Icon Philosophy - Approach

[Krusty]

Try doing it without zoom.

[gyrene81]

Try doing it without zoom.

Do I look that dumb?..  ...don't answer that. 


Seriously Krusty, think of standard view as not being focused on anything in general, leaned back just taking in the overall view...then toggling zoom would be the act of focusing on a distant object and the more zoom you use, the more you're straining your eyes to make out details...something of that nature. Not sure if you noticed but the zoom function in the airplanes is a little different than zoom in tanks and bomb sights...it's doesn't magnify an object like bombsights and tank gunsights.

[2bighorn]

...then toggling zoom would be the act of focusing on a distant object and the more zoom you use, the more you're straining your eyes to make out details...something of that nature. Not sure if you noticed but the zoom function in the airplanes is a little different than zoom in tanks and bomb sights...it's doesn't magnify an object like bombsights and tank gunsights.

Pretend as much as you like, but focusing on the distant object is nothing like zooming in. Your biggest reason for no icons is immersion. How's the zoom fitting into that?

Lets face it.
Human field of view is about 60 degrees (+ extra 40 or so for peripheral vision) horizontal and well over 100 vertical.
What do you get at max zoom?
Does Zoom give you an extra resolution or is it the same as with no zoom? Resolution of human sight is equivalent of about 300-400 megapixels. How many pixel you get out of all your screen?
How about dynamic range?

You fail on realism and immersion differs from player to player. Besides, you got what you want in AvA, knock yourself out...

[gyrene81]

Bighorn...if I had as much knowledge as you...I wouldn't post anything to do with reality...go back to pretending you're an ace pilot.

First and foremost...I don't use full zoom...I personaly use only as much as I need to get a positive friend or foe id on an aircraft beyond the friendly icon range, that equates to about 1/2 which leaves a good deal of peripheral vision...the only other time I use any zoom is with the gunsight and that never goes over 3/4.

Secondly, the number of rendered pixels is dependent on the video settings of the game...and is limited to the rendering limits of the graphics engine...and using the zoom function in a plane does obviously give better resolution since it is magnifying the object to some degree...not as much as a bombsight, tank gunsight or ship gunsight.


I'm betting your next comment will be along the lines of "I've been playing AH since blah blah blah"...which only puts you in the category of needs to get out of the house more, not scientific aerospace doctor of human physiology expert and flight sim programmer.



Fact is we can sit here all month and beat this subject like a bad apple...in the end it all boils down to most are happy with all arcade mode and some want whatever little more they can get regardless of others opinions.

[Krusty]

Aaaaand we come full circle to the immature name-calling, the elitist "I'm better than you all" and the false claims that icons represent arcade gameplay.


Yes, the circle is complete... Every post the same few folks devolve it around and around.

[SEraider]

Aaaaand we come full circle to the immature name-calling, the elitist "I'm better than you all" and the false claims that icons represent arcade gameplay.


Yes, the circle is complete... Every post the same few folks devolve it around and around.

No, I will stoop to "My ideas are better than yours." 

Circle can't be complete without that. 

[2bighorn]

...go back to pretending you're an ace pilot.

When I play AH I play a game. You're the one who needs to turn off icons in order to feel more "real", so who's really pretending here?

good deal of peripheral vision...

With single monitor there's no peripheral vision in AH, period. Especially not if you zoom in.

Secondly, the number of rendered pixels is dependent on the video settings of the game...and is limited to the rendering limits of the graphics engine...and using the zoom function in a plane does obviously give better resolution since it is magnifying the object to some degree...not as much as a bombsight, tank gunsight or ship gunsight.

Lets say you got really good dual/triple monitor set, each with 2560 x 1600 resolution and graphic card capable to run all three at max.
That's roughly 12MP vs 300MP in favor of human eye (for comparison TripleHead2Go gives you about 5MP max).

Why would you further cripple your virtual reality with no icons?

I'm betting

Don't, you'd lose big time.

in the end it all boils down to most are happy with all arcade mode and some want whatever little more they can get regardless of others opinions.

Again, who's pretending to be a WWII pilot?

One way or another, if you don't care about opinion of others, don't try to justify yours.

[gyrene81]

Actually bighorn, my time spent playing flight sims hasn't turned me into an expert in human physiology...unlike yourself. If there is no "peripheral vision" in AH, then why would HTC bother with having a customizable field of view setting?

