PDA

View Full Version : WarBirds 2005...looks nice what can you tell me about it?



MichaelMar
07-23-2005, 02:29 PM
Anyone have any iformation about WarBirds 2205? I visited the website and was impressed my the improvmenets...had not played WBs in 3 years.

So, how would you compare it to IL2? How are the FM and DM, terrian, MP...?

thx

Bearcat99
07-23-2005, 06:53 PM
I dont know but AFAIC if it is pay to play..... I dont need it... not with FB 4.xx around.

REDHAWK_1
07-23-2005, 09:45 PM
I can tell u about Warbirds 2005. I played Warbirds when it was Warbirds 3 and it is the worst Flight Sim on the Market. All most every plane in there is either way under model most of the American planes are or they are way over model esp. the German and Japanese planes. Plus the fact u can drive tanks and have tank battles or defend air fields in M-16 Quad 50's. U see more people in there drive tanks and having tank battles then flying. Plus I have seen were guys had more aircraft kills on the ground then in actual air combat fighting. Also IENT dont have the man power like 1c does to make sure there up date patches work good. They make a force up date patch thats full of bugs and takes them forever to get any fixs do on the bugs. Also it is a dying sim with numbers around a 100 on a good night. Plus like Bearcat said u have to payto play and thats about $20 a month. My advice is to stay away from Warbirds 2005. U just be wasting ur money on a very bad sim if u can call it that. IL2 is the best World War 2 Air Combat Flight Sim on the market. Also stay away from Aces High 2 it is just like Warbirds 2005 it is almost design alike. Plus u have to pay to play that one too. Plus the Warbirds 2005 and Aces High 2 community is maybe the wrost there is, full of snobs and if u dont belong to one of thier clubs they will snob u and treat u like Sh_t. So my advice stay with IL2FB/AEP/PF REDHAWK_1

Stigler_9_JG52
07-23-2005, 11:21 PM
As far as community, Redhawk, you don't know what you're talking about. I flew Warbirds back before there was any number attached to the end of the title. The Warbirds community, despite the downward path the sim has taken, is still head and shoulders above any other community of its kind. There are more knowledgeable people there than there are here, I'll tell you. And for the most part, they're far classier, too. Genuinely good folks, even the poor unfortunates who hang on way after the sim is no longer relevant.

However, about the sim itself, you're pretty much on the mark. They can and have been as bad as Oleg's team on "politicizing" the modeling of certain aircraft. They were porking German guns before IL-2 was a gleam in Oleg's eye. Believe me, the bias there was NOT anti-American by any stretch of the imagination.

And the addition of drivable ground vehicles was a horrid mistake, one that will kill almost ANY serious flight sim. Only WWIIOL has come close to doing it right, but of course they actually have proper objectives for the vehicles, which helps.

REDHAWK_1
07-23-2005, 11:44 PM
Stigler_9_JG52
Maybe when u were there they were good, but when I was there most acted like snobs, but again I am not going to get into any more bashing, sorry if I offended u, but I called it like I saw it. As for Warbirds I flew the game for two years. Most of the staff mostly moved over after Air Warriors was sold and they try to make Warbirds like Air Warriors but didnt have the money or staff. I started my on line experince with the old Air Warriors sims.
All I know and experince in Warbirds was a lot of bashing from a lot of those so called good people u so pourdly liked. Enough said on that.

Kernow
07-24-2005, 05:58 AM
Started with WB2 and ended about 3 years later just after IL-2 came out, when it was up to WB3. Have to agree with Stiglr about the community. The game isn't that bad and works on lower spec computers, which I know is a reason some have stayed with it. Flying with a squad or just an ad-hoc group of pilots on some mission in WB2 with 150+ people online at once is the best online gaming I've had. If you were to try to organize the sort of missions that used to happen in WB in a typical FB/PF server you'd get no response.

