Beyond Visual Range Air Combat dynamics...

[xHaMmeRx]

Originally posted by Zigrat:
...the fact thta you can id a con as friend or foe when he is not in visual range, using radar (look at hte bearing, if theres a green dot that way its frinedly, if no dot or a red dot its enemy) is stupid.

Is it?  There was a lot of information available to pilots over friendly territory.  I think dtango pointed out in another post that the effective range of radar in WW2 was around 100 miles.  The vast majority of our fights take place within a 100 miles of friendly fields for all involved so we can reasonably say that the type of information available from the clipboard would be available to a pilot.  The challenge is how to simulate the availability of this information.  There is a pretty decent discussion of this in dtango's thread

http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788

bottom line is that the clipboard, while far from perfect, is a pretty decent compromise when you consider the alternatives.

 

the fact that you can look at your clipboard and see a con that is you low 6 and not in visual range (obscured) is rediculous. thats what fester is pointing out.

This I agree with 100%.  My suggested solution in the above mentioned thread was to eliminate dar on any bogies within icon range distance wise.  Any plane within 6k of you would have to be tracked by you and you alone.

HaMmeR

[hblair]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
If people want suprise bounces like they had in WW2.. they better get ready to be so bored on their flight that they aren't really paying attention.  They'd better get ready to be suprised because they don't usually see the enemy at all on a sortie.  Of course.. that's the kind of fun everyone is looking for.. even in an HA.  Right?

AKDejaVu

Didn't you fly WB's at one time? Do you guys not remember the thrill/fear of having to look back occasionally while you kicked a little rudder to check your 6? I do. I thought it was a very friggin cool and realistic part of the game. when ya pulled up your map while flying, that's all it was, a map. You saw where you were on the map, and that was it. When you were in the tower, you could look at the map as a radar screen. You could see the location of all the cons on that map. There was radio chatter about what was going on and where. When your friend landed or got shot down, he would look at the dar and give you the location of baddies as you would when you were in the tower. It actually promoted teamwork.
I liked it and a lot of other people did too.

Don't get me wrong, I am having a good time here in this game, and I rarely, if ever say anything critical about the game itself. But the only thing that I really miss about warbirds was the thrill of the unknown. It's the fun of not knowing exactly what was behind ya til ya looked back there.

Dejavu, you and lazs can conjure up stuff about us just wanting easy kills or that we would NEVER find fights, and all that horsecrap. We did in WB's. The maps were bigger or smaller there? How much bigger or smaller?, is that not codeable??

I love the game, but I'd like to see the radar refined.

[SirLoin]

I would love to see a FR arena one day with no plane ID tags,only range and country colour..Also get rid of zoom function,I doubt many WW2 pilots were like tank commanders and had binocs hanging around their necks.

[bowser]

"...Also get rid of zoom function,I doubt many WW2 pilots were like tank commanders and had binocs hanging around their necks...".

Actually it's the normal unzoomed view which is unrealistic but it's done like that so that the gauges are included in your field of view.  A playability/PC concession.  When you zoom in, the POV is nearer to a realistic POV, the view you would have looking through a real gunsight.  

WWIIOnline does it another way, you must select another key to "look down" and view the gauges.  I prefer the AH way.

bowser

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: bowser ]

[AKSWulfe]

Citabria/Cit/Fester(what else?) joins the Assassins, now Zig is running behind him kissing bellybutton like a champion.

GO ZIG GO!
-SW

[DanielMcIntyre]

How many bounces do you think occured over an enemy base? I mean.. where a fighter completely suprised someone at THEIR base?

AKDejavu - ever heard of rat scrambles?  Or Pearl Harbor?  

I say remove range icons completely n reduce the range where icons pop up.

Just my opinion thou, am entitled to it and your entitled to yours.


chow
 

[Toad]

When do we get the programming, video cards and monitors that will allow you to easily see 10 inch high tail numbers at 1000 feet?

Because THAT is reality.

Give me that, I'll gladly dump icons.

Oh, yes... one more thing... Normal human FOV is easily 160 degrees. I'll be wanting that displayed in correct proportion on my monitor as well.

 

I look at all these guys complaining and remember that NONE... that is NONE like in ZERO... had the guts to even make a guess at how far they should be able to see numbers in the "Visual Realism Test" thread. Afraid to embarass themselves and show that they had no clue about all this?  

[AKDejaVu]

Dejavu, you and lazs can conjure up stuff about us just wanting easy kills or that we would NEVER find fights, and all that horsecrap. We did in WB's. The maps were bigger or smaller there? How much bigger or smaller?, is that not codeable??

