Dar needs to provide a little more info... serious posters only

[GRUNHERZ]

Rude, Rude, Rude! Calling out for Rude, Rude alert, Rude alert!!!!!

 

[Toad]

Combine Rude's remarks and Kieran's insight and the lights come on, banishing the darkness.  

 

Rip: Limted icons, 3k or less for friendly,none for enemy

Curious as to how you arrived at the 3k figure and the justification for "none". This emulates what visual capability in real life?

Also, if you're going to push the <ahem> "realism button" wouldn't both friend and foe be the same figure in any event?


Lastly, the CT as envisioned by any of the <ahem> "more realism" proponents, is clearly a reduction in the "play options" available to the player. No matter how you slice it, the current MA would always have more options than a CT-type environment.

One may argue that if just the "right" or "perfect" set of restrictions was put in place in the CT, it would be wildly popular.

However, current usage shows that AH players currently support the "unlimited play option" MA  over the "restricted play option" CT environment by an incredibly overwhelming margin. So much so that the CT is basically an unused, wasted arena.

It's highly doubtful, IMO, that ANY set of restrictions would make the CT more popular than the MA.

It's the old "girls just want to have fun" in action. I think HTC has an excellent grasp of this aspect of the community attitude.

[CRASH]

Dot dar is pretty damn rediculous for a "flight sim".  While I'm all for finding the fight quickly, bar dar is all you need for that.  Knowing where every damn enemy is in relation to you and all of ur buddies is just way overboard. While we're at it, it was always my understanding that the icon thing was to compensate for the limitations of a computer monitor generated image when compared to rl.  At what range was it possible for a good pilot to id an enemy a/c?  6k seems like a bit much to tell the difference between a spit and a 109 if ya ask me.  Any of you amateur historians know what range was common?  Whatever range that is is what the icons should be set at.

CRASH

[Toad]

Well, I can give you this little "visual realism" tidbit from my 1973 T-38 Formation Notes on Trail Position:

Previous Thread: Tests on Visual Realism


"Approximately 1000 feet behind Lead (tailpipes make black "figure 8" and tail numbers are eaily visible but not readable."

The tailpipes were about a 2 -2 1/2 diameter.

The tail numbers were military block and about 10 inches tall and 2 inch wide lettering.

So, when we can see ship numbers like that ...at 333 yards... then we can do away with icons.

Here's a few more for ya.. the letters on a US stop sign are about the same size. See how far away you can read the letters.

The US Interstate highway shields are about the same size and coloration as the British Roundel on the top of a Spit wing. Next time you're out driving, check your odometer when you first see the blue/red shield ahead on a straightaway. Clock the distance till abeam.

Everyday examples that you yourself can check for visual realism.

Of course, you miss the increased visual distance due to the clarity of the air at altitude versus ground level city smog.. but we'll just forget that ADDED range.

[lazs1]

forget it toad... they want "selective" realism.   A crutch that helps their style is a "concession to gameplay"  or "comprimise".  but real comprimises that make sense are looked at as RR go figure.

They want to hit blind guys from behind.   they are pathetic.   They want an arcade.. They want artificailly limited visuals to allow a gamey arcadish type of acm and lopsided rewards for timidity and plane choice.  Not traits worth rewarding in my book.   Good ways to empty an arena tho.. WWII air combat was pretty boring most of the time... It is even more boring if done virtually.   Simple acm was fun in a real plane and take offs landings etc.  We don't have that... we need action to make up for it.
lazs

[lazs1]

Not onlyu that but... In WWII you were pretty sure where the badguys were and that there would never be a high alt lone wolf hunting all over and anywhere in the area... The planes had 'missions' and were easy to track and you were not likely (read never) to find single and two's of enemy planes behind the lines unless they were shot up or lost and trying desperately just to get home..   If you seen a plane it was pretty sure what he was... friend or foe and... in either case... what he was flying.

If we made the "realism" buffs fly missions and only in finger fours... there would be no players.
lazs

[Toad]

Aye, Laz.

