • Members
  • 5,968 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Squad:ザ・ファンキー小隊
  • Plane:MiG-1.44 Flatpack

You know what would solve every problem ever?

 

SRMs. Like, eight of em at once. I don't think anything in AC3 aside from bosses could dodge more than seven of them at a time, so you're always guaranteed a hit!

 

Also, having finished AC6 for the first time, I'd like to say that "realistic" clouds that fuck up your vision isn't innovative.

 

 

On the real though, don't expect much. Anything that could be "innovative" would either fall into the category of ACAH's shitty gimmicks, or "too realistic (not really) so it's not the same game anymore". Any increase in difficulty associated with bringing something like an aerodynamic model would drive away all the people brainlessly going OMG ERUSEA STRAGEREALS OMGOMGOMG because it's not what they're used to and probably not what they wanted. 


  • 0

#47
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

You know what would solve every problem ever?

 

SRMs. Like, eight of em at once. I don't think anything in AC3 aside from bosses could dodge more than seven of them at a time, so you're always guaranteed a hit!

 

Usually it takes 3-4 missiles to guarantee a hit on late-game planes unless you're really accurate. SRMs do seem solid a solution though, but I prefer AC 3's missile mechanics.


  • 0

#48
akiraacecombat

akiraacecombat

    Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F

On the real though, don't expect much. Anything that could be "innovative" would either fall into the category of ACAH's shitty gimmicks, or "too realistic (not really) so it's not the same game anymore". Any increase in difficulty associated with bringing something like an aerodynamic model would drive away all the people brainlessly going OMG ERUSEA STRAGEREALS OMGOMGOMG because it's not what they're used to and probably not what they wanted. 

They still need to fix the overarching circlejerk problem.

 

AC 04, AC5 and Zero took a practical approach and just workaround these issues; for example the last Battle in ACZ required the "head on" section to break the monopoly of the first two stages of the mission (which consisted in breaking the circlejerk with burst missiles and the whole laser section).

 

 

Nah, sounds like a skill problem to me.

Is not that is hard, is just a stupid waste of time. Prime example of this was CFA-44 in AC6 and beating pasternak, the "Nosferatu" uses impossible aerodynamics to make 180º and 270º turns in Mach 2 - 3, which is possible but too far fetched for a balanced opponent, by that point all strategies get ditched for missile spamming for the sake of destroying pasternak, that is not game design, that is just taking the piss.

 

By contrast, in AC04, AC5 and ACZ they were aware of these limitations and the opponents were restricted to IRL aircraft (except for ACZ's case), in ACZ each squadron had it's own way of attacking and they worked with different patterns, and the last mission against the uber-plane was designed so the player would use the strategy given by the game to beat the boss within an established set of rules for said uber-plane (it can try to use only Laser within certain proximity, it can only use burst missiles at times and they are not aimed at the player, etc..), otherwise said mission would have lost most of it's impact if it had become a "chase tail" chore of 30 minutes until the AI decides that it wants to fly in a straight line (which is pretty much was the fight with pasternak was).


  • 0

#49
PositronCannon

PositronCannon

    very likely to be not ded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain
  • Squad:Funky Arrows Unit
  • Plane:EF2000 Typhoon
Is not that is hard, is just a stupid waste of time. Prime example of this was CFA-44 in AC6 and beating pasternak, the "Nosferatu" uses impossible aerodynamics to make 180º and 270º turns in Mach 2 - 3, which is possible but too far fetched for a balanced opponent, by that point all strategies get ditched for missile spamming for the sake of destroying pasternak, that is not game design, that is just taking the piss.

 

By contrast, in AC04, AC5 and ACZ they were aware of these limitations and the opponents were restricted to IRL aircraft (except for ACZ's case), in ACZ each squadron had it's own way of attacking and they worked with different patterns, and the last mission against the uber-plane was designed so the player would use the strategy given by the game to beat the boss within an established set of rules for said uber-plane (it can try to use only Laser within certain proximity, it can only use burst missiles at times and they are not aimed at the player, etc..), otherwise said mission would have lost most of it's impact if it had become a "chase tail" chore of 30 minutes until the AI decides that it wants to fly in a straight line (which is pretty much was the fight with pasternak was).

