Spitfire : CloD vs A2A

[Charly_Owl]

Hi folks,

I thought I'd start a little discussion about comparing different games trying to represent the same aircraft. If this topic is inappropriate or in the wrong forum, feel free to delete it. I'm not trying to start a flame war or trying to prove if a game is better than another one. Just here to discuss about people's opinions of what each game does best, considering all aspects of the sim and aircraft.

A2A Sim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m7-JxH0ziw

CloD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhkWGst5Rd4

Which sim do you think better represents the Spitfire? For the engine sound, I don't know why, but I prefer the A2A sound. Graphics-wise, my vote would go for CloD.

What do you guys think? Do you have any experience to provide information about which flight model seems the most realistic?

[tools4fools]

Engine sound? Never sat in a Spit with the engine running, so how would I know?
Same goes for the flight model - how would I know, never flew one of those things.

[Charly_Owl]

We can still compare with real-life footage, if we're talking about the engine sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rne-kJgVIKY&feature=relmfu

[ParaB]

IMO the A2A Spit with Accusim package beats the CloD Spit hands down when it comes to the fidelity of the flight model, sounds, systems and general handling.

Of course the A2A spit doesn't feature weapons or a (battle) damage model and costs as much as CloD alone. Oh, and there are no Messerschmitts to shoot down.

For pure flying I load up FSX and take the A2A Spit out for a little romp around the countryside.

For a little taste how it was to fly a Spitfire in combat I load up CloD.

[pstyle]

CloD A/C looks better

Ground/ terrain in A2A looks better

Can't tell anything about performance comparisons from videos, and I've only played CloD, not A2A

[ATAG_Snapper]

I have both. Not sure it's appropriate to discuss a competitor's product on the 1C Forum. That said, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparo IMHO in that one is a game that's continuing to evolve and the other (A2A) is a study sim with huge detail but with the combat detail removed (weaponry and battle-damage modelling).

I've found both fun and educational.

[Robo.]

I like them both very much. Completely different approach to the simulation, obviously, but as for representation of the actual a/c, A2A is the winner (mind you I have paid same amount of money for this single add-on as for whole Cliffs of Dover), but as for combat aircraft - you know what I mean ;)

They both feel alright, quite similar in fact. Like a Spitfire. Early one. Lovely stuff.

I disagree with the terrain though - unless you buy and install some 3rd party stuff (OrbX), the FSX world looks quite awful. CloD is much better, but obviously represents smaller area.

I was wondering about one particular detail in both sims - Boost to RPM relation is slightly different and I was wondering which one is closer to the real thing. I'd say that in this particular case, 1C got it better than a2a.

[kestrel79]

It depends what you like to do in a sim. If you want to click tons of buttons and fly the thing to the book by yourself offline, the A2A sim is for you.

If you like air combat and blowing stuff up (me), CloD hands down. Damage model is insane not to mention flying online against other real people

[Charly_Owl]

I have both. Not sure it's appropriate to discuss a competitor's product on the 1C Forum. That said, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparo IMHO in that one is a game that's continuing to evolve and the other (A2A) is a study sim with huge detail but with the combat detail removed (weaponry and battle-damage modelling).

I've found both fun and educational.

Well, I'm not trying to sell their product, like I said before. If moderators see this thread as inappropriate, I have absolutely nothing against removing this topic.

I just like to compare for the sake of... well, fun, that is!

@Kestrel:

For me, it depends of my mood. I developed a taste for flying and blowing stuff up, although some other sims just fascinate me because of things like engine management, flight physics (geek & proud!) and authenticity. DCS games, for instance, are not that much about dogfighting. It's more about knowing the aircraft and its megatons of complex avionics and systems, how they work and their use during flight.

Although, I'll give you that, nothing beats the adrenaline rush you have when performing multiple flying scissors on Il-2 '46. That's all the thrill of WW2 combat sims, in my humble opinion.

[Osprey]

How do you get the zoom in and out to work like that in the second video?

[ATAG_Doc]

How much does all the bells and whistles cost and more importantly does it have the ever so coveted coop? And finally what about mission dynamics? Any good? Much appreciated in advanced.

[bw_wolverine]

A2A Spitfire wins on FM, cockpits, audio (cockpit sounds & engine & gear rolling, etc.. pretty much everything).

CloD wins only in those areas that it does and A2A doesn't attempt (weapons and damage model).

I don't consider the terrain as part of the argument since that doesn't necessarily reflect the Spitfire as a modelled aircraft (though I do feel that CloD's landscape is better in its default setting).

