Plane Icons

[Minotaur]

hblair;

   

I understand that reducing icons scares the holy hell out of people like Minotaur, vermillion, kjb, etc. Please don't panic. I'm sure your neon won't get trashed.

How the heck did you mangage to infer this?
Did you read something that was not written?
Are you exagerating just a tad to make your position more viable?

Advice -->  PULL UP!   PULL UP!    

This topic of discussion is not new.  In fact, this topic ranks high on the list of threads that seem to renew themselves often.  

MarkVZ wanted to get his ideas across and he did.  He started this thread to do so.  
He made very good arguements and stated his position well.  

I wanted to get my ideas across and I did.  Verm and KJB did the same.  

Exactly, what ideas did you want to get across?  That you are a "Purist" (whatever that is).  That you don't like ICONS in AH.  That you think players, who consider AH to be a game that does not approach reality, are "Wussies".  That you don't know much about AW.  That you take a drink once in awhile and spout off.  That you had a wild hair irritating your backside and wanted to flame someone, because they do not hold your opinion.

Sadly, MarkVZ is correct.  I'm not sure why so many threads have to go down in flames.  It is certainly discouraging.  

Wait for the next ICON thread,  you can flame me again....      

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 01-08-2000).]

[Vermillion]

Scares Me?? Not even close... LOL !!

I have flown in every icon/DAR/Radar setting that has ever been tried in AirWarrior or Warbirds, be it the main, the HA, Scenario Lites, Warnights, and Scenario's. And I have done well in each of them.

I am all for some of the improvements that Mino and some others have asked for, especially given our AW style inflight radar (which I don't like).

Plane type and distance numbers not appearing till at half the normal distances, otherwise a simple red threat icon.

No icons at all till half the distance if under DAR (with the same 50% of the 50% as above).

Reducing the size of the font and the position of the Icon.

Time Delays in appearance of icon in a view based on distance.

Hell.. I am all for those tweaks.

But I will NEVER advocate such an extreme system as is found in the WB's Historical Arena. Period.

I find it boring, dry, personally annoying, with extremely poor attendance by the pilots who constantly tout the superiority of the system.

And the funniest part is for a "Historical Arena", it has some of the most ridiculous ahistorical tactics I have ever seen.  Because monitors just DO NOT have the ability to compensate for normal vision.

Just go drink another beer and we'll talk about it after the hangover  

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[hblair]

hmm, I riled you boys up huh? hehe.

Minotaur you really oughta fly WB's before you have much of an opinion on anything in an online flight simm. And before you guys slam me (   ) Who do you think the lead programmer and producer were in WB's? Why did AW not win Flight simm of the year 3 years in a row? My point is not to slam AW, but to show you that maybe you don't have much of a foundation to base your flight simm philosophy.  

verm--, I've heard your name before, but don't think I've ever seen you in an arena, and I KNOW you ain't been in the HA lately. As a matter of fact, your handle doesn't register a score? Maybe I put it in wrong or something.

This is my first time being a Bulletin Board bad boy. Am I doing good?   >burp<    

Have a nice day fellas.  

[Vermillion]

Nope, my handle won't register a score in WB's right now, since I haven't flown a single sortie there since probably late October, early November.

I got tired of the piss poor connects, and the lack of development. I still have my account, but its just holding my handle and thats it.

Has the HA changed it some manner lately that would change my opinon?   Still follow AGW, but I might have missed something.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[Minotaur]

hblair;

 

Minotaur you really oughta fly WB's before you have much of an opinion on anything in an online flight simm.

Are you asking me if I ever played WB?  

 

And before you guys slam me ( (Image removed from quote.))

My apologies, I don't believe that I "Slammed" you.  In fact my "Slam Engine" did not even come off idle.  

 

Who do you think the lead programmer and producer were in WB's?

Duh....  Is this a 1 point bonus question?

 

Why did AW not win Flight simm of the year 3 years in a row?

Maybe because the FM is based on an engine that is 10 years old?

 

My point is not to slam AW, but to show you that maybe you don't have much of a foundation to base your flight simm philosophy.  (Image removed from quote.)

This comment provides me some amusement.  Please justify this statement by answering these questions.

How much really, do the plane graphics in AW differ from WB, or from AH?

How many major changes in technology have been developed, in the display of plane graphics, on computer CRT's from AW to AH?

How well do computer CRT's display artifacts, compared to that which is seen by the human eye in the real world?

