Aircraft Sizes.

[214CaveJ]

remove the icons, just give me a way to tell if they're friend of foe (paint the foe as a bullseye maybe?   )

As for the DC-9 thing.  Kinda stretching the bounds a little aren't we?  What's the relative size of the v stabs of the DC9 and the -51D?  Quite a difference there.  I've worked with a few DC9 models in FlightSim 98, building, paiting, and animating the visual models, and they're quite a bit larger than WWII warbirds, so of course you can see more of them at longer distances.

[Toad]

Actually, the DC-9 (or B-737) comparison is very apt with respect to the B-17's vertical stabilizer.

What do you see of a B-17 at 9k range here?

This discussion has been carrying through a few different threads for a long while and in an earlier post I mentioned the comparative sizes of the the -17 and the smaller modern airliners. Since it's been a while, I should have been more specific.

They aren't exactly the same size, of course, but they are close enough to give an idea of what you should see.

A 737-200 length is about the wingspan of a -17. A 737-200 wingspan is about the length of a -17.

Or how about this example that a Navy A-6 Instructor I flew with gave me:

His "technique" for flying a 1 mile spread formation was to move out to the side until he could no longer break out the _refueling probe_ in front of the other A-6's canopy. Then he'd slide it in until he could see the probe sticking up. That was almost exactly a mile spread on radar.

I believe the inverted "L" shape of that probe is about 3 feet high and about 10" wide at the base, tapering as it goes up. I'm sure there's some guy around here who can define it exactly.

Point is, it isn't all that big, it was gray and you could break it out at a mile. The air is clearer at altitude (usually) and you can see much farther.

[214CaveJ]

at 9k I see a dot for 17.  At 5k I can tell which way he's turning.

The fuse of a 737-300 (couldn't find specs on -200) is 109ft 7in.  The -17G wingspan is 103ft 9in.  The biggest difference here is that the fuse of a 733 is approx 15ft top to bottom, where the wing on a -17G is maybe 6ft or so, including the engines.

So, for comparison sake, here are the deminsions
Boeing 733
Span   - 94ft 9in
Length - 109ft 7in
Height - 36ft 6in

Boeing B17G
Span   - 103ft 9in
Length - 74ft 4in
Height - 19ft 2in

The 733 is a much larger aircraft than the -17G.  Also, the fuse on the 733 is much larger than the 17G's fuse (I've been in both aircraft).  Frankly, I think you're comparing apples to oranges here.

As for the DC-9, the largest of those are the -50 series aircraft, with a length of 133.6ft and a span of 93.4ft.  Dinnae find a height spec, but it's most likely in the 25-30ft range (the B717-200, an aircraft of same genre, is 29ft 1in high).  This is also a much larger aircraft than the -17G (I've also flown on a DC9-30, and it's fuse is much larger than a 17s also)

I think the sizes are fine and have no problems keeping up with them, even at my pitifully slow 4-6 frames per second when in close/shooting at other aircraft.

[This message has been edited by 214CaveJ (edited 10-25-1999).]

[Sorrow[S=A]]

I agree with 214, as far as I can tell these sizes are very close. I had an experience of walking around and comparing a B-17 an airshow had, I was surprised by how short that sucker was. He's no midget but he's nowhere near our current jets, probably as wide though. We have DC-10's at the same airfield and it was probably only a 3rd longer than those.
 As for size considerations, I don't get it. I can tell fine which way a plane is breaking at 3 or 4k, my only problem is usually picking their outline from the ground on a buzz run. But then why bother shooting at over 500m ranges? I can see them big enough to notice at how bad I am missing, but hitting consistently over 500 is tricky as hell. When you think about it, taking shots at over half a klick is crazy to begin with... in RL what the hell would you try and hit half a klick away???? never mind a plane maybe 20 meters across, you probably couldn't consistently shoot a damn barn!