Awww what the hell...I can tell you have never given it more than 5 minutes with the same level of objectivity that you give the standard settings...so until you do...just stay in your world where you are an expert.

[Krusty]

Gyrene, HTC gives you peripheral vision with the unzoomed view angle. By zooming in at any level, you totally remove this.

The zoom in AH does NOT replicate binocular vision, it's a supplimental view mode to help simulate what you normally would see in "unzoomed mode" -- you'd probably see all the details in max zoom without ever having to "zoom in" in the first place.

Adding an arbitrary and clunky step of maxing out a zoom to make out details at distances is forced difficulty, and still does not simulate what the eyes SEES, just some of the details it might pick out. It's not the same. It certainly isn't instantaneous like vision.

[gyrene81]

Gyrene, HTC gives you peripheral vision with the unzoomed view angle. By zooming in at any level, you totally remove this.

I've noticed the field of view narrows incrementally as zoom level is increased...leaving zoom engaged but pulling back all the way increases the FOV to a little less than default.

The zoom in AH does NOT replicate binocular vision, it's a supplimental view mode to help simulate what you normally would see in "unzoomed mode" -- you'd probably see all the details in max zoom without ever having to "zoom in" in the first place.

Yes I agree Krusty. At a range of 3000 yards in real life you would see a lot more detail than AH renders even in zoom mode...but not at the level some have tried to make out.

Adding an arbitrary and clunky step of maxing out a zoom to make out details at distances is forced difficulty, and still does not simulate what the eyes SEES, just some of the details it might pick out. It's not the same. It certainly isn't instantaneous like vision.

Again, agreed.

[2bighorn]

Actually bighorn, my time spent playing flight sims hasn't turned me into an expert in human physiology...unlike yourself.

another ad hominem argument... not necessary really...

If there is no "peripheral vision" in AH, then why would HTC bother with having a customizable field of view setting?

Definitely not to simulate peripheral vision, but to make up for different monitor sizes/resolutions, multiple monitor setups, etc.

If peripheral vision would be simulated, edges would be blurred out. Since we hardly have anything near the human field of view, there' s no point in that.

Awww what the hell...I can tell you have never given it more than 5 minutes with the same level of objectivity that you give the standard settings...so until you do...just stay in your world where you are an expert.

No, that's you. You're dead set on "no icons" better/more real/whatever.

Do you really think if no icons would be so much better that we'd have them? Hell, I'm sure HiTech would get rid of 'em pretty soon.

[Miska]

I've been very happy with icon size 10, forest green for enemy and sky blue for friendly.  Nice compromise.  I like Dawger's approach of figuring out exactly what cues are missing from the icons and trying to introduce them.  Perhaps a pale, translucent circle around a con, with a dot indicating the heading and a thin grayscale border indicating closing rate.  It seems clear the icons are most useful at medium ranges and should probably vanish or become simplified at longer and shorter ranges.

[Toad]

Since we've strayed, I'll repeat my position on no icons.

No icons is an artificial difficulty level. I have no problem with people that feel some need to artificially increase the difficulty level. They have many options on their own computer to do that. They can also play in places like the AvA where this setup is featured from time to time.

Where I do have a problem with no icons is with the "no icons is more realistic" baloney. It isn't. It's not the problem of AH, it's the problem of available technology. You simply can't get realistic visual cues from the computers and monitors we are all using.

Secondly, I have a problem with the HT should set up all the arenas with no icons because I'm sure once people play my way they'll learn to love it proponents.  You have places to play that feature no icons. No need to force your idea of perfection on the rest of the player base.

Lastly a note on peripheral vision; I'll quote something I posted in the previous link on visual cues:

Toad:


 Test Questions on visual "Realism"
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2001, 05:19:00 PM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daff, there's no doubt FOV is important.

In fact, isn't the "zoom" in AH a variable FOV? At least that's what I thought we were doing. When we zoom in, we are narrowing the FOV, gaining detail and sizing more accurately.

I'm quite sure you could go to 1000' in AH and zoom in enough to distinguish numbers as numbers (corresponding to the T-38 example). But you'd give up almost all of a human's normal peripheral vision in doing that.

It would be quite interesting to see at what FOV that occurs. There's some good data on the web about human FOV and Peripheral vision.

