New Terrain in the AVA--guadalcanal

[CAP1]

No, you are still insisting on the provably incorrect notion that computer screens can give anywhere near a realistic representation of a human's visual acuity. There isn't really even any debate about this. You don't think a real pilot can ID a plane from 2,500 yards? Tallys have occured in clear air at 25 *miles*.

I can tell a Mooney from a Cessna at 6,000 feet distance...and I wear glasses.  BTW, that collection of pixels is a 109K4 at far less than half a mile. That screenie more or less proves my point without another argument needing to be made. No icons simulate legally blind pilots, and making that the "default" setting in the AvA is yet another example of that arena shooting itself in the foot in terms of popularity.

was i correct? in the ballpark of D1000 to D1500?

i don't think any of us are sayin that our monitors are as good as the human eye....but it sure as hell is fun to fly without the icons.....and in a close in knife fight....it adds many new dimensions to this wonderful game.

[BnZs]

was i correct? in the ballpark of D1000 to D1500?

i don't think any of us are sayin that our monitors are as good as the human eye....but it sure as hell is fun to fly without the icons.....and in a close in knife fight....it adds many new dimensions to this wonderful game.

No, the distance was -800.

[CAP1]

No, the distance was -800.

so i was in the ballpark. 

[BnZs]

so i was in the ballpark.  

No. Over 2000 feet is not "in the ball park". It is the difference between well out of guns danger and within plausible range to land hits and nearly close enough for a good guns solution. The difference in timing your break or another maneuver that this impreciscion in range could make for is also immense.

[LLogann]

And let us not forget that our computer monitor is FAR BETTER than our eyes! 

[Slash27]

Who cares, people are having a good time.WTF?

[Oldman731]

Who cares, people are having a good time.WTF?

BnZ is not having a good time.  That's fine, clearly the AvA - no matter what the settings - will not please everyone.

Thanks for trying it out BnZ.

- oldman

[BnZs]

BnZ is not having a good time.  That's fine, clearly the AvA - no matter what the settings - will not please everyone.

Thanks for trying it out BnZ.

- oldman

I think the AvA is the best idea anyone ever had for an arena...EXCEPT for the no icons setting becoming standard. I still enjoy other events that present a historical matchup from time to time.

[Vinkman]

No, you are still insisting on the provably incorrect notion that computer screens can give anywhere near a realistic representation of a human's visual acuity. There isn't really even any debate about this. You don't think a real pilot can ID a plane from 2,500 yards? Tallys have occured in clear air at 25 *miles*.

I can tell a Mooney from a Cessna at 6,000 feet distance...and I wear glasses.  BTW, that collection of pixels is a 109K4 at far less than half a mile. That screenie more or less proves my point without another argument needing to be made. No icons simulate legally blind pilots, and making that the "default" setting in the AvA is yet another example of that arena shooting itself in the foot in terms of popularity.

I Agree and dissagree. I agree with your resolution of the eye argument but dissagree on the effect. In real life pilots got snuck up on all the time. Diving planes were lost in the visiual canopy. With icons everyone is seen, all the time. Incredibly un-realistic. what's the point of camoflage paint schemes if you have a giant neon red icon over your head? while the ability to not distignuish friend from foe is little more limited in the clear blue sky than it would be in real life, overall I think the no icon set up is closer to reality in terms of the strategy that arises out visually finding the enemy then the MA set up with Icons. I think the icons over compensate by a wide margin.

No icons is one of the  things I love best about AVA.

No map Guandal canal, P-39s vs Zekes! I so there. See you tonight.

[CAP1]

No. Over 2000 feet is not "in the ball park". It is the difference between well out of guns danger and within plausible range to land hits and nearly close enough for a good guns solution. The difference in timing your break or another maneuver that this impreciscion in range could make for is also immense.

if you said he was d800, and i guessed d1000 to d1500......i don';t see how that can be over 2000 ft. that being said, i've not had a con look that small at shooting distance in my gunsight.

[mtnman]

Incredibly un-realistic. what's the point of camoflage paint schemes if you have a giant neon red icon over your head? while the ability to not distignuish friend from foe is little more limited in the clear blue sky than it would be in real life, overall I think the no icon set up is closer to reality in terms of the strategy that arises out visually finding the enemy then the MA set up with Icons. I think the icons over compensate by a wide margin.
 

I don't see the camouflage having any effect in the game anyway, due to the close range where other planes just turn into a light or dark grey plane, or a black plane, or a dot.  In order for me to see the paint-scheme well enough to detect a shapes, patterns, or any kind of "subtle" color differences, I need to be inside of D200, and realistically closer to about 100-150 yards.  If you're further away than that, your paint scheme plays no part.

Beyond that range, all paint schemes blend into an overall "light" or "dark" mass.  Anyone who uses camouflage in real life knows that once your pattern shifts to a general "light" or "dark", you've lost all effectiveness. 

Compare that to real life...  I regularly watch sky divers on my way to and from work.  That's handy because I know exactly where they jump and land, so it's easy for me to know how far away they are (they land 100yds off the side of the highway).  I can see color details (as well as "form" details) from 2.5 to three miles out (which would be at 5K range in game).  Due to that, I can actually "lose" them against a colored background.  Not so in the game...  No ability to see form or color at that range, and the plane is a black dot, which easily shows up at that range.  In RL, I can see car color, and my ability to detect "friend" from "foe" is drastically improved over the game graphics.  I can pick out a cop by subtle colors/patterns/shapes that are invisible in game at any range.

Now, in RL I have above-average color "ability" and knowledge, and I'm sensitive to a lot of things about it that most folks aren't, so that may play a part.  In game, I'm running a good computer, with a good, large-screen monitor, at Hi-Res with the Hi-Res pack.  There's no comparison between RL and game visuals.

