Icon Philosophy - Approach

[Toad]

Yes.

I'm going to go with repeated and witnessed actual personal experience.

You might try it sometime.

[Toad]

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?

BTW, you might see if you can figure out how a 10 inch letter or number that might be 2 inches wide is different from a 10" x 12" solid piece of plexiglass set against a white painted aluminum skin.

[jimson]

This thread needs to die.

[dhyran]

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?

hey dawger,

come into the AVA, we got a blast there last night 

<S> to jimson and crew, good Fun guys!

[Dawger]

BTW, you might see if you can figure out how a 10 inch letter or number that might be 2 inches wide is different from a 10" x 12" solid piece of plexiglass set against a white painted aluminum skin.

There is established science that the human eye resolution is 1/60 of a degree. You posted an Air Force reference that confirms this to be so in everyday practice in the visibility but not readability of a 10 inch by 50 inch block of letters and you still insist that there is no possibility you were mistaken?

I do not doubt that you believe you saw windows at 2 miles but where is your confirmation they were actually there and not just put there by a brain that expects them there? I have seen this phenomenon occur man times to myself and others with crossing traffic. We play a game with crossing traffic. Maybe you should try it. Name the airline and aircraft model of approaching crossing traffic at 10, 5 and 1 mile. It is amazing the number of times the initial guess is completely wrong. And it is also amazing that those windows you think are there turn out to be imaginary when a freighter goes whipping past with nary a window in sight.

This is why this is such a futile argument. An individual can post something that disproves his own assertion and still claim the anecdote to have been correct in the face of overwhelming empirical data.

The USAF says (In a reference posted by Toad) 10 inch high letters, black on a white background, are visible but not readable at 1250 feet. Toad asserts clear 12 inch circles on any background are clearly discernible at ten times that distance.

It is not believable on its face and there are established scientific standards that make the claim to be able to see passenger windows at 2 miles totally ridiculous.

Yet Toad continues to insist that he saw them. I believe he did see them. And the little imaginary green men sitting in the seats.

I knew this was pointless when I started but to have a guy disprove his own anecdote and still hold to its veracity is something new so at least I got the humor out of seeing that happen.

[dedalos]

Let me sum up the thread for you.

Seasoned players (Toad, Bighorn, etc) with years of experience in the game are making good points and back them up with data.

Nubes, "Mommy, they won't agree with me!!!" 

[jimson]

hey dawger,

come into the AVA, we got a blast there last night 

<S> to jimson and crew, good Fun guys!

Had a lot of fun with Loose Duece in the arena.

Yeah they mostly kicked my tail, but I got a kill or two it was lotsa fun.

Salute LD and all others who played, hope to see you all again.

jimson

[Toad]

You clearly don't understand the visible, not readable statement.

It doesn't say you can't see the numbers until 1250 feet (actually it says they are readable at 1000 feet but I understand your problem).

It says you can't read the numbers until 1000 feet. This is because a 3 looks a lot like an 8 until you get that close.

It never, ever says how far away you can see the black of the numbers against the white background. It doesn't say how far away you can see the USAF insignia. All it says it that basically, you can't tell a 3 from an 8 until about 1000 feet.  You can keep trying to make it say more than that but it doesn't.

To the point, try that in AH. Use normal view and see how close you have to get to actually read the serial numbers on the art work. The old P-51 default skin had serial numbers under the horizontal stabilizer. See how close you have to get to read them.

Second. So, you play a game guessing what type/company an airliner is at 10 miles, 5 miles and 1 mile? Tell me, what does a bomber at 10 miles look like in AH? 5 miles? Again, you make my case for me. The game is seriously deficient in visual cues due to the limitations of the technology.

In that example you inadvertently touch upon a truth you have so far ignored. Have you ever heard the comment made by people out in the mountains that things look so close but are acutally far away? The clarity of the air has a lot do to with how far you can see. I submit that at 35k over the North Atlantic on a clear day you can see farther than you can in the Los Angeles basin at ground level.

