Aircraft ID Distances

[Vyper]

I thought I'd post a comparison of ID distances in AH versus real life.

At RL D1.0 (3,000 feet): I can easily distinguish aircraft type.  I can tell what it's paint scheme is and even discern if it is carrying a painted missile (we'll paint wingtip AIM-9's bright orange for training purpose).  This is true regardless of aspect angle.

At RL D2.0 (6,000 feet): From a line abreast position I can tell if my wingman has a centerline tank or wing tanks and easily discern aircraft type.  From a head on aspect an F-16 can be nearly invisible but normally not a problem depending on what part of the canopy I'm looking through.

At RL D3.0 (9,000 feet): My line abreast wingman could easily be mistaken for an F-18 since most detail is washed out and the number of tails isn't discernable.  From head on, if I hadn't padlocked my eyes onto him prior I'd have a very tough time picking him up.  An F-15 (much larger) is still easily recognizable from most aspect angles.

AT RL D4.0 (12,000 feet): Color of the aircraft is becoming hard to discern.  An F-16 could easily be mistaked for an F-18 or even a Fulcrum at many aspect angles (if you can't pick up one versus two tails due to viewing angle).  An F-15, F-4 or Flanker is still relatively easy to make out.

At RL D5.0 (15,000 feet): It is very easy to not pick up an F-16 visually, especially head on.  Background now plays a huge role.  Against white clouds, no problem but against a bright blue sky or forest terrain, very very tough.  A head on Eagle could be missed.

At distances of D6.0 to D9.0 (3NM to almost 5NM): You definitely have to be looking in the right place at the right time.  I've picked up Tallys against an F-16 out to 20NM under the right conditions and have seen a tanker out to beyond 30NM but that is the exception and not the rule.

I'm not complaining about the current system but would like to see ID distances dropped to D5.0.  Still leave the dots displayed at current range just don't show the icons so early.  This would make the 'bounce' much more common as it was and is in real life.  It would also make players even more aware of keeping their visual lookout active.  

An even better solution would tie ID range to aircraft type.  A Spitfire or Me-109 would ID at 4.0, a Mustang size aircraft at 5.0, a Lightning at 6.0 and a B-17 at 9.0.  I'm not naive enough to think this would be programmable so understand totally why HTC did what they did.

I sure wish I could pick up adversaries as easily and quickly in RL as in the game.  My SA would soar!  

------------------
Vyper
134th Fighter Squadron
VTANG

[skippy]

I've always thought that was kinda odd being able to see a a/c approaching HO at d9 or other angles , they need another arena where its d3 only (we do have zooooom)and all collisions are 'on' and that killshooter thingy dont kill you , but whoever was unlucky enough to catch one. Seems a bit antiseptic needs more "fog of war". If that arena existed I think it would be more popular than the training areana.

[juzz]

I don't see how that would aid a bounce though. You would have to be blind not to see the distance dot*.

* - Big fat line, that's impossible to miss even if you were a mole flying with a blacked-out canopy and a bucket over your head.  

[Citabria]

not at 1600 x 1200 they arent  

[Vyper]

Juzz,

I would see the dot at long range still.  I just wouldn't know what it was.  That dot I see won't turn into a bandit/friendly until close range so I have to keep dividing my attention between what I'm engaging and what may be tapping me very shortly.  It would also reward flying in pairs.  Lead prosecutes the attack and #2 watches his six.  Right now it is fairly easy to do a quick scan, make sure nothing else is within 9k, and give your bandit full attention for quite a bit of time.

To be truthful, I don't think alot of the patrons of AH would like this initially.  Even though it is more realistic it could become very frustrating until you changed our visual search habit patterns.

Take care and see you in the arena.  Happy Easter too.

------------------
Vyper
134th Fighter Squadron
VTANG

[Vyper]

Yikes, nice syntax in that last paragraph of my last post.  My high school english teacher is reaching from the grave for a red pen!

------------------
Vyper
134th Fighter Squadron
VTANG

[Saintaw]

ROFL !

I do agree with you Vyper on the fact that ID's are seen from too far...

Come in the GMT TOD next thursday, we're flying that one without Icons...


------------------
Saw/Saintaw
=XO=II/JG2~Richthofen~
GMT T.O.D. SITE

JG2 "Richthofen"
Don't shoot ! I am only an observer......