I do agree, however, that the icons make it too easy.  I just don't see the "no icons" setting as making up for that.  It skews reality at least as far the other way...

[gyrene81]

No, you are still insisting on the provably incorrect notion that computer screens can give anywhere near a realistic representation of a human's visual acuity. There isn't really even any debate about this. You don't think a real pilot can ID a plane from 2,500 yards? Tallys have occured in clear air at 25 *miles*.

I can tell a Mooney from a Cessna at 6,000 feet distance...and I wear glasses.  BTW, that collection of pixels is a 109K4 at far less than half a mile. That screenie more or less proves my point without another argument needing to be made. No icons simulate legally blind pilots, and making that the "default" setting in the AvA is yet another example of that arena shooting itself in the foot in terms of popularity.

actually, the computer monitor and video card can render objects a lot better than you give it credit...it's the applications that dictate what information gets sent to the hardware...unfortunately the data needed for full scale rendering like would be seen in military/commercial grade flight simulators, is not conducive to massive multiplayer applications.

as for your 2500 yard (7500 feet) positive id charge...don't make the mistake of thinking that a positive id on a 50 foot long object is possible from more than a mile away to everyone who ever flies or flew an airplane...spotting an object is one thing...positive id is another...it's very well documented that erroneous ID's were made constantly, on friend and foe alike.

but this is all off topic on this particular discussion. if you want to pursue it further...start another convo in the ava forums.

[Vinkman]

I don't see the camouflage having any effect in the game anyway, due to the close range where other planes just turn into a light or dark grey plane, or a black plane, or a dot.  In order for me to see the paint-scheme well enough to detect a shapes, patterns, or any kind of "subtle" color differences, I need to be inside of D200, and realistically closer to about 100-150 yards.  If you're further away than that, your paint scheme plays no part.

Beyond that range, all paint schemes blend into an overall "light" or "dark" mass.  Anyone who uses camouflage in real life knows that once your pattern shifts to a general "light" or "dark", you've lost all effectiveness. 

Compare that to real life...  I regularly watch sky divers on my way to and from work.  That's handy because I know exactly where they jump and land, so it's easy for me to know how far away they are (they land 100yds off the side of the highway).  I can see color details (as well as "form" details) from 2.5 to three miles out (which would be at 5K range in game).  Due to that, I can actually "lose" them against a colored background.  Not so in the game...  No ability to see form or color at that range, and the plane is a black dot, which easily shows up at that range.  In RL, I can see car color, and my ability to detect "friend" from "foe" is drastically improved over the game graphics.  I can pick out a cop by subtle colors/patterns/shapes that are invisible in game at any range.

Now, in RL I have above-average color "ability" and knowledge, and I'm sensitive to a lot of things about it that most folks aren't, so that may play a part.  In game, I'm running a good computer, with a good, large-screen monitor, at Hi-Res with the Hi-Res pack.  There's no comparison between RL and game visuals.

I do agree, however, that the icons make it too easy.  I just don't see the "no icons" setting as making up for that.  It skews reality at least as far the other way...

   just to make a case for why I think no icon is actually more realistic.
On the Eastern front Gunter Rall and Erich Hartmann spoke at length about being massively out numbers by russian aircraft, and that visual stealth was a key factor in ambush tactics which were vital to their success in shooting down aircraft but also in their escape afforts. The Hartmann defense as described by Hartmann is  employed with a bandit on his six oclock. The manuever begins wish a banked turn to one side where the persuer follows. When the bandit tries to pull lead, Hartmann would push negative Gs away from the bandit and roll way into a new direction. Out of sight below the nose, he was in the bandits blind spot a few seconds. In Hartmann's own words, this was enough to lose any bandit "as the German camoflage paints scheme made the planes practically invisible when viewed from above". [note: I'll try to fight the page referense for the quote] He also used such visual stealth to zoom below enemy aircraft heading at him, and pull up behind them. It seems impractical to assume that most pilots got ambushed because they weren't paying attention. I think visual stealth of aircraft was a bigger factor than folks give it credit for.  Icons make visual stealth impossible.

I do agree that dots could appear sooner, but if you think about it from the persective of "was visual stealth a factor in WWII air combat, and was it a big factor?"  I think no-icon is closer the truth than Icon, for recreating the strategy and tacts employ during the war.  In AvA I've litterally lost aircraft I was dogfighting when I got advantage and they broke and dove to the deck. I think this adds a demention that is lost in MA, but was present in real life. I agree that it might be stealthier than it was in real life, but for one arena to have that tactical element is a nice change of pace.


Anyway, just my two cents.  

[CAP1]

THE dots in this arena appear at over 6k yards, just like they do in the other arenas.

 camo does indeed play a rather large part in this arena as well. i've used it to gain advantage, and i've lost advantage due to this. especially against german aircraft. their camo is probably the best in game.
 when i fight them over the water, never a problem....get into a low alt knife fight with em......different story. i've also had some dive away from me when in medium and high alt fights. they're not running. they're using that tool to re-gain advantage.

as for positively id'ing an aircraft over 2 miles away? i don't think so. as for seeing colors on a person that far away? if you can, i think the us govt. may want to be having a talk with you.

 i fully understand that some people may not like fighting with the lack of icons. i've no problem with this. but to come and say this is harder than flying with them........it's not. it is simply a different set of skills to fight without them, nothing more, nothign less.

 as i've stated in other threads, this arena is probably the best thing that's happened to my cartoon self. although i never thought i was, i was a very timid fighter in the mw arena. this became obvious in the ava. it caused me to change my fighting style to a much more aggressive one.

[Shuffler]

I enjoy the ava. My eyes are not what they used to be either.