Author Topic: AWACS Intercept (Read 5146 times)

LtHans · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:08:00 AM »

I happen to agree with Karnak. It is a graphical representation of air control system (audio/text being to "spamish" to be useful). Why do you think RADAR goes offline when the HEADQUARTERS building is destroyed?

It is what I would do if I wanted to simulate ground controllers.

Hans.

funkedup · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:35:00 AM »

Karnak there's a big difference between verbal position updates and having a vertical situation display overlaid on my windscreen.

popeye · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2001, 07:35:00 AM »

Provide "real time" (like we have now) dot dar in the tower, and "static" dot dar, updated every 15 seconds or so, in flight. Lets you find a fight without the "electronic SA". Might even be a good <cough> simulation of verbal updates from ground controllers. (Could also free up some bandwidth for more important things.)

To simulate loss of Command and Control when HQ is destroyed, turn off the inflight dar, but keep the tower dar (at fields with working radar). Even more dar that we have now!

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]

lazs1 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2001, 07:54:00 AM »

Wow... the dar worked "realistically" Just like in WWII eh? You didn't have the alt number like you would have in WWII but you knew how people flew in the MA so you guessed. results were the same. Realism and action. Sounds fun.

Yep, just like if someone had "vectored" you to the con. Happened all the time. The current dar creates "realistic" results so that's not so bad eh? I mean if you like that realism stuff.

course, funked's was an unusual situation... we don't have clouds much and finding someone in the batroom to bounce is unusual.

Without dot dar we would have what? Lone wolf alt monkeys looking for some poor guy who had actually been in a fight to bounce. That would be immersive eh? The timid would rule the skies.

I think we can live with the fact that once every six tours or so someone bounces someone by using dot dar and cloud cover and the fact that the bouncee was to lazy to check on the dar himself.
lazs

K West · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2001, 09:02:00 AM »

lol. What a fruitless pursuit this may turn out to be but I'll hang in there to the very end..whatever that may be.

One conveniently overlooked "fact" by current DAR supporters is that no aircraft had access to radar information in enemy territory, let alone IFF enabled pinpoint AWACs type. The Germans didn't have it over London and the USAAF/RAF did not have it over the Continent. The same went for the warring nations in the Pacific and Eastern fronts.
Night fighters could use thier onboard radar to approximate themselves and make thier final approach visually at best. Even then not always successful. If they'd had AH radar they would have been a hell of a lot more succesful.

AH radar is as much a crutch as anything I've ever seen in easymode/relaxed realism setting. And this issue won't go away as it resides at the very core to the question as to whether AH is a sim or an arcade. It's sim all the way (until you count such abominations as auto retracting flaps and the use of the antique AW style icons with digital range counters)

Even with tower radar only you still have the GPS type of inflgith map to enable you to know exactly where you are and in relation to the enemy you saw before you spawned. Plus you can use the old one button key press to key your radio and make queries. Versus making one key press a pulling up a modern era radar disply.

Imo it's also strange to see some folks who defend the AH AWACS radar will also say that we need friendly fire ON and mutual collisions enabled as they are more realistic. IMO the GPOS map, the way friendly fire and collisions are programmed ARE gameplay concessions. They are created not to make anything easier mind you however they so compensate for some problems encountered on the internet; lag, delay, socially inept and greifers.

JAB, I know you would love AH to become a reincarnation of AW. But AW died for many reasons and IMO one of it's major weak points was that it was geared to be easy, cater to those who had a low frustration point and it also focused more on being a social gathering place than anything else. Before last spring when AW experienced it's first large exodus and started it's final plummet the numbers in WB's and AH combined together were more than there were in the AW arenas. More people voted for realism by paying hourly or $30/mo for something substantially more realistic than they did for a much less costlier arcade game. You use the same points now as on 'BigWeek' a year or two ago whenever the topic about AH and "realism" came up. Striving for realism not only the FM and system features but also in the gameplay environment while retaining good gameplay is quite possible. Realism is not all black and white. It's not either all uber-real or all arcade. IMO if people want an easy "game" they still have AW and Fighter Ace to play in. However act fast as AW is dead in week while Fighter Ace is being dumped by MS and being shoveled off to VR1. Seems arcades with thier minions aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Westy

Seeker · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2001, 09:24:00 AM »

Realism in the flight and 3D models, or at least the search for it, should be something we can all agree with.

I'd like the whole start up sequence, whole gun firing sequence etc. modelled.

Realism in game play is something else. I don't want 90% of my sorties to have no enemy contact. In fact, if it takes me more than 3 mins to find action in the MA, I'm bored.

.

There really *is* a difference between logging on for an hours fun while wifey's putting the kid to bed, and setting time asisde for an hour long scenario frame.

One thing AW definately had over AH were the events. Not just the amount of events, which I'm glad to see is increasing in AH, but player input into event set up

I think it'd be great if you could set up an event with the restrictions you wish, just as I think it would be great if I could set up an event with the conditions I want, but we can't and that's that. What we can do is use which ever of the current arenas is closest to what we want.

