Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Stratocaster on April 15, 2004, 01:17:15 PM
-
I hate it! I just hate it! your on somones 6 700 feet than all of a sudden 400........ revert back to old sytem! everyone in favor say aye and against say nay!............................. ................... aye!
-
I like it, leave it as it is an learn better SA.
-
You will get used to it...
-
Originally posted by Grits
I like it, leave it as it is an learn better SA.
hu ?
And you do you estimate closure on a target ?
I agree with Batz I'll get used to it
But I think HT would better rework the icon system than using this 200 yard increment (note : there is no proposition for a remplacement in this sentence :))
Imagine driving your car with distance information in increment of 20 yds.
Sound deadly no ?
-
I find he current system to be somewhat sucky:D
I like the idea of a less laser accurate than AH1 system. 200 yard increments seems a bit low on the # of increments scale, but I only notice it because its new. In the MA, I never look at aircraft distance numbers unless they are at least 800 out or farther.
Im too busy flying!
Besides, this will allow for more people with poor SA to get caught with thier flight suites down as I BOOM n ZOOM them hehehe.
-
If you had been observing the movement of the enemy plane closely for some time, it isn't hard to figure out whether the plane is closing or not, straffo, even if the increments change in 200yds.
However, the wonderful pro of this icon system is, if you suddenly discover an enemy plane near you, you have no info on where, when, and how fast he got there.. he could be closing very fast, not closing at all, or you may be extending away from him.
You have no way to find that out in a split second, whereas in the old icon system the rate of the numbers "ticking away" would immediately show the closure/departure rate.. even if you just discovered him.
IMO, the current icon system is indeed, a step in the right direction for promoting better SA.
-
I'd like to see the range indicator go away entirely and just have a rate of closure indicator in it's place.
Here are three varients of an idea that I've posted before. Each of the three lines is a varient. In the first line pluses, minus' and equals symbols are used to give some indication of closure rate. In the second line a bubble that ranges from black filled to white filled with the brighter color indicating a faster closure rate supplies the data. In the third line a red dot that becomes progressively more transparent ranging from solid red for very fast closure to completely transparent for a rapidly receding target.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/AHIconj.JPG)
Each column represents the same data. Here is an example of what the data could mean:
1) The target is being approached by greater than 135mph.
2) The target is being approached by greater than 45mph but by less than 136mph.
3) The target is being approached by greater than 15mph but by less than 46mph.
4) The target is being approached by greater than 5mph but by less than 16mph
5) The target is being approached or escaping by less than 6mph.
6) The target is escaping by greater than 5mph but by less than 16mph.
7) The target is escaping by greater than 15mph but by less than 46mph.
8) The target is escaping by greater than 45mph but by less than 136mph.
9) The target is escaping by greater than 135mph.
(It looks a lot better in .bmp format, curse .jpg corruption and .bmp file size)
-
I hate you Karnak :D
I was making a bitmap with the very same idea I especialy like the last one.
-
Yeah, it was the last one that I thought of at 01:00 and caused me to finish the image and make the post. It looks the most integrated and proffesional of the three.
Of course, unrestrained by the need for nine frames either of the second two could be much more gradual than the first.
-
I don't like the 200 yd jumps at all, 100 yds would perhaps be ok to my mind.
I can imagine preferring no close up distances at all , eg numbers down to 800 then no distances at all.
The constantly variable indicators look as if they could be very good.
Zanshin
-
I could live with 100 but would rather have 50
-
Why not just eliminate the numbers, dot, plus/minus, or circle and go with the only thing I like about the flight aspect of WW2OL and use the fading/darkening of the actual aircraft type designator. To me that is the only thing that CRS got right about the entire flight part of their game and it works fairly well and allows you to get a grasp on the closure/expanding distance rate of the aircraft.
Yeah flame away because I said WW2OL in a post about AH.
-
current method is an improvement over AH1.
fade in with decreased range sounds good.
-
I LOVE the current method, keep it :)
-
Here are some more closure rate icons that I thought up:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/AHIcon2.JPG)
-
the second one in that last thing looks best...
it could work if we used the current ah2 system for 2-3k+ and for under 2k it switches to something like karnaks idea...
-
Originally posted by Kaz
I LOVE the current method, keep it :)
sorry ,but it's IMo not a question of love :)
@vorticon : this would be a good compromise :)
-
Karnak, that is frickin' brilliant. :)
It's not a range indicator we need (that's what good gunsights are supposedly for), it's a rate of closure indicator.
My preferred enemy icon system would give me rate of closure and which team they were on. It would be up to me to judge distance and plane type. Friendly icons would still have the player name though.
-
I like Karnaks system (the first w/ plus and minus) for ranges less than 1K. At ranges above 1K I like the current system in AH1. Why?
It is relatively easy to judge distance and closure below 1K.
But it is very difficult to determine the distance between a 5.5K dot and a 3.5-4.0K dot.
There is no real Depth perception in this game, because there is no depth. This is a 2D game. All you have without distance markers, is the ability to interpret Pixel size and rate of growth.
HTC has to ask itself. Are we trying to make the game easier for those that have been playing flight sims for years and years, and already find the game easy at times. Or are we trying to make the game easier for those who are relatively new to flight sims, therefore increasing the chance they will want to "Stick with it"
The current AH1 system does nothing to hurt the experienced, but it does help the "new guy" have a fighting chance
-
Depth perception in humans is essentially not there past ~50ft (IIRC) due to how close our eyes are together. In a natural environment that is fine though. We use size to judge distance past that.
-
I wonder if this thread is another excersize in futility?
