Author Topic: Poll - Kill in flight radar dots or not? (Read 1407 times)

muckmaw · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:02:00 PM »

I'd like 4, but with a twist. I know this is too much to ask for but what the hell.

All enemy dots within a specified distance of an allied base, town, radar station would be displayed in flight. (simulates those stations radioing target information to fighter command.

When an allied plane encounters an enemy plane that is out of base/town/radar range, the target is painted, and is displayed on all allied radars until allied fighter is shot down, or contact with enemy is lost (Simulates pilot calling in enemy positions)

All enemy planes out of allied base range, and not encountered by allied plane, or flying below radar, not displayed at all.
(Fog of War)

Sorry for the long post, but a man can dream.

Trell · « **Reply #16 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:13:00 PM »

Maverick · « **Reply #17 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.

Mav

Sharky · « **Reply #18 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:29:00 PM »

No dots inflight map. Friend and Enemy dots in twr.

Sharky

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #19 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:43:00 PM »

Had this argument before, there's nothing realistic about artificially dumbing down radar.

If you want a more realistic form of radar, Popeye is on the right track.

Getting rid of dot dar is only to appease those that think this is WWI.

"What? You mean they had radar and radar operators in WWII?!?! I don't believe you!"
-SW

Furious · « **Reply #20 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:46:00 PM »

5 for the MA.

...and for all of those that felt it necessary to make snide remarks reguarding the CT

F=

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #21 on:** October 10, 2001, 01:54:00 PM »

Man, that red X simply hurts me.

I figured no one would get offended if I called the CT the "Anal Retentive Arena"...

After all, I never see more than 4 people in it!
-SW

aac · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:01:00 PM »

Keep the dots, If you want to change it make it to where the enemy dots can only be viewed if you are flying a goon. That way the goon driver who is more than likely going to get shot down anyway, will be acting as a radar operator if you like or AWAC, this way you have the best of both worlds. The fighters have to depend on someone else to warn them and the unprotected goon has some chance to alter his course in an attempt to survive.

Target #1 ab8aac out

funkedup · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:13:00 PM »

The gamers hath spoken.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:15:00 PM »

Achtung! Dweebfeur!
-SW

funkedup · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:16:00 PM »

Mark Luper · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:22:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick:
Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.

Mav

Since when is the MA NOT "selective realism"?

snafu · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:24:00 PM »

Hi Al,
If anything I say make the dar even better. This only in the tower stuff just doesn't make sense, WWII pilots did have radios and this is a flight sim not an air-traffic control sim. I think not only should the location of the cons be shown but also some indication of their altitude as well. After all, pilots in WWII were given a bit more than "Cons inbound somewhere over there" This goes for the CT as well. Apart from the historical matchup aspect I think the CT is even less realistic than the MA in this respect. With they AI ack opening up on enemy it makes sense for AI radar to keep us informed of their whereabouts.

TTFN
snafu

hblair · « **Reply #28 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:37:00 PM »

I agree with SW:

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:
Had this argument before, there's nothing realistic about artificially dumbing down radar.

I would however, like to add that there is also nothing realistic about artificially beefing up the radar either.

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:
"What? You mean they had radar and radar operators in WWII?!?! I don't believe you!"
-SW

Believe it! and ya know what else? They sat in control rooms and gave the info out over the radio(

!!

!!) to their friendlys in the planes.

Last time I checked, AWACS wasn't attached to spitfires and zekes. Wait, maybe I was reading the wrong source? Darn Librarian gave me a bad book.

And before anybody tries to label me the old tired *realism freak* or whatever. I'm speaking not from a realism angle, but actually a gameplay angle. With this new version, we have waaaay too much radar. Think about it.

So, I'm with my old buddy SW here when I say I vote #4. Nice compromise for the main arena IMHO.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]

-moto- · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2001, 02:42:00 PM »

5

Moto_MOL