Flight Simulation Games, Anyone try the Targetware MMP Beta WWII and Korea Flight sims?

They seem to have a WWI also but I can't get in. Its closer to Alpha
than Beta as far as I can surmise but all it needs is more people to
get a better idea of its potential. Its at http://www.targetware.net
if anyones interested..

Icer

Can you play these off line with say a practice mission???

Seems more solid than many released sims if the Rabaul [1942/43?]
version is any guide. I've been flying it. Gunnery is really really
nice. Modelling is good. Frame rate is good. Looks like they are
tweaking FM's at the moment [yaw etc]. User interface isn't bad but
confusing for the less technical who aren't comfy with editing txt
files. Engine management finally!! Plus the scenario structure gives
purpose to the mission you just flew as it can make a difference to
the next mission you fly.

It's an Open Beta for sure. Don't DL it if you aren't prepared for
what that means :-) They have already acted on tester feedback and
released a patch after the initial Open beta release. Castoring
tailwheels etc. Here's the blurb on their first patch..

From www.targetware.net

lockable tail wheels,
gun convergence and belting options,
multiple gun triggers,
control surface trim can be assigned to device axes,
a master volume control, and
control over the level of terrain rendering

Did they say belting options?! :-)

I had a fly in the Korea sim/mod and the gameplay is fantastic. Long
long flights. Frame rates are lower but I'm told they are working on
that for next release.

I also had a fly in the Flanders sim/mod after having to go through
the training mod first online. Glad I got trained :-) I suddenly have
a lot more respect for those who flew in WW1. Flight models seem good
in there.

All 3 released mods have a lot of offline practice/missions.

I have yet to get into an online Flanders arena, practice or
otherwise. It either errors out saying it got 0.00 % of some download
TGA file or Login rejected by server. Korea gives me a screen
corruption lockup after a few minutes, but Rabaul seems to run fine.
Never more that 3 people in there though so not a lot of fun..

Icer

I tried it but didn't like one thing about it so uninstalled.

I can see how the realistic flight modelling would turn some people
off. Same with working with the developers in an Open Beta. Some
people don't have enough time. Just wondering if it was the engine
management, spins and realistic gunnery that put you of or was it
something totally different?

Didn't feel realistic to me. It's the same old Warbirds type of drones
telling us what is realistic when it really isn't. My plane felt like
it was attached to bungee cords. Is that realistic? The graphics were
marginal and I hate snap views. But seeing as the WWI files are now up
I may go back and try it out as that was all I was really interested
in anyway but they were not avaialble when I first installed it.

Interesting. Do you fly any sims where you feel the flight models are
realistic? Be interested to try them if you do so please advise.

You an ex WWI/II pilot? I'm not but I know what I like in a sim and it
ain't flying around attached to a bungee cord.

That's a loaded question so I'm not answering it. Let's just say I
think you Warbirds drones are wacked out as to what you consider
realistic. We are playing on a PC with no situational awareness at all
and concessions must be made to counteract that fact. Trying to make a
sim completely realistic without necessary physical and visual
feedback makes the sim way more difficult than the real thing. Maybe
one of day you Warbirds drones will wake up and clue into that fact.

The question is not loaded. Why do you have a problem stating which
sim you prefer? Are you afraid that someone might tell you that the
sim you prefer is "whacked out" or that you are a "drone"? Or are you
simply trolling and baiting WBs players (I do not play WBs by the
way).


So what do you consider "not wacked out"? What is your realism
standard?

There are very few fundamental differences (FMs, views, damage models,
etc) between Warbirds, AcesHigh, WWIIOL, IL-2,, MSCFS, etc. What
differences that do exist are in the presentation and style of the
game and gameplay.

Every game that tries to faithfully model WWII aircraft is going to
pretty much fly the same overall. I have seen tests comparing the
Me109E and Spit1 (in the sims that model them), and they all hit the
same numbers with very minor differences. I have downloaded and played
AcesHigh , Target Rabaul, and Warbids offline. I found all of them to
be very similar to IL-2 and MSCFS once you get into the air. The
"feel" of each sim is different, and each sim takes a different focus
on realism, but they are all more alike than dissimilar. Basically the
only real difference is the personal preference of the players
themselves based on the style of each game.

So which sim do you personally prefer? It's a simple unloaded
question. There is no right or wrong answer, just your opinion. You
are quick to give you opinions on WBs and the people that play it. Why
are you so hesitant to state which sim you prefer?


Some sims make more concessions than others. IL-2 and MSCFS are the
"most realistic" if you use engine and aircraft management as your
main criteria. If you don't think managing prop pitch or RPMs with
button presses is realistic, then you probably won't rate either game
as the "most realistic". Again it's personal preference.

Stop slaggin WBs players and kindly enlighten the readers of this
thread as to which sim you think is more "realistic" in your mind. For
me it's IL-2, and I am not afraid of other people disagreeing with my
opinion. You won't see me taking pot shots at people who play other
games. I like what I like, and they like what they like.

So put up or shut up. Or are you nothing more than a troll?

I don't understand why your getting so defensive... why not just
answer the question? If you think NO flight sims "feel realistic" then
thats the answer. I have been at the yoke a bit and while nothing can
equal the pressures and feel of "real" flight the best we can hope for
are some "realistic" flight parameters, climb, stall, roll,
ballistics, etc. for individual aircraft. I think the best of the
current sims do a decent job of approximating them, but thats just
MHO..

And why is the person asking you a question a "Warbirds drone"? I
guess i'm an "Aces High, IL2, F4, FA/18, Longbow 2 Drone" myself!

Icer

I've answered it.


Because it is due to the Warbirds drones and their myopic views that
we have snap views in IL-2 with no way to set the hat to smooth pan
view like we have with the mouse. At least Oleg was smart enough not
to listen to them when it came to engine torque during flight. I doubt
engine torque would feel like the hand of god pulling your plane to
the left as it does in the Targetware version.

Air Warrior , Aces of the Pacific and Aces over Europe (not to mention
dozens of jet sims) had snap-views. All of these sims pre-date
Warbirds, and many more people played these games than have ever
played WBs. You shouldn't be so quick to blame WBs for the view system
in IL-2. On the plus side IL-2 has full Track IR support, which is
much better than using keys. I just wish I could afford it. I played
with it on a friends PC and am currently saving my nickles and dimes.
:)


WWII fighters are known to be torque monsters. Target Rabaul is one of
the few sims (perhaps the only one) to even come close to modeling
realistic torque effects while in the air. Torque effects on the
ground do seem to be overly exagerrated. The planes seem to be thrown
around by torque much too easily when taxing under power. IL-2 does a
fair job of modelling torque, but from what I have read (and have
heard from talking to WWII vets) the planes in IL-2 are a little too
light on torque.