What the totally mistaken "harder = more real-er" crowd fails to recognize is that "Beyond Visual Range Air Combat is artificially the defacto situation in ALL the current ACM games.
This is because pixel-limited, FOV limited, 2D monitors artificially SHORTEN visual range vis-a-vis a real life situation. So you are always fighting "beyond visual range" because "normal" visual cues occur at much closer ranges than they should. (Thus normal ACM moves are usually started much later than they should be, generating a-historical combat situations.)
The games are AUTOMATICALLY harder than real life due to technological limitations.
You can't see planform, detail or definition at the "normal" ranges that you would in real life. SIMPLE, INDISPUTABLE, FACT, guys.
Totally doing away with Icons is the incorrect solution. You NEED icons to give you the information that would normally be available.
Before you jump on me for being too "pro icon" read this post from LONG ago. I've got even older ones that state my position, but not as well as this one does.
**********
03-06-2000
If we're going to actually try a few different means of IFF instead of this 10 year old system, I'd be really happy.
Here's a few points to ponder. These thoughts are based on a non-historical arena, where all sides fly all planes. Strict Historical could/should be different.
Ranges would have to be hashed out but that's an area that affords easy experimentaion once the overall system is set.
1. At long range, a plane <whether friend or foe, fighter or bomber> should just be an unknown dot.
2. As range closes, one would be able to distinguish a dot as a bomber earlier than a fighter. Therefore, some sort of "buff" ID should show at a range that would still be a dot for a fighter. At this range you couldn't tell friend from foe.
This means a dot could be either a long range plane of either type or a closer fighter that is not yet distinguishable. You just couldn't tell.
3. As range further decreased, a fighter ID should show. You should also now be able to tell, in some way, friend from foe, perhaps just a red dot at nose, tail and wingtips. This assumes that we would <in Real Life> be distinguishing plane type. Again, this would be a different range for a bomber than a fighter.
4. Now, after IFF range, add distance information. Range info should perhaps only be shown in 1k or .5k increments to avoid the rapidly running counters. I would not show range beyond a certain distance <a yet to be determined "threat" range> and I would remove it as the aircraft comes to "guns range." Perhaps cut out range info inside of 1k or .5k at minimum.
You need IFF here, but you don't need range when you're ready to shoot. That should be part of pilot skills and judgement.5.
I would have no aircraft type ID available at ranges that allow you to distinugish that info from the graphics. (determined for the lowest resolution avail). I would allow some simple "type" info at ranges where you could see it in real life.
Different colored dots, arrows, numbers...any of these could be used to provide this type of information while minimizing and shrinking the huge icons we now have.
Just some thoughts. I'm sure everyone has some ideas and I'd love to read them. I hope we can get a meaningful discussion going and I also hope we can talk HTC into experimenting in the SEA with "alternative Icon lifestyles".
This DOES NOT, however, mean the current Icon system is perfect. It could be improved and should be experimented."
