Author Topic: + or -  (Read 3255 times)

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
+ or -
« Reply #105 on: June 28, 2004, 05:52:03 PM »
Geesh I was talking about spray and pray and just checked mine own hit %.

198 kills and hit % at .447? lol wtf is up with that?

It would appear I am the world's biggest hypocrit or hit % is still porked :p

I prefer the later.

I been flying the a8 a bit, normally I am a 109 tard. I mostly take 2 cannon on all the 190s and 1 on the 109.

Anyway,

Mugz,

Do you have anything in your "squads"         folder? HT has said that this may cause a CTD.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2004, 06:17:30 PM by Wotan »

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
+ or -
« Reply #106 on: June 28, 2004, 06:28:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by FDutchmn
what's this?  we going around in circles?  it was an attempt to make things for the better.  Whether that was better or worse is for you to see.

So, let me ask you this... what is wrong with what we have at the moment that you don't like?

Very fair question. And refreshing i might add. With the inherent warps and micro warps of any online massive multi player game...a more finite incremental range icon is needed to compensate for those situations where some one is warping a smidge. After all it is a game of timeing. Sometimes the gain or loss of an earned advantage against a formadable opponent is within that fraction of a second.
The old icon range counter better compensated for this.
Please note. I have explained in several forums that i would love the NME Icons removed completely.
This seems contradictory. But it isnt actually. We have come to depend on range counter icons. Now they are altered and must be relearned again. This would be a perfect time to remove the ICONS because we have to re-train our eyes anyways. But thats another story for another day. After reading steve and Slaps replies. I see where this could be a bad move for the old chaps. :D
PS. Im certian that im going to hear the ol..."Human eye can only see_______" so much. But anyone who is in tune with their fighter and have experienced this knows exactally what i am talking about. You can feel or sense the warps that are just barely visable.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2004, 06:35:26 PM by Mugzeee »

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
+ or -
« Reply #107 on: June 28, 2004, 06:37:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wotan
Geesh I was talking about spray and pray and just checked mine own hit %.

198 kills and hit % at .447? lol wtf is up with that?

It would appear I am the world's biggest hypocrit or hit % is still porked :p

I prefer the later.

I been flying the a8 a bit, normally I am a 109 tard. I mostly take 2 cannon on all the 190s and 1 on the 109.

Anyway,

Mugz,

Do you have anything in your "squads"         folder? HT has said that this may cause a CTD.

No.

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
+ or -
« Reply #108 on: June 28, 2004, 06:37:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wotan
Geesh I was talking about spray and pray and just checked mine own hit %.

198 kills and hit % at .447? lol wtf is up with that?

It would appear I am the world's biggest hypocrit or hit % is still porked :p

I prefer the later.

I been flying the a8 a bit, normally I am a 109 tard. I mostly take 2 cannon on all the 190s and 1 on the 109.

Anyway,

Mugz,

Do you have anything in your "squads"         folder? HT has said that this may cause a CTD.

No.

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
+ or -
« Reply #109 on: June 28, 2004, 06:40:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wotan
Anyway,

Mugz,

Do you have anything in your "squads"         folder? HT has said that this may cause a CTD.

No

Offline FDutchmn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
+ or -
« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2004, 11:04:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Very fair question. And refreshing i might add. With the inherent warps and micro warps of any online massive multi player game...a more finite incremental range icon is needed to compensate for those situations where some one is warping a smidge. After all it is a game of timeing. Sometimes the gain or loss of an earned advantage against a formadable opponent is within that fraction of a second.
The old icon range counter better compensated for this.
Please note. I have explained in several forums that i would love the NME Icons removed completely.
This seems contradictory. But it isnt actually. We have come to depend on range counter icons. Now they are altered and must be relearned again. This would be a perfect time to remove the ICONS because we have to re-train our eyes anyways. But thats another story for another day. After reading steve and Slaps replies. I see where this could be a bad move for the old chaps. :D
PS. Im certian that im going to hear the ol..."Human eye can only see_______" so much. But anyone who is in tune with their fighter and have experienced this knows exactally what i am talking about. You can feel or sense the warps that are just barely visable.


Ahhh now we are getting the bottom of it. :)  It's your taste of how things should be and not to question whether HTC has a development policy or not (of which I knew all this time).

If my "perceived" explanation of how things are turning at HTC made you feel better, then I did my task. :)  If it didn't, well, I did my task anyway. :D

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
+ or -
« Reply #111 on: June 29, 2004, 12:07:34 AM »
Quote
In RL, objects seen are much more clearer and in more detail than we could ever reproduce on our setups. With the extra detail, one could easily discern the front of the plane and the back of the plane, leading to an assumption of closure or separation.


 Doesn't matter.