I'd love to have the A2A Spitfire's level of cockpit detail and instrument functionality in CloD. That would be an AMAZING simulation of air combat.

Has there ever been an air combat sim where you had to manipulate the oxygen mixture to make sure you didn't pass out at altitude? The cockpit vent so the canopy didn't fog? It would give us a true sense of the workload.

[klem]

Horses for Courses. I love flying the A2A Spitfire and the FSX-adapted English Electric Llightning in FSX. I love the air combat in CoD.

Right now I have to say the A2A FM and general feel is an easy winner. But it can't shoot down 109s :(

I use photo secenery in FSX with Autogenerated scenery off (trees, buildings etc). Above a couple of thousand feet you wouldn't know and I set Forest Off on CoD, it doesn't have any value except to allow targets to hide and I don't generally fight that low down anyway.

[JG52Uther]

Osprey, Frey wrote this about the zoom:

I set up a button on my joystick so that when I hold it down I can zoom in and out by moving my mouse backwards and forwards. It is a button function you can find in the "options" section...

This is a work-around because CoD doesn't have the obvious possibility of setting one joystick button to "zoom in" and another to "zoom out". That would be far better.

[Chivas]

I haven't flown the A2A Spitfire, but I would think they would do a very good job on many aspects of the Spitfire, because that all they have to model. I doubt that the flight model would be as good as it would have to be tweaked into the FSX game engine designed for general flying purposes. I guess you'd have to fly the A2A Spitfire in a combat situation against a ME 109 to see how happy you were with the flight model. ;)

[ATAG_Doc]

How much does all the bells and whistles cost?

[skouras]

A2A Spit with Accusim and the latest update is the most accurrate model ever created for a FS


have a look in this video
at about 8.16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnQjs0CHoRs&feature=player_embedded

[ParaB]

The problem is that A2ASims/Accusim have almost ruined other aircraft for me. Especially the wear&tear simulation is simply amazing. Yesterday night I took the A2A B-17G from my home airport to London, bad weather, some navigation issues and a couple of technical problems made for a rather interesting flight and an even more interesting landing.

For flying, there's currently nothing better IMO than FSX/A2ASims.

[lensman1945]

there is something 'dead' about the lighting of the aircraft in FSX... both exteriors and cockpits.

[Chivas]

The problem is that A2ASims/Accusim have almost ruined other aircraft for me. Especially the wear&tear simulation is simply amazing. Yesterday night I took the A2A B-17G from my home airport to London, bad weather, some navigation issues and a couple of technical problems made for a rather interesting flight and an even more interesting landing.

For flying, there's currently nothing better IMO than FSX/A2ASims.

Nice, but I would prefer having, bad weather, some navigation issues, technical problems, finding my way to the target, putting bombs on target, fighting off enemy aircraft, finding my way home, finding a way to land my badly damaged aircraft, and getting my crew back to home base alive. But I respect your interest.

[|450|Devil]

Wolverine said it perfectly

[ParaB]

@Chivas: Oh, I would prefer that, too. But I take what I get.

:grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

How much does all the bells and whistles cost?

Doc, it can cost a freaking TON -- which Dutch warned me about. First you have to have Microsoft Simulator FSX: $40.98 Amazon.ca

The basic A2A Wings of Power 3 Spitfire: $29.99
A2A Accusim bundled in: +$19.99

Then there's Real Extreme Environment $ more
Then there's Ground Environment X $ more
Oh, add in some NASA-approved Canadian scenery: $ more
Oh, better get some Canadian Ultimate Traffic X $ more
Hmmm, how about that X-Rated Spitgirl? $$$$$ more
Prefer blonde (natural) add-on to that? $ more
And a friend? $$$ more

You get the picture... :)

[nearmiss]

Hi folks,

I thought I'd start a little discussion about comparing different games trying to represent the same aircraft. If this topic is inappropriate or in the wrong forum, feel free to delete it. I'm not trying to start a flame war or trying to prove if a game is better than another one. Just here to discuss about people's opinions of what each game does best, considering all aspects of the sim and aircraft.

A2A Sim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m7-JxH0ziw

CloD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhkWGst5Rd4

Which sim do you think better represents the Spitfire? For the engine sound, I don't know why, but I prefer the A2A sound. Graphics-wise, my vote would go for CloD.

What do you guys think? Do you have any experience to provide information about which flight model seems the most realistic?

Your first video is from A2A spitfire, a flight sim aircraft.

The second is from COD, a air combat aircraft.

Who wants to fly around with no navs over abunch of boring flat land.