How does this pertain to my opinion about having or not having plane ICONS?  


Real Air Combat amounts to 95% boredom (or more) and 5% terror (or less).  This is what I have read, pesonally I have never been in Air Combat.  

AH is a flight sim game about ACM.  I would rather it be a game with 75% excitment and 25% boredom (or less).  ICONS encouraging and attracting engagement.  Than 25% excitment and 75% boredom(or more).  Players spending most of their time hunting down opponents.

Personally, I would play AH with or without ICONS if the game stays exciting.

But.....

For any game, existing in the real world or only computor generated, I lean towards finding excitement in the game.  I lean away from finding boredom.  This is my philosophy about flight sim games.

Mino

[Toad]

This is indeed an old discussion.

When we say that "currently technology/programming cannot afford realistic visual cues", I think that statement needs to be modified with "as currently implemented". For example, Zoom features do help give better visual cues albeit at the expense of Field Of View.(Not that I think Zoom is the answer.)

I think the problem is that no one is willing to "think outside the box." Almost every Sim that comes out, on-line and off-line types, uses pretty much the same techniques for visual cues and view options. This is probably the prudent way to market a Sim; take few risks of non-acceptance.

I'd love to see some company go ahead and try some new things. Many of the proposals in this and other threads merit a chance, IMHO. Unfortunately we run up against the problem of money. Programming has to be done by people that get paid. Sifting through 50 ideas to find 2 that are an improvement is going to cost a wad of programming time that the Firm might wish to spend on more productive revenue producing projects (hey, let's give everyone the 262 they've been asking for!).

I don't have all the answers, for sure. I pretty much hate icons they way the 3 major online sims use them. I think we could get somewhat closer to a RL plane ID situation if it became a major issue.

I just don't think that's going to happen. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the anti-icon wheel just isn't that loud yet <G>.

[jarbo]

RA,
On both points 1 & 2 I agree 100%
Icons in some form are necessary to simulate normal depth perception.  

You are right on the money with an Icon delay setting.  It would simulate a pilot thoroughly scanning a given view window.

Great Ideas!

Jarbo
of the Buccaneers

[hblair]

Quote Minotaur:

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe because the FM is based on an engine that is 10 years old?"
------------------------------------------------------------------

Good boy, You're getting a clue now.  

You sure do seem to put a lot of effort in your replys.

BTW, other than AW & AH, what simms have you flown?

Great post, toad.

[Minotaur]

hblair;

   

BTW, other than AW & AH, what simms have you flown?

I have a shelf full of box sims.

I got hooked on flight sims, really bad, with a game called "Jetfighter" for the Amiga ($2,000 for the Amiga 1000 dead horse MF).  Pretty awesome flight sim for its day.

Then came Falcon 3.0 (Ouch - $4,000 for a computer that would run it).  

YahDah YahDah YahDah...

My latest (but so buggy) sim love was Falcon 4.0, but I grew tired of "Flying the Radar MFD".  

The last WW2 flight sim I purchased was EAW. I did not really care for it.  WW2 sims, flying against human AI, is what I now crave.  Along with sex and golf.    

I live in a small isolated community.  Please forgive me for seeming so "Backwardish".  I really am trying to catch up!

     

"Maybe because the FM is based on an engine that is 10 years old?"

Good boy, You're getting a clue now.      (Image removed from quote.)

What does FM have to do with ICONS?

     

Who do you think the lead programmer and producer were in WB's?

If the lead programmer and producer of AH were also the lead programmer and producer of WB, why are the ICONS on for default?


BTW are you aware that in AH, ICONS can be turned off?  Pretty cool in the clouds or ground clutter, can't see a thing.  Have you have tried it?  

The next time you do, try to see at what range, you can distinguish, a non-multi engine plane type.  I am terrible at it.  I usually can tell inside of 400yds, closer to 300yds, what plane type it is.  Unless I get an above or below siloette.  The markings don't become apperent till under 200yds.

If "No ICONS" is what you want,  then I honestly hope that option is available to you in the future.  The good news is that "If it's in the Game, Then it's in the Game" and it's in the game.  You may very well get your wish.

Good Luck!      

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 01-11-2000).]

[Maniac]

Atleast get rid of the range indicator and keep the plane type. .

// -nr-1-

[Downtown]

Would like to see this thread return to the discussion on ICONS instead of AW -vs- WB Pilots and who is flaming who.

