Hitech/Pyro, My Brilliant Idea!!

[F4UDOA]

Ok, the Brilliant part is a troll but the idea is sound.

I never liked range Icons but I understand that they are a concession to the available technology for visual identification of range and direction of a moving object at distance on a copmputer screen.

However in the interest of reality these range/identification icons should be scaled based on distance.

For instance

D3K to 6K Gives you only color coded friendly or NME with a generic Fighter/Bomber tag.

D1.1K to 2.9K Gives you Color biased tag with Generic fighter Label IE. FW190, Hawker, F4U or Macchi.

D0.0K to .9K Color Biased tag and specific A/C info IE. F4U-4, FW190D-9, C202, P-51B/D Etc. (I also wouldn't mind seeing the laser range finder disappear since a graphical representation within 1K is suficiant for range detection but that is another subject).

This serves many purposes but mostly the purpose of creating a more realistic interface for the user without degrading gameplay.

It also allows for better use of the perk system without the magnet effect of flying a "Perked" plane (I happen to like the current perk system).

BTW, I do not think that this idea will be embraced by all AH players. But I do think it will take AH farther away from the Arcade type simm and bring it closer to the pure simulation market that I think AH is trying to fill.

Any comments??

[Raubvogel]

I like it.

[iceydee]

good idea!

I think that when the range is shown,
it should only show like 5K, 4K, not
4.7k and so on...  

[popeye]

IMO, the range counter is much more important as a rate of closure indicator, than as a rangefinder.  Your system provides no rate of closure information, which I think we need to compensate for our "2D vision".

[Kratzer]

I like everything but the part where you see a completely specific tag at a certain distance - at that range, you should be able to visually identify the aircraft.  If you think about it, pilots wouldn't be able to know the exact variant of an enemy plane a lot of the time, as visually they were so similar.  We have the benefit of being able to differentiate by color scheme, and I don't think we need more help - some of the responsibility must remain with the pilot.

[lemur]

Well, I think we can safely assume the current icon set up is so every pilot has 'Chuck Yeager' vision [tm]

So take the ranges a normal human can identify things at and double it  

I have no idea what those ranges work out to, but there must be data on it somewhere.

So longest range just do enemy fighter / buff. Medium range do type. Short range do model.

Point blank do actual pilot handle  

"I recognize that eye twitch and that gap-toothed grin! It's Westy."

As an added benefit (for certain planes) base the contact and ID ranges on the actual size of the aircraft. This gives the smaller planes a bit of an edge.

~Lemur

[Pei]

Good idea!

[hitech]

Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's deffinatly not a bad idea.

As I understand it you are just propsiing changing the plane type icon?

HiTech

[Toad]

Here's my old comments.....

"we're going to actually try a few different means of IFF instead of this 10 year old system, I'd be really happy.
Here's a few points to ponder. These thoughts are based on a non-historical arena, where all sides fly all planes. Strict Historical could/should be different.

Ranges would have to be hashed out but that's an area that affords easy experimentaion once the overall system is set.

1. At long range, a plane <whether friend or foe, fighter or bomber> should just be an unknown dot.

2. As range closes, one would be able to distinguish a dot as a bomber earlier than a fighter. Therefore, some sort of "buff" ID should show at a range that would still be a dot for a fighter. At this range you couldn't tell friend from foe.

This means a dot could be either a long range plane of either type or a closer fighter that is not yet distinguishable. You just couldn't tell.

3. As range further decreased, a fighter ID should show. You should also now be able to tell, in some way, friend from foe, perhaps just a red dot at nose, tail and wingtips. This assumes that we would <in Real Life> be distinguishing plane type. Again, this would be a different range for a bomber than a fighter.

4. Now, after IFF range, add distance information. Range info should perhaps only be shown in 1k or .5k increments to avoid the rapidly running counters. I would not show range beyond a certain distance <a yet to be determined "threat" range> and I would remove it as the aircraft comes to "guns range." Perhaps cut out range info inside of 1k or .5k at minimum. You need IFF here, but you don't need range when you're ready to shoot. That should be part of pilot skills and judgement.

5. I would have no aircraft type ID available at ranges that allow you to distinugish that info from the graphics. (determined for the lowest resolution avail). I would allow some simple "type" info at ranges where you could see it in real life.

Different colored dots, arrows, numbers...any of these could be used to provide this type of information while minimizing and shrinking the huge icons we now have.

Just some thoughts. I'm sure everyone has some ideas and I'd love to read them. I hope we can get a meaningful discussion going and I also hope we can talk HTC into experimenting in the SEA with "alternative Icon lifestyles"."