I think every poster I've seen crying out for "realistic this" or "realistic that" can later be found in some other thread supporting a "gameplay concession" of some type.

Selective "realism" lives. I'd say it's there in everyone of us.

Who indeed would play AH very long if you flew a fighter 3 hours just to get to the combat area? Spent 3 hours just forming up the bomber stream over an ADF beacon before leaving England?

There will ALWAYS be "gameplay concessions". There will NEVER be agreement on what those should be or how many are "too many".

But it keeps the BBS busy, doesn't it?

 

[texace]

You people do realize that everyone might not enjoy sucha  change or changes? People here have fun the way they want to. I'm getting sick of people trying to offer suggestions on how they can make the game better for them, but not for anyone else BUT them. Lazs says he wants to seperate GV's from the dar, so if he sees a really big bar in a sector he doesn't have to take time out to fly there to see exactly what it is. The MA is a place to have fun for everybody. Those who like fighting, which is the majority, shouldn't have far to go to find a fight, yet they want the arean changed to cater only to them. They want more crutches than we already have, because they don't have fun while there's no fighting. They want it changed so they don't have to take-off, just press a button and ZING you're in the fight. They want everyone else to cater to them, just because they are the majority. Why? Why do you insist on changing the game just because you are inconvinienced? There are people here who enjoy flying bombers, or drving GV's, or capturing bases, or just flying around fo the hell of it. Should we push these people out just becasue they don't get a kick out of endless furballs? Let the game progress on its own and just fly it like you want, and stop trying to change the game or whine just because you have to "fly"

I don't care if the MA gets more realism or not, but if anyone removes my reason to have fun, I'll leave. Period. I do like furballing, and do it often, but I also enjoy flying bombers, drving GV's and the like. I don't care if the fighter jocks get what they want, as long as I can keep doing what I do. Yes, I might sound like a boring, "strat potato" and "sky accountant" but that's how I choose to play my game. I like doing hose things. Now, if lazs or another fighter guys said he's pay for me, yeah I'd fly their way, but so far no one has offered. Until then, leave my game alone and enjoy yours. We don't need anymore crutches to baby the fighter guys.

So, if you see a bar and it turns out to be a bunch of GV's, turn around and find another fight. Leave the MA as it is and let people enjoy the damn game.....

[Apache]

Originally posted by texace:
You people do realize that everyone might not enjoy sucha  change or changes? People here have fun the way they want to. I'm getting sick of people trying to offer suggestions on how they can make the game better for them, but not for anyone else BUT them. Lazs says he wants to seperate GV's from the dar, so if he sees a really big bar in a sector he doesn't have to take time out to fly there to see exactly what it is. The MA is a place to have fun for everybody. Those who like fighting, which is the majority, shouldn't have far to go to find a fight, yet they want the arean changed to cater only to them. They want more crutches than we already have, because they don't have fun while there's no fighting. They want it changed so they don't have to take-off, just press a button and ZING you're in the fight. They want everyone else to cater to them, just because they are the majority. Why? Why do you insist on changing the game just because you are inconvinienced? There are people here who enjoy flying bombers, or drving GV's, or capturing bases, or just flying around fo the hell of it. Should we push these people out just becasue they don't get a kick out of endless furballs? Let the game progress on its own and just fly it like you want, and stop trying to change the game or whine just because you have to "fly"

I don't care if the MA gets more realism or not, but if anyone removes my reason to have fun, I'll leave. Period. I do like furballing, and do it often, but I also enjoy flying bombers, drving GV's and the like. I don't care if the fighter jocks get what they want, as long as I can keep doing what I do. Yes, I might sound like a boring, "strat potato" and "sky accountant" but that's how I choose to play my game. I like doing hose things. Now, if lazs or another fighter guys said he's pay for me, yeah I'd fly their way, but so far no one has offered. Until then, leave my game alone and enjoy yours. We don't need anymore crutches to baby the fighter guys.