 The smallest of detail levels which the computer cannot produce, is also impossible to perceive with human eyes. Assuming a steady gain on a certain square shaped target out at 1000 yards, when he closes in to 900 yards the difference in size which shrinks to indicate closure is barely 1mm for each sides. The total decrease in relative area of the "picture" we get is less than 10% and is almost impossible to perceive.

 The more sensitive people with better eyesight get a "feeling" of closure, but even they cannot confirm it and must wait until the target closes even more, and then compare the latest perceived size of the total area, with the one he's seen few seconds ago which was at 1000 yards, to be sure of anything.

 Many people in real life, despite the physical shortcomings of a human eye, confirm that a physical object is closing or departing by means of logic, rather than actual physical confirmation.

 In short, they think to themselves, "oh that target is closing in", and in most cases it turns out true - but not because their eyes have confirmed it, but because their sense of logic has deduced the results according to the situation he was left in.

 When there aren't enough visual cues or relative background objects to confirm such facts, people make mistakes in judging distance and closure/departure all the time. And even when the distance is not so far out.

  Studies concerned with accidents in road crossings indicate a much higher rate in typical rural road crossings or rural highways, contrary to the belief that the city areas will have more accidents with pedestrians crossing roads. The reason is tracked down to the roads in rural areas are laid down straight in the midst of large, empty flatlands, which there are no visual cues to compare the closing automobile with the background to get a sense of closure. In this situation, people about to run across a road observes an incoming car some tens of yards away, think that the closing car is far away enough for him to run across the road, and then it turns out wrong and they get run over.

 Same thing with animals with much quicker reflexes than humans - some people say deers and racoons and such nocturnal animals are run over while crossing roads because they are 'tranced' by the lights, but its simply not true. They simply misjudged distance, and couldn't react in time.


Quote
I drive a blind guy to work on occasion. Next time I will ask him if he can tell me the range to the exit sign using time, memory, and logic.


 You don't understand.

 By time, memory and logic, I mean that people react to their environment by "assuming" a theory inside their minds, before any objective observation is made out. They deal out the situation and distance - in case of air combat, people watch on object, and then they assume by according to their position and situation whence the battle started. Then they confirm their own 'assumption' whether a target is closing or departing by observing it for an extended time. Sense of distance and closure/departure, doesn't come at a glance.

 That was the case with 200 yard increments opposed to what we had before in AH1. People see an enemy plane, and then they observe for2~3 seconds whether it changes or not. Not so with the +/- indicator - it gives out relative E states at a glance.  


Quote
Then as I suggested before, lets ask HT if he can add the + - thingy to the CNTRL-I switch and you can turn it off. Don't presume for an instant that what you think is needed or not needed will suffice for some one elses enjoyment of this game. This + - thingy in totality is not a big deal, but some must make mountains out of mole hills.


 Such info directly concerning combat should not be of choice. The problem is the +/- indicator gives out information impossible to perceive at a glance. The 200 yards 'tick' was cleverly timed in that it took about as long to figure out distance changes as in real life, without providing any more info. The +/- indicator is excessive info which makes flying and fighting much easier than it should be, typically beneficial for one's SA. If such a system is to be maintained or discared it should be on an overall scale - not local.

 If it is indeed to be discarded, then noone should use it.

 A better alternative, would be making one able to cycle through icon modes, so one offers us yard increments, and another one gets rid of the yard increments and uses only the +/-. Then that, would be a fair deal.


Quote
Refuted ... so what. Cause its been refuted doesn't make it a real. The computers that we have CANNOT handle 3D environments like the real life. Refute till your blue in the face, its still true.


 But unfortunately in this case, it is real.

 People misjudged distances all the time in real life. That's why they needed to get in close to shoot at stuff, get into ranges which they cannot mistake, by comparing the target in front of them with visuals cues such as the gunsights.

 When targets were further off, then effectively people would have no way of confirming if it was 1000 yards or 1500 yards out. The only thing they would know is how much the target grew or shrank in size over a certain given time(not at a glance, mind you), and how fast that happened. By that they would judge, upon relativity.


Quote
Generally ? ... rule of thumb ? ... usually tend to make very weak points in a discussion. I don't accept those conditions or conjecture. You need something more solid and my eyes to believe it.


 Because a stronger point is not required in this case. Its true computers cannot depict every millimeter of detail - and thats why we have, and should have icons on.

 This point proves itself when playing other games like FB/AEP which boasts probably the best visual quality overall in any kind of commercial  flightsim game upto date - even with such high standards in graphics spotting out enemies far off, is a bit*h.

 So, we have icons - plane/country indicators, and also distance indicators, which changes in 200 yard increments. For the reasons explained above, juding relative E-states is more than possible - provided that you observed the target for more than just a single glance, and can reason its relative E-status to your own plane, based on your knowledge of how fast the range counters dropped from 1000 to 800 to 600 to 400. As long as you have that knowledge, the +/- indicators are not needed.

