Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: funkedup on December 03, 2001, 05:36:00 PM
-
The other night on the Uterus the Knitrook were ganging us again. With 15 or so Knights over A1 I decided to go hunting in my Mustang III. I went over the cloud cover and saw nothing there. But there were dots showing on the AWACS datalink. And one of them was cruising straight for A1. So I left the clipboard up and followed the dot. Right as I got behind him and our dots merged, I dove through the cloud. He was about 700 yards in front of me. I ducked under his tail, closed to 250 yards, pulled up maybe 10 degrees, and destroyed him, then zoomed up over the cloud. Total exposure and visual contact was about 10 seconds. I did this again later against a bandit who was maneuvering (apparently to line up a dive bombing run). I intercepted a third bandit in this fashion, but he saw me at the last minute and broke. I zoomed up over the clouds, used AWACS to locate him again, and dove under and splashed him.
No visual contact required to get within firing parameters. I wasn't even looking out the window, just flying with the artificial horizon and steering based on the instant updates on the datalink. In a day fighter. Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
"Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?"
Absolutely it is. And I'm sure the person you rode the signal to thought so also.
I can honestly say the only place that made it even easier and as ridiculously unreal was AW. It was the same there with one exception and it was what made AW's even worse; the bombers had an "L" shaped radar id which was different from the fighters regular radar dot.
Westy
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Seeing there's AWACS, how about providing in-flight refueling? Just get the B17 and attach some hose lines on the wings... :cool:
-
You guys get tired of that other thread?
-
Why not just go to ultra-realism and have the game auto-cancel your account the first time you get killed online?
I've noticed something over the years. The settings that the vocal few ask for--such as our very own CT--invariably lead to an empty arena. The only time it ever "works" is if it's forced upon the general population with no alternative, and even then they will flock away given the first opportunity.
I'm not saying that it's "wrong" to want things like no DAR; everyone is equally entitled to their beliefs. I'm only pointing out that these beliefs tend to be unpopular overall and best reserved for special events and special-purpose arenas.
J_A_B
-
Nope.
Hey.... Hmm...refueling?.!.? Why heck! Here's another good idea.
Add inflight power ups! That way no one has to land and you can keep flying and fighting. It may not be realistic but what game is huh? After all why waste time landing as that just interrupts the over all flow of the great nonstop action-packed arena fighting anyway ... <sarcasm paused> ....
;)
And JAB, it's not NO dar. It's not INFLIGHT dar. Also, it is not NO color bars. It's NO INFLIGHT DAR. If anyone ever mentions realism you whip out that "death" line every time. Why model anything at all then if you can't model death? <eye roll>
Westy
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Funked,
You can easily avoid all the hideous problems associated with the hated DAR in your country. Simply go to the ENEMY country and you won't be bothered by that nasty old dar.
Another way for you to avoid it is to fly in the CT. I hear it's REAL popular with the realism crowd. Why you can hardly get into the arena all the slots just fill up so... :rolleyes:
Fly your own game and let others fly theirs.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Funked, they are right. Give it up. This game is what it is, and it is good that it keeps its focus.
Play another sim for that experience you are looking for, and enjoy this game for what it is: Laz-Land!
-
FYI-
Poll in game feedback topic for second "ultra realism" arena. Maybe if there is enough interest HT will set it up and EVERYONE can have the type of game play they want.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
"And JAB, it's not NO dar. It's not INFLIGHT dar. Also, it is not NO color bars. It's NO INFLIGHT DAR. If anyone ever mentions realism you whip out that "death" line every time. Why model anything at all then if you can't model death? <eye roll>"
Ok, different line, fair enough. I DO perhaps overuse that one a bit. But it's so EASY! :)
Why doesn't AH model the 30 or so-odd steps it took to start up some of these planes? Why not make a system where the game gives YOU a mission, instead of letting you do whatever you want (real pilots had to follow their assignments). Why not force you to charge your guns, power up the radio, switch on the gunsight, and a host of other small tasks? Why does the MA allow Spits and 109's to fly for the same side? Why does it let you re-fuel your plane in 30 seconds? Why can you lose as many planes as you want but your country never suffers from a lack of parts or material?
Answer--gameplay. AH is about aerial combat and allows people to partake in this with few restrictions.
As with many arena settings, the DAR is there to foster combat. AH is a game about combat in WW2-era planes, NOT a strict WW2 sim. Having no DAR in-flight would make it easier to slip by people undetected and harder to find people, which is opposing to the idea of a game about aerial combat.
I already find AH's in-flight dar to be woefully inadequate. That's MY opinion :)
I would suspect that you like the concept of WW2OL better--rather than a "combat sim, WW2Ol tries to replicate the war as it was. Unfortunately for everyone, WW2OL itself is a buggy unfinished unrealized dream.
BTW, even if I don't agree with you, don't think for an instant that I disrespect you. I have considerable respect for you Westy, and for Funked, and for a lot of others on this BB. I do frequently seem a bit blunt and harsh, but that's just the way I am. I don't mean anything by it.
J_A_B
-
Uh guys. "slippery slope", "straw man" and "red herring" are invalid forms of argument.
It's not about the CT; it's not about über-realism, and it's not about wearing vintage flightsuits while playing.
Here's another consideration for you:
any of you remember those heady days at the beginning of 1.08 when there were not dots? Or back in beta when that was the case?
Does anyone, anyone at all, remember having difficulty "Finding the fight"?
I certainly don't.
Anyone here ever play some other simuulation where radar information was available only to those in the tower? Were intercepts that tough?
-
Going to reiterate once more why I think the MA needs radar. The new people. I'll let the pic make my case. Notice the question by lewper. This was grabbed 12/03/01. Hope the link works.
(http://vmfapache.tripod.com/radar1.jpg)
-
Went to the CT tonight. It was empty. Not just sparse population but freaking EMPTY as in NO players.
What I found there was:
No dot dar
Reduced icon range
A really decent looking map based on the BoB.
With all the pleas for removing the dar, why aren't these folks playing there??? If it is such a grand idea with a majority, or even a substantial minority of players wanting it, why is CT empty almost all the time? Hell, you guys already got most of what you have been demanding in the MA. Use it!
All that needs to be implemented, if it hasn't been already, is the strat thingie, base capture, scores and an expanded plane set. You guys got what you wanted why don't you use it? :confused:
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't understand why you're not using the very thing you have been asking for.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Where and when did I ask for no radar? All I'm saying is that the AWACS datalink is silly, and I gave an example.
I just don't understand why you're not using the very thing you have been asking for.
You must not be talking to me. The CT is most definitely not the very thing I have been asking for.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
So you're saying that Wing Commander Tuck wasn't guided into a firing position by groun control radar in the pitch black of night, flying a Hurrican MkIIc, successfully downing it because they couldn't do that in WWII?
-
I happen to agree with Karnak. It is a graphical representation of air control system (audio/text being to "spamish" to be useful). Why do you think RADAR goes offline when the HEADQUARTERS building is destroyed?
It is what I would do if I wanted to simulate ground controllers.
Hans.
-
Karnak there's a big difference between verbal position updates and having a vertical situation display overlaid on my windscreen.
-
Provide "real time" (like we have now) dot dar in the tower, and "static" dot dar, updated every 15 seconds or so, in flight. Lets you find a fight without the "electronic SA". Might even be a good <cough> simulation of verbal updates from ground controllers. (Could also free up some bandwidth for more important things.)
To simulate loss of Command and Control when HQ is destroyed, turn off the inflight dar, but keep the tower dar (at fields with working radar). Even more dar that we have now!
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
-
Wow... the dar worked "realistically" Just like in WWII eh? You didn't have the alt number like you would have in WWII but you knew how people flew in the MA so you guessed. results were the same. Realism and action. Sounds fun.
Yep, just like if someone had "vectored" you to the con. Happened all the time. The current dar creates "realistic" results so that's not so bad eh? I mean if you like that realism stuff.
course, funked's was an unusual situation... we don't have clouds much and finding someone in the batroom to bounce is unusual.
Without dot dar we would have what? Lone wolf alt monkeys looking for some poor guy who had actually been in a fight to bounce. That would be immersive eh? The timid would rule the skies.
I think we can live with the fact that once every six tours or so someone bounces someone by using dot dar and cloud cover and the fact that the bouncee was to lazy to check on the dar himself.
lazs
-
lol. What a fruitless pursuit this may turn out to be but I'll hang in there to the very end..whatever that may be.
One conveniently overlooked "fact" by current DAR supporters is that no aircraft had access to radar information in enemy territory, let alone IFF enabled pinpoint AWACs type. The Germans didn't have it over London and the USAAF/RAF did not have it over the Continent. The same went for the warring nations in the Pacific and Eastern fronts.
Night fighters could use thier onboard radar to approximate themselves and make thier final approach visually at best. Even then not always successful. If they'd had AH radar they would have been a hell of a lot more succesful.
AH radar is as much a crutch as anything I've ever seen in easymode/relaxed realism setting. And this issue won't go away as it resides at the very core to the question as to whether AH is a sim or an arcade. It's sim all the way (until you count such abominations as auto retracting flaps and the use of the antique AW style icons with digital range counters)
Even with tower radar only you still have the GPS type of inflgith map to enable you to know exactly where you are and in relation to the enemy you saw before you spawned. Plus you can use the old one button key press to key your radio and make queries. Versus making one key press a pulling up a modern era radar disply.
Imo it's also strange to see some folks who defend the AH AWACS radar will also say that we need friendly fire ON and mutual collisions enabled as they are more realistic. IMO the GPOS map, the way friendly fire and collisions are programmed ARE gameplay concessions. They are created not to make anything easier mind you however they so compensate for some problems encountered on the internet; lag, delay, socially inept and greifers.
JAB, I know you would love AH to become a reincarnation of AW. But AW died for many reasons and IMO one of it's major weak points was that it was geared to be easy, cater to those who had a low frustration point and it also focused more on being a social gathering place than anything else. Before last spring when AW experienced it's first large exodus and started it's final plummet the numbers in WB's and AH combined together were more than there were in the AW arenas. More people voted for realism by paying hourly or $30/mo for something substantially more realistic than they did for a much less costlier arcade game. You use the same points now as on 'BigWeek' a year or two ago whenever the topic about AH and "realism" came up. Striving for realism not only the FM and system features but also in the gameplay environment while retaining good gameplay is quite possible. Realism is not all black and white. It's not either all uber-real or all arcade. IMO if people want an easy "game" they still have AW and Fighter Ace to play in. However act fast as AW is dead in week while Fighter Ace is being dumped by MS and being shoveled off to VR1. Seems arcades with thier minions aren't all they're cracked up to be.