Peripheral is REAL important in a game like this. Here's a clip of why I think so:

"The peripheral retinal system is sometimes called the "where" retina. It is involved with the subconscious control of human navigation. It is an old visual system, having evolved long before central visual processing. The evolution of the retina is played out as you go from the extreme edge of the retina (the oldest system in evolution) to the retinal "center", the fovea, where central processing occurs.

The extreme far edges of the retina are purely reflexive. When an object moves on the far retinal edge an immediate reflex swings the eyes in a direction which aligns the moving object with the fovea. Closer in, the peripheral retinal tissue can "see" movement, but there is no object recognition. When movement stops, the object becomes invisible. Closer in still, the medial peripheral retina monitors optical flow, the velocity of objects moving across the retinal surface. It is this optical flow that is the basis for the subconscious human navigation system, the "where is it" system."

Our problem is when we alter the FOV in the various games, we lose most of the peripheral vision.

I really don't think there's going to be a good solution until we either get half dome projection monitors or really, REALLY good VR goggles.  

 

[Toad]

Now, who's right about visual cues and detail?

First, I doubt anyone disagrees that visual cues are the basis for all guns ACM. Without them, there can be no ACM.

So, how do YOU decide who's right?

Real simple. Go down to you local airport and LOOK at airplanes in the air. You can find the length of any runway on the internet. If you park down at the end of a 5000 foot runway and watch planes making their turn to final at the other end; you can be assured you are seeing aircraft at a little over a mile away. I think you'll be surprised at how much detail you can see even on a little Cessna 172. I think you will find aspect, closure, etc., etc., will be far, far better than AH.

Even better, go to an airshow featuring WW2 planes. These will usually be done in accurate recreations of paint job and insignia. They also tend to take place at larger airports. These airports will usually have Runway Distance Markers that show distance from the marker to the end of the runway in thousands of feet.

They look like this, which shows 3000 feet to the end of the runway.




So get to the show early and park your carcass abeam an RDM near midfield. Then watch the aircraft as they turn in on the runway enterline. You'll have a fairly accurate idea of a known distance and you can observe the detail or lack of same on actual WW2 aircraft with accurate markings.

Then you'll know who to believe.

I conducted the aforementioned experiment out over the North Atlantic in the upper 30ks. I KNOW what I saw. I KNOW what the other pilot(s) saw; I conducted this experiment more than once. My specific goal was to see just when things were observable. It was easy to start out 4-5 miles back and off to one side, add a couple of percent of power and slowly creep in on the guy ahead and above. I stand by my comments.


Take yourself down to an airport and see for yourself.

[Dawger]

Now, who's right about visual cues and detail?

First, I doubt anyone disagrees that visual cues are the basis for all guns ACM. Without them, there can be no ACM.

So, how do YOU decide who's right?

Real simple. Go down to you local airport and LOOK at airplanes in the air. You can find the length of any runway on the internet. If you park down at the end of a 5000 foot runway and watch planes making their turn to final at the other end; you can be assured you are seeing aircraft at a little over a mile away. I think you'll be surprised at how much detail you can see even on a little Cessna 172. I think you will find aspect, closure, etc., etc., will be far, far better than AH.

Even better, go to an airshow featuring WW2 planes. These will usually be done in accurate recreations of paint job and insignia. They also tend to take place at larger airports. These airports will usually have Runway Distance Markers that show distance from the marker to the end of the runway in thousands of feet.

They look like this, which shows 3000 feet to the end of the runway.

(Image removed from quote.)


So get to the show early and park your carcass abeam an RDM near midfield. Then watch the aircraft as they turn in on the runway enterline. You'll have a fairly accurate idea of a known distance and you can observe the detail or lack of same on actual WW2 aircraft with accurate markings.

Then you'll know who to believe.

I conducted the aforementioned experiment out over the North Atlantic in the upper 30ks. I KNOW what I saw. I KNOW what the other pilot(s) saw; I conducted this experiment more than once. My specific goal was to see just when things were observable. It was easy to start out 4-5 miles back and off to one side, add a couple of percent of power and slowly creep in on the guy ahead and above. I stand by my comments.


Take yourself down to an airport and see for yourself.

So you are going to just ignore the fact that you posted proof of the mathematical equation of human visual acuity I posted inadvertently and continue to insist that humans can somehow defy the math?

Or do you admit your original premise of 12 inch diameter windows visible at 12,152 feet was not true since 10 inch letter are visible but not readable at 1250 feet?