Yes, there are plenty of excellent aircraft availabe for use in flight sims, but nothing comparable for air combat sims with COD.

[ElAurens]

A2A Spitfire wins on FM, cockpits, audio (cockpit sounds & engine & gear rolling, etc.. pretty much everything).

CloD wins only in those areas that it does and A2A doesn't attempt (weapons and damage model).

I don't consider the terrain as part of the argument since that doesn't necessarily reflect the Spitfire as a modelled aircraft (though I do feel that CloD's landscape is better in its default setting).

I'd love to have the A2A Spitfire's level of cockpit detail and instrument functionality in CloD. That would be an AMAZING simulation of air combat.

Has there ever been an air combat sim where you had to manipulate the oxygen mixture to make sure you didn't pass out at altitude? The cockpit vent so the canopy didn't fog? It would give us a true sense of the workload.

But would it be fun?

Something tells me that it would not.

[ATAG_Doc]

Doc, it can cost a freaking TON -- which Dutch warned me about. First you have to have Microsoft Simulator FSX: $40.98 Amazon.ca

The basic A2A Wings of Power 3 Spitfire: $29.99
A2A Accusim bundled in: +$19.99

Then there's Real Extreme Environment $ more
Then there's Ground Environment X $ more
Oh, add in some NASA-approved Canadian scenery: $ more
Oh, better get some Canadian Ultimate Traffic X $ more
Hmmm, how about that X-Rated Spitgirl? $$$$$ more
Prefer blonde (natural) add-on to that? $ more
And a friend? $$$ more

You get the picture... :)

Coop? Su-26? For the price you should get all that and more right?

[fruitbat]

wonder if it has 100 octane fuel......

[danjama]

As a recent buyer of the A2A Spitfire and Warhawk, I can confirm that they are extremely fun and interesting to fly - and I mean that with all sincerity. If you have any interest in these warbirds, (im guessing we all do here) you have to give them a go.

That said, it's quite a lot of money to outlay. But if you already have FSX, just buy the a2a/accusim product you want, install the freeware airports that most interest you, and you're good to go.

p.s. anybody know why i keep setting my P-40 engine on fire? :P

[ATAG_Snapper]

Coop? Su-26? For the price you should get all that and more right?

Absolutely! But you don't.

I think the point you're making, quite effectively, is that we're already getting a huge bang-for-the-lousy-50-bucks with Cliffs of Dover, even without a coop GUI or Su26. If so, I couldn't agree more.

I like A2A strictly for the educational value. I've been a Spitfire freak since I first read Al Deere's "Nine Lives" back in '63 -- so the A2A study sim is heaven-sent for me personally. I just wish I could shoot stuff. :grin:

Which brings me to Cliffs of Dover. What the devs have accomplished is absolutely amazing, even in its incomplete and boogered form. It was an easy transition from the CoD cockpit to the much-greater detailed A2A Spit's cockpit. Flying CEM in CoD, especially in online combat, gives you a good background in the relationships between throttle settings (boost) and propellor pitch (rpms), plus all the temps, pressures, trim settings, etc etc etc. It's easier to break a Merlin in A2A's version, but the CoD's CEM workload under combat pressure prepares anyone for the more finicky A2A Merlins. The A2A documentation (along with the Accusim docs) are excellent bar none.

The only switch, lever, or control that doesn't work AFAIK in the A2A Spitfire is the seat height adjustment (oops - not counting the gun button.....minor detail LOL).

But if you're NOT a Spitfire freak of some description, the CoD Spitfire is plenty fine in many respects. In fact, it's plenty fine if you ARE a Spitfire freak. And it shoots stuff! :grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

wonder if it has 100 octane fuel......

Fair question, Fruitbat. You can choose: 87 or 100 octane.

[ATAG_Doc]

That's a lot of cheddar for a Spitfire simulator that doesn't even have a single bullet.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Doc, it can cost a freaking TON -- which Dutch warned me about.

:lol:

But I think I know that now you're there, you just won't stop!!

'Think I'll try this photo scenery!' :grin:

'Think I'll buy a Lancaster!' :grin:

'Think I'll buy my local airport in photo real gfx!' :grin:

'Think I'll sell the wife!' :lol:

Then your force feedback stops working for no apparent reason and you say 'bollox microsoft! you can kiss my bottom, I'm not playing anymore!' :evil:

Then you go back to moaning about the Spit's FM in Cliffs of Dover................:grin:

[Charly_Owl]

I decided to try A2A out, buying Prepar3d (Lockheed Martin's FSX since they bought Microsoft their license) instead of FSX, and to try the Spitfire out at the same time.