Westy
-
Realism in the flight and 3D models, or at least the search for it, should be something we can all agree with.
I'd like the whole start up sequence, whole gun firing sequence etc. modelled.
Realism in game play is something else. I don't want 90% of my sorties to have no enemy contact. In fact, if it takes me more than 3 mins to find action in the MA, I'm bored.
.
There really *is* a difference between logging on for an hours fun while wifey's putting the kid to bed, and setting time asisde for an hour long scenario frame.
One thing AW definately had over AH were the events. Not just the amount of events, which I'm glad to see is increasing in AH, but player input into event set up
I think it'd be great if you could set up an event with the restrictions you wish, just as I think it would be great if I could set up an event with the conditions I want, but we can't and that's that. What we can do is use which ever of the current arenas is closest to what we want.
In which case, why is the CT always empty? I see enough agitation on these boards to turn the MA into the CT; why not use the CT you've got?
As for the point made about people voting with their feet and moving away from AW, it's valid (although I don't agree that realism was the main cause), but it's happening here too, as the number differentials between the CT and MA show.
The majority like the MA. As it is.
If you guys are getting lonely in the CT, why not try to think about why this is, and how it could be addressed rather than trying to change a sucessfull format (MA) into an unsucessfull one (CT).
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
[QBI can honestly say the only place that made it even easier and as ridiculously unreal was AW.[/QB]
at least in AW you could fly under dar and you only got markers over friendly territory.
and it could be switched off altogether, in BigWeek here the LW gets radar info while we are over the UK !
correct me if i'm wrong, memory's fading :(
Goner
-
I think you may be right Goner. I never had a problem finding that wave top skimmer as the screen resolutions were lower and the distant trying to hide dot was larger on the screen but in BigPac the Goony drivers always stayed right on the deck as it did help many times.
Westy
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
No visual contact required to get within firing parameters. I wasn't even looking out the window, just flying with the artificial horizon and steering based on the instant updates on the datalink. In a day fighter. Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?
Some people would actually argue whether this would be historical or not. rofl. It certainly isn't very good for gameplay.
-
I have come to the conclusion that not one damned person in here listens to the other side's arguments. (ok, that's hyperbole, but still.)
I'll say it again (as I've said in other dar threads, and many others have said it as well), and maybe Mav, Seeker, et al. will read it this time.
The Combat Theater's lack of radar is NOT why it's unpopulated. That's right, the CT vs MA argument has very minimal relevance to the issue of Inflight Dar. If the CT was exactly like the MA with the exception of different radar, arguments of "The CT is empty, so no inflight dar sucks" would be valid.
To say "the CT is setup like you want it, go play there" is also off base. The CT has no strat and no score tracking. It's a dueling arena with historical planesets and reduced radar settings. I don't want that, and I know some of the other proponents of dar changes don't want that either. I'm not going into what I want in the CT, that's not for this thread. All I want to do here is try to get past people using the CT as an argument to keep MA dar like it is. There's little to no relevance, and therefore, no substance in that argument.
-
"Striving for realism not only the FM and system features but also in the gameplay environment while retaining good gameplay is quite possible."
Indeed it is. I won't argue with that. WW2OL proves this is possible, at least in concept.
The question is, what kind of game do you want? You frequently call the MA an "arcade" experience. Such use of the term is at best a massive exaggeration. The MA isn't a WW2 experience, but it is far from an arcade game like Pac-man.
Why is the realism crowd's beloved CT always empty? Why was the AW AvA always empty?
Simple--most people don't want the limitations imposed by "realistic" gameplay. Personally, I don't care about re-living WW2. WW2 sucked, ask anyone who was there. All I want to do is fly around and fight other planes--and AH does a decent job of providing this sort of gameplay.
Why would you NOT want dar? What benefit is there to it? Sneaking on a NOE raid undetected? You mean to tell me you LIKE milkrunning? Milkrunners are pathetic! They DESERVE to be shot! Or, added "realism" in air combat? Bah, who really wants to sneak up on people? Personally, I get no enjoyment from killing a plane that never sees me comming. In fact it's a disappointment.
I said it before and I'll say it again, AH's dar is already insufficient in my opinion.
"and it also focused more on being a social gathering place than anything else."
AH would do well to mimic that aspect of AW. The in-game community support was the reason AW lived so long, and the lack therof is AH's single weakest point. AW died because of EA, nothing more, not that you were there to witness it :)
Oh, and I'd like to know when AH became a WW2 sim. WW2OL was supposed to be a WW2 sim. According to the main page, AH is:
"Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat
and sets it in an online high intensity environment where
hundreds of players can battle it out with and against
each other."
Hmm, nothing about simulating WW2 in there at all. This implies that AH is about WW-era planes fighting each other--which is exactly what the MA is! In-flight DAR helps you find the enemy (as Funked example so well shows) and so promotes combat WITHOUT comprimising the realism (flight model, etc) of the experience. So why do you keep bringing up what went on during the war, when obviously AH isn't even ABOUT WW2?
Perhaps YOU are the one trying to turn AH into something it isn't!
If you say I want AH to mimic AW, then you want it to become WW2OL.
J_A_B
-
"Why is the realism crowd's beloved CT always empty?"
The why has been explained several times and you still ask? It's even stated in the post right above yours.
"Why was the AW AvA always empty? "
Because the LW did not have a heavy bomber. Because the Allies did not have anything to counter the ME-262. But mainly because of the idiots who "gamed" it to death by, for one example, changing sides and augering the limited availability heavy bombers and Me262's etc etc. Not because of any intended arena settings.
Why do you not want DAR"
Repeat: It's INFLIGHT radar. Because that would be more realistic. Period. Not just so sneaky attacks can be made, not just so the unwary can be snuck up on, not to avoid the gang bang or be part of one. I would vote for NO ONFLIGHT RADAR (typed in caps as you seem to keep missing that) for ALL those reasons and much much more. Just as I did in AW three or mnore years ago. A lack of inflight radar doesn't not give anyone a special advantage. It does not favor B&Z over T&B styles. Players do not fly for hours experiencing boredom (well maybe you would). It's simply more realistic. And yes. It might even take a little bit more skill like "keeping your head on a swivel" which is exaclty what WWII Pilots said they had to do constantly.
And to finish. Essentially the main point of your post is out in left field with the accusations and wild suggestion that people are asking AH to be a WWII simulation. "..nothing about simulating WW2 in there at all.
No one has said anything about replicating fighting World War II. No one said we should ask HTC to have players pick sides and fly period matched aircraft. You go off half cocked like this all the time and either badly twist what is said or you outright put words in peoples mouths. Whats the problem?
Myself and several others maintain that we're not using WWII era equipment when it comes to radar and that by using AWACS radar changes the very nature of the aircombat experienced. What we have in the MA right now is more akin to a 1992 "Desert War" arena using simulations of WWII aircraft than anything else.
As to changing AH into what it isn't? I don't see it so much changing AH as trying to lobby for it to remain a sim. It didn't always have the AWACS radar.
Westy
-
Nifty,
I have read the arguments of funked, westy and hblair. I uunderstsand very well when they complain about dot and bar dar in the MA. What I don't understand is why they INSIST that the MA be converted to similar conditions that exist in the CT. All they need to do is to ask that the CT be modified with the strat and plane set that the MA has and they would have the very thing they are lobbying for. In that manner they get what they want and the MA is left alone for the rest of the players.
If they have such a wonderful idea that will revolutionize game play, the CT will fill with players and the MA will see a drastic numbers drop. Frankly, I don't see that happening.
If the real issue was the dar then the CT would already have players in it enjoying the reduced dar irregardless of the strat and capture issue. The major complaint that I have seen is that DAR diminishes their enjoyment of the game. They have an option to help them enjoy it, all they have to do is use it, convince HT there is a REAL interest in it and perhaps get the strat, bombing and capture features added. Until they show the CT is at least potentially viable HT has no reason to waste time changing it. IMO.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
Originally posted by Nifty:
I have come to the conclusion that not one damned person in here listens to the other side's arguments. (ok, that's hyperbole, but still.)
I'll say it again (as I've said in other dar threads, and many others have said it as well), and maybe Mav, Seeker, et al. will read it this time.
The Combat Theater's lack of radar is NOT why it's unpopulated. That's right, the CT vs MA argument has very minimal relevance to the issue of Inflight Dar. If the CT was exactly like the MA with the exception of different radar, arguments of "The CT is empty, so no inflight dar sucks" would be valid.
To say "the CT is setup like you want it, go play there" is also off base. The CT has no strat and no score tracking. It's a dueling arena with historical planesets and reduced radar settings. I don't want that, and I know some of the other proponents of dar changes don't want that either. I'm not going into what I want in the CT, that's not for this thread. All I want to do here is try to get past people using the CT as an argument to keep MA dar like it is. There's little to no relevance, and therefore, no substance in that argument.
-
"All they need to do is to ask that the CT be modified "
And I for one am. I'm just hoping that one of the two places is changed to be a somewhat realistic place to engage in WWII era aircombat using WWII era equipment. That's why I'm here. I have a passion for WWII aircraft and WWII era aircombat. One I believe is shared by many others. I'm not interested in a chat room based game that's using good fascimiles of WWII aircraft to engage each other with modern combat tools.
Westy
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
sneak up on someone?? I mean, I'll take the kill but it pales next to actually fighting em.
seeker is saying it best. Those who wish to only "sneak up" or "milkrun" are pathetic and a lot of guys who don't even bother to post here simply want to , as seeker says, get into a fight in a reasonable length of time. They also want to know ahead of time how lopsided the fight will be and they want to be close enough to home to get back in a reasonable length of time.
I believe that closer fields and more dar info cut down on milkrunning and dweeby organized gangbangs. they also contribute to large furs between fields rather than the ack hugging and gangbanging that we have now. Less dar would make people even more reluctant to venture out in the wasteland with nothing to look forward to but being gangbanged or a long fruitless flight to and from.
Info you see in the tower is worthless by the time you get to our more than a sector away
enemy fields.
And westy... you are forgetting that a radio operator was giving updates and vectors to pilots and that WWII radar easily had as much range as ours. It didn't care who claimed the "territory".
lazs
-
Actually Lazs I think that's a very good idea also. Instead of hitting a keypress to bring up an all seeing crystal ball HTC could replicate those radio operators telling us where to go ,over friendly territory, by tuning to a "ChainHome" radio channel where we could "listen" to them (radio text anyway) report realistically. HTC could convert the current ultra-specific radar info into a mainly generalised, foggy position report. Perhaps even toss in the eronious reports due to fog, bad weather, a flock of gulls or malfunctioning vacumn tubes!