Clipped in toto from here:


Toad's Icon Ideas

[F4UDOA]

Thanks for responding HT.

Yes just the plane type depending on range simulating a pilots abilty to itentify first A/C type 3K to 6K(fighter/Bomber) then A/C silhoutte 1K to 3K IE. Messerschmitt(Mess) Macchi, Grumman or just Navy etc. followed by a close range icon tag that gives specific A/C data IE, F4U-4, FW190D9, ME109G10 etc.

I would still include A/C range data at distances further than .9K because of Display resolution limitations but inside d1.0 I don't think they are neccesary based on testing I have done with Icons turned off in the TA.

I think the benifits would be these.

1. Increased realism based on variable range of A/C itentification to further simulate flight conditions.

2. Additional use of the perk system by reducing the "Magnet effect" of flying a perk plane.

3. Additional use of the early war plane set by not giving premature notice of A/C type. This would benifit the LA-5, C202, P-47D11 and future A/C like the A6M2, KI-43, F4F and others.

In any case I'm sure the idea could use refinement however it seems like a good start huh?

[Raubvogel]

Let me just clarify that I really like this idea  

One thing though: exact plane types shouldn't be displayed. If you engaged a Fw190 with a radial engine I don't think you could distinguish between A5 or A8 in the middle of a dogfight.

[WarChild]

I really like the aspect that u can hope into a earier war model and not be imedeatly picked out from d6.0 away as easy prey.  I like the 202 / 205, but i get pounced alot faster in the 202 than the 205... the "perception" of the 202 is easy meat therefore more ppl pounce u.  same with perkie plans.. anything to reduce the amount of people that see u at one time and think of free lunch is good

[pimpjoe]

toad...i like your idea. it sounds good,but...i'm not so sure people would take it in the MA. i certainly would but there are a lot of people that would down right throw a fit over a setup like that. maybe in the CT tho. that would be excelent. that's where the more "realistic" stuff is gonna be.and sounds like it would be a blast

[deSelys]

I like Toad's ideas. (F4UDOA, yours are good too   ). I would like to see it in the CT or even in the MA, but I understand it requires some programming. Maybe in the next version?

[xHaMmeRx]

Greetings all,

Threw together a quick web-page with some images at various ranges.  These are at 1:1 scale with no zoom.  Page is at:

http://www.netaces.org/temp/viewdist.html

I am using 1024 x 768 on a 19 inch monitor but find that even at under 200 yds, it is not clear that this is a 109.  So, my thoughts?

At long range, some things will be more obvious than others.  IRL, a P-38 will be distinctive much sooner than the difference between a 109 and a P-51.  A 4-engined bomber will be distinguisable before you could tell the difference between say a B-26 and mossie or a mossie and a Ju-88.  In the game, we will have nothing more than a dark pixel or two.  A fighter/bomber tag might not provide the info that would really be available.  Important? I don't know!

ICONS: In general, I agree that you could distinguish a fighter from a bomber at much longer distances than you could visually ID the type.  The question is: what is the distance you can visually ID a plane?  I certainly don't know, but I suspect it is much more than the 200 yds that I can get from my monitor, so you have to allow for that at some range.  Is it 6k?  Got me.  And type differences?  We have a few discrepencies IMHO.  Until you were close enough to see the air-duct on the cowl of a La-5, I would say it looks like a La-7.  Maybe another "layer" of general ID until you get up close and personal.  The bumps on the cowling of a G6 would seem as identifiable as the air duct on the La-5.  Additionally, I would think you'd have to be closer to distinguish between a C202 and C205 than you would a P-51B/D.  That bubble canopy is pretty distinctive.  So, while the system we have works, it could certainly use some tweaking.

As a possible alternative, what about an icon that faded as distance got greater?  It would be harder to spot at range, but still give information to someone who was looking hard.  As the bogie got closer, the icon gets brighter so the chance of being seen goes up.  This could also be an addition to the ideas above.

RANGE INDICATOR:  This has to stay pretty much the way it is IMHO.  If you look at the pictures on the web-page I posted, you can quickly see that, unless you have been following a bogie closely, the only idincation of what he is doing (from some aspects) is the range indicator.  This is more a concession to our 2D simulation of the 3D world, but this can only be harder on smaller screens/lower resolutions.  

I think the range indicator must stay as it is at distance, also.  If all you can see is a pixel or two, you will have no idea what the bogie is doing if the range indicator is not there or only changes every k or so.

I think the key for HT here would be to implement a change at a time.  Throwing them all into the arena at once would make it harder to identify what works and what doesn't.

HaMmeR
www.netAces.org