[juzz]

Q: Why do we need range icons?? I thought a big part of air combat was guesstimating ranges?? Of course no range icon would mean we would need a real gunsight  

[Toad]

Why compare to the largest DC-9? Why not the DC-9-10? Use a Canadair Regional Jet as the reference, because it essentially doesn't make much difference in flight. The RJ is most definitely smaller than the B-17, yet you can still see the vertical stabilizer sticking up about 5-6 miles away.

Simple fact. Like Ripley, "believe it or not."

With respect to height of the stab, find a spec on the height of the stab from top of tail to base of the stab, not from the ground up. Obviously, the B-17 is a tail dragger, the others aren't.

As I mentioned in another thread, these airliner ranges were personally observed and electronically verified in flight, not estimated by walking around a bomber at an airshow.

Range and shooting:

It's absolutely not about _shooting_ range, it's about the ACM equation. The engagement begins at first sight; you should be evaluating planform (type), aspect, his maneuvering and trying to estimate his E state. In all these games, you are getting these ACM visual cues at probably less than 1/2 the realistic distance.

Like it or not, this undeniably affects the realism of the WWII engagements we are trying to recreate.

I'm not pulling this "visual realism" stuff out of my hat, either. On an almost daily basis, I have the opportunity (and need) to verify ranges on all types of modern civilian planes from the cockpit, using electronic verification.

I suspect I've also had a bit more experience than the average bear on this board with respect to piloting aircraft of the WWII era and flying _with_ other WWII aircraft.

I've flown in WWII airshows, with bombers (B-17, B-25) and fighters (51's, 47's, 40's,Yak 9, Spits, the CAF Tora, Tora, Tora planes and about a dozen other WWII types. We had predefined geographic holding points and altitudes at known distances from "show center." I think I have a fairly realistic idea of what you can see on these planes inflight from various aspects. Present WWII online ACM game's aren't even close.

I admit I don't have much time modeling aircraft in plastic or on computers and I'm not the highest-time computer flight sim guy around. I merely have RL experience; I think I'll just go with that.

I feel quite strongly that the visual cues we are getting are a long way from realistic. I believe that after all the improvements in computer speed and video we should be able to do better than we did 10 years ago. I think it's time for a new approach.

But hey, what do I know?  

If the visuals seem adequate to you, if you're not interested in a more realistic visual presentation, if you think the icons add to the realism, it's fine by me.

You have to evaluate this stuff based on your own experience.

I have to evalutate it based on mine.

I'm going to keep asking for more detail to achieve more realism.


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-25-1999).]

[fats]

--- Toad: ---
First of all, I'm not asking anyone to make 10m planes into 100m planes.
--- end ---

The numbers were not for judging, only to illustrate the point it often seems that people understand it better with real numbers than giving them a formula of something. But the good thing is it doesn't matter, cause I am certain we'll _never_ see artificially inflated planes in AH. All the artificially inflated egos aren't enough for you - now you want the planes to match the egos? Scop's plane would easily fill 5 map sectors...


//fats

[Toad]

Yes, I believe the "technical realists" may sleep snug in their beds. The mathematically correct pixel ratios are safe for a while yet.

Just as the scientists can confidently show you that it is "impossible" for a bumblebee to fly", one can prove that the pixel-ratio formulae are correct.

Neither example will match real life experiences, but hey...

Anyway, HE is out there....and someday HE will come. The Pilot/Programmer...the one that will bring air combat _simulation_ to the PC. I can wait; I'll just keep playing these games until then.  

Heck, it might even be HT, if he keeps flying with those civilian ACM schools.  

[funked]

"Neither example will match real life experiences, but hey.."

Here's an example of something not matching "real life experiences."

Let's put you in a real Me 109.  You sit exactly 2' from the windscreen.  We put a P-51D 100 yds ahead of you.  The wingspan takes up about 1/4 of the gap between the framing on the armor glass.

Now let's put virtual you in an AH Me 109.  Put your virtual head 2' from the windscreen.  Put a P-51D 100 yds ahead of the AH Me 109.  It takes up about 1/4 of the gap between the framing on the armor glass.  Why?  Because of the sacred pixel ratios.