Westy
(the random eroniuous report part was a joke)
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Mav, we are asking for that. Have been asking for strat of any sort in the CT since it was introduced. We understood, however, that version 1.08 took precedence so we kept quiet about it for the most part. Pyro has already talked about getting the CT populated, so that is being addressed. Ammo's squad was on when Pyro was in the CT, and strat and scoring were mentioned as what pro-CT folks wanted (I watched Ammo's film. Very good example of using barrel rolls in a 190 to make some P47's overshoot as well as the stuff with Pyro in the text buffer!)
Aside from the CT issues, the MA dar could be improved, IMO. I'd gladly trade IFF, instantaneous positional updates for dots that updated only on time intervals and had altitude information (using color coding more than likely). The sector bars wouldn't change at all, except maybe below 500ft AGL would not show on sector bars until within a certain radius of a friendly base (including ground vehicles).
Now please tell me how my suggestions would preclude anyone from finding the fight? You still have bar counters and you can see where the furball exactly is (including if there are cherry pickers up high, like you TAS types ;) j/k, I know you guys come down and play low with us!) What you don't get is instantaneous information on which dot on the map is an enemy and which is a friendly. You have to use your eyes for that. As for the gangbangs, if you see the red counter far exceeds the green counter, or vice versa, you know it's a gang bang. You don't need the IFF dots to tell you it's a gang bang.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]
-
So... nightime is OK because bombers really could perform precision bombing of specific ground targets at night.
Clouds with a fixed ceiling are OK as well as storm conditions because it was normal to know exactly how low a bomber had to go to break through the clouds, and to know that it would be the same way when you were precisely over your map indicated target.
Nah... what IS unrealistic is having dot dar.
The original post is loaded so full of unrealistic gameplay features that it is simply hypocrisy to single out dot dar as the end all be all of unrealism in the MA.
Realism does not exist in the MA. Keep the FMs realistic and gunnery realistic. Accept that the rest is just a game and get on with life.
AKDejaVu
-
stupid BS removed
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
So... nightime is OK because bombers really could perform precision bombing of specific ground targets at night.
Clouds with a fixed ceiling are OK as well as storm conditions because it was normal to know exactly how low a bomber had to go to break through the clouds, and to know that it would be the same way when you were precisely over your map indicated target.
Nah... what IS unrealistic is having dot dar.
The original post is loaded so full of unrealistic gameplay features that it is simply hypocrisy to single out dot dar as the end all be all of unrealism in the MA.
Realism does not exist in the MA. Keep the FMs realistic and gunnery realistic. Accept that the rest is just a game and get on with life.
AKDejaVu
naw, we can't clamor about everything at once. We gotta take babysteps. ;)
-
Funked,
Did you bother to read your own post that you started this thread with? It was nothing but a complaint about dar. WTF is wrong with YOU?!?!?!
Your whole post was about the MA and the encounter you had with a buff with a lack f SA that you were able to shoot down due to the presence of dot dar.
Now if you can't keep it simple and civil kindly go take a valium and sit in the corner. Please note I have NOT tried to make this personal but you obviously can't handle rebuttal.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
stupid stuff removed
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
"Now if you can't keep it simple and civil kindly go take a valium and sit in the corner"
I think it would help if you would fully read what people right or stop pressing buttons deliberately.
Westy
-
I don't know exactly what funked's point was but he did say that he thought that knowing where a con was and being able to fly by an artificail horizon was pretty silly in a WWII game.
I would have to disagree I can (please don't make me cause it takes forever) show several examples in WWII of guys being vectored onto cons... coming out of cloud cover and there the con was. It really was not all that amazing.
Besides... as deja points out.. to pick the one element, dar (act that you are looking at a map instead of hearing a voice) as being unrealistic.... Whith so many other elements that were far more unrealistic in his story... to pick the dar out is simply having an agenda. surely, the other elements were far more gamey/comprimised?
lazs
-
PS Mav please be careful when you attribute statements to someone.
*Edit* Unwarranted accusation removed.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
My statement from the other AWACS thread:
funkedup
Member
Member # 3750
Member Rated:
posted 11-29-2001 03:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW Everybody read my first post again. I'd like to see revised and more realistic radar in the MA. But I'm not insisting on it. If it's really going to spoil the fun of a lot of people, then don't change the MA. If HTC could set up a viable alternative to the MA (something the CT is not) with more realistic settings I would be all for it.
However I do think that the predictions of doom for an AWACS-free MA are a bit overmodeled.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Maverick the simple fact is that this statement is a lie:
Your statement above is false. I have not insisted that the MA be made similar to the CT. In fact I have been asking for the CT to be made more similar to the MA. I went out of my way to make this clear to you in the other AWACS thread.
You can make all the rebuttals you want. I don't have any problem with that. In fact I often enjoy it, and learn from it.
But when you use my name and tell lies about what I have said, I have a problem with that. You are crossing the line. If someone did something like that to me in real life, there would be some unpleasant consequences. So please stop.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Funked, here are just a couple of posts you made talking about the MA and the dar situation.
Under time to do away with the AWACS Datalink
posted 11-26-2001 07:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely with the MA this crowded there wouldn't be a problem "finding the fight"?
Maybe for 1.09 HTC can program the ability to disable radar in flight while keeping it enabled in the tower. If not for the MA, at least for special events and the Combat Theatre.
The other night on the Uterus the Knitrook were ganging us again. With 15 or so Knights over A1 I decided to go hunting in my Mustang III. I went over the cloud cover and saw nothing there. But there were dots showing on the AWACS datalink. And one of them was cruising straight for A1. So I left the clipboard up and followed the dot. Right as I got behind him and our dots merged, I dove through the cloud. He was about 700 yards in front of me. I ducked under his tail, closed to 250 yards, pulled up maybe 10 degrees, and destroyed him, then zoomed up over the cloud. Total exposure and visual contact was about 10 seconds. I did this again later against a bandit who was maneuvering (apparently to line up a dive bombing run). I intercepted a third bandit in this fashion, but he saw me at the last minute and broke. I zoomed up over the clouds, used AWACS to locate him again, and dove under and splashed him.
No visual contact required to get within firing parameters. I wasn't even looking out the window, just flying with the artificial horizon and steering based on the instant updates on the datalink. In a day fighter. Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Now I can't see how I lied about your wanting to change the dar in the MA.
BTW I did state that there was more than just you calling for changes in the MA.
FWIW, I am not trying to stymie any changes in the MA. I am not trying to tell you you can't have what you want in the game. I am just trying to present a differing point of view about the conditions in the MA that you have posted about: ie. the dar.
I am all for having the CT brought up to a full game play status so you can have what you want and those of us who choose to do so can have what we want in the MA. I see that as a win win here. Making the CT a viable alternative is a way to please more than one group of players. As it is now, and as I have noted, it is not fully comparable without an expanded plane set, strat and capture. Map rotation should happen the same as the MA. I see no reason why the SAME maps can't be used.
In some ways we have ben arguing for the same damn thing.
Now after all the crap I have taken about it I will stop posting here about it.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Evening all
First of all let me let you know that I am just an average person with below average combat flight skills, and I know that. The only thing I have gotten good at in this game is flying the goon and resupplying the bases the the bishops keep getting knocked down and the city that keeps getting bombed.
I say that to say this, I have read this board ever since I found out about this game and have learned a lot in the past three months; and it is my opinion (and only MY opinion) that the DAR is a help to the newbies like myself. All of you top 100 pilots probably don't need the DAR and don't want it. I on the other hand do like it and need it to be able to try and contribute something to the game as I {SUCK} in a fighter try as hard as I do and I spend a lot of time on line in this game as evidenced by the 80 hours, 196 hours, and 188 hours in the past 2 and a half months. If you notice there is a large number of registered members that read and learn on this board but don't want to post either for fear of being flamed or because of being timid; however, I think (just as an average guy)that if they spoke up they would all want to keep the MA just as it is.
Those of us that don't have ya'lls experience and skills need the DAR and to be quite honest about it most of us are at a disadvantage when it goes down due to the headquarters being bombed.
This is only my opinion.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: all american chickenman ]
-
Mav don't stop posting. You have a right to say your opinion about the radar.
-
Lazs, of course proponents of the dar change have an agenda. It's to get the dar changed. You have an agenda too, to be able to find a fight and furball until your heart is content.
BTW (also for Deja), I've voiced my opinion on night, I'd really like better cloud implementation, and I know you've seen me talk about fluff changes, as I'm pretty sure you've replied to a post or two of mine on the subject. However, those topics aren't as relevant to this thread, as realistic clouds wouldn't change the fact that the existing radar would still guide you right to dot (well, not to the right altitude of course). Precision bombing at night? Funked didn't even mention a level bomber; the only mention of bombing was in relation to dive bombing.
I do see your points in that we are singling something out. Yes we are in this thread. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with devoting a thread to one specific topic of the game.
-
Actually Nifty.. the point is more towards realism.
The dot dar did not guide him to the aircraft's alt. Real dar would have. He knew what alt the aircraft was most likely at because he knew exactly how the cloud layer was structured. More things told him where the planes were than the dar... yet what is declared unrealistic and in need of modification?
Dot dar only works at friendly bases and does not indicate altitude. Yet somehow, it is manifested as the end all be all of an advantage that shouldn't exist.
Its presented as an advantage during night flying. Its presented as an advantage during bad weather flying. Well... it is... but the unrealistic part isn't that the dot dar presents the advantage but rather that we are even flying in those conditions.
Basically... don't present an argument then pick and chose where realism should apply. I'd make considerably fewer posts in this forum if people could grasp that simple concept.
AKDejaVu
-
gotcha Deja. your 2nd post made a helluva lot more sense than your 1st attempt to me.
-
"He knew what alt the aircraft was most likely at because he knew exactly how the cloud layer was structured. More things told him where the planes were than the dar..."
I'll bet it was simpler than that. Using the WACS radar info he tracked the con but seeing no icon or dot above the clouds as he approached the glaringly obvious contact on the AWACS radar screen he there upon used his superior ultra-realism type intellect to deduced that the con was below the cloud layer. :)
Funkedup please tell us how you did it? Was it by analytical deduction based upon cloud layer structuring or did you use your two superman like mkI eyeballs and not spy a con above the clouds and there for you knew he was then below them.
