Poll - Kill in flight radar dots or not?

[hblair]

Come on SW, round 2 of SW vs. hblair in "Dar Wars!"

You'll never win!

I 0\/\/n 3w!

Bring it!

<cracks knuckles anticipating mucho typing>

 

[Exile]

3 ... bar dar suffices for knowing where the action is.

[Sky Viper]

Originally posted by funkedup:
The gamers hath spoken.

Hit that nail right on the head!

I say eliminate the con bars completely.
Give Towers the Dots, and let us relay contact info via the radio.  (Simulating Realism)
Sure would be a positive move toward TEAM play!

Nothing more effective than letting someone concentrate on Radar while someone else flys.
Hell, we still do that today with AWACS!

Annal retentive?  OK, I can live with that.  

Viper

[AKSWulfe]

I'm sure that if I whine loud enough I could get HTC to model a much better radar system that eliminates dot dar.

A text based system, now instead of just a dot it tells you exactly how many cons there are, where the cons are, what altitude the cons are at and in what direction they are heading.

Face it, dot dar gives us less information than what pilots had available to them while they were over friendly territory.
-SW

[dtango]

I vote #6- STOP THIS SILLY DEBATE

Talking about beating a dead horse.  Please, let's not start this whole silly debate again.  We've been 'round & 'round this topic.  I don't care to dredge up and rehash all the arguments on this topic like a cow chewing on cud.

I think the experience of the CA should be enough to demonstrate the reality of removing dot dar vs. having it.  The people have voted with their virtual feet and keeping dot dar wins.


Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
http://webpages.charter.net/davidlj/" TARGET=_blank>
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
 

Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------

[Apache]

5 in the MA.

This ain't airport tycoon or such nonsense. This is aerial combat and in the MA, history is out the window.

Some of you suggest having dot dar in tower only and have someone sit there and relay the info. You gonna do it? Ain't seen any volunteers! Don't count on me being bored outta my skull just so someone else can find the enemy.  

[Sky Viper]

Originally posted by snafu:
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.

Yes, they did have radios...so do we! USE IT!
You seem confused, you DO NOT want 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"

OK, you DO want an Air Traffic control sim?
 

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

OK, now you not only want and Air Traffic Control Sim, but you want AWACS?
 

Radar in the 1940s didn't say much for altitude or have automatic updates to pilots.  They had to have skilled opperators at the controls.
They had very little information on the size and type of aircraft, let alone the RED/Green for enemy/friendly.
In most cases, they didn't have ability to determine any sense of altitude.
It was also hard to distinguish between quantity and type.  4 Zero's in a tight formation looked just like 1 would. 10 Zeros could have been 2 bombers.

Oh by the way...they didn't have radar over every inch of the terrain either.
They had to relay information from scouts and recon sources. That took time.  This makes our system of seeing radar counters more than 5 sectors away very unrealistic.

Viper

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Sky Viper ]

[Sky Viper]

Originally posted by Apache:
5 in the MA.

This ain't airport tycoon or such nonsense. This is aerial combat and in the MA, history is out the window.

NO HISTORY?  Cool...I need an F14, and a MIG 27! :/
 

Some of you suggest having dot dar in tower only and have someone sit there and relay the info. You gonna do it? Ain't seen any volunteers!

HAND!!!

HAND!!!

Oooh, I'll do it!
And guess what, you don't even have to pay me in points or perks!!!

See, I don't just get fun from shooting enemy down.
There is MUCH fun in being able to out think an enemy and join enough forces together to defeat an enemy!
That is why we have all this other toejam: Trains, Buffs, Cargo, GVs, Cities, Towns, Factories etc.  

Strategy is more than knowing how to win the HO!  

Viper

[Kratzer]

keep 'em.

[highflyer]

Who can argue the value of highly realistic dot dar that shows where planes are when they are inbetween mountain ranges and other obstacles.

Who can argue the highly realistic Awacs representation of play by play tracking of clearly identified Friend from Foe contacts via the inflight GPS map.

All these things were present back then, How could anyone NOT want this! I thought you guys were calling for realism. geez lou-eeze

   

[hblair]

Originally posted by dtango:
I think the experience of the CA should be enough to demonstrate the reality of removing dot dar vs. having it.  The people have voted with their virtual feet and keeping dot dar wins.

The CT is empty because of the 'herd mentality' thing. It's not because of radar. There are more people in the main arena, so people tend to be more drawn to where the crowd is.

Did you see people complain the last couple days when the enemy dar bug was affecting the main arena? I actually heard a couple of fellas compliment HTC thinking it was a new feature. I thought it was a new feature myself.

[hblair]

rofl highflyer. No kidding.

[Rojo]

I don’t advocate the elimination of all airborne radar queuing, but it definitely needs some attention.  There needs to be a balance between insuring action but still requiring the pilot to exercise SA.  Here’s my proposal for an option 6:

1) Ground dot radar would be available for all friendly and enemy aircraft within range, with the following caveat.  With HQ up and undamaged, this ground radar would be allow you to see all contacts within range of any friendly radar site.  With HQ down, it would only show contacts within range of the base you’re located at.

2) Air borne dot radar would only be available for those currently flying a mission; by that I mean the mission was planned, loaded and launched via the mission planner.  To qualify for radar support, at least two pilots would have to be in the mission at launch time.  This simulates that ground controllers generally only provided real-time guidance to groups of planes flying specific missions.  They didn’t have time to give warning and vectors to every Joe who took off on a loan wolf mission.  If you want radar support, you use the mission planner.  This function would require a functioning HQ.  The level of radar functionality would be based on HQ damage, just as it is now.

3) If you take off without requesting GCI support (i.e. without using the mission planner), you only get the old WB-style vector errors.  This simulates that the GCI officers are busy helping people on important missions.

This idea would encourage people to use the mission planner and cooperate.  Flame on, guys  .

[Dinger]

3

[Rude]

What Dar....we have dar?