Hi all!
Pain Killer pointed me at this discussion and I would like to add my two cents. Excuse the length of this one, please.
First of all, let me say that I've been doing the online ACM for a while. I think AW was a ground breaking leader in the category but then they seemed to think they had the "perfect product" and evolution stopped. Enter HT and WB; WB clearly outclassed and outperformed AW and rightfully assumed the lead. Lately, WB's new owners seemed to fall into the AW mode, assuming perfection had been reached; minor changes, no evolution. I'm glad HiTech is doing Aces High; he's always tried to improve the state of the art and I'm sure AH will be another great, ground-breaking product.
As PK mentioned, I've spent a significant part of my life in the air. My logbook is sneaking up on 20,000 hours now. I've flown anything I could get my hands on, from Piper Cubs through T-38's and on to Boeing 747's. I've flown them all over the US and around the globe, in all kinds of weather. I've spent way more time in "state of the art" simulators than I ever intended to spend <G>.
(Doesn't make me any better at ACM games, btw, but I've seen what massive amounts of money can do when you try to simulate "the real thing".)
I acknowledge the need for the mathematical models on size and I'm sure they are probably correct given the fields of view.
I know monitors limit the viewing area; I know graphics consume a huge amount of programming and can load up a fast CPU, although the newest video cards are an immense improvement.
Still, there is NEED for improvement in the way games display opposing aircraft.
Here's a "sidebar" I wrote on EAW for CGW. This is what it said _before_ editing...word counts are closely monitored <G>. (Not my strong point as you can see by the length of this message!)
*****
"A Boeing B-17 (Wingspan 104’, Length 75’) and a Boeing B-737 (Wingspan 93’, Length 110’) are roughly the same size. In the game, a B-17 in profile shows as a dark horizontal line around 3 miles. Inflight, a real B-737 shows a similar line but at 10 MILES! At 5 miles the vertical stabilizer appears; at 2 miles you can tell if the gear is up or down. The paint scheme and cabin windows are obvious when a 737 crosses your runway a measured 5000’ away. Obviously, the game’s planes are too small and lacking detail.
Not convinced? Try this: cruise the local Interstate looking for the route signs. Those blue and red shields are close to the size of the insignia on a Hurricane’s wing. On a straightaway, check your odometer when you first spot the sign and again when abeam it. Most players will easily identify the shape and colors around 3/10 of a mile, roughly 1500’.
At that distance, using High Detail, a Hurricane is small, generic "plus sign". Insignia shows around 400 feet, 25% of a "realistic" distance; the situation is worse at lower detail settings. So, to provide the necessary ACM visual cues, a gaggle of totally bogus "cheats" are supplied. Neon targeting boxes/data tags, disappearing cockpit artwork, padlocks, "zoom" views and other crutches take the place of realistically-sized plane art. "Fox Two" on the WWII ambiance and immersion, Maverick.
*****
The above inflight distances were verified using ground based radars (ATC), the on-board TCAS system (Terminal Collision Avoidance System) and spacing over known ground points on approach (parallel ILS approaches to runways separated by a known charted distance. My fellow crewmembers verified that they were seeing what I was seeing...my eyes are good, but I'm no "Chuck Yeager"; I don't see 190's at 50 miles.
So, given these simple real life experiences, despite the mathematical certitudes, what we see on our monitors are airplanes that are just too small to show the necessary visual cues and detail.
Another clip from a CGW article on AW and I'll quit for now:
*****
Eric Hartmann, a top World War II Ace, used a tactic of "See, Decide, Attack and Break." The first part is hard to do in Air Warrior III, as it was in every previous version. The argument is that the aircraft are correctly sized, given the wide-angle view and pixel dimensions of the screen; unfortunately, the resulting image is merely a black flyspeck until within about 1500 yards. Even as you close, the planform doesn’t emerge until about 1000 yards. That’s a problem when you want to "do some of that Basic Fighter Maneuvers stuff, Mav" because you have to know your spatial relationship to the bandit in those "footless halls of air." To accurately recreate a WW II encounter, you need to see his planform at realistic ranges to determine angle-off and aspect. With a 90 degree angle-off, you should see a B-17’s vertical stabilizer sticking up at a minimum of 2500-3000 yards, so the game gives you about half the normal time to "See and Decide." It still works since all players are identically handicapped...."
*****
Therein lies the problem. The newer simulations are pretty good at modeling performance, gunnery, target hardness, etc., etc., to the point that the lack of NORMAL visual cues throws the whole ACM equation out of whack.
You can't rely on your eyes to deliver a timely, realistic appraisal of an opponent's nationality, plane type, position, etc., at a REALISTIC distance.
Now, does it ruin the game? No, we all played AW and WB despite the visual handicaps of small aircraft and lack of detail. Because, essentially we all were similarly handicapped.
I do suggest, however, that in our ever relentless pursuit of accuracy and REALISM, that we find a way to render the planforms and detail necessary to give the player accurate visual information at REALISTIC ranges.
If this means a smaller FOV or slightly increasing plane size or some other modification, so be it.
IMHO, we are actually _sacrificing_ realism when we slavishly bow to the mathematical modeling that produces tiny, undistinguishable dots at ranges that would clearly show plane type and planform in the real world.
We can and should improve in this area.
Argue away <G>.
Best Regards,
John Nolan