We await the answer.....
Wait!
This just in.
"I went over the cloud cover and saw nothing there.
Aha! The secret was embedded within the post. Secretly hidden as the third sentence in.
Westy
-
There's a big difference between AH's "chase the radar dot overlaid on windscreen" and the verbal heading/range/altitude updates they got in the war. If you can't see the difference then you don't have sufficient understanding of air fighting or history, and you obviously aren't going to "get it". A picture is worth a thousand words. And we have a moving picture that updates much faster than a controller could give updates.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
The point is that the only time this matters is in cloud layers. You would not be using dar to bring you within 500 yards of a con unless there was a visibility issue. You'd be using your eyes. So.. because of one totally unrealistic element (the cloud layer), you cite the dar as being unrealistic.
AKDejaVu
-
What's wrong with the cloud layer?
-
Kind of off-topic, but not really, I have always wanted to run an ATC scenario. Clearance to take off, verbal intercept info, etc. To me, a sky-accountant, this would be great fun. I did some aspects of this before, and the response was very good, of the 70 or so that flew, only 1 had a problem, and it was a confusion issue more than anything else.
But then, I want to simulate the concept of an air war as well as the actual combat, so I am just strange, I guess.
-
Well Westy, as we've noticed before you and I simply have different interests in online gaming. I still fail to see why you view inflight dot dar as such a massive problem, unless you like to hide from people. But, you're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine.
I'm sure you'll agree AH has enough people now that there's no good reason for it to have only one main arena. Everyone could be happy.
J_A_B
-
I'm waitin' for the day when you get an endless clip, unlimited fuel supply, everyone gets a 0 drag nik and no one gets blowed up or has to start from the ground again. If you get shot down the only way you'd know is that you get a text message that says "you've been shot down" (of course the other guy sees all of the pieces fall off ur plane and the flames and such, gotta keep the eye candy). This way all the rest of the mindless lemmings can just fly around in circles chasin' each other while holding their triggers down and sprayin' like mad. Sounds like fun...sign me up...oh, wait, I forgot, I am signed up...silly me :)
CRASH
Originally posted by O'Westy:
"Kind of silly for a WWII sim don't you think?"
Absolutely it is. And I'm sure the person you rode the signal to thought so also.
I can honestly say the only place that made it even easier and as ridiculously unreal was AW. It was the same there with one exception and it was what made AW's even worse; the bombers had an "L" shaped radar id which was different from the fighters regular radar dot.
Westy
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
The ct in it's current form is a half hearted attempt to placate the core enthusiasts who have been the traditional supporters of these types of flight sims for the last 8 years or so and is recognized by these same people as woefully inadequate. Thats why it's empty Mav. Second reason it's empty is that 95% of all players go to where the crowd is to get into the action the quickest. If you shut down the ma and only had an historical arena the vast majority wouldnt complain one bit, they'd simply log in, hop in whatever suited them and was available and find their way to the quickest fight, like they've always done. Your confusing convenience and mindless habit with preference. Most of the "not in my MA" crowd who've been around any length of time realizes this which is why they are so vehement about not changing the ma one whit. They know that most people either a.won't care or b.will like the change, and that may mean a permanent alteration to the mindless furball the ma has become.
Originally posted by Maverick:
Went to the CT tonight. It was empty. Not just sparse population but freaking EMPTY as in NO players.
What I found there was:
No dot dar
Reduced icon range
A really decent looking map based on the BoB.
With all the pleas for removing the dar, why aren't these folks playing there??? If it is such a grand idea with a majority, or even a substantial minority of players wanting it, why is CT empty almost all the time? Hell, you guys already got most of what you have been demanding in the MA. Use it!
All that needs to be implemented, if it hasn't been already, is the strat thingie, base capture, scores and an expanded plane set. You guys got what you wanted why don't you use it? :confused:
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't understand why you're not using the very thing you have been asking for.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Crash,
You posted about a much earlier post. Read the emtire thred, tedious as it is. I have stated my opinion and am tired of the flaming and accusations I received about things I didn't do. I am done posting about it.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
My intention wasn't to flame you at all. Granted, I do get a bit carried away with the sarcasm....sorry :) You raised a valid question about the ct and I wanted to see it answered. I just wish we were all a little more open to trying new stuff in the ma, even if the change doesn't make things more fun it'll at least provide some welcome relief to the same old thing.
CRASH
Originally posted by Maverick:
Crash,
You posted about a much earlier post. Read the emtire thred, tedious as it is. I have stated my opinion and am tired of the flaming and accusations I received about things I didn't do. I am done posting about it.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Why was the AW AvA always empty?
First let me say that I don't understand why you don't understand that the CT arena and AW have no relevance to this subject .
Secondly: I don't know when you flew AW but I belonged to a squadron that only flew in the AvA arena, which btw had the same dar settings as the pork arenas . And when I played AW (97-99) there were allways 100+ players in the AvA arena in the evenings .
Bottom line for me is that the inflight radar display cheapens the experience for me like some <==*DEATHDAWGS*==> d00d blabbing on channel one in a scenario .
Geeze this is the most I've posted on these boards in a long time. I should get a job .
-
Crash: The ct in it's current form is a half hearted attempt to placate the core enthusiasts who have been the traditional supporters of these types of flight sims for the last 8 years or so and is recognized by these same people as woefully inadequate.
I don't know about this hypothesis.
The "core enthusiasts" would seem to be a pretty small group, if this is the case. If you look at the other <ahem> ACM games available, there were pretty huge numbers in some of them. Those guys certainly couldn't be considered "core enthusiasts" in search of <ahem> "realism". Enthusiasts, sure; desperately seeking more "realism"? I am totally unconvinced.
Second reason it's empty is that 95% of all players go to where the crowd is to get into the action the quickest.
So, the theory here is that even if the CT WERE an "adequate" attempt to satisfy the "core enthusiasts" then 95% would still be in the MA right? It's pretty much given that the MA will always provide quicker action than a "perfect" CT, isn't it?
If you shut down the ma and only had an historical arena the vast majority wouldnt complain one bit, they'd simply log in, hop in whatever suited them and was available and find their way to the quickest fight, like they've always done.
So, if we FORCE them into it, they won't complain... but if we give them a CHOICE 95% of them will pick the MA? Because the action is faster?
What does that say Crash? Should the 5% determine the menu is for the other 95%?
***********
My .02 (and I really don't have a dog in this fight; 99.9% of the "realism" threads and posts in this BBS generate an internal :rolleyes: or a belly laugh for me)
I seriously doubt if you could get even 15 of the CT-desiring "core-enthusiasts" to agree on the 4 most important changes needed _right now_ in the CT to make it "adequate".
If you could and HTC made those changes, I seriously doubt that you'd routinely see more than 50 of the 300+ logged on in there on any given night.
Note, however, that this would be FINE with me. I think everyone should have a chance to play the way they want to play. Bravo to the 50 fi they find what they want. (As long as they don't then get on their high horses and go around telling everyone how uber and elite they are because they fly <cough> "realistically". That would simply be another area of division in the player base that we don't need.)
However, for all the continual noise made about the CT and the various <cough> "realism" issues, I think we must all be honest with ourselves.
The vast majority of the player base just doesn't care about this stuff. They'll play what HTC builds.
So it's good and wonderful and fine to make suggestions and proposals. Let's not pretend, however, that this is anything but a small minority arguing over rather trivial details.
Just my .02. Flame away. ;)
-
Originally posted by Suave1:
First let me say that I don't understand why you don't understand that the CT arena and AW have no relevance to this subject .
<=======points at westy======> he started it. One more werd, experience, but hey make of it what you will.
-
"And when I played AW (97-99) there were allways 100+ players in the AvA arena in the evenings . "
I don't know what game you were playing but it sure wasn't AW!
AW FR AvA had similar attendance as AH's CT--namely, it was empty except for the occasional swuadnight.
RR AvA usually had around 10-15 people in, maybe peaking at 25 or so on the weekends. The ONLY times AvA ever had more people is the first couple months when it was new, until the novelty wore off and the old RR ETO map was restored.
Just clearing up some incorrect information that's not related to AH :)
Now back to your regularly scheduled flamefest :)
J_A_B
-
"you view inflight dot dar as such a massive problem, unless you like to hide from people. "
It's real easy. Stop looking for the hidden agenda. I hate the AH AWACS radar as I did the AW AWACS radar. All tor the same reason I wouldn't want a WWI combat sim that claims to use WWI era "science and art" to feature high frequency radio communications technology from decades later instead of carrier pigeons and human runners
Westy
-
One question for the "pro-realism" crowd:
Should radar, or it's replacement (an adaptation of the current system, a text/wav file replacement, what ever) allocated in an historical manner?
That's to say Allied radar dominance in the early war, mid war parity (with difference in technique), late war allied dominance again?
Should Russian and Japaneese planes have any radio coms in flight?
How real is real?
-
IMO *many* real feature of WWII era equipment and thier operation are achievable and usable. And without the need for a pilots license or flight school too!! I think trim should be modelled in those aircraft that had inflight trim. (Since AH seems to have to have trim anyway). Radios too although most folks will use RW. Metric, ordinance etc etc. I think AH should have manualk fuel selection on thos planes that did not have auto. And as for what model of radar? Pick an inservice WWII design. Not an experimental or a one off set. After all we don't have an rrs (rolling radar set) in AH and one is as good an approximation as another. As long as it faithfully represents WWII era radar.
And I'll also add that FWIW I'd much rather persue realisms and hopefuly experience some advances in thier implementation than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be." After all. How easy is easy? And just think! It takes no effort on anyones part, be it the player or the developer, to persue easy fatures or easy gameplay. That's rock bottom. Easy is a lack of features. Not surprising it takes even less to maintain that level of play at all. Otherwise we'd all be satisfied playing AW for MAC/Amiga's ala 1990.
Evolution exists in MMPOG too. Anything else is complacency and the syndrome is sometimes called "maintenance mode." Of which HTC has shown no signs of for two plus years and I doubt very much it will happen with them.
Westy
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
For those who've heard this point in the past, please forgive me. I feel the need to make it again.
I have to point out the fallacies I've seen on trying to debate the removal or change of AH radar on the basis of "realism". Most of the arguments I've heard ignore the fact of WW2 reality.