Redhawk, maybe things have changed in the last few years - although I believe many of the 'old-timers' are still there - and what you say is true. I don't mean to offend you or imply anything about how you fly online, as I don't know. I'll just say that I can easily imagine the sort of juvenile antics I see most nights, even in 'sensible' servers, being frowned upon in the WB community. Not pointing any fingers, I stress, just talking of the stereotypical online PF gamer.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-24-2005, 11:36 AM
Qualifying statement for Redhawk 1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif :

Well, as far as snobbery goes, there was always a lot of animosity and debate between the EZ Mode (relaxed flight) crowd and those who wanted realism. Same as here, only it's much more heated because there were a limited number of arenas to populate, so it wasn't as easy to solve as here, where we can say, "I don't like EZ Mode, so I just won't fly on any of the dozens of servers and coops without realism options".

The addition of EZ Mode, IMO, fractured the crowd, and set up a "class structure", and it didn't have to be that way. Many Warbirders cut their teeth, and progressed from rank noob to seasoned ace without having a "dumbed down flight model", so many of us realism advocates saw no value in giving new people training wheels. Just give them help and advice.

But then... nobody ever got a WonderWoman option in Warbirds, to their credit. Even the EZ Moders could agree that that was totally unacceptable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.naysayers.com/9jg52/wonderwoman.gif

REDHAWK_1
07-24-2005, 01:28 PM
Stigler_9_JG52
I must agree with you on that and stand corrected. I may have be in the middle of a fight between the EZ mode and Realism guys. I my self like the realism. I may have been a victim caught in the middle of it and took flak from both sides. I know the older Warbirds were helpful and frindly. Some I remember from the old Air Warriors days b4 they were sold and things fell apart. I guess every Air Combat Flight Sim community has thier share of ***hole who do nothing but bash other people or the sim it self. That what hurts a community and the sim it self. If it seem that I was bashings the community that wasnt my real intent, I was just relaying what I experice from how the community was at that time. As for the Sim, I really feel sorry for the staff, Target,Skydrv, they work so hard and they dont have the resources to keep up with other flight sims. Also Stigler I agree about the drivable vehicles, that what really turn me off about Warbirds. Seems there was more tank fighting then actually combat flying, and the M-16 Quard 50's they used when their air flieds were being attack. Guys had more kills in those then in the planes. I guess no Flight Sim is perfect and there will always be heated argurements about which sim is the best. Well enough said on this. ~S~ Kernow and Stigler Have a nice day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

raisen
07-24-2005, 05:07 PM
I flew Warbirds 2.77 with KG2 in S3 scenarios. I have to say most of the WB crowd were excellent even the notorious bobn (I think that was the handle), whom I found to be polite and helpful. I gave up because the rig I was running at the time couldn't cope with version 3 at any price, and because my ISP kept dropping connections. I suspect I'd still be there otherwise.

Whilst people have pointed out quite correctly that the sim has relatively simplified graphics and modelling, in part I believe that this was done to accomodate 250+ users in a single arena. In addition I understand that the simulation engine itself has remained largely unaltered since the version 3 product was released. WB 3 in turn is a very close relative of WB 2 (but with hugely improved graphics).

The main reason I ran with WB was purely the S3 scenarios, which were excellent. Best described as "One life to live",everybody in an S3 flys to survive, as once they get shot down they are barred from returning to the cockpit. Proper rules of engagement, proper objectives and a real sense of achievement getting back alive. S3's were strictly full real only, squads only.

Definately not to everybodies taste, but I found it excellent.

Raisen

Ralph_Phillips
07-24-2005, 08:37 PM
I also played WBs for a number of years, from at least v2.3 or so, IIRC. Anyhow, the sim ain't what it used to be, but the community was pretty decent and, as Stigler mentioned, very knowledgeable. Still, IL-2 is where it's at, plus it's free to play. Once in awhile IENT hosts free weekends so if you really want to try it out, keep an eye out for one of the free events and take a crack at it.

My guess is you'll stick with IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS -- shout out to Kernow; nice to see you again, mate. I've been hanging out a bit with Brando, Cudgel and Ttiger a bit in HL. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Neil-k (aka Ralph_Phillips in IL-2)

Kernow
07-25-2005, 02:35 AM
Hey neil-k, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif it's been a few years.