 If you weren't observing the changes, and you suddenly see an enemy plane nearby, then there's no way of knowing whether the enemy is closing in real fast, or you are able to pull away and escape - you have to observe it from there how things are, and that may be too late for you... And that's how it should be.

 

 I'm not saying those who can't get used to the system is stupid or anything. I'm saying what it was before the +/- increments made sense.

 It's undeniable that the range increments as in AH1, or what we have now with the +/- indicators make fighting easier. In AH1, it didn't matter when you saw the enemy plane, or you whether or not you were paying attention. As long as you spot it out before 1000 yards it'd take less than 1 second to figure out what the relative E state was, and deal out the best cards you have to whether to try a reversal, try to run, or to just evade.

 Not so in AH2, and I don't find it unreasonable that people have major gripes in that suddenly they can't time their moves, or aim the way they used to as before.

 But that's the natural thing to be, and the thing it should be.

Offline Hajo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6038
+ or -
« Reply #112 on: June 29, 2004, 06:55:14 AM »
Addressing the +/-  debate.

Doesn't matter to me.....In my years of online flight sim gaming I relied on the size of the icon.  I can zoom in to get a feel if icon is going away from or towards me etc. When I finally do obtain a firing solution...I judge that by how much of the aircraft fills the gunsight...then I'll fire.

Now....I do believe that this debate may be fueled by each machines graphic setup and vid mem usage.  I don't think AH2 is at it's pinnacle as far as video performance goes.  Many different cards out there....chipsets, vidmem. etc.

I have a Radeon9800 Pro....and guess what....my vid mem eventually equals the amount of vid mem used.  I might start game say at 70 vidmem used, but after flying awhile it creeps up to match the vidmem of my card.  Totally used.  This eventually leads to a ctd....usually suffered in a large multiplane engagement.

In closing (finally)  methinks that we can't really understand why someone might have an issue with in the +/- debate...mainly because of the wide variety of vid configs in the game, and the variety of machine setups involved.

Just my opinion.
- The Flying Circus -

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
+ or -
« Reply #113 on: June 29, 2004, 09:09:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa

Kweesa's Wall 'O Text ...  :D



Are you a lawyer by any chance ? Cause you can really lay it on thick so that the real issue is smothered by a mountain of facts that really have no teeth. If situations, such as you have described, are so difficult to judge in RL, then that would only bolster the fact that similar situations displayed on a 2D image would need more indicators to aid in making decisions.

HiTech and Aces High will NEVER be able to duplicate, on a computer monitor, what I can see in RL. I know it, you know it, and so does everybody else know it.

The bottom line is that myself and others who have a hard time focusing on the pixels (especially against these backgrounds) really need some sort of indicator of closure/separation at certain points of this game to make it ENJOYABLE and PLAYABLE.

I don't need no stinkin' crutch and I don't consider this a crutch. If HT was to take this away, I will deal with it. I won't stamp my feet on the ground and threaten to quit or insult him.

If he keeps it, I don't really think the Aces High will receive a "black eye", and in time, discussions such as this will fade away.

Right now, it's the "realism" junkies who feel the need to pressure HT at this point in development to make things "more real". Thats good up to a certain point and on certain aspects of this game, but when it comes to sacraficing real and phsyical handicaps for "realsim", then things have gone in the wrong direction.

The mere fact that HT even released this tells me that he, or someone on the HTC staff, or someone that he trusts, has the same problem as myself and others. If HT didn't believe that this was needed, I fail to believe that he would put this out for the masses to see. Once you release something like this to the masses, it is very hard to take it back ... that is why a lot of thought must have been put into releasing this.

Does this + - indicator really ruin the total experience for you while flying Aces High ? any more than it did with the old icon yardage indicators ?

Again, a mountain is being made out of a molehill on this. Move on and find something else "real" to change/add.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Edbert

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
      • http://www.edbert.net
+ or -
« Reply #114 on: June 29, 2004, 12:41:31 PM »
Many of the most skilled fighter pilots in WWII had EXTREMELY good eyesight. It was a distinct advantage in combat over a pilot who only had good eyesight. It makes me wonder why I should not also benefit in the virtual skies from my above average eyesight. Mine even at age 40 is still 20-10, better than half of the USAAF in 1943.

I wonder that until I take it full measure and realize what my overall physiology is now compared to that a 24 year old WWII fighter pilot in 1943. I fear what would happen to me at 5Gs, or even 3 Gs for any sustained period. I know for a fact that there are F15E jocks who play this game that would clean my clock if my physical limitations came into play.