#1 Air battle management using radar was a foundational aspect of WW2 air combat across all theaters including the most primitive in the South Pacific (actually very surprising to me- did you know that radar was operating on Henderson Field before the planes were on Guadalcanal?). If you want realism then you can't just ignore this fundamental aspect of WW2 air combat. If the argument for removing or modifying the current MA radar implementation is based on "realism" then a realistic implementation of the entire command and control system must be implemented.
#2 If you're advocating modifications to AH radar / command & control for realism then here are some of the characteristics of WW2 radar that you can't avoid:
* Altitude information on radar contacts
* Range of a min of 150 miles to a max of 300 miles
* Ground based radar accuracy to about 1-3 miles
* IFF system that allows identification of friend or foe
* Effects of terrain such as mountains etc.
* Ability to jam using chaff (known as "window" at the time)
I haven't even addressed the complex command and control structure in place to coordinate. Just my .02 on the matter.
Tango, 1st Lt.
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
And I'll also add that FWIW I'd much rather persue realisms and hopefuly experience some advances in thier implementation than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be."
That is so much of a misconception it is pathetic westy.
When we get in an environment where vagueness is countered with increased patrols, where borders are guarded, where commanders coordinate attacks and defenses... then maybe you can start going for realistic features in regards to radar and such.
Right now, HTC has to create an environment where there is no command structure. An environment where an individual player can enter the game and get some kind of clue as to what is happening in an instant. An environment where players on-line can try to figure out what is incoming on their own because there is nobody that will reliably provide them with that data. That's what is needed in the MA.
The MA cannot be realistic. Nobody would play it. Given that, there needs to be an entirely unrealistic environment provided for people to have fun in. This environment enables them to hop from base to base instantly, to fly regardless of wether or day/night conditions, to have some kind of idea where everyone is. THAT IS NECESSARY!
Explain how your changes to radar will affect gameplay, because that is all that matters. Realism is completely irrelivant. The only thing realistic should be the FM and gunnery... the rest is simply a game.
Will removing dot dar over bases enhance gameplay? I don't see how it would. It does not give an alt reading making it virtually useless to do anything other than pinpoint in an x,y coordinate and only within range of a friendly base. The idea of not knowing what direction an attack is coming from is even more silly than the dot dar implimentation.
AKDejaVu
-
Wanna talk historical fact?
Doolittle bombs Tokyo, not some obscure edge of theatre target, we're talking TOKYO, Japan. Broad daylight raid, 2pm in the afternoon. Didn't lose a single bomber over Japan. The Japanese had no idea what was coming. So much for the all-powerful radar you guys are talking about, huh?
A little after 2:00 PM - noon in Tokyo - the announcer's studied English diction suddenly gave way to frantic Japanese, and then dead air. As air raid sirens in Tokyo screamed, Ambassador Grew placed a losing bet with his lunch guest, the Swiss ambassador, wagering the sirens and gunfire were all just a false alarm.
Racing in at just 2000 feet, the first B-25s over Tokyo emptied their bomb bays, and Ambassador Grew's wallet. Doolittle's and twelve other bombers sought out and bombed military and industrial targets throughout Tokyo: an oil tank farm, a steel mill, and several power plants. To the south, other bombers struck targets in Yokohama and Yokosuka, including the new light carrier Ryuho, the damage delaying its launching until November. Perhaps inevitably, some civilian buildings were hit as well: six schools and an army hospital.
Aided by low altitude, camouflage, and extra speed gained from leaving their loads of bombs behind, the bombers were able to evade the enemy fighters patrolling overhead, and anti-aircraft fire from the cities below. But they were far short of the fuel needed to reach the airfield at Chuchow. One plane turned north, and surprised Russian soldiers by landing near Vladivostok. The remaining fifteen planes crashed or were ditched over China. Remarkably, most of the 80 pilots and crewmen survived the mission. Of eight airmen who were captured, three were executed by the Japanese, and another died in captivity. Four others were killed during the mission.
For every *fact* you guys post, I can post another real fact that blows yours out of the water. Both can't be right can they?
-
Japanese were able to do photo recon of Northern Australia in 1843 and only once did the Allies radar detect the slimmest of signals.
dtango 100% replication of WWII command and controls are not needed implement a realistic approximation of WWII radar. ot in anyway shape or form. Although I imagine HTC could easily convert the current AH inflight AWACS radar screen info into control center text messages rather easily. And one benefit is that would cut down on the data bandwidth from host to every logged on client as radar info would not be perpetually sent out to every player online all the time.
AKDejavu the negative impact to gameplay is next to nill but the boon is major. As it is now NO WWII airwar tactics or strategy, except dogfight, is allowed in the game. No NOE raids. No Pearl Harbors. No bounces on enemy aircraft (unless they're afk) No evading an fighter sweep to do an end around and hit thier bombers. You name it and it literally cannot be done as it was in WWII. However if there was dot radar in towers for friendly territory only, none in flight and there was still colored bars, as a concession to gameplay to indicate enemy presence, then we would have somehting that simulates WWII era technolcogy than what we have now. This is what we have now:
(http://www.faa.gov/apa/history/enrt74.jpg)
And it should not be in a sim saying that it uses with WWII art and science. It would be something I'd expect to see in that is meant to be a "game" like FA and AW which use that.
Westy
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Westy: ...than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be."
"All or none really" isn't my point, although that's the way the road leads IMO.
My point is that each poster is "selective" and selects "realism" features according to their own personal bias.
There's no "double standard" because there's no "standard" at all. Unfortunately, whatever particular "realism" appeals to one seems certain to be anathema to some other player. You can see it in any "realism" thread.
Therefore, once you begin to make exceptions to "realism", each individual player sees that exceptions are allowed. Then the "realism" catfight begins. We all know that you can get a "realism" argument going over just about any aspect of any flight sim.
In short, each player wants the "realism" aspects he considers important, while asking for "gameplay concessions" in areas he considers relatively unimportant.
Getting 2000+ subscribers to agree seems like an impossible task to me. That's whey I said the road seems to lead to "all or none".
Fortunately, we have a steady hand on the stick and the game continues to progress despite the BBS squabbling over details. ;)
Just my .02.
-
AKDejavu the negative impact to gameplay is next to nill but the boon is major. As it is now NO WWII airwar tactics or strategy, except dogfight, is allowed in the game.
Ummmm.. roadkill. Are you saying that every bombing sortie was a suprise attack? Nobody ever knew what was coming in at them? Tactics are tactics... inevitably there will be more similarities than differences.
No NOE raids.
And dot dar affects this how? It does not.
No Pearl Harbors.
They are called scenarios. Besides, I've seen too many 30+ aircraft raids hit a relatively undefended base to believe this is impossible in the MA. Hell.. several squads do this every time they log in.
No bounces on enemy aircraft (unless they're afk)
You mean unless they are slacking on their SA. That's pretty realistic as it is. Or, do you think that German fighters patrolled the skies over England waiting for an unexpecting victim to launch so they could suprise them? What you want is less realistic. Remember... dot dar only works over friendly territory.
No evading an fighter sweep to do an end around and hit thier bombers.
What MA do you play in? This sounds really cool... but when does this happen? And, if it did happen, dot dar would make it easier to do if it were in your terriroty. It would also make it harder for the enemy fighters to detect. In truth, this example is wrong on virtually every aspect.
However if there was dot radar in towers for friendly territory only,
And someone dedicated to vectoring each and every pilot into contacts as they patrol the skies waiting for orders?
none in flight and there was still colored bars, as a concession to gameplay to indicate enemy presence,
Um... enemy presence was known over friendly territory. Dot dar simply acts as a guidance system with the exception of no alt information being provided. Any pilot uses it to get to a target then relies on the old peepers to do the rest. The only time it can actually be used in the manner described in the initial post is in heavy clouds or at night... both conditions that would have resulted in an aborted mission or no flights at all.
then we would have somehting that simulates WWII era technolcogy than what we have now.
No, we would not have anything that simulates WWII era technology. What we have now doesn't, what you propose doesn't. Its that simple. What we do have is a means for people to find fights and attempt to defend fields. As far as defending fields goes... its still not much help. Anyone coming in at over 15k can overfly a previously undefended enemy field without having to worry about anyone climbing to catch them. 3-6 minutes warning is all that is given by the dot dar.
We don't have any kind of command and control system, and I seriously doubt that one is really wanted by a large majority of the players. As a result, we need the same tools that would be available to them... in flight or in the tower.
AKDejaVu
-
I understand and agree with what you're saying Toad.
Still. I think the radar system we have now could stand to be looked at and alternatives, preferably an accurate fascimile, could be developed and implemented.
If not I'll simply always wish otherwise but it won't be a game quitting issue for me.
Westy
p.s. AKDejavu you constantly have to use twist issues with word such as "every" and "dedicated." I find it imopssible to discuss or even arugue any point with anyone who sees only in black and white extremes. It's been that way with you no matter the subject whether it is radar or previously something like the profanity filter.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Way to go westy.. might as well make it personal.
How about this, it is impossible to discuss this with someone that fails to realize that if you make dar only available in the tower, then A PERSON WILL HAVE TO BE IN THE TOWER TO TELL OTHERS WHERE THE ENEMY IS COMING FROM! Saying anyone CAN do it is the same as saying nobody HAS to do it.
Jeez dude.. its that fricking simple. If nobody wants to do that, then what? The military had "DEDICATED" personel to handle that. We do not.
Frick.. quit being so obtuse.
As for the language filter... I'll discuss that with you anytime too. Especially in regards to those that were cricizing the use of foul language.
Idiot 1: diddly you
Idiot 2: Don't cuss, my child might see it
Idiot 1: diddly
Idiot 2: stop it
Idiot 1: diddly!
Idiot 2: You're ruining the MA!
Idiot 1: diddly diddly diddly
Idiot 2: If you don't stop, I'll send a pic to HTC!
Idiot 1: diddly diddly diddly diddly diddly
Idiot 2: I'm not going to warn you again
<Same thing repeated by both for 30 more minutes>
Amazing how many people think there is only one idiot in that equation. You ever wonder why all obvious troll threads instantly go over 100 posts? Hmmmm....
AKDejaVu
-
comon westy... I know your brighter than this.. I give you one month to come to your senses.
hblair? well hblair is a bamma man but worse... he has been LW for quite a while... flying LW is the flight sim equivelent of eating lead paint. Recovery is possoble but..
lazs
-
Toad, AKDJ- great posts.
HB - you have a good example. The *fact* of the matter is that this was the exception vs. the rule however.
