Revert back to old ditance #s

[Diamax]

I like the old style, do not like at all the new one, no ofense.
The old style it gives you a sense of action, when you are getting closer by or putting distance between you and the plane(s) that you dogfight with.
To see graphics instead of numbers, that idea in my oppinion is the worse.
Just my two cents, didn't mean to be rude to anyone.

[Morpheus]

he must use 2048000 x 1024000... on a 60" lcd...

LOL:D

[senna]

1600x1200 16bit. Now it may seem strange that a con could be in front of you and without any range indicator its quite difficult to judge the range. He might be 200, 500, 700 yards. Has anybody check 200 yards recently, its a god awfull long distance, no wonder it was so difficult to judge an airplanes distance in real life.

[straffo]

200 yard long distance ?

Are you joking ????

[bozon]

Originally posted by senna
1600x1200 16bit. Now it may seem strange that a con could be in front of you and without any range indicator its quite difficult to judge the range. He might be 200, 500, 700 yards. Has anybody check 200 yards recently, its a god awfull long distance, no wonder it was so difficult to judge an airplanes distance in real life.

Have you tried a dogfight or formation flying? People tend to under estimate distances - at least in the air, things appear closer then they are (ask any ATC that passed another traffic close to a plane without warning, what the pilot said the distance was...).

on the screen they just don't appear. they are a dot, then they are blurred bunch of pixels, then suddenly they are a plane, with wings, nose and orientation.
This problem is reduced with higher resolution. I can't get a good FPS with more then 1024x728.

SOME of us need a rough range indication, and a hint for closure rate.

Bozon

edit:
I do agree that the laser range finder is too much. The larger increments in range indication is one solution, Batz's range-bar is a little nicer I think.

[Karnak]

Senna,

Someday I hope we have the hardware to do what you are talking about, but for now what you are asking for is to simulate somebody who should be wearing coke bottle glasses flying and fighting without his glasses.  You are asking to simulate a pilot with such poor vision he probably wouldn't have been accepted into the infantry, let alone the air corp.

[SlapShot]

I have to laugh ...

It doesn't matter what ranging system that HT comes up with :

* current AH II

* old AH I

* fade in - fade out

* slidler bars

*

the majority, if not all the poster in this thread, will adapt to it in a very short amount of time and carry on business as usual.

Everybody thinks that HT is a programmer ... well I believe that he is a software fisherman. He must find the finest hooks and load them with the finest bait, so as to entice, and hook, newcomers to the flight sim genre ... preferably AH ... not discourage them. I am a not an advocate of the "more realistic" approach when it comes to ranging. These eyes have been going full bore for 50 years and they can use all the help they can get.

Whatever the final solution is, it will be alright with me, just as long as there is ranging. It is a must in a 3-d world, being simulated on a 2-D medium.

[Sled]

Lots of people are complaining about the lack of "realism", in one from or another, in AH.
So lets talk some changes to make AH more realistic.

1. no more radar in planes, radar is only available in the tower BEFORE you take off. So look good and remember. In the plane all you get is the map.

2. no more icons, period! No red, no green, maybe the call sine of your friendlys at close range <2K, nothing else. How do you tell friend from foe? let me continue.

3. Two sides. The American, British and Russians vs. the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. (with some sharing of aircraft like bombers) those AC that are shared have a red or green dot at close range, <2k. Now you know who the enemy is. once you ID the AC that is. obviously this part of the plan would have a lot of kinks to work out, but it is workable.

4. One life per 24 hour period, per type of aircraft. This makes people fly like it is REAL. once shot down in a fighter, you can move to buffs, then to Gvs and so on. and when your done, your done for the day. WOW that would make things change!

Obviously I don't expect these changes to take place, but it would be more Realistic!

Does this sound a lot like CT or SE? Good point. If you are looking for more realism, CT and SE are the place to look.

IMHO, The MA is just a big training arena, and that's good! it's the place where all are able to go, and make things blow up! And if you go down? So what! I'll just re-up and try again

Realism is what the CT and SE is for.

[Karnak]

SLED,

That fails "realism" on many points.

It is only "real" if you want to simulate pilots who are legally blind and ineligible to even get drivers licenses.

They had both radar and radio communication in WWII.  Therefore a system that supplies no enemy position data during flight within a reasonable distance of friendly bases is less realistic than a system that provides data.  Heck, in some ways the systems in WWII gave more info than the system in AH.

Giving one life per 24 hours would produce a bunch of timid pilots because in AH there is nothing forcing you to fight, even against bad odds.  In reality there were orders and defense of one's nation pushing one into battle even if it wasn't absolutely favorable.

[Sled]

I said no more Radar in PLANE. Very few planes had radar in WWII. A few night fighters

I didn't say no communication with someone in the tower, who can look at the radar screen. If someone wants to do that and give grid and cord. ok fine.

As far as the 24 hour thing, It's going to make people want to fight in a manor that they can live to return to base. and re-up for another mission. I don't think people would be that timid, after all your life is not really on the line. and you can fly again

I was more trying to make a point than anything else, I don't expect any of this to come to pass.  ( although it might be fun) BUT it is more realistic than current by a wide margin.

