Let me tell a true AH story…

[CAV]

The issue seems to be that HT has a select group that he takes game advice from.

And that group has always appeared to be furballers...

Not combat simulation players...

CAV

[Shane]

Shortest I can do: AWACS is bad for [me].

Fixed. 

I'm okay going back to dot dar, tho'

[toasted]

even just dot dar alone would help quite a bit. knowing exactly where they are headed is super overpowered.

and id like to see the radar share detection range limited to like 3k instead of everyone in a 12k circle.

seems like these would help some, and wouldn't necessarily  create the pushback turning it off completely would.

[LilMak]

I and many others agree with you LilMak. This was one of the things that lowered my "fun" in the game before the final straw came.

The issue seems to be that HT has a select group that he takes game advice from. If you can figure out who one of these people are and get them to pitch it to him you might get some traction because at this point I fear we're beating a dead horse.

I’m certain HT is aware. I just don’t think the full ramifications AWACS is completely understood. I wholeheartedly believe getting rid of it will help a lot of what ails us at the moment. I’m also pretty convinced it’s more of a setting issue than a code issue. Depending on how it is addressed. There is also evidence it could potentially bring a significant number of players back if it’s addressed.

To be clear. I don’t think it will stop hordes or picking or any of those things. Nor would a want it to (believe it or not). But it absolutely will make combating those things more palatable. I just want the pendulum to swing back towards the middle ground. I can live with fighter and bomber icons with direction of flight in radar rings. I don’t think there’s a need to regress back to “dot dar”.

AWACS really affects the 4th dimension (time) the most. And it’s truly hard to quantify that with spreadsheets and statistics. You get a kill, you have a moment to reassess. That fighter flying away from doesn’t see you low on their 6. Now you can head for town. The fight is complete and there is an extra 10-15 seconds for you to see what’s coming versus it being dumped in your lap. You can get to town because that fighter on a perch didn’t see you below their wing. You get a little separation after maneuvering in a cloud. You catch that bomber before he can turn away. You sneak out skimming treetops after you used the last of your ammunition on the guy who limped away. You kill two bombers in the middle of 15 fighters before they can overwhelm you.

Some simply don’t remember or have had a lot more success with the crutch and don’t want to give it up. I understand that.

[toasted]

I don’t think there’s a need to regress back to “dot dar”.

You've obviously thought about this more than i have. But i still think Dot Dar is better for gameplay. anything that will force players eyes out the window is a win. in a furball knowing where each enemy is pointed without looking is a pretty strong tool.

you can fly defensivly without looking back, that's too much info and has zero analogue with how it was used in ww2.
and it doesn't stop anyone from finding a fight, it just makes you pay more attention when you do.

at least with a dot when i get jumped by 5 guys there is some hope that they all didn't immediately end up on my six.

[Oldman731]

And that group has always appeared to be furballers...

Not combat simulation players...

And there has always been that tension between the furballers and war-winners (or, a/k/a, the combat simulation players).  Other examples are the pickers, the gangers, and the vulchers, also the carrier-hiders and the comical people who used to land their goon near an enemy base and sit there until the ack was down. 

The game has always needed both groups.

- oldman

[Wiley]

The problem I felt it did fix in the beginning was the reporting an enemy group inbound to a field on country, and people not responding until they saw the dots on radar at the field, and it not giving them enough time to up and climb before the group was over the field.  I saw that get better when other people could see the little airplanes on their map.

But, we shall see what HT makes of it at some point I'm sure.

Wiley.

[caldera]

Have to agree with the OP.  It sucks to be the single con that is a magnet for others far from you, both friend and foe.  Had a good 1v1 against a P-39D of all things and just as I had him pinned down, three friendlies cleared my twelve.  No "do you need help?", just "BANSAI!" and ganged the f out of him.

I think the old dot dar was fine, but would like to see the radar towers require 3,000 lbs (or more) to kill.  It's stupid that one fighter can zoom in at 500 mph and take it out with guns.

[LilMak]

You've obviously thought about this more than i have. But i still think Dot Dar is better for gameplay. anything that will force players eyes out the window is a win. in a furball knowing where each enemy is pointed without looking is a pretty strong tool.

you can fly defensivly without looking back, that's too much info and has zero analogue with how it was used in ww2.
and it doesn't stop anyone from finding a fight, it just makes you pay more attention when you do.

at least with a dot when i get jumped by 5 guys there is some hope that they all didn't immediately end up on my six.

I’m with you on dot dar. I don’t care for the icons but I can live with them if AWACS goes away. I actually try to think about the workload on Dale (believe it or not) and I don’t think it’s necessary to go back into the code to enact most of what I asked for in the OP. Believe it or not I try to temper my expectations but this setting has been detrimental to game play. Instant darbar will help players seek out the enemy. Hardening the radar towers is long overdue. And plane icons within radar rings is livable. I’ll never be OK with AWACS but I would be grateful if it’s pulled in.

[JimmyD3]

I wouldn't worry to much about the "Load on Dale", with ChatGPT/Codex I think he's having a ball. 

[AKKuya]

I agree with dot dar as a solution. It's just a matter of settings being utilized.   That was my initial thought after the OP.  I just wanted to see if others would publicly post as well.

[LilMak]

Shrinking the distance is more help than reverting to dot dar IMO. AWACS just needs to die.

[haggerty]

I like the AWACS, in fact it was a wishlist of mine that got implemented.  The only changes I would make is no plane type icon from standard radar, only when spotted by a player in icon range.  The AWACS is simulating what you would be reporting in real life, sure its in real time, but still the same data.  In a game I don't want to be talking in a MIC to HQ to report everything i'm seeing, so a simulation of it is great.
Maybe could add a button that the player has to press to 'spot' the enemy, like marking it with the box, then its reported to everyone else's map.

[Animl-AW]

I think it's lil late in the game for any huge changes.
Icon Dar has been around a long time now.
People tend to grow into things, even if it's not perfect.

What we read on bbs is not the last word of the masses, it's the words of a fraction of the masses who have been kinda lobbied.

I tend to like Dot Dar.
Icons are/were cool, but outside the realm of realism.
I think there needs to be something easier for new players and doesn't shake the vets up too much.

Consideration

Radar Ring Size

Early-Warning Radars
British Chain Home (CH): Large static coastal stations had a maximum detection range of up to 120 to 200 miles for high-flying bomber formations.
Surface and Tactical Sets: Standard ground and shipboard early warning sets (like the US SCR-270) typically tracked incoming aircraft out to about 100 miles.

Gun-Laying and Fire-Control Radars
Anti-Aircraft (e.g., SCR-584): Tactical mobile units used to direct anti-aircraft fire could detect medium-range aircraft up to 40 miles away with high precision.
Naval Fire Control: Shipborne systems like the US Mark 4 tracked bomber aircraft up to 22 miles (40,000 yards) and large enemy warships at 17 miles (30,000 yards).

Anti-Submarine / Surface Search
Airborne radar fitted to patrol aircraft could spot a surfaced U-boat at distances over 5 miles, while later centimetric sets could identify smaller targets like exposed periscopes.

[-gg-]

I don't look at the radar as strictly representing actual radar. I view it as a display of tactical information that could have been coming over a radio. I view it as the game's way of representing what might have been transmitted over a radio by local pilots in the area. Yeah, it might be too accurate but I think it's pretty cool and I've never had a problem with it. I don't see how it really hurts anything. I thought it was a pretty cool idea myself. The local radar that shows up when a friendly is in an area where you wouldn't normally have radar. That's what I'm talking about. I don't view that as radar.

I don't view it as literal AWACS.

I would way much rather have ENY adjusted for low numbers.