 

You're using the absolute lowest point of AC6's gameplay as an example of classic AC gameplay being "an eternal circlejerk"? That's what I'm questioning. Funnily enough, aside of the fringe case of Pasternak and a few of the Strigons, AC6 actually introduced changes (missile mechanics, high G, ESM) to address that "circlejerk problem" without taking away from the gameplay either; that's an example of good innovation. But even then, it only worked because it had a solid game design philosophy backing it (everything else being secondary to gameplay, focus on player freedom and replayability), something that can't be said for any of their offerings after that, not giving me a lot of hope for AC7 even putting potential crappy gimmicks aside.

 

Ironically (though not really given their multiplayer nature, thus gameplay focus by definition), ACI's coop missions are the only thing resembling the old style of mission design that didn't treat the player like an idiot, holding his hand through designated waves of enemies in a tightly controlled script while screaming LOOK AT ME, I'M CINEMATIC. Too bad they're completely wasted in an otherwise badly designed F2P game.

 

But then again, this is the fanbase that considers AC5 to be the second coming of Christ, so maybe I'm the one with the weird tastes.


Edited by PositronCannon, 21 January 2016 - 05:00 PM.

  • 1

#50
Hue

Hue

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-35 Flanker-E

They still need to fix the overarching circlejerk problem.

 

AC 04, AC5 and Zero took a practical approach and just workaround these issues; for example the last Battle in ACZ required the "head on" section to break the monopoly of the first two stages of the mission (which consisted in breaking the circlejerk with burst missiles and the whole laser section).

 

 

Is not that is hard, is just a stupid waste of time. Prime example of this was CFA-44 in AC6 and beating pasternak, the "Nosferatu" uses impossible aerodynamics to make 180º and 270º turns in Mach 2 - 3, which is possible but too far fetched for a balanced opponent, by that point all strategies get ditched for missile spamming for the sake of destroying pasternak, that is not game design, that is just taking the piss.

 

By contrast, in AC04, AC5 and ACZ they were aware of these limitations and the opponents were restricted to IRL aircraft (except for ACZ's case), in ACZ each squadron had it's own way of attacking and they worked with different patterns, and the last mission against the uber-plane was designed so the player would use the strategy given by the game to beat the boss within an established set of rules for said uber-plane (it can try to use only Laser within certain proximity, it can only use burst missiles at times and they are not aimed at the player, etc..), otherwise said mission would have lost most of it's impact if it had become a "chase tail" chore of 30 minutes until the AI decides that it wants to fly in a straight line (which is pretty much was the fight with pasternak was).

 

However, AC 5 had the shittiest aces of the whole series from my experience. Yellows in AC 4 are also one trick ponies. If you circlejerk, then they're difficult. If you BnZ, they're jokes. Maybe it's because I played Ace Combat games a bit too often, but the problem is that aces are a bit too predictable. It's not even in some sort of speedrun sense because they can still be quite inconsistent either way. ACZ aces? Just get the same shitty aces and fight more of them more often. The problem with aces is that they're not predictable enough to have a consistent strat like in speedruns (exceptions maybe being ZOEs in AC 2) and they're not good enough to provide a challenge.

 

You know what? Screw this, I want all aces to have TIE Defender AI. TIE Defenders in TIE Fighter somehow always knew when to get out of my sights just before I could get an accurate shot with anything that was not a TIE Advanced, Missile Boat or another TIE Defender. The maneuvers were so good LucasArts had to include the tractor beam on some aircraft so that these fucks won't pull a 180 out of nowhere and end up buttfucking you either with missiles that will distract you from objectives or murder your shields or either a hail of gunfire because 3-4 of them are on you at once it seems. Even though people will lose their scrotum, it will at least be decent. TIE Defender AI sits at the top for most annoying flight game AI I have experienced so far along with Komets in Secret Weapons Over Normandy.


  • 0

#51
VitalEvergreen1

VitalEvergreen1

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California, United States
  • Plane:F-22A Raptor

On the real though, don't expect much. Anything that could be "innovative" would either fall into the category of ACAH's shitty gimmicks, or "too realistic (not really) so it's not the same game anymore". Any increase in difficulty associated with bringing something like an aerodynamic model would drive away all the people brainlessly going OMG ERUSEA STRAGEREALS OMGOMGOMG because it's not what they're used to and probably not what they wanted. 

 

Aerodynamic improvements have been implemented in Ace combat games since Ace Combat 2.

 

For example:

Air Combat and Ace Combat 2 had practically no aerodynamic physics in the game. When you stalled your nose of the aircraft pointed straight down. 

In Ace Combat 3 however, when you stalled your airspeed dropped and you lose some altitude before your nose pointed to the ground. In this game when you are landing you could flare you aircraft for touchdown, (having the noise pointed slightly upwards so that the back wheels would touch the ground before the nose wheel) where as in

Ace Combat 2 you could not.