You can natter on all you like but the fact is a person with good eyesight CAN distinguish the windows on a large Boeing or Airbus at 2 miles as verified by TCAS and corroborated by GPS/Position Reports. After you've actually tried that, get back to me.

Lastly, dear readers, again I'll say there's no reason to believe either Dawger or me. Just go on down to your local airport after you've confirmed its runway length. Sit at one end and watch the airplanes at the other end. Then go back and compare what you saw to what you see in AH. You will inescapably come to the conclusion that current PC technology cannot provide the viusal cues necessary for guns ACM. You will understand that all this "no icons" blather is an artificial difficulty level. Nothing wrong with that but the word "realistic" doesn't apply to "no icons".

As I said, if you like no icons, good for you. You can quickly set up your own computer to display that way or you can play the various arenas/scenarios that offer that option.

[gyrene81]

Let me sum up the thread for you.

Seasoned players (Toad, Bighorn, etc) with years of experience in the game are making good points and back them up with data.

Nubes, "Mommy, they won't agree with me!!!" 

LMAO...if you say so mommy.

At least you're just voicing an opinion...Bighorn is simply clueless...and Toad is stuck somewhere in scientific conjecture...what all of you seem to conveniently miss is every time someone says, yes there are limitations that we all agree exist...it's a virtual world and it's been modeled as well as the graphics engine HTC uses and our personal computers can handle...there are simulator systems that are far more advanced but most of use can't afford them.

I'm willing to bet if we all used 42 inch monitors, there would be less discussion of "the human eye can blah blah blah" and more of "well I tried it and I just don't like it"...i



It's a hobby, not a life...and no matter how long you have been playing it, we're all just gamers living out illusions of glory in a fantasy world.

[Toad]

...and Toad is stuck somewhere in scientific conjecture...

Actually, I'm stuck in real world actual experience with witnesses who saw the same things I did. The guy with the slide rule is Dawger. Hope that helps.

I'm willing to bet if we all used 42 inch monitors, there would be less discussion of "the human eye can blah blah blah" and more of "well I tried it and I just don't like it"...

Probably not. I've flown in some of the most expensive six axis motions simulators available as of 7 years ago and their multi-screen visuals were, for the most part no better than AH for detail. In some respects they were not as good. Maybe an Imax 3D dome would get us closer but they're still kinda expensive.

It's a hobby, not a life...and no matter how long you have been playing it, we're all just gamers living out illusions of glory in a fantasy world.

I've got no problems with "no icons" as an artificial difficulty level. What made me jump into this thread was the stupid "realism" claims; that's simply bogus. As I've said repeatedly, a trip to your local airport will quickly show anyone the truth about 'no icons realism'.

[gyrene81]

I've got no problems with "no icons" as an artificial difficulty level. What made me jump into this thread was the stupid "realism" claims; that's simply bogus. As I've said repeatedly, a trip to your local airport will quickly show anyone the truth about 'no icons realism'.

Ok, now I understand...maybe the key words used should have been "realistically immersive" since that is all we're talking about...another level of immersion into the false reality of aerial combat...it's not really that difficult...and obviously using a larger monitor is a little better but, there are a couple of guys using laptops and they kick butt.


I've been to air shows...and air national guard bases...more often after I started playing AH...sitting 1/2 to 1 mile off the end of the runway (according to the odometer) you get all kinds of views on various aircraft...you're not seeing a lot of detail on a WWII fighter from a mile away, much less 2 miles...colors, reflections off bare metal and glass and depending on the angle, the insignia on the bottom of the wings are the size of postage stamps.

[Toad]

And how do WW2 aircraft look in AH at a mile? Seeing any insignia on the wing? Thanks for making my point again.

As for immersive, the biggest joke on here is a guy crying that unless the other guy plays his way, it's not immersive.

Each and every one of us immerse ourselves into the game in our own way. PC quality, Monitors, controls, sound, fake cockpits, scenarios, choice of arenas, dressing up in LW leather, whatever.

Here's a shocker: if you're depending on someone else to provide your immersion, you're bound to fail.

