+ or -

[Steve]

Nonsense at 800 yrds you can't tell if the guy is closing at 500 mph or 300mph.

This is nonsense.  If I were a pilot, I'd be abel to learn the difference of 2 closure rates that were 200 MPH apart.  You are kidding both of us if you don't believe this.

[Steve]

But I think you can admit that there is quite a bit of spray.

Yes, you got me there.  and I'm NOT saying the +/- won't help the sprayers... you and I don't think like them so I realyl don't know what their process is when acquiring/firing.

[214thCavalier]

From my point of view the addition of the + / - icon change is a good compromise.

You can all bash each other add infinitum over this, but if HT was content with the laser accurate AH1 icons he would never have experimented with other options.

It does not matter which side of the fence you sit on, its HT's game and it will be the way he wants it.

After playing AH since beta 1, I know HT will consider both sides of all disputes and implement the best option as he see's it.

[Steve]

You can all bash each other add infinitum over this,

It surely wasn't my intent to bash Wotan.  I've flown w/ him once or twice and reallyhad a blast.  I thought we were having a friendly, if spirited debate.  My apologies to everyone, especially Wotan, if I went too far

[Wotan]

Steve,

No I don’t think you bashed me

I was far harsher in my comments then you were to me. But I have given the "kinder gentler" Wotan thing a shot and it sucked so I try to elicit responses with at times harsh and abrasive replies.

But I agree with Cav. I prefer not to have the +\- thingy but HT runs a business and this is a game.

Like the fuel mod issue I will argue a point for a few days then move on.

So we will just disagree on the icons.

[-MZ-]

It doesn't seem to be working right.

Icons stay at - even when you are closing in fast.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by -MZ-
It doesn't seem to be working right.

Icons stay at - even when you are closing in fast.

Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -

[Steve]

Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -


This is what I thought Slapper... didn't post because I figured I missed/misunderstood something.

[Steve]

Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -


This is what I thought Slapper... didn't post because I figured I missed/misunderstood something.

[Steve]

Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -


This is what I thought Slapper... didn't post because I figured I missed/misunderstood something.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Steve
Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -


This is what I thought Slapper... didn't post because I figured I missed/misunderstood something.

Maybe we did !!!! ... you know these old eyeballs of ours can play tricks on us ...  

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Steve
Huh ?

- means closure

+ means separation

So if you are "closing in fast" it should be -
 

Oh, ok.

[Kweassa]

In real life, at 800 yards, one can quickly discern if an object is closing or going away.

 Wrong.

Think about it: If you are on a relatively flat highway and see a semi out in front of you at half a mile and you are closing on the semi at just 50MPH, how long will it take you to realize this?

 Longer than you might think.

If you are honest, you will say almost immediately. The same can be said if the semi is going away at just 50MPH. The back of a semi isn't any larger than the airplanes we are dealing w/ here in this game.

 We're talking about planes in thousand yards of ranges, flying in a void of air without much visual cues. The increase in object size, even in the real world accounts for very small increments of enlargement or shrinking for every 100 yards, and especially if the speed ranges are close in two moving objects. It takes some considerable time to be able to tell relative changes in range.

 So what allows us to tell range when objects are so far away? Time, memory, and logic - not eyesight.

The increase/decrease in visual range changes in increments too small for the human eye to pick out in a second.

 However, after watching the object over extended lengths of time, humans compare with the latest size of the visible object, with the size of the object memorized some time ago. The difference is not so glaring as to judge relative distance in 1 second, but over 5 seconds, 10 seconds and more, the size difference is adequate enough to compare with the last memorized size of the object, and only then he gets a sense of speed and distance.

 The increments of 200 yard simulates that time needed to judge distance. The +/- sign simply adds to it, so we can judge upon instantly on the movement of the target - which, is neither realistic, nor needed as a gameplay instrument.

The 2 dimensional monitors we have are simply unable to simulate real life, 3 dimensional scenarios. The +/- compensates for that.

 No, the yard increments already compensates for that. The +/- are an extra crutch which is not needed.

 The "computers can't handle 3D environment like the real life" argument has been used since day one of 3D games, and has been refuted for the same amount of time.

 Its true computers can't deal out the 'infinite resolution' as in real life. But generally, as a rule of thumb, any distance/movement which the 3D scope of a human eye can detect, is in real life a range close enough that no extra visual cues are needed at all.