 

Aerodynamic improvements should not be a problem for anyone.


  • 0

#52
Kaiten Sushi-kun

Kaiten Sushi-kun

    basic gameplay modes - $49.99

  • Members
  • 5,968 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Squad:ザ・ファンキー小隊
  • Plane:MiG-1.44 Flatpack

Aerodynamic improvements have been implemented in Ace combat games since Ace Combat 2.

 

For example:

Air Combat and Ace Combat 2 had practically no aerodynamic physics in the game. When you stalled your nose of the aircraft pointed straight down. 

Yeah, I could say that about every other Ace Combat game aside from 3 and maaaaybe 6.

 

In Ace Combat 3 however, when you stalled your airspeed dropped and you lose some altitude before your nose pointed to the ground. In this game when you are landing you could flare you aircraft for touchdown, (having the noise pointed slightly upwards so that the back wheels would touch the ground before the nose wheel) where as in Ace Combat 2 you could not.

Right, but that's not enough of a change to make any difference in how people play. I can still circlejerk like mad while pushing the afterburner and not be punished in anyway because energy isn't much of a thing in the world of Ace Combat and disappears completely once you move onto mid high tier and high tier planes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love AC3, but saying that AC3 had an improvement in terms flight physics is like saying that an E grade is better than F because E is higher than F/it's better than a failing grade.

 

Aerodynamic improvements should not be a problem for anyone.

It's hard to expect anything from the majority of AC fanbase at this point.


Edited by Kaiten Sushi-kun, 24 January 2016 - 01:53 AM.

  • 0

#53
Flaren89

Flaren89

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy
  • Plane:F-117A Nighthawk

Aerodynamic improvements should not be a problem for anyone.

Not if it gets so realistic along with engine failures that plane stalls at second 9g turn (unless you fly on a Typhoon).

DCS for PC (F2P with DLC planes) has also the "pilot blackout" caused for staying too much on high g turns, where the screen fades in black with a little white light in the centre. Have seriously to download this game, at least to try it, but it needs 8GB RAM just as minimum requirements, 16GB as recommended and I got just 8. Also 60GB free space on HDD, looooong time to download and install it...


  • 0

#54
Kaiten Sushi-kun

Kaiten Sushi-kun

    basic gameplay modes - $49.99

  • Members
  • 5,968 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Squad:ザ・ファンキー小隊
  • Plane:MiG-1.44 Flatpack

Not if it gets so realistic along with engine failures that plane stalls at second 9g turn (unless you fly on a Typhoon).

DCS for PC (F2P with DLC planes) has also the "pilot blackout" caused for staying too much on high g turns, where the screen fades in black with a little white light in the centre. Have seriously to download this game, at least to try it, but it needs 8GB RAM just as minimum requirements, 16GB as recommended and I got just 8. Also 60GB free space on HDD, looooong time to download and install it...

You should probably upgrade your computer. Maybe your internet connection along with it. Actually nevermind you can play DCS with 8GB of RAM just fine. Just make sure your processor can handle the workload.

 

Anyway. It's hard to strike balance between realism and the arcade stuff. People would start complaining if AC has even a quarter the difficulty of DCS. Not everybody is playing games for the challenge and the fun derived from overcoming the said challenges. This is probably why Ace Combat will never have any real improvements from what's already there. The lack of useful innovation is stagnating the series and I hope to god it's gonna die after AC7.


Edited by Kaiten Sushi-kun, 24 January 2016 - 02:04 AM.

  • 0

#55
Flaren89

Flaren89

    Top Gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy
  • Plane:F-117A Nighthawk

You should probably upgrade your computer. Maybe your internet connection along with it. Actually nevermind you can play DCS with 8GB of RAM just fine. Just make sure your processor can handle the workload.

 

Anyway. It's hard to strike balance between realism and the arcade stuff. People would start complaining if AC has even a quarter the difficulty of DCS. Not everybody is playing games for the challenge and the fun derived from overcoming the said challenges. This is probably why Ace Combat will never have any real improvements from what's already there. The lack of useful innovation is stagnating the series and I hope to god it's gonna die after AC7.

My PC got:

- Windows 7 SP1;

- i5-3340 3.1GHZ;

- ASUS nVidia GTX 660 OC;

- 8GB RAM;

- 1TB Western Digital HDD.