And wow... that 30 minutes-flight I did with it flying in the Alps... that was an amazing experience! Flying this plane was just pure childish fun. I might have paid a bit for it, but I believe it's definitely worth it if you enjoy flying just for fun.

[Codex]

Well I've bought Accusim P-47 when it came out and CLassic Hangers Fw-190A series. For me they're are fun to fly, they're very well modelled, and they make me "feel" like a real pilot having to monitor all the systems.

I just wish someone would produce a flight sim Accusims level of fidelity and CloDs combat. Not too much to ask is it? ;)

Classic Hanger FW-190 ...

cockpit familiarization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwXBlmJLtB8

engine startup and taxying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbU5DtUPb4

fuel management
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDM37W7K8rA

landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ga6e9NfsZ0

[Walrus1]

Doc, it can cost a freaking TON -- which Dutch warned me about. First you have to have Microsoft Simulator FSX: $40.98 Amazon.ca

The basic A2A Wings of Power 3 Spitfire: $29.99
A2A Accusim bundled in: +$19.99

Then there's Real Extreme Environment $ more
Then there's Ground Environment X $ more
Oh, add in some NASA-approved Canadian scenery: $ more
Oh, better get some Canadian Ultimate Traffic X $ more
Hmmm, how about that X-Rated Spitgirl? $$$$$ more
Prefer blonde (natural) add-on to that? $ more
And a friend? $$$ more

You get the picture... :)

It seems like alot. But how much did you pay for that Thrustmaster HOTAS? Those go for over $400. Isn't the software worth paying a few hundred dollars for too?

[ATAG_Snapper]

It seems like alot. But how much did you pay for that Thrustmaster HOTAS? Those go for over $400. Isn't the software worth paying a few hundred dollars for too?

Not complaining. Just the opposite, actually. Simply answering his question, with a bit of humour on the side. You can't really get a Spitgirl for A2A, much less a blonde one with a friend. So that reduces the cost substantially. ;)

[Walrus1]

Not complaining. Just the opposite, actually. Simply answering his question, with a bit of humour on the side. You can't really get a Spitgirl for A2A, much less a blonde one with a friend. So that reduces the cost substantially. ;)

OK, understood.

One thing I have never understood is the set of people on this forum bitterly complaining that they paid all of $50 (or whatever the price has gone to now) for CoD, and that they are so disappointed with it.

Given the complexity of the sim/game, and comparing it to various other simulation or other software titles, it seems like a bargain, warts and all. Not to mention comparing it to how much they pay for the graphics cards and other hardware to play it on.

Getting back to A2A, wow it looks amazing (and tempting!)

[ATAG_Snapper]

OK, understood.

One thing I have never understood is the set of people on this forum bitterly complaining that they paid all of $50 (or whatever the price has gone to now) for CoD, and that they are so disappointed with it.

Given the complexity of the sim/game, and comparing it to various other simulation or other software titles, it seems like a bargain, warts and all. Not to mention comparing it to how much they pay for the graphics cards and other hardware to play it on.

Getting back to A2A, wow it looks amazing (and tempting!)

No worries, mate. See my post #29. we're on the same wavelength. If the CoD aircraft had the same degree of cockpit complexity, dogfighting would be quite a handful. But Dutch gave me fair warning, the add-ons get truly addictive. I just added on a 3rd party Canadian scenery download because it gives me a kick flying a Spitfire over my Kitchener, Ontario neighbourhood. LOL

[DennydD]

A2A sound is beautiful. I judge those things easy: I have a glass working table. In A2A the table vibrates. In the real Spit video the table vibrates. In CoD it does not. =>Indicator that something is missing. :grin:
Sooner or later the devs look at it or one of the modders will do. (Sound modding should be opened to the modder community if it is not already!)

Graphic wise is CoD the eye catcher. If you look at the shadows and the reflexion on the gages. Thats just wow.

Regarding the FM: I only consume the FM and have to life with the reality the sim presents to me but there are guys on this forums who do realy have a clue and they help CoD improving.

S!

[Walrus1]

If I were to scrape the $ together to buy A2A and develop a level of familiarity and competence, I worry that the small ambition in the back of my mind to step into a real live aircraft and get my wings would become greater and greater.

And then you are talking serious money...

[nearmiss]

Just go take some flying lessons. Probably in a Cessna or other over head wing aircraft. The lessons aren't that expensive.

