Author Topic: Hitech/Pyro, My Brilliant Idea!! (Read 521 times)

F4UDOA · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:29:00 PM »

xHaMmeRx,

Thanx for the detail work.

Icons As far as the icons go I believe that once within a certain distance that you should see a A/C distinctive Icon, C202, F4U-1D, P-51D etc. but only within a resonable distance say D1.5 or less since IRL it would be impossible to see the small details of any A/C much less make out a certain model or sub-type. At slighly further distances I would not be opposed to slightly less discriptive tags like just FW190 or F4U. But at distances beyond 3 or 4K I cannot see the value of giving any more info than fighter or bomber.

Range indicator I am less opposed to a detailed range indicator espcially at distances over 1K. It is all but impossible to detect direction of movement on a 2D screen at that range. Inside 1K it becomes more viable but certainly no piece of cake. I have tried flying Iconless in the T/A and I found it challenging however my gunnery seemed to improve because I waited longer to shoot. In any case I would not be opposed to a range counter in the MA.

My biggest issue lies with the abilty to detect sub-types at distances up to 6K.

J_A_B · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:44:00 PM »

"But at distances beyond 3 or 4K I cannot see the value of giving any more info than fighter or bomber."

4K = about 2.5 miles. Are you suggesting that you can't tell an Me-109 from a P-47D from an F4U at a dstance greater than 2.5 miles?

If that is truly the case, you may need glasses. I'm not trying to be rude, either, I'm serious. A person with good vision (and most fighter pilots have very good vision) will be able to tell these planes apart at considerably more than 2.5 miles. 4 miles seems a bit more reasonable--which, ironically enough, is roughly the distance we recieve this info in AH.

At a distance of 4 miles I am still able to differenciate different types of automobiles--hatchbacks, pickup trucks, sedans, and so on. And a car is quite a bit smaller than a fighter plane (15 feet long versus 30-35 feet). Weather/sun glare can interefere with this identification of course, but that's a different subjest completely.

I agree with the underlying concept of your idea though--Generic ICON at long range followed by a model-specific ICON at short range (1.5K seems about right). In fact I like it a lot.

It is indeed a brilliant idea and would make the ICON system much more realistic in use.

J_A_B

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: J_A_B ]

lemur · « **Reply #17 on:** December 19, 2001, 05:12:00 PM »

I love this idea.

The only thing I'd change is to modify the ranges according to the size of the aircraft.

And this shouldn't be too hard, since the range you can see / ID something scales linearly with its heigh and width.

This also eliminates the whole buff/fighter id range thing.

If you see a generic 'enemy' icon, and the range is greater than, say, 6 K. Well, it's pretty obvious it's a buff.

This also adds benefit to the smaller bombers: They have significantly shorter ID ranges than the Lanc or B-17

Mind you, this will need some tweaking / testing as this will have a significant effect on the game.

~Lemur

chad · « **Reply #18 on:** December 19, 2001, 08:13:00 PM »

Well i love the whole idea about this Icon system. It means people cant gang bang one type of AC from a distance of 6K away.

I fly a lot of Missions in the P47D30 and find at 25K i can easly find a target. without even having looking at it, Instead look at the radar and see how fast its current speed. This gives me a routh idea of what kind of AC it is and what ALT it is traveling at. So, within 10K i know 1/2 of the AC heading and also ALT and speed. Who said a high SA isnt good.

2Late4U · « **Reply #19 on:** December 19, 2001, 08:47:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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".

Words right outa my mouth

Zigrat · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2001, 09:31:00 PM »

if you cannot tell a plane type in aces high at 1000 yards without icons you need to invest in a better monitor... i can easily tell a f4u from a p51 or from a (insert name here) at 1000 yards

obviously in the main you nned icons of some sort to differentiate friend from foe

the biggest problem i have with icons is that for some reason hitech is unwilling to add a no icons environment for CM and historical arena use. i know many of you say no icons is less realistic, but for me is it certinly more realistic FEELING. seeing icons spoils a big part of immersion imo.

similarly, you can easily identify from 6000 yards in aces high wiith no icons a bomber from a fighter -- no icons needed for this

in ahistorical environment (lets say japanese vs us navy) you can easily identify plane nationality from 3000 yards (blue planes are very clearly blue and green are very clearly green at 3000 yards)

the major two valid arguments against no icons are

1) lack of depth perception. this actually makes up BOTH arguments against icons. 1) because it is too easy to loose a green plane against a green background or a blue airplane vs a blue background because they are all at the same focal length, when in real life the different distances of te objects would make them stand out

3) lackof stereo vision to aid in sighting and range finding. its not as good as a laser rangefinder, but stereo vision certainly is better than a flat monitor...

solution? buy those stereo glasses they reviewed at simhq and we can get rid of icons

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #21 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:16:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zigrat:
if you cannot tell a plane type in aces high at 1000 yards without icons you need to invest in a better monitor... i can easily tell a f4u from a p51 or from a (insert name here) at 1000 yards

Well, here is a fair representation of what I see at 1300 yards...

