>I'd love to be able to do away with ALL
>icons, but I could go along with this idea
>for the interim.
You never know. Hardware improves all the time. But screen resolution hasn't grown at the same rate as processor power has. So it might be awhile.
>We come back to those pixel limits you
>mentioned, however. Zooming won't help; all
>you see is a bigger dot, not any more
>detail.
Well, back to our previous definition, beyond con range means being beyond the range that in real life the human eye would be able resolve what type aircraft it was. You would see something, but not know what it is. And not knowing what it was, you could not infer distance. It is the realization of what aircraft type it is, and knowing its actual size, that allows you to infer distance from its apperant size. Thats what would happen at con range. Thats when the lightbulb would suddenly click on. Until then, a large unkown object at great distance, looks exactly the same as a smaller unkown object at closer range. You have no frame of reference. So in that case, I still think the non-descript dots work just fine.
>A bomber with a fighter in close trail at 6-
>7 miles shouldn't show a specific plane
>type ID, but you should be able to see that
>one dot is larger than the other.
Agian, if I see two unknown objects there is no way, even in real life, that I can tell if they are big objects far off or smaller objects closer. Only when I can identify what type they are can I infer that information and at that time I should have my icon as well.
>This is an area that needs some work, IMHO.
I agree. I'm sure simulation developers everywhere are always looking for a better way to implement this. If you know, or have seen, a better implementation that is workable on the currently avialable consumer level hardware please share it with us.
Until then, I think the solution that HTC, and many others, have implemented is perfectly reasonable given the limitations.
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 01-27-2000).]