And about connection it's just because the cables out of the home are quite damaged and this coupled with an old modem-router (which is starting to feel the age and the blackouts shocks) it doesn't allign well, so I'm getting just 2 to 3 Mbit/s download rate, while I should have 10. With 10 Mbit/s I should be able to download the game in around 12-14 hours, not a real big problem, downloading it in the nightime...

 

Well, simulation challenge is not a problem for me. For racing games, it's already more than 1 year that I switched from simcades like Gran Turismo 6 to real simulations like Assetto Corsa or rFactor 2. In this last one, I'm actually running in a international online championship which tries to resemble the real WEC/Blancpain, on 6th Feb we will have 24h Spa, competing on GTE-AM class (classes are LMP1, LMP2, GTE-PRO and GTE-AM, 10 each class driving in the same server, it's a real mess after some minutes with all of the lappings).


  • 0

#56
akiraacecombat

akiraacecombat

    Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F

Not if it gets so realistic along with engine failures that plane stalls at second 9g turn (unless you fly on a Typhoon).

DCS for PC (F2P with DLC planes) has also the "pilot blackout" caused for staying too much on high g turns, where the screen fades in black with a little white light in the centre. Have seriously to download this game, at least to try it, but it needs 8GB RAM just as minimum requirements, 16GB as recommended and I got just 8. Also 60GB free space on HDD, looooong time to download and install it...

Engine failures and such is going too far into the other side of the bad game design decisions (engine failures pisses over the whole combat aspects of the game). 


  • 0

#57
VitalEvergreen1

VitalEvergreen1

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California, United States
  • Plane:F-22A Raptor

I just want better control of my aircraft and be able to do creative maneuvers with the aircraft than just flying in circles to avoid enemies. Better aerodynamics, not complete realism.

 

Yeah, I could say that about every other Ace Combat game aside from 3 and maaaaybe 6.

 

Right, but that's not enough of a change to make any difference in how people play. I can still circlejerk like mad while pushing the afterburner and not be punished in anyway because energy isn't much of a thing in the world of Ace Combat and disappears completely once you move onto mid high tier and high tier planes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love AC3, but saying that AC3 had an improvement in terms flight physics is like saying that an E grade is better than F because E is higher than F/it's better than a failing grade.

 

It's hard to expect anything from the majority of AC fanbase at this point.

I'm just saying that there is an evolution of flight physics in this series not that ace combat 3 was significantly better than the previous game.


  • 0

#58
Yellow 13

Yellow 13

    8W 737

  • Global Moderators
  • 11,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NOT in a cornfield
  • Squad:156th TFW
  • Plane:Su-37 Flanker-F

Actually, ever since the invention of All-Aspect IR guided missiles (like the AIM-9L onwards, the AIM-9M are the standard missiles on American aircraft, R-73 which are the Russian QAAM, Python IV and Magic II which are the standard French missiles), they also take an interception mode because they don't just track the heat coming out of the engines like Rear-Aspect missiles do (like the AIM-9P and older, R-60 which are the standard missiles in Russian aircraft, Python III and older, and the Magic I) but rather track the actual aircraft generating the heat and calculate the best interception course; it's also the reason why you no longer are obligated to get on the target's 6 to get a lock.

It was just a theory.  My experience with air defense interceptions is from the 70s.  I'll grant the improved performance of more modern missiles.

 

(and yet those 4" rockets are still unguided.....   :lol: )
 


  • 0

#59
Kaiten Sushi-kun

Kaiten Sushi-kun

    basic gameplay modes - $49.99

  • Members
  • 5,968 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Squad:ザ・ファンキー小隊
  • Plane:MiG-1.44 Flatpack

I just want better control of my aircraft and be able to do creative maneuvers with the aircraft than just flying in circles to avoid enemies. Better aerodynamics, not complete realism.

 

I'm just saying that there is an evolution of flight physics in this series not that ace combat 3 was significantly better than the previous game.

You can pretty much do what real planes can do already though? I get that you can't do cobras or kulbits properly in game and they're really cool and stuff, but when you put multiplayer in consideration, it could be pretty broken.


  • 0

#60
FoxHoundElite

FoxHoundElite

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Plane:EA-18G Growler

You can pretty much do what real planes can do already though? I get that you can't do cobras or kulbits properly in game and they're really cool and stuff, but when you put multiplayer in consideration, it could be pretty broken.

unless you play ACAH,which counter maneuver did matter......then doing something like Cobra in a normal Ace Combat match is kinda ...well...write your own will


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users