In the particular case of the Japanese, it's well documented that the Japanese were the last of the major combatants in WW2 that realized the importance of effective command and control plus the crucial use of radar. For that matter the Japanese didn't even have radio in the majority of their aircraft, and often times removed the radios they might of had to decrease weight. (I think Seeker's questions were meant to illustrate historical accuracy along these lines.)
My point is that trying to argue the radar issue on "realism" as AKDJ has pointed out is a slippery slope at best and irrelevant at worst.
Westy- along these lines Toad's post is spot on around some of the problems with arguing "realism". As you stated, we can try to approximate WW2 radar in AH. And that is exactly the problem with the realism argument. So what level of approximation is considered "realistic" vs. what isn't "realistic"? As Seeker asks "How real is real?"
I can understand arguing changing radar to change the gameplay though I'm in a particular camp there as well.
HB- On that vein, I understand why you would want to change the radar from a gameplay perspective. I don't totally agree with you but I can agree with the logic you have used in other posts. I'm even agreeable to some of the changes suggested (delayed dot dar updates etc.). If it even helps, I would love to provide and help organize escorts etc. for you guys when I'm on with your strat attacks to have more success in these attacks. :)
Tango, 1st Lt.
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
<snipped buncha stuff that should be in scenarios and not a hamsterwheel arena.>
Anyways, is this a WWII sim or an aircombat simulation?
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Wanna talk historical fact?
Doolittle bombs Tokyo, not some obscure edge of theatre target, we're talking TOKYO, Japan. Broad daylight raid, 2pm in the afternoon. Didn't lose a single bomber over Japan. The Japanese had no idea what was coming. So much for the all-powerful radar you guys are talking about, huh?
For every *fact* you guys post, I can post another real fact that blows yours out of the water. Both can't be right can they?
Given the relative novelty of radar in April 1942, Japan's notorious difficulties in mass-producing radar sets, and the acute case of "victory disease" suffered by Japan early in the war, is it correct to assume (nowhere in your account is it supported) that Tokyo was under radar coverage at the time of the raid?
-
Hehe- Uhh..let me be clear-
AKDJ- great posts above the ones that started to get a little personal! :D
Tango, 1st Lt.
412th FS Brauco Mustangs
-
JAB I don't know when you played AW but I left a few years ago when most everyone else did . And there was no FR AvA, there was only one FR arena period, and that was big pork. And there were plenty of players in the AvA except at odd hours of the day, or during the latewar planeset for reasons allready mentioned by Westy. Like I said the squad I was in (Bose 26) was just one of many squadrons that only flew in that arena .
Again this is off topic, the AW AvA arena had almost the same type of inflight radar map that AH has now in the MA .
I don't think anyone is asking to change the dar settings in the pork.. er MA, so I'm not sure why so many are in an uproar in this thread .
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Suave1 ]
-
Originally posted by Runny:
Given the relative novelty of radar in April 1942, Japan's notorious difficulties in mass-producing radar sets, and the acute case of "victory disease" suffered by Japan early in the war, is it correct to assume (nowhere in your account is it supported) that Tokyo was under radar coverage at the time of the raid?
So you're saying Tokyo didn't even think they needed radar? or didn't use it. Either way, do we agree that in this case radar was either not used, or not used effectively?
-
"So what level of approximation is considered "realistic" vs. what isn't "realistic"?"
It is true. Every one will have a different answer. I can only answer for myself by saying that the bounds of realism are only limited by technology, programming and desire. I feel realism is doable for just about every facet of online play, be it the models in the sim or the tools that help mold the gameplay itself. And without requiring anyone to submit to a military type regimen nor force them to graduate tech/flight school to operate anything.
An example of where the easy and simple closely replicates reality is the AH radio operation. One key press simulates a mike press for the radio andother simulates tuning the radio.
An example of where realism is lacking and it's lack definately impacts gameplay is the absence of any complexity in being a bombardier, or bombing itself, in AH. That may change in 1.09. But would it have changedat all if people were content to live with bombers as they are now and said nothing?
Things that could additionally be added in the pursuit of realism, and not be excessive IMO, would also include manually retracting flaps, ammo counters where they had them, lack of metric, lack of pilot fatigue from repetative hi-G's. Heck add in a 30 point check list to launch. Somehting like that has no effect on gameplay other than to provide immersion for the few who would wish to sit on the runway with a simulated clipboard to check things off and simulate a "walk around" before flight. But just like the "running" from the tower to the plane has a speed switch to allow folks top bypass that if they wish.
IMO gameplay concessions are manual trim vs combat trim, fuel management versus auto-fuel and of course my opinion on current grid bar indicators.
I'd be all for adding more aircraft management too. It's obvious from the text buffer in AH that what some swore and claimed would interfere with online social interaction has been shown not to and as long as there were automated versions of any added feature that it provided less performance than the manual operation of the same would.
100% immersion is unattainable imo because I will not act like I am in a military arm of any country, I will not die and I wil never know how to actually fly one of these planes. But if any feature whether it is the plane, a tank, the clouds, the communications, the radar, ordinance use etc etc can be modelled to give a fair representaion of what they had in WWII it only boosts that "I feel like I'm in a WWII aircraft and expereincing WWII style aircombat." That is what I'm all for.
I've rambled enough.
Westy
-
"Anyways, is this a WWII sim or an aircombat simulation?"
Jesus this is getting old. Rotor, AW was an aircombat game with nary any realism about it at all. It truly was an "aircombat game" using a some sort of planes that wore WWII costumes. The FMs were hokey, bogus in several cases. The guns, ballistics, damage, aircraft and flight management either badly outdated or simply non existant. Luckily we do not have Mage, Moggy or BB (or the suits they reported to) sitting in Grapevine maintaining that it is not good to add feature xxx or xxx as it would make it much too hard for people to socialise and play the "aircombat game" at the same time. I can';t count how many times I heard "it would take away from the aircombat" from Mage alone. I say this because your statement reminds of all the times that pat answer was whipped out in AW by them as to why something that could boost realism in AW wouldn't or shouldn't be added. Anything to make AW more realistic was always poo-poo'd and deemed as an extra burden on the players. And right to the end that attitude was maintained. "Ultrareal" FM. <snork> Good lord. My number one wish would be for people new to AH to let AH be AH and not try and turn it into AW.
Now, no one I've seen post has asked for that whether be they anti or pro current AH radar. I've seen no one is asking for "a WWII sim." Since you only seem to reply to my posts Rotor I take it you're sniping from the wings at me and with a predispostion to hit what you think I (or anyone else) has said versus what I actually have.
Start with reading the first few lines about what AH is on the front page. That is what AH is supposedly. Now look at the all seing radar in the AH main and tell me with a straight face that it is "WWII science."
My simple point is we seem to have simulated WWII aircraft, in the arena we simulate the aircombat they had in WWII BUT ith the AWACS radar it eliminates many diferent options available to players of all types and it is anything like combat as was experienced in WWII.
No one has said HTC make it so people have to choose a side, fly only a certian air force types planes and try and conquer the other sides territory.
Westy
(came back to time stamp this at 16:47est as I bet this topic appears on BW within 24 hrs as "that bad Westy is trashing AW again")
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
(came back to time stamp this at 16:47est as I bet this topic appears on BW within 24 hrs as "that bad Westy is trashing AW again")
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
You are so freaking paranoid it is funny. I asked a question, and you go on a rant about AW. Frankly I could give a flying cahoot<sp> about AW. I am expressing my opinions in here just like everyone else. Ofcourse you know about opinions and the human anatomy.
-
And FWIW you big dummy. I like the "realistic radar" crap. Just not in the MA. Now, for scenarios, it would be dandy. The MA is a hamsterwheel, a game to be gamed.
-
dar people = :confused:
nondar people = :cool:
:)
-
My apology for going off on an tangent with AW having a leading role. The exact statement you (Rotor) used pressed an old nerve and the result is easy to see.
Realism and Easy is a tug of war. In AH it has historically been a tug of war between two differetn groups. One who wants "realism" and another who've wanted "even more realism" With the influx of AWiers, particulary RR Awiers, I for one am very defensive about things staying the same (if it's unrealistic) and definately on the offensive against having anything get easier (if it's unrealistic).
But that doesn't have much to to do with the radar discussion other than I'm an advocate for change in regards to AH radar.
Westy
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
I'm all for realism... I just think the MA is the wrong place to look for it. Gameplay should be first and foremost there.
The CT on the otherhand....
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
My apology for going off on an tangent with AW having a leading role.
Westy
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
Nothing to apologize for here. That was not the main point of my second post.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I'm all for realism... I just think the MA is the wrong place to look for it. Gameplay should be first and foremost there.
The CT on the otherhand....
AKDejaVu
Stop sayin' stuff I agree with...
-
"JAB I don't know when you played AW but I left a few years ago when most everyone else did . "
I was involved with AW from late 1996 to last month. If you played from 1997 to 1999, you missed out on a LOT.
RR AvA was semi-popular for one month out of three after it came out in 1998, in the early-war planeset. After about mid 1999, RR AvA become under-used in ALL timeframes. FR AvA was created after you left AW and was used like AH's CT is.
J_A_B
-
"Jesus this is getting old. Rotor, AW was an aircombat game with nary any realism about it at all. It truly was an "aircombat game" using a some sort of planes that wore WWII costumes. The FMs were hokey, bogus in several cases. The guns, ballistics, damage, aircraft and flight management either badly outdated or simply non existant. "
I will save this for the day when AH is no longer the newest and prittiest. And instead of Mage/Moggy/Dose you have a former hacker/cheater running the show here. Nothing meant in a derogatory way, just reminding you that nobody's perfect and nothing lasts forever. AW's time has passed, and one day so will AH's.
AH's radar isn't WW2 science, but then again neiher are our cockpit instruments or our 3-country system. The COMBAT between the planes is indeed WW2 science. And the COMBAT is what matters.
J_A_B
-
And a damned good thing you did! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by O'Westy:
(came back to time stamp this at 16:47est as I bet this topic appears on BW within 24 hrs as "that bad Westy is trashing AW again")
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
For explanation of editing I did in this thread, please see here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=012878 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=012878)
-
Originally posted by hblair:
So you're saying Tokyo didn't even think they needed radar? or didn't use it. Either way, do we agree that in this case radar was either not used, or not used effectively?
Okay, this is rampant speculation following. You have been warned.
Radar was pretty rare in Japan in 1942. This page (http://www.combinedfleet.com/radar.htm) seems to indicate that Japan had not deployed land-based radar on a wide-scale basis until 1943.
Given that the Japanese could not fathom an attack on Tokyo, it seems reasonable that they would put what radars they had near where they did expect action.
