Author Topic: Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...  (Read 3769 times)

Offline garrido

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #120 on: July 31, 2001, 10:31:00 AM »
SWulfe friend:

as it wanted to know how to speak english and not to have to use this damn translator.
It wanted to make see (from my data) many things him that I believe that you have mistaken, like for example its note on the radar in pearl harbour.
 It was not an attack with as much surprise as people create, the Japanese notification of attack to the embassy of Japan in the U.S.A. was even deciphered before to the own ambassador japanese. The radar I detect the attack, warning, but measures were not taken nor I watch the route of return of the airplanes to their aircraft carriers. The attack japanese was predicted, but I do not interest that the base was prepared to repel it, that is the real history that you can find you watch where she watches please but, that all we are in favor of one or another option of the fighters of the WWII and for that reason we are due to respect, or paid to our parents the errors committed by its leaders, I request it to all, when somebody begins post we deal with respect the answers.

An affectionate greeting to all

SUPONGO

Spanish:

Amigo SWulfe:

como quisiera saber hablar ingles y no tener que usar este maldito traductor.
Quisiera hacerle ver (desde mis datos) muchas cosas que creo que usted tiene equivocadas, como por ejemplo su nota sobre el radar en pearl harbour.
No fue un ataque con tanta sorpresa como la gente cree, incluso la notificacion de ataque japonesa a la embajada de Japon en los EEUU fue descifrada antes que el propio embajador japones.
El radar detecto el ataque, se aviso, pero no se tomaron medidas ni se miro la ruta de vuelta de los aviones a sus portaaviones.
El ataque japones estaba previsto, pero no intereso que la base se preparase para repelerlo, esa es la historia real que usted puede encontrar mire donde mire.
pero por favor, se que todos somos partidarios de una u otra opcion de los luchadores de la WWII y por eso nos debemos respetar, ya pagaron nuestros padres los errores cometidos por sus dirigentes, se lo pido a todos, cuando alguien comience un post tratemos con respeto las respuestas.

Un saludo afectuoso a todos

SUPONGO

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #121 on: July 31, 2001, 10:42:00 AM »
Supongo,

There were many reasons that the attack was not intercepted. The biggest ones were chain of command. All I was arguing is that radar picked up the signal from the incoming raid and it was mistaken for a flight of B17Es coming in to land after training. We knew of the attack, but not when. War was not declared on us by Japan until after the attack. The carriers were at sea, but the Japanese believed they were in the port.

There was a lot of old intel floating about on both sides, and a lot of ignorance/arrogance on the American high command side. They did not believe that Japan would attack the United States.

The only difference in the radar we have now is that instead of a person directing us to the bogies and the estimated altitude of the bogies- something we do not currently know- we can look at the map and see where they are.

I do not believe Festerbria or anyone that believes he's right in his assumption understands the altercations that going to a more "realistic" radar brings.

Altitude estimates (currently unknown), vectoring directly to the bogies based on heading, numbers of bogies (even where dots can not be seen currently), and a number of other examples. In the end it leads to getting MORE information than we currently are recieving. Right now we know generally where they are. We don't know at what alt, and sometimes we don't even know if they are already engaged.

People promoting removal of radar for a more realistic approach apparently don't see the connection between the inflight radar we currently have and inflight voice direction radar we could have (realism right?)..
-SW

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #122 on: July 31, 2001, 10:42:00 AM »
Creamo, what other online simms have you played other than this? Pac-man doesn't count  :D. Most of the guys who played warbirds are for some kind of in-tower only radar, or the toning down of what we have. There are some like lazs, SW, deja who lean more towards radar than the others.

Fellas, I'm tired of knocking each other in the head over this issue. I think DJ is really mad at me this time. Too bad, hate that it's gotta be that way.

SW, you mentioned something about us guys who are anti-dar only wanting the ability to to sneak up on people. You know what? You are right. I would like that to be more of a part of the game. Not just so I can sneak up on people, but it's actually more fun to me if I have to check my 6 a lot, to know some joker can sneak up on me, I've gotta be on my toes. It builds situational awareness. I'd like that to be more of a part of the game than it is right now. I have come very close to downloading warbirds and opening an account just to fly in the historical arena. I used to really enjoy that. I didn't do it because I know that I'd be coming back to Aces High. I love this game, but the in-plane radar is something I have despised since the beginning. I remember the very first night of open beta, when the game first rolled out in sept '99. I downloaded it, went online and noticed the in-flight radar. I thought to myself "they'll get that fixed soon, this is just for beta" and there was actually more in-plane radar added a couple months later. Here we are two years later with the same radar.  :( I just wish HT and pyro would review this and make some big changes.

SW, DJ, lazs and others who like the radar, I don't have anything against you fellas, lets try to be civil with each other.

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #123 on: July 31, 2001, 10:50:00 AM »
Hblair, in case you still haven't caught on. I WILL compromise.

I WILL compromise in the concept that I will NOT let in flight radar be removed.