WB2 > WB3 was a backwards step really. Better graphics, but that was all; it lacked the 'just one more go' factor. I didn't mind the ground vehicles, as it added some variety and being able to steer ships and man their guns could be a fun diversion. However, the surface action shouldn't take over from the air battle, as it seems to have done, which means something must be wrong with the air-side gameplay.

As raisen says, the events are (were) excellent.

One thing which I got tired of in WB was getting killed by lag. Time after time you could break into an attacker and see his tracer pass harmlessly behind you - only to blow up because on his computer you were taking hits. It can happen in FB/PF, but I find it very rare - usually only manifests itself in a head-on situation where you see tha bandit shoot just after you pass, but still take damage. Being able to pick a server with a good ping is worth a great deal.

Trying a free w/e or a fortnight trial might be worthwhile, but you'll probably decide from a financial AND quality POV that IL-2 is better. The one exception would be if you like flying heavies. They used to have the B-17F & G plus a B-24 (maybe 2 marks). Many of the drawbacks are less obvious in a bomber. the change from v2 to v3 did get rid of many of the things to bomb, but I think they've finally got around to putting some worthwhile targets back in the game.

Ah, Redhawk, I'd forgotten the RM/EZ debate - I see what you might mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thud_vols
07-25-2005, 06:09 AM
I'm a current subscriber to WB2005. I pretty much stick to the S3 where about 150+ players are competing in the same arena. It's a totally different game and fun in it's own way espcially for someone who enjoys flying bombers. A heavy bomber mission in an S3 could take up to 3 hrs to complete. It's one of the few online games that supports both PCs and MAC.

Gatt59
07-25-2005, 07:59 AM
REDHAWK_1,

there is nothing like playing S3's and scenarios in Warbirds and AH. As kernow said these are probably the best online experiences a player can have. Il-2 wont ever have anything like that.

Graphics? Yes, IL-2 is *the best*. Flight models? Every flight model has good and bad things. As far as communities are concerned ... well, you look soft skinned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RocketRobin__
07-25-2005, 11:51 PM
Forrest Gump had a saying that describes WB.

raisen
07-26-2005, 05:01 AM
B17's, B24's hehehehe...... KG2 did it in Ju 87's or Ju88's (not the heaviest defensive armament in the game 3 tiny wee rifle calibre guns in the 88, only 2 on flexible mounts) with a survival rate that frequently surprised folks.

Free weekends used to coincide with US public holidays, if I remember correctly.

Raisen

Hoatee
07-26-2005, 01:27 PM
Warbirds and Falcon 4 were about the only decent flight sims that could run on an Apple Mac.

Sure you have to pay to play online. But it's free offline with a mission editor.

I don't think the addition of ground vehicles to the game was such a bad idea. At least the tanks having moving tracks.

The real problem lies in the physics modelling. After playing IL2, you definitely feel something's missing in Warbirds - it seems simple by comparison.

The external views though are still of a very high quality.

And with that much of a difference between the two sims, I wonder whether the new Bob will make people stop playing IL2 in the same way.

ps. ai driven vehicles online in which you could spawn as gunner, for example - good idea missing in (ahem) other games.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-26-2005, 05:23 PM
The problem with "player-dweebed vehicles" (to borrow a popular Warbirds term) is that they're often not designed to the same level of fidelity as the planes (in terms of weapons, suspensions, even damage and armor distribution), so they become a silly, arcade sideshow (often with ridiculously overaccurate AA guns). Worse, without proper ground objectives, they become "air centric", and spend half their time tooling around looking to set up around airfields, when they should be at or trying to get to, "the front".

Compare this to WWIIOL, where it works much better, because the entire ground warfare aspect is well developed and rich. Ground vehicles (and RPS soldiers) have GROUND-based objectives, and any aircraft that happen to fly over are not their chief concern (unless one happens to be strafing YOU or dropping a bomb on YOU at the time). Also, the vehicles are as well developed for ground warfare as the aircraft are for fighting above it.

Hoatee
07-28-2005, 02:10 PM
Compare this to WWIIOL, where it works much better, because the entire ground warfare aspect is well developed and rich.

Well, the ground/air relationship in IL2 is also much better than in Warbirds.