I'll give you an example. Right now my machine in WW1, with everything turned down, will give 90 frames on the way to a furball. Once in the furball, it drops to the teens. Now, with everything turned down, I lose some immersion. When the frames go to 18, it REALLY drops my immersion.

That's all my problem, however, not someone else's. When my old gaming machine mobo melted, I never built a new gaming machine. So, it's my fault. Now that we have WW1 and more of what I originally played AH for, I think I will build a new machine that provides much more immersion for myself.

Same with icons. Do they ruin your immersion? Easy fix: Alt/I and turn them off on your computer.

[Sonicblu]

you guys are in such violent agreement you cant SEE toejamakemushrooms.

VERTY few in this or any thread can stay on a topic. Then move to the next. Without resolving a premise.

The problem with the icon debate is you guys need to frame the debate then stick to the point before moving on to other arguments.

There is so much implied claims supposition pre supposition and sloppy generalizations. It just makes me Yawn.

Or you guys take others words, quote only part,  then "Reframe the debate"

I think the quote feature should be removed.

No matter what is in the game it can be used to improve game play for others or deminish it. It is the personal choice on how you play the game.

This thread is a perfect example........ The same way I see the quote feature being abused on the bbs. The same player will abuse the use of icons, or the the lack thereof.

Just my thoughts.

Play the game in a way the raised the level of play for everyone! It will go much further then trying to resovle the icon debate at this level.

[gyrene81]

And how do WW2 aircraft look in AH at a mile? Seeing any insignia on the wing? Thanks for making my point again.

I'm going to throw zoom at you on that one...with the icon reading 2.5k using 3/4 zoom the insignia can be seen...obviously graphics settings determines how well it's rendered.

As for immersive, the biggest joke on here is a guy crying that unless the other guy plays his way, it's not immersive.

Here's a shocker: if you're depending on someone else to provide your immersion, you're bound to fail.

You do realize that the same argument is made on a daily basis about people who don't dogfight the way someone else thinks they should...and romper room names get tossed out because some jerk has a false sense of superiority just because he can stir his joystick faster than the other one? But I don't see 10 pages of people saying that kind of behavior is as unacceptable as the ideas posed on this thread. There is a whole lot of fail going on daily and more people are likely to jump on the bandwagon than say anything against it.

I'll give you an example. Right now my machine in WW1, with everything turned down, will give 90 frames on the way to a furball. Once in the furball, it drops to the teens. Now, with everything turned down, I lose some immersion. When the frames go to 18, it REALLY drops my immersion.

You have a settings problem...no way should your system be showing 90fps with vsync turned on...unless the monitor is a 120Hz or 240Hz and your video card is capable of rendering above standard monitor refresh rates. If you're game resolution is not set the same as your monitor resolution, you will get some bizarre and unstable frame rates.

[SEraider]

you guys are in such violent agreement you cant SEE soupakemushrooms.

VERTY few in this or any thread can stay on a topic. Then move to the next. Without resolving a premise.

The problem with the icon debate is you guys need to frame the debate then stick to the point before moving on to other arguments.

There is so much implied claims supposition pre supposition and sloppy generalizations. It just makes me Yawn.

Or you guys take others words, quote only part,  then "Reframe the debate"

I think the quote feature should be removed.

No matter what is in the game it can be used to improve game play for others or deminish it. It is the personal choice on how you play the game.

This thread is a perfect example........ The same way I see the quote feature being abused on the bbs. The same player will abuse the use of icons, or the the lack thereof.

Just my thoughts.

Play the game in a way the raised the level of play for everyone! It will go much further then trying to resovle the icon debate at this level.

That being said, I think it was Oldman who was the only one who understood what I was really trying to say about how combat dynamics would be different with this idead. But somehow, this part of my original discussion was almost entirely missed.  So what can I do...

Some, understandably see this as raising the difficulty of play.  I dissagree.  It just cuts out the premeditative nature of angles of veterans over newer pilots, hence, evening the odds for all players.  I understand the argument of the naked eye versus limitations of computer graphics.  Heck, i'd be happy with enemy ID's at 800-1,000 yards out or less just to try it one night in the special arenas.