In which case, why is the CT always empty? I see enough agitation on these boards to turn the MA into the CT; why not use the CT you've got?

As for the point made about people voting with their feet and moving away from AW, it's valid (although I don't agree that realism was the main cause), but it's happening here too, as the number differentials between the CT and MA show.

The majority like the MA. As it is.

If you guys are getting lonely in the CT, why not try to think about why this is, and how it could be addressed rather than trying to change a sucessfull format (MA) into an unsucessfull one (CT).

Goner · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2001, 09:58:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by O'Westy:
[QBI can honestly say the only place that made it even easier and as ridiculously unreal was AW.[/QB]

at least in AW you could fly under dar and you only got markers over friendly territory.
and it could be switched off altogether, in BigWeek here the LW gets radar info while we are over the UK !

correct me if i'm wrong, memory's fading

Goner

K West · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2001, 10:10:00 AM »

I think you may be right Goner. I never had a problem finding that wave top skimmer as the screen resolutions were lower and the distant trying to hide dot was larger on the screen but in BigPac the Goony drivers always stayed right on the deck as it did help many times.

Westy

hblair · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2001, 10:27:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup:
No visual contact required to get within firing parameters. I wasn't even looking out the window, just flying with the artificial horizon and steering based on the instant updates on the datalink. In a day fighter. Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?

Some people would actually argue whether this would be historical or not. rofl. It certainly isn't very good for gameplay.

Nifty · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2001, 10:29:00 AM »

I have come to the conclusion that not one damned person in here listens to the other side's arguments. (ok, that's hyperbole, but still.)

I'll say it again (as I've said in other dar threads, and many others have said it as well), and maybe Mav, Seeker, et al. will read it this time.

The Combat Theater's lack of radar is NOT why it's unpopulated. That's right, the CT vs MA argument has very minimal relevance to the issue of Inflight Dar. If the CT was exactly like the MA with the exception of different radar, arguments of "The CT is empty, so no inflight dar sucks" would be valid.

To say "the CT is setup like you want it, go play there" is also off base. The CT has no strat and no score tracking. It's a dueling arena with historical planesets and reduced radar settings. I don't want that, and I know some of the other proponents of dar changes don't want that either. I'm not going into what I want in the CT, that's not for this thread. All I want to do here is try to get past people using the CT as an argument to keep MA dar like it is. There's little to no relevance, and therefore, no substance in that argument.

J_A_B · « **Reply #25 on:** December 04, 2001, 10:43:00 AM »

"Striving for realism not only the FM and system features but also in the gameplay environment while retaining good gameplay is quite possible."

Indeed it is. I won't argue with that. WW2OL proves this is possible, at least in concept.

The question is, what kind of game do you want? You frequently call the MA an "arcade" experience. Such use of the term is at best a massive exaggeration. The MA isn't a WW2 experience, but it is far from an arcade game like Pac-man.

Why is the realism crowd's beloved CT always empty? Why was the AW AvA always empty?

Simple--most people don't want the limitations imposed by "realistic" gameplay. Personally, I don't care about re-living WW2. WW2 sucked, ask anyone who was there. All I want to do is fly around and fight other planes--and AH does a decent job of providing this sort of gameplay.

Why would you NOT want dar? What benefit is there to it? Sneaking on a NOE raid undetected? You mean to tell me you LIKE milkrunning? Milkrunners are pathetic! They DESERVE to be shot! Or, added "realism" in air combat? Bah, who really wants to sneak up on people? Personally, I get no enjoyment from killing a plane that never sees me comming. In fact it's a disappointment.

I said it before and I'll say it again, AH's dar is already insufficient in my opinion.

"and it also focused more on being a social gathering place than anything else."

AH would do well to mimic that aspect of AW. The in-game community support was the reason AW lived so long, and the lack therof is AH's single weakest point. AW died because of EA, nothing more, not that you were there to witness it

Oh, and I'd like to know when AH became a WW2 sim. WW2OL was supposed to be a WW2 sim. According to the main page, AH is:

"Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat
and sets it in an online high intensity environment where
hundreds of players can battle it out with and against
each other."

Hmm, nothing about simulating WW2 in there at all. This implies that AH is about WW-era planes fighting each other--which is exactly what the MA is! In-flight DAR helps you find the enemy (as Funked example so well shows) and so promotes combat WITHOUT comprimising the realism (flight model, etc) of the experience. So why do you keep bringing up what went on during the war, when obviously AH isn't even ABOUT WW2?

Perhaps YOU are the one trying to turn AH into something it isn't!

If you say I want AH to mimic AW, then you want it to become WW2OL.

J_A_B

K West · « **Reply #26 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:15:00 AM »

"Why is the realism crowd's beloved CT always empty?"

The why has been explained several times and you still ask? It's even stated in the post right above yours.

"Why was the AW AvA always empty? "

Because the LW did not have a heavy bomber. Because the Allies did not have anything to counter the ME-262. But mainly because of the idiots who "gamed" it to death by, for one example, changing sides and augering the limited availability heavy bombers and Me262's etc etc. Not because of any intended arena settings.