I have a pretty hard time telling them apart on a 19 inch flatscreen monitor at 1024x768 res. Here it is blown up 300%

Not much to go on IMHO (these are dead 6 o'clock shots btw)

in ahistorical environment (lets say japanese vs us navy) you can easily identify plane nationality from 3000 yards (blue planes are very clearly blue and green are very clearly green at 3000 yards)[/QUOTE]

But what about similarly camo'd planes in the MA or even in a euro environment? German gray/green schemes could look similar to british gray/green schemes.

Are you sure that, in a furball with a quick glance, you could tell what these were as well as someone in real life could from similar distances?

the major two valid arguments against no icons are

1) lack of depth perception. this actually makes up BOTH arguments against icons. 1) because it is too easy to loose a green plane against a green background or a blue airplane vs a blue background because they are all at the same focal length, when in real life the different distances of te objects would make them stand out

3) lackof stereo vision to aid in sighting and range finding. its not as good as a laser rangefinder, but stereo vision certainly is better than a flat monitor...

solution? buy those stereo glasses they reviewed at simhq and we can get rid of icons [/QUOTE]

Your reasons for leaving the icons in the MA are right on and I'm not arguing at all. I do, however, question the ability to easily distinguish plane types at 3k or more. I think you may be fooling yourself a bit!

HaMmeR
www.netAces.org

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: xHaMmeRx ]

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2001, 07:38:00 AM »

Excent ideas about plane-type icons. About the range indicator I would aproach the problem in a different way:

More than 1000 yards and you see the range, between 1000 and 400 yards and you only see the closure rate (+/- # fps), not the range. Less than 400 yards and no more range/closure indications.

Example with 190A8:

6k -> plane (white) - d6
4k -> fighter (white) - d4
2k -> enemy (red) 190 - d2
1.3k -> enemy (red) 190 - d1.3
1k -> enemy (red) 190A8 - d1
900 yards -> enemy (red) 190A8 - +300
500 yards -> enemy (red) 190A8 - +200
350 yars -> enemy (red) 190A8 -

straffo · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2001, 09:10:00 AM »

Oh!! NO !!!
Mandoble is about to do ugly maths again

(J/K

)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2001, 09:16:00 AM »

ROFLOL straffo.
You have good reasons to be afraid, I'm opening the calculator just now ...

straffo · « **Reply #25 on:** December 20, 2001, 09:34:00 AM »

in short :

IIINNNNNCOMMMMMINNGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGG !

running for cover

Don · « **Reply #26 on:** December 20, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »

F4UDoa:
Two things:
1. The use of "realistic" and "game" in the same sentence is confusing and a contradiction in terms, IMO.
2. I do not share your assessment that AH is an Arcade game at all.

Realism has been argued and discussed back and forth on BBs of different sims for many years now, and there has been no clear resolution. It is extremely subjective, and strong opinions vary according to who is making the assessment.
Your suggestions are not without substance though, but for me, not because of any appeal to making the "game" more "realistic" but, because they may enhance gameplay.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #27 on:** December 20, 2001, 12:42:00 PM »

Quote

F4UDoa:
Two things:
1. The use of "realistic" and "game" in the same sentence is confusing and a contradiction in terms, IMO.
2. I do not share your assessment that AH is an Arcade game at all.

1. Actually I try to refer to AH as a simulation and not a game. However when my wife asked me what I'm doing I have to say sheepishly "playing". But as long as we are all under the same dellusion that we are actually "playing" a simulation then the term realism can be used as we are only simulating child like behavior by pretending to be WW2 fighter pilots.

2. The change in Icons can only help to further AH from an "arcade" type game and closer to a WW2 simulation. I'm not really a gamer, my only interest lay in WW2 fighter A/C either in comparative documents or in simulation. If I thought AH were arcadish I would move on to some other simm. For my money it is the best available.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #28 on:** December 27, 2001, 01:51:00 PM »

Ok, so it took me awhile. I like it.

Zippatuh

Tac · « **Reply #29 on:** December 27, 2001, 02:48:00 PM »

Here's my say:

Short icons like the CT. It makes the BOUNCE be possible in the game.

Icons:

Should show general plane type (aka, say "F4U" instead f4u-4 or "190" instead of 152, they are the same airframe (mostly) !).
You can easily tell the difference between a 190a5 and a d9 just because of the performance, same goes for the 109g2 and the g10. So why are the icons different? Because they are perk planes? I really dont think its fair for the perk plane pilot to have everyone in the arena trying to HO him out of it.

The laser range finder should be replaced with a closure indicator.So, like mandoble said, instead of having it read "3.0" it would read something like "+100 or -100" to tell you what is the closure/distace rate in MPH.

If you see the icon, you know you're inside 3.0 and you will know if you're closing on it or if its leaving you behind. It would get rid of the laser range finder and turn the game's gunnery into something MUCH closer to real life dogfights.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]