Author Topic: Yet another thread about Radar :) (Read 3016 times)

R4M · « **on:** August 15, 2001, 03:53:00 PM »

Heya!

Well, we just put up a mission before, in the CT. 3 Ju88s escorted by 3 109F4s. We took off from A3 (in normandy

) to have enough time to win altitude while crossing the channel.

40 miles from South england we got bounced by a wonderfully timed and prepared group of spitfires. The fight was VERY fun, but still to be intercepted so away from our target (we were heading, of course, to London

) is something that for the bomber crews is not really enjoyable.

We were discussing it online. To solve this the inflight radar bar should reach only 1 or 2 sectors away from the nearest friendly base. That way the bombers get a realistic...well, a decent

chance to reach their targets and drop their ordnance.

I would vote for a no-inflight-dar at all but to satisfy everyone I think that the best thing is to do it as I suggest.

Any chance to see it included?

(BTW <S> To the RAF fighters who intercepted us

)

Maniac · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:08:00 PM »

This motion is seconed, it was way to easy to slaughter the german attack

Regards.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:09:00 PM »

Wouldn't that be a gameplay consession?

British radar operators could watch the German raids forming up over France during the BoB.

Maniac · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:11:00 PM »

I think we are talking INFLIGHT radar here Karnak, not the Tower radar...

Regards.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:19:00 PM »

I don't see the difference.

If you take away the inflight bar dar, which is supposed to simulate the information provided by ground control, you are effectively taking away the historical radar range.

In fact, more information should be provided to be historical.

Heading
Bearing
Altitude
Speed
Approximate numbers
A more precise location.

British fighters shouldn't be airborne, wasting precious fuel until there is a radar contact.

WWII ain't WWI.

-ammo- · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:21:00 PM »

Karnak, I didn't think the RAF radar folks had the level of radar coverage that we got. I mean either side can see where the other is the moment they spawn on the runway. All you gotta do is watch the activity bars to figure
out where the attack is going. I agree that it should be more limited. RAM's idea isn't bad IMO. I would like to see some kinda of limitation, maybe activity bars only working within 1 or 2 sectors of a radar station.

Others have nmentioned tower only radar, basically what WB's has. That would be cool too.

Will the current code AH has accomodate something like this?

Maniac · « **Reply #6 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:24:00 PM »

"If you take away the inflight bar dar, which is supposed to simulate the information provided by ground control"

Says who? if you want information provided by the ground control you better take turns sitting in the tower... (or thats how it should be atleast imho)

Regards.

R4M · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2001, 05:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak:
Wouldn't that be a gameplay consession?

British radar operators could watch the German raids forming up over France during the BoB.

fine. Put a player in ground controller duty with access to both dot and bar dar, and turn off everything for the flying ppl.

We have an accurate GPS inflight hangar wich makes navigation a joke. Now dont try to tell me that the inflight bar radar is something near realistic...

The gameplay concession here IS TO HAVE THE INFLIGHT RADAR. Not to turn it off. Still I'll be happy with just 2 sectors of range for the radar just to reach a compromise.

'nuff said

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

SKurj · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2001, 05:58:00 PM »

Ermm guys... in some areas of the euro map, 1 sector spans the WHOLE channel...

If the sectors could be shrunk, I love the idea of bar dar in flight ONLY within range of a friendly base, but the sectors would have to be 1/4-1/2 what they are now

SKurj

-ammo- · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2001, 06:50:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SKurj:
Ermm guys... in some areas of the euro map, 1 sector spans the WHOLE channel...

If the sectors could be shrunk, I love the idea of bar dar in flight ONLY within range of a friendly base, but the sectors would have to be 1/4-1/2 what they are now

SKurj

True, but who says everyone wants to take the shortest route?

Wouldnt it be nice to setup a raid and sneak in the "back door"?

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2001, 06:55:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by R4M:
Put a player in ground controller duty with access to both dot and bar dar, and turn off everything for the flying ppl.

WOW! You mean I can pay the monthly fee to watch the map and report aircraft positions for people?

AWESOME!!!

Err... no, not really.
-SW

daddog · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2001, 09:15:00 PM »

No ammo it will not.

I wish we could have "tower only" dar, but HT would have to change or add some flags to our current dar options.

Duckwing6 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2001, 01:57:00 AM »

seems as if folks have not yet found out that there is NO DIFFERENCE betweeen in-flight or on the ground for the clip-bord ... what you see is what you see (at least the way it's programmed right now)

anyhow... there would be a possibility to have DOT dar only within a certain range of towers, but then you'd have dot dar again.. which is too accurate IMHO

just as food for thought:

This is what you can change as radar settings:

Friendly and enemy radar bars and or dots on / off
dot radar range (just works within xxxx yards of the next tower)
radar alt (shows no markers or dots below this alt)
vahicles markers on/off

and that's about it
DW6

Lephturn · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2001, 07:10:00 AM »

Absolutely not.

I agree with Karnak. This would just make the game "harder" for no good reason.

The inflight information simulates what we would be getting from radar via ground controllers. This is a game, not a "simulation of all parts of WWII no matter how boring". We don't require somebody to be the guy that starts your engine. We don't require somebody to simulate being the guy that pulls your wheel chocks. We don't simulate all the BS you really had to do just to start one of these planes. To force somebody to sit in the tower and simulate being a radar controller when we have a much simpler method to simulate the same level of pilot information is simply rediculous. If you want to spend your time doing that, feel free, but don't require somebody else to do it just so I can get a reasonable level of information while I'm in the cockpit. That's just silly.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2001, 07:18:00 AM »

Leph, I've said that in as many forms as I possibly could.

They simply do not understand it or will not accept it.

Either way, it's a waste of your time to talk logic to them. They read it and try to pull some reverse psychology on you (which is easily refuted), and they just keep pushing it that their way is the "historic" way...

Anyway you slice it, they are right..... in their own minds.
-SW