Spitfire : CloD vs 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.

[Charly_Owl]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by 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.

But would it be fun?

Something tells me that it would not.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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.

[ParaB]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

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.