[funked]

Vyper I hear you sir!

Don't forget most of these WW2 birds are quite a bit smaller than an F-16.

[StSanta]

<warning OT plug>

Heheheh, as I understand this sim is written in c, which is a precodural language (correct me if I am wrong).

Just ot irritate a friend who is a huge c enthusiast and whom I know reads this list but does not post for personal reasons, I will say this;

Had it been in a truly object oriented language, you could have added an attribute dealing with visibility to each type of aircraft like THAT <snap>. Not like with your old bloated language.

If this doesn't make him, post, I dunno what will  

How hard is such a feature to program for elite dudes like HiTech? Me, I am a dweeb and cannot even get my %/%¤ project to work properly (oh the joys of runtime errors in java) so from a semi-professional curiosity, does anyone know?



------------------
StSanta
II/JG2

[Badger]

Great post Vyper....<salute>

A clarification?

Are you promoting the idea of changing this for the current MA, or is this a proposal for a more advanced form of arena for the harder core pilots?

Regards,
Badger


[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 05-17-2000).]

[Andy Bush]

Good post, Vyper. If you ever see Mark Fredenburgh, say hello for me.

Vyper's post mentioned aspect angle...that and sun angle are extremely important. Relative size is what makes a long range pickup...obviously a top view is a whole bunch better than a head on aspect. Sun angle is important at the longer ranges. Unless the sun is more or less directly at your back (ie, illuminating what you are looking at), what you see in the distance is really shadow...no colors or markings are seen. If that target is against a dark background, then visual detection is that much harder.

One aspect of long range visual detection that is not possible to model well is the RL factor of object movement. Our human eyes see relative movement very well...often it is the slight bit of movement that will catch our eye and lead us to look harder for the contact.

Lastly, for all those that have an interest in 'realism'...in RL, despite what you read about Chuck Yeager, visual acquity is not the most important thing in picking up bandits. The 20 year old with 20/10 vision won't have any problems passing his eye test, but he'll end up just as dead as a blind man unless he's got a handle on this...it's not how good your eyes are...it's knowing how to look, where to  look, and when to look that will provide the first contact.

That old saw about 'Keep your head on a swivel' has led more new guys down the wrong path that anything I can remember. Later in my career, I wore glasses, and I and other old farts blew away the Lts in the lookout department, precisely because of the how/where/when issue.

Personally, in the MA, I'm for removing all icons...make people work for their IDs!

Andy

[funked]

Punt.  Best thread ever on this board.

[Westy]

"I sure wish I could pick up adversaries as easily and quickly in RL as in the game."

 I sure wish my monitor and graphics card gave me RL resolutions.
 I agree that icons need work. But don't forget the reason we need them too.

-Westy

[popeye]

"Personally, in the MA, I'm for removing all icons...make people work for their IDs!"

For the MA, we need an icon/radar system that is a balance between realism and gameplay, for newbies and vets, for lone wolves and squads, with 25 people or 150 people online, for players with 30 minutes or 3 hours to fly.  I think HTC has done a pretty good job of balancing these requirements with our current system, with a nod to gameplay and newbies.  I think this is the right idea for the MA.

We really need other arenas for more challenging environments for the hardcore and veteran players.  The new CM's, and terrain editor, should soon give us a place to fool with icons/radar/etc.

popeye

[MiG Eater]

I agree with funked, this is a great post/thread.  I like the idea of decreasing the "neon con" range to 5k.  I will expand upon Vyper's point concerning a possible increase in bounces;  Pilots with poor scan habits will have a hard time countering an attack if they wait until the bogey reaches the "neon con" range.  However, I think this would eventually bring fights closer together as people learn to judge aspect (and other factors) from a moving dot.  You have to get in close(r) to visually ID an airplane which certainly lends itself the visual fight arena we currently fly in.  

From personal experience just last week (7/12/00), neither myself or my Navy instructor could spot a level Cherokee in the moderately lit haze (late afternoon, western sky, better than 5000/5) at our alt at 3 miles.  Two people with 20/20 looking in the same place called out by radar.  Nothing.  We didn't pick him up until he crossed to our east and dropped below the horizon.  

MiG