As I said, freindly only Icons should be necessary.  So you don't shoot friendlies.

As to advesarial Icons, well, we know RED is the Enemy, whether they are Knights or Bishops, If I don't see an Icon I will shoot them down.

If you pick and choose who you attack based on the Plane Type Icon you are definetly using a tactic not available to WWII Pilots, I would love nothing better than to only attack C-47s, but then I wouldn't fly much Air Combat would I.

It shouldn't matter that you are attacking a Nick from a distance any more than you are attacking a pony from distance.  As soon as I see I dot, I start trying to get an altitude advantage.  If I know that I can't get the alt advantage, I run away.  SOmetimes it was a pony or 190 and the run me down, sometimes its a spit and I run away successfully.  I don't need icons to tell me this.

The reason I posted that Icon's should be disabled below dar is, for the C-47s, they fly low and slow, and are unarmed, and probably 99.999999% of them are killed because someone sees their Icon from 6000 yards and can kill them.  Think how many more C-47s would get through if you really had to hunt them.  Think what it would add to the game.  Also folks sometimes land near a field under contention, and are often found because of their icons.  If they were under dar, this would pretty much stop also.  In a low furball it wouldn't matter cause you would probably be close.

I would still leave freindly Icon's on Under Dar to avoid Kill SHooter Problems.

Regardless of any changes the ICONS are JUST TOO DAMN BIG.

------------------
Lincoln "Downtown" Brown.
 lkbrown1@tir.com
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1
Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Hals und beinbruch!

[hblair]

Downtown, I think you have similar things in mind to what I have. I don't mean to come across as an a*shole, but if the icons were at least turned down, some people would be surprised how much more fun the game would be.

I'm not gonna respond to minotaur anymore,  except to say that if he will download WB's, I'll let him fly in the HA with my username for one night, to let him see what I'm talking about (will cost me $). He may or may not like it, but he will see where I'm coming from.

[Minotaur]

Downtown;

I agree I wanted this to be a ICONS thread.  I certainly did not bring up any AW, WB or AH comparisons.  Thanks for your moderating statements.

hblair

 

I'm not gonna respond to minotaur anymore

GeeWilickers...  Did you ever once, respond to me?

More like, you just settled upon trying to belittle me and couldn't.  IMO you just "Wussied Out".  

If you lose that "My Opinion is Better Than Yours" attitude, we might actually have a constructive discussion some time in the future.  <Salute>

Mino

[popeye]

Heh.  The old icon (cough) debate.  

Personally, I LIKE icons.  I play to try to out maneuver and out shoot the other guy, not to spend my time peering at a CRT.  And I like AH icons way better than WB, because everyone has the same color, giving no one a (dis)advantage in visibility.

Having said that, I'd try a few of the ideas suggested above:

1.  Reduced range for low altitude planes.  I like sneak attacks.  

2.  Smaller fonts.  In 1024x768 they seem just a bit large.

3.  Time delay variable with range.  Good simulation of RL.

My two cents.

popeye

[MarkVZ]

It always bothered me that a C47, flying 10 feet off the ground, can not take atvantage of it's green color because the instant any cons see the red C47 icon, you may as well bail right then and there, because you probably arent going to make it.  I used to take my 47's up high, like 15K or so, then dive in.  That changed when they introduced structural limits, and you can not lose altitude fast enough for a good drop.  I know it was unrealistic but it was the only was to stay out of reach of cons for a little while.  Maybe if you knock out a country's HQ, it should take the icons with it.  As it sits right now, there's not much reward for the ultra-boring and dangerous buff mission to the HQ that lasts for hours.  Sure it knocks out the radar, but not nearly long enough for any sort of strikes to organize.  Of course killing dar should only take away the con's icons, because you don't want to be shooting friendlies.  Somethine else I would like to see is 5 or so more men in the C47.  I have been in a C47 before and I know it can seat more than 10 men.  If we kept the field capture to 10 men, this would greatly improve the chances of 10 of them getting through.
Some people are probably thinking that this would make the job of a 47 pilot much easier and that they enjoy shooting fish in a barrel, but I can bet that there will be very few willing to fly goon missions once AH goes pay if their job isnt made easier.  I find that over 75% of 47 missions end in failure, (Yeah, what are you supposed to do when some niki dives on you?) and I don't think people want to pay to try to accomplish the impossible.

------------------
Mark VanZwoll
33rd Strike Group