Author Topic: AWACS Intercept (Read 5192 times)

K West · « **Reply #30 on:** December 04, 2001, 11:42:00 AM »

Actually Lazs I think that's a very good idea also. Instead of hitting a keypress to bring up an all seeing crystal ball HTC could replicate those radio operators telling us where to go ,over friendly territory, by tuning to a "ChainHome" radio channel where we could "listen" to them (radio text anyway) report realistically. HTC could convert the current ultra-specific radar info into a mainly generalised, foggy position report. Perhaps even toss in the eronious reports due to fog, bad weather, a flock of gulls or malfunctioning vacumn tubes!

Westy

(the random eroniuous report part was a joke)

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

Nifty · « **Reply #31 on:** December 04, 2001, 01:04:00 PM »

Mav, we are asking for that. Have been asking for strat of any sort in the CT since it was introduced. We understood, however, that version 1.08 took precedence so we kept quiet about it for the most part. Pyro has already talked about getting the CT populated, so that is being addressed. Ammo's squad was on when Pyro was in the CT, and strat and scoring were mentioned as what pro-CT folks wanted (I watched Ammo's film. Very good example of using barrel rolls in a 190 to make some P47's overshoot as well as the stuff with Pyro in the text buffer!)

Aside from the CT issues, the MA dar could be improved, IMO. I'd gladly trade IFF, instantaneous positional updates for dots that updated only on time intervals and had altitude information (using color coding more than likely). The sector bars wouldn't change at all, except maybe below 500ft AGL would not show on sector bars until within a certain radius of a friendly base (including ground vehicles).

Now please tell me how my suggestions would preclude anyone from finding the fight? You still have bar counters and you can see where the furball exactly is (including if there are cherry pickers up high, like you TAS types

j/k, I know you guys come down and play low with us!) What you don't get is instantaneous information on which dot on the map is an enemy and which is a friendly. You have to use your eyes for that. As for the gangbangs, if you see the red counter far exceeds the green counter, or vice versa, you know it's a gang bang. You don't need the IFF dots to tell you it's a gang bang.

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

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #32 on:** December 04, 2001, 01:15:00 PM »

So... nightime is OK because bombers really could perform precision bombing of specific ground targets at night.

Clouds with a fixed ceiling are OK as well as storm conditions because it was normal to know exactly how low a bomber had to go to break through the clouds, and to know that it would be the same way when you were precisely over your map indicated target.

Nah... what IS unrealistic is having dot dar.

The original post is loaded so full of unrealistic gameplay features that it is simply hypocrisy to single out dot dar as the end all be all of unrealism in the MA.

Realism does not exist in the MA. Keep the FMs realistic and gunnery realistic. Accept that the rest is just a game and get on with life.

AKDejaVu

funkedup · « **Reply #33 on:** December 04, 2001, 01:49:00 PM »

stupid BS removed

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

Nifty · « **Reply #34 on:** December 04, 2001, 01:53:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
So... nightime is OK because bombers really could perform precision bombing of specific ground targets at night.

Clouds with a fixed ceiling are OK as well as storm conditions because it was normal to know exactly how low a bomber had to go to break through the clouds, and to know that it would be the same way when you were precisely over your map indicated target.

Nah... what IS unrealistic is having dot dar.

The original post is loaded so full of unrealistic gameplay features that it is simply hypocrisy to single out dot dar as the end all be all of unrealism in the MA.

Realism does not exist in the MA. Keep the FMs realistic and gunnery realistic. Accept that the rest is just a game and get on with life.

AKDejaVu

naw, we can't clamor about everything at once. We gotta take babysteps.

Maverick · « **Reply #35 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:09:00 PM »

Funked,

Did you bother to read your own post that you started this thread with? It was nothing but a complaint about dar. WTF is wrong with YOU?!?!?!

Your whole post was about the MA and the encounter you had with a buff with a lack f SA that you were able to shoot down due to the presence of dot dar.

Now if you can't keep it simple and civil kindly go take a valium and sit in the corner. Please note I have NOT tried to make this personal but you obviously can't handle rebuttal.

funkedup · « **Reply #36 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:19:00 PM »

stupid stuff removed

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

K West · « **Reply #37 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:20:00 PM »

"Now if you can't keep it simple and civil kindly go take a valium and sit in the corner"

I think it would help if you would fully read what people right or stop pressing buttons deliberately.

Westy

lazs1 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:32:00 PM »

I don't know exactly what funked's point was but he did say that he thought that knowing where a con was and being able to fly by an artificail horizon was pretty silly in a WWII game.

I would have to disagree I can (please don't make me cause it takes forever) show several examples in WWII of guys being vectored onto cons... coming out of cloud cover and there the con was. It really was not all that amazing.

Besides... as deja points out.. to pick the one element, dar (act that you are looking at a map instead of hearing a voice) as being unrealistic.... Whith so many other elements that were far more unrealistic in his story... to pick the dar out is simply having an agenda. surely, the other elements were far more gamey/comprimised?
lazs

funkedup · « **Reply #39 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:34:00 PM »

PS Mav please be careful when you attribute statements to someone.

*Edit* Unwarranted accusation removed.