I played warbirds too.  I remember the fun people had (as a matter of fact.. the person starting this thread comes to mind) just hanging off the end of a runway bouncing people as they took off.

I also know that dot dar only works in a portion of this map... only close to friendly bases.  Maybe this only applies to people who like to hang out in one particular area.

Of course, I do like that it moves to AH vs realism to AH vs Warbirds on that one.

I also know that I get good solid bounces virtually every day I fly.  Not every time I go up, but every day I do.  Some people seem to want it to be more the norm.

AKDejaVu

[DanielMcIntyre]

I think they even made a movie bout that second one AK?

[dtango]

Let's all get this straight.  To say get rid of the current dar to make it more realistic to a WW2 enviroment is incorrect.  It is a myth that all you had was your eyes in WW2 for SA.  You are proving your lack of knowledge of "reality" by saying this.
 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788

It's fine to argue the point in WB that it was more of a rush with only visual SA.  But don't argue that this would be more realistic for WW2 because that is completely a myth.

As to the comment about Pearl Harbor.  As I pointed out in the above thread the Japanese raid was DETECTED by radar but since the US was dumb enough not to receive the IFF system offered by the brits the radar operators assumed they were B17's returning back to Hawaii.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: dtango ]

[AKSWulfe]

dtango is correct about Pearl Harbor.

It always amazes me(or stupifies me, I'm not sure which yet) that people are actually here using Pearl Harbor as a reason for radar being too potent in AH.

Wake up, read a book, do something but buy yourself a clue.

Japan hadn't even declared WAR on the U.S. when Pearl Harbor was attacked, why would we be watching radar LOOKING for the raid?
-SW

[hblair]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:


I played warbirds too.  I remember the fun people had (as a matter of fact.. the person starting this thread comes to mind) just hanging off the end of a runway bouncing people as they took off.

Thanks for talking sense into me here. I've yet to see any vulching in this game. BTW, how does dar have anything to do with vulching? Lemme guess, with inplane dar, ya see the baddie coming to get you? Well then why are there such world class vulches here? hmmmm..


 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:

Of course, I do like that it moves to AH vs realism to AH vs Warbirds on that one.  

What's funny is that you apparently think we need to ask your permission to bring up other subjects in a post.  

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:

I also know that I get good solid bounces virtually every day I fly.  Not every time I go up, but every day I do.  Some people seem to want it to be more the norm.

Poor guy still doesn't get it. I understand your view deja. You like more radar than I do. I'm ok with that. Why do you guys feel so threatened when we express our dislike for it?

Did you hear guys on AGW 3-4 ago posting that they wanted in-plane radar? I can't remember one post concerning the subject. How many do you see here now that say there is too much radar?

That should tell you something.

[lazs1]

hblair... in WB there was a hell of a lot less fields.   It wasn't rocket science to find a fite in prime time.   "kick a little rudder to check six"  LOL!! not in U.S. planes... you had to almost come to a ded stop using the rudder or make a 90 degree turn to "check" six..  the hellcat rear view was like sticking your nose up against a wall.... laughable.   Still that way far as i know... compound that with the piss poor acceleration and climb of the U.S. planes and the poor performance of mg's compared to cannon and u know why I left.  It must have been nice to fly 109's that historicly had bad vision and in WB were like being in a glass bubble.

I agree with toad.  we can't even come close to the good view real life offers.. we could even use a few more concessions in my opinion.   Granted... it is a little tough on those who tend to favor the "sneak up on em" style but... it should be.   I was thrilled when the audible 'check six' feature came out... I love nothing more than spoiling a sneak killers shot... unless it is shooting a bombers chute.
lazs

[AKSWulfe]

What is it? Realism or "This is what I want"?
When the realism thing was disputed, it moved onto "WarBirds does it better" or maybe it was WWIIOl... I don't care.

If you are going to use an argument, use ONE argument... otherwise you start to sound like you are whining about the Chog again.
-SW

[hblair]

Originally posted by SWulfe:
dtango is correct about Pearl Harbor.

It always amazes me(or stupifies me, I'm not sure which yet) that people are actually here using Pearl Harbor as a reason for radar being too potent in AH.

Wake up, read a book, do something but buy yourself a clue.

Japan hadn't even declared WAR on the U.S. when Pearl Harbor was attacked, why would we be watching radar LOOKING for the raid?
-SW

I'll sale you a clue for $5. How many of the P40's or Val's had a radar screen in their plane? I'll give you a hint, the number resembles a goose egg.

That's what I'm talking about.