Like I said, though, this is just speculation.
And yes, we can agree that radar was not used effectively (or at all) by Japan in 1942, just as we could agree that by the time most of the planes of AH appeared on the scene, Japan had learned their lesson about radar, even though their sets were never as good as Allied sets.
But as you will probably agree, this really is neither here nor there. It's the gameplay that's important. I still disagree that a change in radar is necessary for easing base capture (ND Islands lasted for what, a day? At least we'll have a week or more of Mindanoan bliss!)
-
"I will save this for the day when AH is no longer the newest and prettiest"
:) Save it for the day that AH is 15 years old and it hasn't substantially advanced or been or enriched in the last ten of them.
Until AH showed up all that competed with AW ($10/mo) was WB's which was hourly and harder. When FA and AH came on the market the online flight crowd finally had more viable options. Superior options imo (as well as many others).
IF HTC did the same with AH then people will curse them for screwing up a good thing and cast derogatory remarks at the program itself too. And the fatal hemmorhage will begin for AH as it did for AW.
AW didn't die just because it wasn't the prettiest or the newest. There were many factors which imo were more lethal. IMO nothing external killed AW. It committed suicide. And the blame for that can be found from the top corporate suit right on down to the lowest rung in the company hierarchy.
"Bunny LUV" anyone?
Westy
-
LOL! Hey, Westy .... guess who turned the thread into an "AW vs AH" thang. Why do you still bother? I think I know .... but do you?
:D
(.... and Westy decided to say, "I can honestly say the only place that made it even easier and as ridiculously unreal was AW. It was the same there with one exception and it was what made AW's even worse; the bombers had an "L" shaped radar id which was different from the fighters regular radar dot.") ;)
-
I used an example of something lame from another game to stress my point. It was not an AW vs AH hijacking. I've slammed FA's glass cockpits too. Do you need to whip out your Cliff notes for "Beginners Psychology" again and look up what that also supposedly tells you about me?
Better yet let's stay slightly on topic. Arlo, why not tell us from your experiences in the AH main arena what your opinion of AH radar is? Or perhaps any other pro's and cons of AH gamplay that you've seen?
Westy
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
" .... from your experiences in the AH main arena ...."?
You certainly don't want my "cliffnotes" opinion over the psychology involved in THAT attempted cheap shot, Laz ... errrr .... Westy. ;)
So NOW you want to stick to nothing but an experienced AH pov! rofl! Maybe if you made a habit of that you wouldn't sound like you're bitter over your experience in AW or on BigWeek.
Oh ... and here's an epiphany for you:
Valid opinions can even come from someone who hasn't yet experienced AH online. Or are you going to backtrack on your claim that there are enough simularities to use AW as an example?
You want a fruitful exchanging? TRY to have one. You probably could if you tried (I'm giving you credit, here). Even back when you were a BigWeek regular. Don't turn it into your personal little problem with AirWarrior/BigWeek et al. In return, I'll try harder not to call you a butthead on the UBB (which obviously is no more productive than you're being one). :D
Now .... here's my opinion about DAR (both in AW and AH - from what I've managed to learn without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure):
I've never been in favor of simulated WWII aircraft having any form of radar (unless the plane being simulated had it - and even then, it should work the same way it did in that plane). What was used in AW and is currently used in AH (from what I've managed to learn without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure) is way too futuristic and simple for my tastes.
Granted, there are undoubtedly players who appreciate it, and that is the single best reason for its existance. That being the case, my opinion or desire, for that matter, won't have much of an impact on whether or not DAR continues to be a feature (even though what I've managed to learn came without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure). I doubt it will ever go away.
I will advocate scenarios that have that particular feature disabled. Enemy positions and reports CAN be more accurately represented as they were in real life. The program CAN man the tower and broadcast positions from early radar and aircraft watchers (with a degree of error) - or not sometimes. And players (most of them) probably CAN be smart enough to figure things out without a global positioning satellite to guide the way.
And maybe when what I've managed to learn comes from actually experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure (and it will).... my opinion will be the same .... and maybe even will carry weight with you, Laz and a others that require that prerequisite. :D :rolleyes:
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]
-
"So NOW you want to stick to nothing but an experienced AH pov! rofl! Maybe if you made a habit of that you wouldn't sound like you're bitter over your experience in AW or on BigWeek."
I didn't get any further in your post as I really think discussing much of anything about online gaming with you is an exercise in futility. Everything you respond with is pathetically AWcentric, centers around your limited AW experience and in regard to me you have this fixation that everything I say with regard to AW is an outpouring of some imagined bitterness I harbor.
They're taking AW off life support tommorow Arlo are they not? I for one flat out honestly could care less. Tommorow it will be "well AW used to.." versus "AW does or has..." But the truth is AW will always forever now remain an example of what not to do with something that used to be good. I think you're the one with some internal angst and issues to resolve due to AW's demise. When they are resolved then maybe you'll have an easier time with AH and perhaps also with me. At the least it might help curb these inane ramblings you have about anger, bitterness or resentments towards AW or BW that you imagine I have.
Westy
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Too bad. You have a bad habit of doing that. *ShruG* Want me to repost or edit it without the part that (edit) offended you (edit)? :D
Here ya go ....
Now .... here's my opinion about DAR (both in AW and AH - from what I've managed to learn without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure):
I've never been in favor of simulated WWII aircraft having any form of radar (unless the plane being simulated had it - and even then, it should work the same way it did in that plane). What was used in AW and is currently used in AH (from what I've managed to learn without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure) is way too futuristic and simple for my tastes.
Granted, there are undoubtedly players who appreciate it, and that is the single best reason for its existance. That being the case, my opinion or desire, for that matter, won't have much of an impact on whether or not DAR continues to be a feature (even though what I've managed to learn came without yet experiencing the the main arena online in AH - go figure). I doubt it will ever go away.
I will advocate scenarios that have that particular feature disabled. Enemy positions and reports CAN be more accurately represented as they were in real life. The program CAN man the tower and broadcast positions from early radar and aircraft watchers (with a degree of error) - or not sometimes. And players (most of them) probably CAN be smart enough to figure things out without a global positioning satellite to guide the way.
Pardon me for being "futile". ;)
Originally posted by O'Westy:
"So NOW you want to stick to nothing but an experienced AH pov! rofl! Maybe if you made a habit of that you wouldn't sound like you're bitter over your experience in AW or on BigWeek."
I didn't get any further in your post as I really think discussing much of anything about online gaming with you is an exercise in futility.
Westy
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]
-
So now it's AH has it's own certifiable version of 'Avenger.' How ironic considering it's you filling the shoes Arlo.
Westy
-
mmmmmmmhmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:
-
get a room guys. :p
-
Hehe ... :o
-
"But the truth is AW will always forever now remain an example of what not to do with something that used to be good"
You said yourself that AW didn't signifigantly change in its last 10 years (although I will beg to differ with that point, it's easy to forget things like AW being the first MMP 3D game). So how did something go from being "good" to "bad" without changing?
Simple--something newer and nicer (AH) came along. You apparently jump ship the moment your game is no longer the top of the heap. I assume you will leave AH as soon as it gets passed by something else, too. And AH WILL get passed eventually, regardless of HTC's programming ability.
I, on the other hand, feel that if something is fundamentally sound, it doesn't NEED constant changes to keep me happy with it. Unlike many of the people on this BBS, I do not start to whine and complain if my game doesn't get an update every 3 months. I NEVER whine because I play on the same map for 3_whole_weeks (those last two don't apply to anyone in particular, you know who you are). I don't jump ship just because there's a new guy in town. AW makes me happy every bit as much now as it did when I first started it. It's a shame as clueless a company as EA had to buy it. C'est la vie.
Really though I can say the same about AH--I'm about as happy with it now as I was when it was in Beta. You think AW had some fundamental flaws; I think AH has some fundamental flaws. Nothing's perfect and you can't get everyone to agree all the time. Such is life.
J_A_B
-
"So how did something go from being "good" to "bad" without changing?"
Easy answer. AW isn't just the software. AW itself remained essentially unchanged and it grew inceasingly stale but the biggest change was in it's marketing and pursuit of a new demographics to play it. The prior hourly rate was lowered dramaticly (WB's debut must have hurt A LOT) and to compensate they HAD to try and pull in more numbers than ever before. Kesmai/Gamestorm was in a difficult position in that they had an old product facing a superior but higher priced competition (WB's). IMO they had no choice but to do whatever was needed to bring in "quantity" to get revenue up. This attracted anyone who could afford the price of a large pizza and as a result more "gamers" rather than WWII aircombat afficiados came in the door. If a player could afford hourly then WB's was the place to go for features, fidelity and realism. As a result AW no longer was seriously considered a "sim" by any stretch of the imagination and it became touted as an easy, fun aircombat game for anyone from 9 to 99. And while AW at $10/mo was an acceptable product for a couple of years for a good many WWII aircombat fans (who couldn't afford or would not pay hourly) when a flat rate AH came on the scene and then WB's itself went flat rate the folks who wanted "more" but coulnd't afford it prior finally had superior alternatives for WWII aircombat. As a result over the last two years the AW "full realims" arenas simply dried up. It also hurt AW very much in that it's player base was strung along for almost two years with hideously bad "PR." First with AW:Vietnam, then AW:4 and the eventual cancellation of not only those two projects but AW itslef.
So while the actual software did not change by much the whole AW experience and package did. By quite a LOT.
Anyway, that's most of the answer as there are too many different facets as to why AW went "bad"
[edited to add this as I reread your post and I found this warranted a reply in the same tone as what you wrote was in]: As for jumping ship from AH for the next prettier thing that comes along? Found it a bit too hard not to get personal and show your bitternes there didn't you JAB? You know? Tough sh&t that AW's going away. Big deal. You'll get over it someday. Probably when you realise it's Kesmai/Newscorp/EA's fault and not the players that have left. Some of whome left quietly and others like me departed loudly and discusted. IF HTC follows the pathetic path AW did - I doubt they'd be so blind and foolish but just say they did - then I'd jump ship in a heart beat. I'm only a sucker for empty promises, lame excuses and bad customer relations roadkill once.
Westy
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
So the bad thing that happened to AW was when it changed its marketing system and began to attract a larger crowd by means such as a reduced price rate? Ok, I can see how someone might not like having the atmosphere of their game changed in such a way.
Surely you must look at where AH is headed with some apprehension. In addition to the lowered price there's the interviews with HTC that suggest that AH will indeed be searching for a broader audience, including FPS gamers. What will you do then? The AH of today will be no more.