So, if you see a bar and it turns out to be a bunch of GV's, turn around and find another fight. Leave the MA as it is and let people enjoy the damn game.....  

So, are you going to make a like minded post in the threads about deleting in-flight dar as well? I mean, they are wanting to change the game too or does that happen to be something "you" want, which then makes it ok?

[K West]

"There will ALWAYS be "gameplay concessions". There will NEVER be agreement on what those should be or how many are "too many". "

 I agree. But discussions on improvement changes, added features or modifications to gameplay don't need to drop to a slanderous and spiteful level.  Well until such time someone calls for a relaxed realism arena      

"But it keeps the BBS busy, doesn't it?" "

 Sure does    Even more so is that these realism ideas and discussions have helped get us WWII aircombat players/simmers where we are today. Those folks who prefered the status quo, shrugged thier shoulders at advancements, generally hated change and felt "easier" was the road to travel are losing thier beloved flight "game" on Dec 7th.  If you stop, sit down in the middle of the road and say there is no need to go any further then don't mind that MACK truck barreling down the road and about to prove Darwins theory with you.

 Westy

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Sachs:
And while you are at it please include type of plane, speed, alt of aircraft, and whether the pilot is AFK and sex of known pilot.       Better yet why don' we just ask for the kills instead of having to shoot down opponents just cut through the hard stuff make it much more easier for you.

Actually, those two items I highlighted above were available to ground controllers during WWII.... as well as heading and size of the aircraft (thus, they could figure out fighter or bomber) and how many aircraft are in the formation (a rough number, but a number nonetheless)...

So, while you all are rallying for an anal retentive super duper ace portrayal of YOUR WWII in the combat theater, you might want to check out the above I just mentioned.

The fact that you believe that ground controllers didn't relay information to their pilots completely baffles me. We are simulating WWII, NOT WWI.

Lazs has some good ideas, if you think it was any different in WWII, I beg to differ.

I mean, we could get rid of 6 views completely... but then that only meets the criteria of selective realism- much like how most of you don't want in your hyper-"realistic" combat theater.

Much of what Lazs mentions is much closer to a realistic portrayal of how radar and ground operators work to give their pilot's the information they needed to intercept incomming raids.

No radar a certain distance behind enemy lines, no radar below 300ft, a different indicator for ground vehicles (the fact they show up on dar at all should clue you in that's on the other side of the spectrum from realism) and some of the other stuff he mentions is actually what a combination of ground operators and radar controllers did in WWII...

The fact that no one is employed as either a ground controller or radar operator negates having people relay the information to us and thus we need radar for each of ourselves.

The above things I mentioned combined with dot dar updating once every 10-30 seconds would give you a hyper-realistic representation of the radar operators and ground controllers in WWII.

Argue it anyway you want, all you have to do is watch "Battle Stations" on the History channel or watch that movie "Battle of Britain".. They got vectors, formation size, heading, plane size and altitude.

So, despite what you might think- these ideas actually fit in a "hyper-realistic" arena not in a dumbed down arena.
-SW

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

[dedalu]

I disagree... Most of GVs advantage over planes is thanks to snake capability. And radio can be used to report ground activity.

[lazs1]

LOL apache and SW... that was my whole point..  I am asking for more "realism" and am being shouted down by the "realism" crowd for destroying their fun...  

No dar under 300 ft and no dar for ground vehicles or a seperate dar to represent "spotters"  dot dar for ac to simulate vectoring and... just to show that I can be just as arcadish and unrealistic as the fluffers and sky accountant....

We will live without type and alt info for the radar.   It feels gamey but "realism" buffs need these "blinder" concessions it seems.
lazs

[AKSWulfe]

I was agreeing with you Lazs, unless you meant to say that basically what we said was just what you said (which it was in my case)...

I agree though, it seems it's only realism when it works for what you want or for your vision of what you think is realistic.
-SW

[lazs1]

I ah, think so sw but it's hard to say.... my head hurts.
lazs