I welcome ideas to improve it. Less frequent updates. Modifications for NOE flight. No dot dar or bar dar 1 1/2 sectors behind enemy lines.

If this is not agreeable with you, then we will never meet half way.

It's simple as that, I do not find removing in flight radar completely agreeable in any way.
-SW

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #124 on: July 31, 2001, 10:52:00 AM »
Pacman isn't a online game, hardee fuking har.

 What I play online is AH. That's what I know, that's what I like. The dar ain't ruining my day, it's making it better.

Id like to see dar changed for being able to “fly under” radar for sneak missions, but I’d have to see a strong argument for eliminating dar in flight TOTALLY, without one helluva solution next to the complaint.[/b]

Be civil, flame, I don't care. Just tell HTC and everyone else what the solution is.

Offline bigUC

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #125 on: July 31, 2001, 10:52:00 AM »
Radar shows nothing if you are:
1) Hiding in Ack
2) Above 25 000 feet
3) Flying a "shiny" and therefore stealty plane...

Implement and lock thread.....  :D

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: bigUC ]
Kurt is winking at U!

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #126 on: July 31, 2001, 10:55:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I WILL compromise in the concept that I will NOT let in flight radar be removed.

-SW


Hear that HT?

If you guys were planning on removing in-plane radar, SW will not let it happen.
 :D

Seriously SW, give me a hug, I love you man.

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #127 on: July 31, 2001, 11:01:00 AM »
I will not let that happen in the sense that I will not let in flight radar go without repeatedly posting my concerns until you are completely annoyed with my postings that in flight radar should be in the game.

Sound familiar? It should, you people are doing it incessantly, repeatedly and obnoxiously over and over again.

This was not an open ended discussion, Festerbria posted that he did not like it and left no option for discussion. I will leave no option for discussion either then, I do not want in flight radar removed so you dweebs can simply jump people- simple as that.
-SW

Offline DeeZCamp

  • Banned
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 279
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #128 on: July 31, 2001, 11:15:00 AM »
inflight radar is kinda quakish.. its a big lead.. to go find the next furball...


IT IS MY OPINION THAT.... if radar were to be removed you. would have more intersting base captures.. and Suprise attacks... Making people spread out.. and Not have some huge gange bang every time you go up..


everyone would try to on a whole, defend their bases with shared resouces.


Inflight radar is a dead give away of what is happening at all times..

Get rid of it.. and the Element of suprise will be more prevailent.

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #129 on: July 31, 2001, 11:48:00 AM »
hey seawulfe

i agree with you. i dont think it should be gone either but i think less frequent updates, no bar dar 1.5 sectors behind enemy lines, and allowments for noe flight not being on bar dar until in an enemy sector would be grrrreeat.


i would also like to see killing the hq not kill teh dot dar at individual fiields when in the tower (killing hq would disable all in flight dar, but by going to each individual airfield you could still check dar at that field, provided its tower wasn't also down)

compromise is what we need. i think a total absense of inflight radar isnt the answer.

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #130 on: July 31, 2001, 12:00:00 PM »
Zig, I agree with your ideas. My "compromises" actually came from some of your ideas compiled with a few other people.

The type of inflight radar you propose sounds interesting.
S!
-SW

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #131 on: July 31, 2001, 12:10:00 PM »
Quote
i agree with you. i dont think it should be gone either but i think less frequent updates, no bar dar 1.5 sectors behind enemy lines, and allowments for noe flight not being on bar dar until in an enemy sector would be grrrreeat.

Hmm... 1.5 sectors = about 37 miles.  Maybe we could have bar dar be limited to a 35 mile radius around any friendly base or CV.  ..and keep the .dar as it is... though less frequent updates are fine (don't really care about them).  Maybe NOE flying could remain invisible until 3-5 miles from a field (.dar becomes visible at all alts then too).

The important thing to remember is that the MA is not a war-zone.  Nobody is assigned to be on patrol.  No advanced inteligence is provided.  Nobody is planning at a high level to set up defense grids.  Nobody is doing any coordinating of any kind.  Each individual is left to do that on his own.  There needs to be more tools than simply looking out the windows of a tower.

AKDejaVu

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #132 on: July 31, 2001, 12:33:00 PM »
I never said I was against any kind of compromise SW, DJ. If having some kinda watered down in-plane version no NOE coverage, hey, it's better than what we got (in my opinion)

BTW, Since DJ's playin hard to get, SW, pucker up big boy!

 :p

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #133 on: July 31, 2001, 01:07:00 PM »
These aren't negotiations.  There isn't a "comprimise".

Basically, we discuss alternatives and HTC decides if there is any merit to what we are discussing.  The better the presentation on the suggestion, the closer someone will look at it.

That's why there was no real response to the issue after the initial post... but rather after some intelligent rational discussion took place.

AKDejaVu

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...
« Reply #134 on: July 31, 2001, 01:34:00 PM »
You don't think that if HTC considers the people "pro"  radar, and the people "anti" radar, and come up with a solution that satisfies both camps, that soltuion wouldn't be called a compromise?

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]