The only point being that this game needs to have the playing field evened out for those with beer bellies or those have poor eyesight, or even those in wheelchairs. I'd still throw my vote in for the old beta style range counters because I thought it more realistic (that you have to watch a con for 3 seconds rather than 1/2 second to determine closure rates at 2 miles distance) but will accept the new method as well in the interest of fairness and eliminating the physical barriers of RL in relation to our virtual skies.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
+ or -
« Reply #115 on: June 29, 2004, 01:51:24 PM »
dbl
« Last Edit: June 29, 2004, 02:09:20 PM by Charon »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
+ or -
« Reply #116 on: June 29, 2004, 02:07:11 PM »
Quote
Yes I have done more than enough to make sure my machine is running clean and smooth. I am very PC literate.



Sounds like your machine should be pretty clean. The only reason I rasied the point is that some people are complaining and then you find out they are running IM in the background, or something like that.

You can never be too sure though. I am pretty careful about attachments, etc. and i run antivirus and adaware and update the definitions, use mozilla -- but today I discovered I picked up a "win32:inservice trojan" on my work machine. Now, my version of Nortons is a bit outdated (the engine), and even with updated definitions it just didn't catch it apparently. Though I don't open strange attachments, it might have got in through an "install plugin" type of thing. My machine has been functional but a little buggy (slow at times, occasional lockups, minor odd stuff) for the last two months, and I assumed it was due to corruption from one of the sharware video editors I had tried and uninstalled recently (maybe even where I got the trojan).

I would never have found the true cause (all the scans showed negative) except that I received a bounced email that I know I didn't send, and did some google searches using some of the limited clear text in the email. Once discovered, even some of the latest"cleaners" couldn't find it when scanning. I finally downloaded AVAST antivirus and that's taking care of it. I would have fixed it though with my fresh reformat/install planned for next weekend, but been none the wiser.

Charon

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
+ or -
« Reply #117 on: June 29, 2004, 06:04:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Many of the most skilled fighter pilots in WWII had EXTREMELY good eyesight. It was a distinct advantage in combat over a pilot who only had good eyesight. It makes me wonder why I should not also benefit in the virtual skies from my above average eyesight. Mine even at age 40 is still 20-10, better than half of the USAAF in 1943.

I wonder that until I take it full measure and realize what my overall physiology is now compared to that a 24 year old WWII fighter pilot in 1943. I fear what would happen to me at 5Gs, or even 3 Gs for any sustained period. I know for a fact that there are F15E jocks who play this game that would clean my clock if my physical limitations came into play.

The only point being that this game needs to have the playing field evened out for those with beer bellies or those have poor eyesight, or even those in wheelchairs. I'd still throw my vote in for the old beta style range counters because I thought it more realistic (that you have to watch a con for 3 seconds rather than 1/2 second to determine closure rates at 2 miles distance) but will accept the new method as well in the interest of fairness and eliminating the physical barriers of RL in relation to our virtual skies.


Your a good man Edbert. Someone who can see the forest thru the trees.

<>
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
+ or -
« Reply #118 on: June 29, 2004, 06:21:52 PM »
Quote
The only point being that this game needs to have the playing field evened out for those with beer bellies or those have poor eyesight, or even those in wheelchairs.
Everyone pitch in and we'll get slap a seeing eye dog.  :D   Teach him to bark once to break right, twice to break left and three times to pull the trigger.:D

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
+ or -
« Reply #119 on: June 29, 2004, 06:32:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Morph...:D
BTW...whats this...you back burnnered AH2?
Cant blame ya. I would have done the same. First i didnt have too. The game is doing it for me. 6CDTs in an hour last sat. I cringe at the thought of even saying it out loud here. you know. The suggestions of the obvious and the "You need another upgrade" thing. Before patch 2 no trouble. Now with the last 2 patches CTD galor...weird eh? As you know...i have a AH ONLY PC. Nothing runs in the background ect. Nothing has changed on my end. Just awaiting the next patch to see what happens.
Secondly i have a commitment to the squad and i will be in the tower on squad nights from now till the patch me up.


Yep MugZ, taking a long extended posibly forever break...

I built a completly new box to run AH2 along with a few other on line games but my home was AH for 2+ years. Its not that I can't run AH2, I just dont want to. Nothings fun for me in it anymore and there are just too many things that anoy the crap out of me that its just not worth my time playing it to get anoyed...

People like soupboy for instance. Who puff out their chest and make weak attempts to belittle others. Who would rather see the game turned into MS Flight Sim than remain the Aces High its always been. Nah, not worth the time nor the agrivation.

I will still keep my account in support of HTC and helping them to grow... But my playing days have come to an end for a long time to come...

It was fun while it lasted... And I'm sure it'll be fun again... Just not any time soon for me.

If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!