This was my point vvvvvv

"Does this sound a lot like CT or SE? Good point. If you are looking for more realism, CT and SE are the place to look."

"IMHO, The MA is just a big training arena, and that's good! it's the place where all are able to go, and make things blow up! And if you go down? So what! I'll just re-up and try again "

About WWII Radar. The only info that WWII radar gave that AH does not was ALT info. But AH does a MUCH better job of locating a target, and tracking it.

[Karnak]

AH does not give speed info or heading info either, nor does it have anything like the range of WWII radar.

[Kweassa]

1. no more radar in planes, radar is only available in the tower BEFORE you take off. So look good and remember. In the plane all you get is the map.

2. no more icons, period! No red, no green, maybe the call sine of your friendlys at close range <2K, nothing else. How do you tell friend from foe? let me continue.

3. Two sides. The American, British and Russians vs. the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. (with some sharing of aircraft like bombers) those AC that are shared have a red or green dot at close range, <2k. Now you know who the enemy is. once you ID the AC that is. obviously this part of the plan would have a lot of kinks to work out, but it is workable.

4. One life per 24 hour period, per type of aircraft. This makes people fly like it is REAL. once shot down in a fighter, you can move to buffs, then to Gvs and so on. and when your done, your done for the day. WOW that would make things change!

 
 SLED, I've tried exactly that in IL2/FB/AEP. As per the result, it sucks.

 Now, it does hold SOME immersive qualities. Bascially, in that environment, what happens to you is exactly what happened in real life. A long long long long long long flight into the void, and them WAMMO! Suddenly, you're dead.

 Obviously, that kind of setting will be valid for gameplay standards only when other factors of aircombat is also implemented:

1) always fly in squads
2) immediate communications and radio transmissions upon enemy contact
3) extremely organized manner of flying

 Which.. obviously IMO, is impossible unless you want to draft everyone playing in the MA into a virtual military and train them, along with a chain of command and threats of reprimandation when orders are not followed.

 ...

 Some of what you mention, may be viable to use in the upcoming ToD mode where people are required to fly as a squad, received basic training, maintain a very basic chain of command and etc etc.. and still, some other aspects should be left out.

 The more practical alternative, like Karnak and Batz have suggested, is to tinker with how the icon system works. Things like:

1. Fade-in/Fade-out according to distance (no instant icon popup as soon as bogey hits a certain range..)

2. range indicator limited, or, an alternative in the form of closure/departure indicator

3. plane-type indicator coming ON/OFF according to distances...

 and etc etc.

 Obviously, AH2 tries method #2, Batz and Karnak suggests a mix of #1 and #2. My personal preference is with 1+2+3.

* icon fade-in upon entering 5.0k yards, fade-out as going outside of 5.0k
* range indicator turned off when target is within 1.0k yards
* plane-type indicator turned on when target is within 2.0k yards

[BlckMgk]

Just have the range system tied in with total Kill Statistics, after 100 kills or so, a pilot is graduated to a more difficult icon system etc.

It should be to difficult to track, and it eliminates having to worry about losing newcomers to a difficult system. Could even given them a firing computer for the first 10 kills (tells them lead etc)

[Batz]

After a quick look at Sled’s (and xSledx) main stats he has a hard enough time as it is in the main flying fighters. I understand where change could intimidate him and folks like that. But no matter what icons / ranger indicators are used it will require a period of adjustment. Folks need time to adjust to the current AH2 icons.

It took time to adjust to AH1 icons. For me it was mostly timing and learning how to react at the correct distances. This relates to the "effective kill range" in AH. Since I re-subbed in AH my hit percentage has dropped to about 10% form a high of around 18. I have trouble hitting things at convergence. I used to fly without a gun site on most planes and without tracers on the 109s when I had 3cm. Now I have both on and still struggle.

I don’t think HT has an interest in making AH's learning curve so tough as to turn away new players.

I have my own agenda in suggesting an alternative to range counters, I hate spray and pray and long range gunnery. I am biased. A quick search of my previous "gunnery" posts will show that.

Even so a range bar will still provide enough info that over time folks would adapt. Having it adjust at 500-yard intervals with a border would give almost the same info as the current AH icons.

Whatever HT goes with it will all work out, folks will adapt and adjust and the game will move on.

[whels]

Originally posted by SLED
I said no more Radar in PLANE. Very few planes had radar in WWII. A few night fighters

I didn't say no communication with someone in the tower, who can look at the radar screen. If someone wants to do that and give grid and cord. ok fine.

About WWII Radar. The only info that WWII radar gave that AH does not was ALT info. But AH does a MUCH better job of locating a target, and tracking it.

RL ww2 radar could give alt, heading, bearing, speed. all we get in AH is position and general heading.  Ground controllers gave thier squadrons alot of info constantly, like our Dar does now.


u gona pay part or all my AH bill to sit in tower to give out info?