Pardon me for using the phrase "jump ship"--it DOES upon re-reading sound a bit negative although it wasn't intended to be so--but seriously, the AH landscape will change just as AW's did, and if anything even more drastically. The community's changes weren't something unique to AW--such changes are unavoidable as a game grows. Have you thought about this? Will you leave AH just as you left AW?
Plan for it, don't just play AH and one day find that everything you liked about the game is gone.
J_A_B
-
Wetsy saz J_A_B (and Arlo ... and everyone else)is (are) th' bitter one(s) .....
What's it been ... two years here? And you STILL haven't gotten over it?
Hmmmmmmmm?
(http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s2/contrib/blackeye/hihi.gif)
"Why ah uhmember a-flyin' in AW and it wuz even worser! Let me tell ya `bout it!"
-Wetsy Googlehiemer
I'll be lookin' for that same refreshing pov in every topic you visit, be it about DAR, Christmas or the esoteric value of postage stamps. :D
-
Let me first say I can't quite recall two people who put the strangest twists or on what is clearly written by someone in my online life. You and Arlo take the cake. Literally.
"Surely you must look at where AH is headed with some apprehension."
Yes I do. In so much as all the "peeps" who used to be safely tucked away in thier AW RR playpens now must find a place to go.
But I welcome change and with no problem. In reality some folks like you do NOT which is quite evident in your posts. Change has been been a part of AH since day one and it is very refreshing after something so unchanging and stale. Well AW did experience change if you were an AW player but only in community turn over, in how AW was packaged and marketed (hey folks we got Bop Da Bunny, Kinasta and a wicked neat kEwL game called AW too! But wtahc your step, don't mind the GILS and look at the ads! ads! ads!) and of course a repeat of what I said earlier about "who" it had to attract. Numbers are quantity. Not an indication of quality.
Here's an very appropriate anlogy to think about. AW was like the old road side diner where there was a small core of loyal clientelle who didn't mind that they had meat and potatoes on the menu. Nothing on the menu ever changed. Meat and potatoes. Day in, day
out. Year after year. SOme custoemrs stopped by and when they grew tired of meat and potatoes they either asked for more selection, asked that condiments be provided or that the meat be cooked properly. It took Mohammed time from moving that mountain to help get anything changed in AW. (Spitfire wings rip? lol. That was a good change. Never mind the really porked FM's of several aircraft like the 190) But as long as you liked just meat and potatoes AW was home. Some customers never bothered asking for the meat to be cooked right or that they add butter to the potatoes. However managemment knew they could get customers if they gave the old diner a facelift. They tried changing the curtains, putting out a blinking neon banner saying all you can eat for $9.99, prettier paper plates, a kids gym (like MickeyDeee's) and a brand spanking new twenty foot tall blazing pink bunny with which to attract customers. Still all that was inside was the same basic meat and potatoe dish they 'd been serving for years. Customers wanted service and variety along with honesty and quality. Thier complaints on the driveway geting to the diner as well as being able to remain even in the parking lot fell on numb-eared, glaze eyed customer help. They knew the problems were always the customers, of course. And ultimately the customers received mere patronizing comments and assurances that indeed in just "two weeks" the diner would certainly provide customers with salt & pepper, vegetable side dishes, utensils, napkins and by god even some dessert choices. "The plan" was in the works. Well the people with "the plan" were canned because the new management had an agenda of thier own. "The plan" came years too late.
However the few remaining AW customers recieved noe more surprise when the original owner of the diner suddenly appeared like the cavalry and actually mingled with them for the first time in ages. Wiping down tables and asking the few left what they wanted. Assuring them that the diner was being still able to be remade after all into what the customers always wanted. They had a 'new' budgeted plan! One that had the sly thumbs up from the new management crew standing behind him in thier shiny green suits, wearing dark Raybans, snapping chewing gum and saying 'whatever ya want baby, whatever ya want". The customers just didn't see the eyes roll or hear the snickers from the "suits" when they talked amongst themselves. Well we all know they closed the diner today. The new managment saw AW as the loss leader it was and only the blind didn't see that coming when EA bought it up. It was only a matter of time before the windows were boarded up and the place was shut down. The new management wanted the pieces and what AW was sitting on. Not AW.
AH by HTC on the other hand is a clean, fresh place. Somehwere ALL of the customers are able to feel special and part of not just the AH experience but also in the development. A place where the cooks come out and mingle with the customers, where the management actively listens to the customers as to their wants and wishes, AH is a place where the customers opinion counts and problems are listened to and worked on. Variety and change are the staple at AH. Not stagnation and complacency. AH is not a place where customers have no resort to prodding, begging, having to get on thier knees to kiss a ring finger and basically grovel (for years too) to get something fixed or changed.
Reality sux for you guys huh?
Westy
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Depends on which reality you're talking about, Wetsy. Yours .... or everyone else's.
I'm fine, thanks for asking, carry on (literally). ;)
-
" or eveyone elses"
Whatever, "Avenger"
-
This is going nowhere. HiTech/Pyro, please shut this damn thread down, it doesn't pertain to AH anymore anyway and is just wasting your webspace.
If you want to continue this with me Westy (I'm game), I read TK's newsgroup.
I will just correct one outright wrong statement. AW didn't "stagnate" at all until 1999 or so when Kesmai no longer controlled its development program, and even then there were semi-frequent patches. In 1994 they were still in DOS AW on Genie. In 1998 AW3 (the FIRST MMP flightsim to have 3D rendering or voice communications or a host of other features) was released. In between there was AWFW and AW2 and all had several patches.
Just because AW never changed how YOU wanted it to, doesn't mean it never improved.
J_A_B
-
Can't take the discussion so you call on HTC to shut it down? Make the bad man stop saying the bad werds!! <eye roll>
I downloaded the entire 40k msgs of the Kraits BW last night to make one last final AW archive addition. I can burn one last AW CD and it'll go in the desk drawer for posterity. When it was done downloading I took the liberty of reading some of the "Farewell AW" posts before deleting the 230mb news group. One post stood out like a beacon. You should read it. Go find Brookes post on AW as it was for him and the others in the late 80's and early-mid 90's. His post makes it so abundantly clear as to how AW did in fact change.
You've got a bad case of denial and selective memory. Going elsewhere to discuss it won't change that anything for you at all. The finally proof is in the pudding. AW closed today and you're having a hard time coming to grips with that as well as Arlo. Actually? Especially Arlo. Amost to the point I'd almost suggest some professional "help" if it weren't that you and Arlo would misconstrue that as a slam and not sound advice.
Feel free of course to reply and continue the discussion here. OR not. The ball is in your court.
Westy
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
No, actually I wish this thread closed because it really doesn't pertain to AH at all anymore. Aren't you among those who wish for blatantly off-topic posts to not clutter this board? I doubt very many of the people reading this board care to read junk of this sort.
As I said, if you'd like to continue we can, even the "O club" is fine. Your disgruntled misinformation doesn't phase me a bit.
I can only wonder what caused you to become so....angry....towards AW and everyone who likes it. I certainly never had any past grudge with you.
I'm not having any difficulty coping with AW closing down at all. I'm not that attached to a computer game. All things must end sooner or later. It was fun while it lasted. Enjoy AH while it's here.
J_A_B
-
I don't understand your problem then JAB. I'm not angry in the least. I'm expressing my opinion quite literally and with no emotion at all much I would do if I was talking about the mistakes made by Sony with the betamax, the marketing comedy dubbed the Edsel or the three ring circuso nown as the 1986 Red Sox. Why does that seem to elude you or Arlo? Why? Because the problem is you two cannot seperate your emotions from your discussion and as a result you project that crap into my posts. If Westy says something bad about AW he must be mad and bitter. Good lord, you both have hang ups on that.
I just edited the last part out. Enough is enough. This is getting no where as it's simply a rehash of two years of discussion that occurded BW. AW is now gone and that makes this a pointless discussion about it.
Westy
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
"Good cod, Arlo and then you started this roadkill session by posting directly to me."
However, you said:
"And JAB, it's not NO dar. It's not INFLIGHT dar."
Another misstatement of yours unquestionably disproven. The above quote is from your post, the 6th post in this thread, and the first to name any of us by name. Arlo actually came into it later.
I figure you're being emotional in your postings because you said you were being so:
"My apology for going off on an tangent with AW having a leading role. The exact statement you (Rotor) used pressed an old nerve and the result is easy to see."
So I don't HAVE to assume you have an "old nerve" regarding AW--you said you do yourself!
Face it. You've got a lot pent up bad feelengs over your experiences in AW, and those bad feelings prevent you from having anything even close to an objective viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, it's just being human.
J_A_B
-
The discussion with you ended up being a three-way between me, you and Arlo. (that sounds sick actually...) and my tone with you took on the one I had with Arlo. Much the same way when three people are discussing the same subject, albeit with different tones, face to face. It's hard to be sarcastic with one person and pleasant to the other when the topic is hot to begin with. Please don't confuse my trying to impart inflection and emphasis in trying to get my point across in my postings with you as any actual emotion for the AW game itself. My apology for treating the discussion with you the same I was with Arlo. Not that my actual points would change. The intent to deliver them coldly and without consideration would have.
As for the nerve Rotor hit unintentionally (so he says) it got the reply it did because he used a phrase I absolutely hated when I saw it used so often by the the AW team. Much the same way I hate the terms "down sizing" or "realigning corporate assets" when companies talk about firing people and lay offs. Emotion? No, not really. It was more of a knee jerk reaction? A reflex.
Westy
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
"emphasis in trying top get my point"
"to"
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
(so he says)
Westy
I ......... words fail me, seriously.
-
Arlo, have you downloaded Aces High yet?
-
Aces High, hblair? Is that what this forum is about??? :D
-
No Nifty, it's about X-Plane's variable geomotry wingsweep or prop pitch or airfoil data... or whatever the shreck it's called.
Oh... and it just FFFFEEEEELLLLLLSSSSSS good!
-SW
-
Nah, Wetsy .... doesn't wash. You wigged out in this thread before I tweaked your nose. What the hell was that "I gotta time stamp this post" stuff supposed to prove anyhow?
And blaming a third party for your being a butthead has got to be the most pitifully lamest excuse I've ever heard.
C'mon, man ... you used to be HALFWAY normal. :D
-
Why yes, Heath .... I have. Thanks for caring,man. :D
Originally posted by hblair:
Arlo, have you downloaded Aces High yet?