Now let's do something like what you propose, and make the Me 109 twice as large as it should be.  Put your virtual booty back in the AH Me 109.  Put that P-51D 100 yds ahead.  Lo and behold the P-51D now takes up half of the gap between the framing on the armor glass.

So your proposal does not "match real life experiences."

It comes down to what you value more.  Do you value seeing the detail on the plane?  Or do you value having the plane appear to be the correct size with respect to its surroundings?

It's not "right or wrong" it's just a question of what you like.

And PULLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZE don't give me that anti-science crap.  You'd be flying diddly squat if it weren't for slide-rule jockeys.  If some guy predicted a bumblebee wouldn't fly, he's a handsomehunk.  Where I work my results better frikkin match real life or else some stick & rudder monkey ends up walking or doing a Superman impression

Anyways I agree with you that icons suck.  I used to drink on the patio at a bar about 5 miles from NAS Miramar, and I could ID F-5/A-4/F-21/F-16/F-15(yep)/F-14/A-7/F-8/F-4/E-2/A-6/you name it.  Sure those are bigger than WW2 fighter but at 4 miles in Aces High you see just a dot even on a B-17.  Same stuff in all the planes I've ridden in.  I'm spotting B737's 5 miles away, planes taking off 5 miles below, and I can make out details easily.

BTW we fly with bandit icons off outside 1500 yds in the Warbirds Historical Arena, but (at least in the current versions) WB does a better job of giving attitude and range cues at long ranges.  It's still a pain in the butt to ID them though, so there is a friendly icon at 3000 yds or so.

And it's not just the size we are missing on the visual cues.  There's reflectivity - shiny green paint looks different from green foliage even if you match the color perfectly.  There's stereo vision, which makes a difference when you are flying formation.  There's field of view - even if you get the monitor big enough to get the plane angle right, and jack the resolution up to see detail, you still don't get your peripheral vision.  There's contrails, there's flashes of reflection off canopies, etc.

[Toad]

It always all or nothing, isn't it? No compromise, no experimentation allowed.  

There _is_ an "aerodynamic proof" floating around that purports to prove a bumblebee can't fly. I saw it MANY years ago. I'm sure it was written as a joke to remind us all that we can "never say never".

Perhaps I should have used a different comparison...like on the visits to training when the simulator instructors, guys that fly 2 trips a year, try to tell the line pilots how it _really_ is "out there."

I want to see as much DETAIL as possible while keeping the size as close to correct as possible. We need both, but detail is key.
If we can't squeeze more detail onto these plane shapes, maybe, just maybe, we should slightly increase the size?

I don't feel it's mutually exclusive; we fudge almost everything else; why should we be afraid to experiment a little with size?

And if we just can't get rid of icons, why don't we turn them off at ranges where technology CAN provide some detail? Maybe we _do_ need them at long ranges where there would be RL detail but technology presently can't supply it. But we sure shouldn't need them "in close", where detail _is_ tecnologically available.

I flew WB HA; it's just the opposite there. No icons till you're at a range where you should be able to see for yourself what the icon is telling you. Say what?

I'm not anti-science, never have been, although I do prefer hand-flying to autopilot/fms; the electronics are nice but have no judgement.  

But until airliners full of paying passengers routinely launch with no "stick and rudder monkey" at the controls I'll assume the "slide-rule jockeys" are still aware that some things can't be quantified and formulated. Experience and judgement aren't easily replaced by "science."

I am glad that we agree about icons...THEY are the enemy.  

[funked]

Hehe Toad we pretty much agree then.  

"why don't we turn them off at ranges where technology CAN provide some detail?"

Yep this is needed.

Also at long range there is a problem.  At longer ranges the icon greatly increases your chance of picking up an enemy in your visual scan.  In real life you might not see him unless you really scan but in these games you can't miss the billboard.

The WB HA settings are intended to rectify that, but as you point out they deny the pilot range, attitude, and type information at distances where he could obtain it in real life.

