Author Topic: Floating gunsight (Read 554 times)

Seeker · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2002, 05:00:10 AM »

While the Lcos in AW worked well in A2A engagements, it had a terrible effect on game play with respect to Jabo attacks - you had to be an idiot to miss!

It was perfect for a 500 MPH dive bomb attack on AW's acks, making the P51 the de-riguer choice for base attacks.

I always felt that this was gamey to the extreme. While the Stang did indeed "do" ground attack, in AW it was the Jabo of choice over the Jug, and that can't be right!

I wouldn't want to see that happening in AH.

Actually, to some, the Lcos was a distraction - there was a tendency to "chase the pipper"; and not the target.

HoHun · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2002, 02:24:59 PM »

Hi Seeker,

>While the Lcos in AW worked well in A2A engagements, it had a terrible effect on game play with respect to Jabo attacks

Yes, it made Jabo attacks as ridiculously accurate as level bombing ;-)

But seriously, LCOS and the dive bombing sight - CCIP - are entirely different things. LCOS (Lead Computing Optical Gunsight) was historical WW2 technology, CCIP (Continuously Calculated Impact Point) was introduced much later.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Sikboy · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2002, 03:52:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigCrate
man thats roadkill! I'm tired of some Golly-geen company modeling one plane this way and porking another that way!
Kesmai wasn't that bad at it. They gave you some choices on things. But here nobody from HTC will listen. And if they do they just say no and thats it..
Cw

I'm not sure I understand where this "Nobody from HTC will listen" is coming from. Now, this is just a guess on my part, but I offer it anyhow. HTC DOES listen to its fanbase. But the question comes, where do they draw the line? Where does something that is desired by some, win out over those who despise it? Obviously you can't give everything to everyone. The goal then, is to find a line somewhere that keeps a majority of the players happy, while not completely alienating those who dissagree with some of the overal descisions.

As far as handicapping planes, I don't see it in this instance. I mean, as far as I understand, you're talking about adding a feature that didn't exist in real life: An AirWarrior-like lead computing sight. You've said that you're not talking about a realistic sight, so I'm just lost as to where you're coming from. I've never noticed any public outcry or groundswell of support for such a feature, so how does this come down to HTC not listening to fans?

-Sikboy

HoHun · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2002, 05:59:22 PM »

Hi Sikboy,

>I mean, as far as I understand, you're talking about adding a feature that didn't exist in real life: An AirWarrior-like lead computing sight.

The LCOS was WW2 technology. Britain, the USA and Germany all had their own variants of LCOS sights. Air Warrior's representation was slightly simplistic, but fairly close to the real capabilities nevertheless.

It's quite ironic that Aces High isn't even up to the level of realism the simplistic Air Warrior had from very early on :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Sikboy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2002, 08:26:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigCrate
I'm not talking making it like a real gunsight. I want it to be kinda like the AW sight..

Sorry HoHun, I think you took that statement out of context. I was referening to the above quote when I mentioned wanting a feature that didn't exist in real life.

-Sikboy

HoHun · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2002, 02:29:40 PM »

Hi Sikboy,

>Sorry HoHun, I think you took that statement out of context.

I noticed the original quote you were referring to didn't make much sense :-)

Still, let me assure you the AW LCOS was reasonably realistic, and LCOS technology was used operationally in WW2.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)