Why do you not want DAR"

Repeat: It's INFLIGHT radar. Because that would be more realistic. Period. Not just so sneaky attacks can be made, not just so the unwary can be snuck up on, not to avoid the gang bang or be part of one. I would vote for NO ONFLIGHT RADAR (typed in caps as you seem to keep missing that) for ALL those reasons and much much more. Just as I did in AW three or mnore years ago. A lack of inflight radar doesn't not give anyone a special advantage. It does not favor B&Z over T&B styles. Players do not fly for hours experiencing boredom (well maybe you would). It's simply more realistic. And yes. It might even take a little bit more skill like "keeping your head on a swivel" which is exaclty what WWII Pilots said they had to do constantly.

And to finish. Essentially the main point of your post is out in left field with the accusations and wild suggestion that people are asking AH to be a WWII simulation. "..nothing about simulating WW2 in there at all.

No one has said anything about replicating fighting World War II. No one said we should ask HTC to have players pick sides and fly period matched aircraft. You go off half cocked like this all the time and either badly twist what is said or you outright put words in peoples mouths. Whats the problem?

Myself and several others maintain that we're not using WWII era equipment when it comes to radar and that by using AWACS radar changes the very nature of the aircombat experienced. What we have in the MA right now is more akin to a 1992 "Desert War" arena using simulations of WWII aircraft than anything else.

As to changing AH into what it isn't? I don't see it so much changing AH as trying to lobby for it to remain a sim. It didn't always have the AWACS radar.

Westy

Maverick · « **Reply #27 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:20:00 AM »

Nifty,

I have read the arguments of funked, westy and hblair. I uunderstsand very well when they complain about dot and bar dar in the MA. What I don't understand is why they INSIST that the MA be converted to similar conditions that exist in the CT. All they need to do is to ask that the CT be modified with the strat and plane set that the MA has and they would have the very thing they are lobbying for. In that manner they get what they want and the MA is left alone for the rest of the players.

If they have such a wonderful idea that will revolutionize game play, the CT will fill with players and the MA will see a drastic numbers drop. Frankly, I don't see that happening.

If the real issue was the dar then the CT would already have players in it enjoying the reduced dar irregardless of the strat and capture issue. The major complaint that I have seen is that DAR diminishes their enjoyment of the game. They have an option to help them enjoy it, all they have to do is use it, convince HT there is a REAL interest in it and perhaps get the strat, bombing and capture features added. Until they show the CT is at least potentially viable HT has no reason to waste time changing it. IMO.

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty:
I have come to the conclusion that not one damned person in here listens to the other side's arguments. (ok, that's hyperbole, but still.)

I'll say it again (as I've said in other dar threads, and many others have said it as well), and maybe Mav, Seeker, et al. will read it this time.

The Combat Theater's lack of radar is NOT why it's unpopulated. That's right, the CT vs MA argument has very minimal relevance to the issue of Inflight Dar. If the CT was exactly like the MA with the exception of different radar, arguments of "The CT is empty, so no inflight dar sucks" would be valid.

To say "the CT is setup like you want it, go play there" is also off base. The CT has no strat and no score tracking. It's a dueling arena with historical planesets and reduced radar settings. I don't want that, and I know some of the other proponents of dar changes don't want that either. I'm not going into what I want in the CT, that's not for this thread. All I want to do here is try to get past people using the CT as an argument to keep MA dar like it is. There's little to no relevance, and therefore, no substance in that argument.

K West · « **Reply #28 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:29:00 AM »

"All they need to do is to ask that the CT be modified "

And I for one am. I'm just hoping that one of the two places is changed to be a somewhat realistic place to engage in WWII era aircombat using WWII era equipment. That's why I'm here. I have a passion for WWII aircraft and WWII era aircombat. One I believe is shared by many others. I'm not interested in a chat room based game that's using good fascimiles of WWII aircraft to engage each other with modern combat tools.

Westy

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

lazs1 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:32:00 AM »

sneak up on someone?? I mean, I'll take the kill but it pales next to actually fighting em.

seeker is saying it best. Those who wish to only "sneak up" or "milkrun" are pathetic and a lot of guys who don't even bother to post here simply want to , as seeker says, get into a fight in a reasonable length of time. They also want to know ahead of time how lopsided the fight will be and they want to be close enough to home to get back in a reasonable length of time.

I believe that closer fields and more dar info cut down on milkrunning and dweeby organized gangbangs. they also contribute to large furs between fields rather than the ack hugging and gangbanging that we have now. Less dar would make people even more reluctant to venture out in the wasteland with nothing to look forward to but being gangbanged or a long fruitless flight to and from.

Info you see in the tower is worthless by the time you get to our more than a sector away
enemy fields.

And westy... you are forgetting that a radio operator was giving updates and vectors to pilots and that WWII radar easily had as much range as ours. It didn't care who claimed the "territory".
lazs