What you are saying here is that you want to be able to take advantage of the inability of the computer to accurately depict 3 dimensions. This isn't flight simming... it's gamey... far more gamey than the +/-, IMHO.

 Opposite way around.

[SlapShot]

We're talking about planes in thousand yards of ranges, flying in a void of air without much visual cues. The increase in object size, even in the real world accounts for very small increments of enlargement or shrinking for every 100 yards, and especially if the speed ranges are close in two moving objects. It takes some considerable time to be able to tell relative changes in range.

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.

So what allows us to tell range when objects are so far away? Time, memory, and logic - not eyesight.

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.

The increments of 200 yard simulates that time needed to judge distance. The +/- sign simply adds to it, so we can judge upon instantly on the movement of the target - which, is neither realistic, nor needed as a gameplay instrument.

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.

No, the yard increments already compensates for that. The +/- are an extra crutch which is not needed.

See above.

The "computers can't handle 3D environment like the real life" argument has been used since day one of 3D games, and has been refuted for the same amount of time.

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.

Its true computers can't deal out the 'infinite resolution' as in real life. But generally, as a rule of thumb, any distance/movement which the 3D scope of a human eye can detect, is in real life a range close enough that no extra visual cues are needed at all.

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.

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by Charon
When was the last time you did a clean install? How many processes are you running in the background? How much spyware? Popups? IM? Years worth of installed and removed half-assed shareware apps? If any of these are an issue you probably need to install the Format patch before any patch HTC releases will do you any good.

Just helped my buddy Rutger load XP on his computer yesterday with a bunch of new hardware - CPU, MEM, MB, vide card) -- AH stable with high frame rates just like the two win 98 AH loads I have on my home LAN.

BTW, Wotan is Batz?! Who’d a thunk it. What a scoundrel.

Charon

Thanks for the kind concern sir.
Yes I have done more than enough to make sure my machine is running clean and smooth. I am very PC literate.
Have been building and servicing PCs for a very long time now.
I have also followed tons of advice here on the BBS.
At least doing the things i hadn’t already done.
Here is the recent history of the performance of AH2/AH-2 beta on my machine.
Beta 4 thru 39 had screen stutters beyond acceptable levels.
Beta 40 finally fixed it so that with ALL sliders and setting set for max (performance) I could actually do Air to Air with out getting nauseous. As for attacking ground targets… Fugedaboudit. With the sliders in these positions you have to cut ground targets with you propeller before you are close enough the see them. But still I was feeling pretty optimistic with beta 40. Things were actually getting pleasant.
Beta 41 caused nearly a Double in Video memory used and the stutters were back like no tomorrow. HT was online at this time and I told him of my experience. He said, “Do not change any settings” that it would settle down in time. After about an hour of flying it changed alright…NOW my video memory used, went from 52 to 75meg. It just kept climbing.
Beta 40...128 total. Used= 27 average
Beta 41…128 total. Used=52 then climbed to 75 meg after about an hour of activity.
Beta 42 thru 44 played nicely again. Used video memory settled back down again (bout 45 meg used average). But I still couldn’t run graphic detail settings at default. (Must all be set for max performance)

Below is an excerpt from the News and announcements section of the BBS in regards to beta42

Originally posted by Pyro

Moving max texture size up from the default setting will no longer preload all the textures. You may get
Stutters if you increase the max texture size from the default settings.

Just a shot in the dark...but maybe this had something to do with the improvement on my machine. Seems related in a way anyhow.
Now AH2 was hot to trot and went LIVE!!!
And my video memory Doubled once again. All in all it was running pretty smooth.
Then I took notice that many guys were having CTDs with AH2 Live.
But not me…no sireee I was happy.
AH2 Patch 1…all is same.
AH2 Patch 2…Still looking acceptable.
AH2 Patch 3…Feeling pretty good now.
AH2 patch 4…Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggg
I had 6 CTDs in a row with Patch 4
5 each and every time I hit the runway. And 1 when I joined a buddies fighter...I was able to ride along till he engaged a niki.. Right after he killed the NIK...I CTDed. All this happened in about 1 hour.
Here is the kicker……….Patch 1, 3, and 4 all addressed CTD,s  Patch 2 was basically only to Fix a bug causing vehicle bases not to display correctly.
I give ……
Duh...forgot to answer you question....Kleen install was about 2 months ago on a brand spanking new HDD.