I honestly think the only cure for this is going to be some kind of display you wear on your head, that fills your entire field of view and renders objects at exactly the size you would see in the real world.  This would also allow stereo vision.  The only limitations would be resolution and color depth (how good is the display) the rendering software (reflection, diffusion, etc.), and the changes in eye focus between objects up close and far away.  Fortunately in flying, almost all objects use "infinity" focus, so this only comes into play when you look inside the cockpit or at a plane in close formation.

Here's what I would suggest until then:

1.  Allow the pilot to set a custom field of view.  For instance a pilot who likes to see detail could use a 45 degree field of view.

2.  Allow the pilot to customize the scale factor of the rendering of the planes, just like Falcon.  Scale factor is the ratio of the rendered size to the actual size.  Keep the hit maps at the actual size, not the rendered sizes.  This may give false cues to the pilot but it's the only fair way to do it.

3.  Make the icons extremely customizable.  Implement everything from "Brand W" but also allow the pilot to set font size, number of lines, what info is displayed (type, nationality, range), as well as the units (yds, ft, meters) on the range values.

I also was thinking about the idea of a variable scale factor.  At close ranges render the plane at actual size but at long ranges render the plane at a larger size to allow viewing of detail.  The problem here is that you will get false range cues.  The only way to judge range is by observing the change of the apparent size of the aircraft, and changing the scale factor will screw this up.  To judge range you would then need a range icon.  But at least you would be able to get type and attitude information.

P.S. sorry for the stick & rudder monkey comments.  On the WB boards we have some guys who think a few hours in a 172 qualifies them to rewrite the flight physics models.    

As far as the relationship between performance in a simulation and performance in the real world, the one thing I've learned in school and at work is that any mathematical model you make always has something missing - an assumption is made to simplify some effect.  When you investigate that effect, you get a book or paper on it and you find out the guy who wrote the book is making an assumption about yet another effect.  Then you get the book HE used, so on and so forth.  You never get to the end of it.  But you do get a bit closer to the real behavior - never all the way there but you can get pretty damn close.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-28-1999).]

[Sorrow[S=A]]

I am very curious about scaling, Hitech, if you read this, What would the effect of having the plane scaled to a larger size at long range in our view, then hold that size between say 8k and 5k, as at these ranges there is actually fairly low visual changes in size in RL. I am not talking a ridiculous scaling, just hold it into a recognizable wing/tail shape between these ranges.
 As it is now I don't see much difference in the model until it is within 3k of me, if it's growing larger after it's transition from dot to model I can't see it. Only when your 3 or 4k from me can I recognize size increasing as I close.

[fats]

--- Toad: ---
But we sure shouldn't need them "in close", where detail _is_ tecnologically available.
--- end ---

It might be available but it isn't in AH. I can't see the plane dot of a N1K2 from 600yds or more against the ground textures until it is rendered as a black dot. P-51 against the grey patches is practically invisible and so on. All I go by is the floating icon and shoot below it if trying to make some long shot.

Right now I fly on a 21'' monitor with properly gamma corrected setup for my lighting sittuation ( which is the same during day time and night ), and _everything_ that has ever come from ICI/iMOL/iEN or HTC has been extremely dark and lacking contrast and clear colors. I have had various graphics boards and monitors in between from CK beta to AH beta. It has been the same with all combinations I have had, if you keep stuff set up right, the game colors are very dark.

I have often tried to ask for user defined gamma setting with in the game ( Quake is  _very_ good in this regard ), so one doesn't have to go adjust monitor and gfx driver settings everytime you want to play a game - thus screwing it up for everything else. Also I have been wondering how have the artist making these gfx set up their system? Monitor brightness and contrast at 100%? I hope not.


//fats

[wells]

Hmm...

Would it be feasible to make the planes larger at long range and real size at gun convergence distance?  Say, like a variable scale type thingy?  Have the planes 3 times as large WAY the @$#% out there, and then gradually scale them back to normal as they get closer?

[funked]

Wells read my long-ass post above.  If you scale them like that you won't be able to judge range.