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

funkedup · « **Reply #40 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:43:00 PM »

My statement from the other AWACS thread:

Quote

funkedup
Member
Member # 3750
Member Rated:

posted 11-29-2001 03:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW Everybody read my first post again. I'd like to see revised and more realistic radar in the MA. But I'm not insisting on it. If it's really going to spoil the fun of a lot of people, then don't change the MA. If HTC could set up a viable alternative to the MA (something the CT is not) with more realistic settings I would be all for it.
However I do think that the predictions of doom for an AWACS-free MA are a bit overmodeled.

Maverick · « **Reply #41 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:46:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup:
Maverick the simple fact is that this statement is a lie:

Your statement above is false. I have not insisted that the MA be made similar to the CT. In fact I have been asking for the CT to be made more similar to the MA. I went out of my way to make this clear to you in the other AWACS thread.

You can make all the rebuttals you want. I don't have any problem with that. In fact I often enjoy it, and learn from it.

But when you use my name and tell lies about what I have said, I have a problem with that. You are crossing the line. If someone did something like that to me in real life, there would be some unpleasant consequences. So please stop.

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

Funked, here are just a couple of posts you made talking about the MA and the dar situation.

Under time to do away with the AWACS Datalink

posted 11-26-2001 07:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely with the MA this crowded there wouldn't be a problem "finding the fight"?
Maybe for 1.09 HTC can program the ability to disable radar in flight while keeping it enabled in the tower. If not for the MA, at least for special events and the Combat Theatre.

The other night on the Uterus the Knitrook were ganging us again. With 15 or so Knights over A1 I decided to go hunting in my Mustang III. I went over the cloud cover and saw nothing there. But there were dots showing on the AWACS datalink. And one of them was cruising straight for A1. So I left the clipboard up and followed the dot. Right as I got behind him and our dots merged, I dove through the cloud. He was about 700 yards in front of me. I ducked under his tail, closed to 250 yards, pulled up maybe 10 degrees, and destroyed him, then zoomed up over the cloud. Total exposure and visual contact was about 10 seconds. I did this again later against a bandit who was maneuvering (apparently to line up a dive bombing run). I intercepted a third bandit in this fashion, but he saw me at the last minute and broke. I zoomed up over the clouds, used AWACS to locate him again, and dove under and splashed him.
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?

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Now I can't see how I lied about your wanting to change the dar in the MA.

BTW I did state that there was more than just you calling for changes in the MA.

FWIW, I am not trying to stymie any changes in the MA. I am not trying to tell you you can't have what you want in the game. I am just trying to present a differing point of view about the conditions in the MA that you have posted about: ie. the dar.

I am all for having the CT brought up to a full game play status so you can have what you want and those of us who choose to do so can have what we want in the MA. I see that as a win win here. Making the CT a viable alternative is a way to please more than one group of players. As it is now, and as I have noted, it is not fully comparable without an expanded plane set, strat and capture. Map rotation should happen the same as the MA. I see no reason why the SAME maps can't be used.

In some ways we have ben arguing for the same damn thing.

Now after all the crap I have taken about it I will stop posting here about it.

aac · « **Reply #42 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:55:00 PM »

Evening all
First of all let me let you know that I am just an average person with below average combat flight skills, and I know that. The only thing I have gotten good at in this game is flying the goon and resupplying the bases the the bishops keep getting knocked down and the city that keeps getting bombed.
I say that to say this, I have read this board ever since I found out about this game and have learned a lot in the past three months; and it is my opinion (and only MY opinion) that the DAR is a help to the newbies like myself. All of you top 100 pilots probably don't need the DAR and don't want it. I on the other hand do like it and need it to be able to try and contribute something to the game as I {SUCK} in a fighter try as hard as I do and I spend a lot of time on line in this game as evidenced by the 80 hours, 196 hours, and 188 hours in the past 2 and a half months. If you notice there is a large number of registered members that read and learn on this board but don't want to post either for fear of being flamed or because of being timid; however, I think (just as an average guy)that if they spoke up they would all want to keep the MA just as it is.

Those of us that don't have ya'lls experience and skills need the DAR and to be quite honest about it most of us are at a disadvantage when it goes down due to the headquarters being bombed.

This is only my opinion.

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: all american chickenman ]

funkedup · « **Reply #43 on:** December 04, 2001, 02:59:00 PM »

Mav don't stop posting. You have a right to say your opinion about the radar.

Nifty · « **Reply #44 on:** December 04, 2001, 03:19:00 PM »

Lazs, of course proponents of the dar change have an agenda. It's to get the dar changed. You have an agenda too, to be able to find a fight and furball until your heart is content.

BTW (also for Deja), I've voiced my opinion on night, I'd really like better cloud implementation, and I know you've seen me talk about fluff changes, as I'm pretty sure you've replied to a post or two of mine on the subject. However, those topics aren't as relevant to this thread, as realistic clouds wouldn't change the fact that the existing radar would still guide you right to dot (well, not to the right altitude of course). Precision bombing at night? Funked didn't even mention a level bomber; the only mention of bombing was in relation to dive bombing.

I do see your points in that we are singling something out. Yes we are in this thread. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with devoting a thread to one specific topic of the game.