Flying an old warbird is an extraordinary experience. About the only way you will ever get such an opportunity is in a dual seater, or you'll have the money to buy one of your own.

[bw_wolverine]

But would it be fun?

Something tells me that it would not.

I think it would be. I think it's one of those kinds of things that seems like a small change but would be a revelation to a genre like a combat flight simulator.

What we consider 'full real' settings for CloD servers is still pretty video gamey.

Plenty of people fly around with messages popping up to tell them they have a gasket leak in cylinder 5 or whatever little messages pop up informing them of damage. I don't fly with that on so I'm not sure how much info you get. I do know it tells you when you've killed a pilot. They also have little heads up displays and things showing their control settings, etc.

We have so many people who yell and scream the moment someone suggests something that might be good for the 'game' side of Cliffs of Dover. "It's a SIMULATION!" they yell. "It should be as close to real as possible!" Fair enough.

Now imagine a simulator where full real settings means you have to configure your RT in order to communicate with other pilots. No teamspeak stuff. Where if your battery or radio gets hit, you're off comms. Or where the rough sound of the engine clearly indicates a bad compression in one of the cylinders. NOW imagine that you have the option to perform maintenance on that aircraft - replace parts that need replacing...if you have the spares! Not enough 100 octane in the Airfield tanks? Jerry's coming, so use that 87 octane stuff in a pinch and get back up there!

It's the difference between being in control of the whole aircraft and being in control of a gun platform.

I think for the aviation fans out there (not just the shoot the other guy down fans) that a FULL simulation of these aircraft in a combat setting would be absolutely amazing.

[Charly_Owl]

Let us not forget that in order to achieve such a FULL simulation aircraft, lots of people (FSX simmers) spend on map texture packs such as ORBX, weather/lighting/texture add-ons such as REX and third-party companies that sell high-res 3D models of a single aircraft (A2A, for instance). All this requires a LOT more people to make, and I don't think 1c has the amount of manpower, of specialized people needed to achieve such a titanic task. The quality of FSX depends largely on its add-ons, which cost money.

But that being said, the company that will succeed in mastering ALL these aspects at once and make money out of it will truly rule the sim gaming market.

[ATAG_Doc]

Follow your desires and fly if this is what you want.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

We can still compare with real-life footage, if we're talking about the engine sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rne-kJgVIKY&feature=relmfu

So far about hearing other a/c from inside the cockpit ... I hope they'll fix it. Should be in the bug report anyhow.

[Walrus1]

Just go take some flying lessons. Probably in a Cessna or other over head wing aircraft. The lessons aren't that expensive.

Flying an old warbird is an extraordinary experience. About the only way you will ever get such an opportunity is in a dual seater, or you'll have the money to buy one of your own.

Maybe one day...

[ParaB]

I think it would be. I think it's one of those kinds of things that seems like a small change but would be a revelation to a genre like a combat flight simulator.

What we consider 'full real' settings for CloD servers is still pretty video gamey.

Plenty of people fly around with messages popping up to tell them they have a gasket leak in cylinder 5 or whatever little messages pop up informing them of damage. I don't fly with that on so I'm not sure how much info you get. I do know it tells you when you've killed a pilot. They also have little heads up displays and things showing their control settings, etc.

We have so many people who yell and scream the moment someone suggests something that might be good for the 'game' side of Cliffs of Dover. "It's a SIMULATION!" they yell. "It should be as close to real as possible!" Fair enough.

Now imagine a simulator where full real settings means you have to configure your RT in order to communicate with other pilots. No teamspeak stuff. Where if your battery or radio gets hit, you're off comms. Or where the rough sound of the engine clearly indicates a bad compression in one of the cylinders. NOW imagine that you have the option to perform maintenance on that aircraft - replace parts that need replacing...if you have the spares! Not enough 100 octane in the Airfield tanks? Jerry's coming, so use that 87 octane stuff in a pinch and get back up there!

It's the difference between being in control of the whole aircraft and being in control of a gun platform.

I think for the aviation fans out there (not just the shoot the other guy down fans) that a FULL simulation of these aircraft in a combat setting would be absolutely amazing.

Very well said.

For example: using the TARS plugin for Teamspeak when playing DCS:A-10 lets you use the simulated radios to communicate with your buddies in other Warthogs or Black Sharks. If you've set your radios to the correct frequencies, that is. And if you switched them on in the first place. Yes, it's a bit more complicated than joining "blue" or "red" channel. But it adds a ton of atmosphere and immersion.

[kyletiernan]

I would prefer CoD than the A2A sim.