HT do you have any interest in adjusting the icon types beyond what has already been done in AH2? Which BTW I happen to like but the idea of no range counters with a "fade in" color is a lot of fun.
Any comment?
-
"I wonder if this thread is another excersize in futility?"
It probably is, but it is nice to think the HTC wants our ideas and request, and actually gives them some consideration.
-
I love Karnak's idea - the 2nd bitmap, 2nd concept is the most intuitive to me.
Would this rate of closure thing pose an increased overheads issue within the game? I hope something like this is implemented one day, perhaps with a fade-in icon system.
-
I look at karnaks icons, and can not guess what they meen. There for lots of other people would have the very same problem.
You might want to discuss what you wish out of icon system, not how to implement it first.
Item to discuss first,
Do you wish range info. If so how detailed.
Is there enof closure rate info giveng with the range info, if not do we wish to give closure rate info.
Next think about how it will effect game play. Will it change fighting style, if it does is the way it effects it a good thing?
Also think about how well a new person to AH will understand the info. Simple thing like what range should I shoot at become a problem.
If no range information is given is it just harder or is it more realisitic.
Whats the next thing that has to be written that people will be asking for. I would guess the next thing people would be asking for is a range estimator circles.
The one thing I have been considering is adding a + or - on the range once inside of 1k.
HiTech
-
Hitech,
I am really just curious as to why you decided to go with the current icons in AH2. Not just the distance read outs but also having them on the bottom rather than on the top?
More simply put. What was wrong with the way the icons are seen in AH1?
Morpheus
-
Morph- the icons are on the bottom so when you fly low on the terain you cannot be seen easily
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Hitech,
I am really just curious as to why you decided to go with the current icons in AH2. Not just the distance read outs but also having them on the bottom rather than on the top?
More simply put. What was wrong with the way the icons are seen in AH1?
Morpheus
I don't want to speak in HT name, but it has been discussed in the past.
The text is below the planes now, so it will be harder to see over the nose. Same with the red box around the target - I find that in AHI I'm just aiming to the middle of the box instead of at the plane in it - makes gunnery much easier.
Good points by HT to direct the discussion.
As I see it (in 1024x768) closure and distance estimation is very hard in "low" resolutions. Once under 1k it's reasonable, but over it, almost impossible. So the info I need is a "rough" distance estimation in long ranges and "closure" in short ranges.
I belive making the range tags tick in different intervals depending on the range is a good compromise and the most "newbie friendly" solution.
I suggest 0.5 kyards ticks over 2k, 0.2 kyards when 1k-2k and 100 yards under 1k.
I don't mind making it 50 yards ticks when under 500 yards.
It's just a matter of "fine tuning" the ticks.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by hitech
I look at karnaks icons, and can not guess what they meen. There for lots of other people would have the very same problem.
You might want to discuss what you wish out of icon system, not how to implement it first.
Item to discuss first,
Do you wish range info. If so how detailed.
Is there enof closure rate info giveng with the range info, if not do we wish to give closure rate info.
Next think about how it will effect game play. Will it change fighting style, if it does is the way it effects it a good thing?
Also think about how well a new person to AH will understand the info. Simple thing like what range should I shoot at become a problem.
If no range information is given is it just harder or is it more realisitic.
Whats the next thing that has to be written that people will be asking for. I would guess the next thing people would be asking for is a range estimator circles.
The one thing I have been considering is adding a + or - on the range once inside of 1k.
HiTech
IMHO game icons should only provide users with historically "realistic" information that computer screens can't. That boils down to country and aircraft type ID. I have the MkI Eyeball for figuring range. Once I'm saddled up I do a quick check of my 6 and line up on the target visually. I don't read the range and then do the guzinta's to decide where I need to aim to hit what I'm shooting at.
If you're going to add stuff to an already cluttered sight picture I would really appreciate being able to turn off what I don't use - kind of like auto-takeoff (something visually indicating the player's in "training mode" or something).
Cheers,
-
I think there 3 things icons should provide for.
1. Enemy / Friendly - accomplished by red and green
2. Plane Type - In an arena where you have many plane types in a fight its important to ID what plane is what. In real life the battles involve a few plane types.
3. Closure Rate - Right now this is accomplished by range counters. WWIIOL USe a fade in icon with a half circle deal.
Simply have the icon fade in from 6k (light red) to 1k (bold red) would give a sense pf closure.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1082738277_iconanim.gif)
The above animation is with 6 frames. I should have scaled the 51 as well to give it a better effect but you get the picture.
As you close is gets bolder and it pulls away in fades out.
-
Under a certain distance (when very close) I would prefer the icon to go away all together. Otherwise, at far range some of these ideas (as well as the current way) work for me.
(up close the plane art seems good enough now - actually the counter etc begins to get in the way)
-
Well I guess we answered the question of whether or not this is a pointless discussion.
Dale, Thanks for jumping in and giving us some good things to think about. I agree about one thing you said, often the things that we look for to make the game more realistic are only making the game harder. I think without a significant increase in technology (and also a great increase in cost) this game is about as "realistic" as it can get. Therefore the things that are looked for to increase realism are only increasing the learning curve. This game could easily be made so that only those with a significant amount of flight sim experience, would be able to play it.
That being said, I still think that we need distance in numbers, at longer ranges, over 1k or so. The use of variations in shades of color is ok, but much harder to interpret. "Hmmm is that light, light red, or is that light, light, light red?" I like the idea of the plus and minus to the range icons. It is something that would be quickly understood, and very easy to interpret.
You could also do range in RED when they are closing on you, and range in BLACK when they retreating from you. or something like that. I don't like having to "read" icons, it is nice, if just seeing them there in your field of vision relays enough information to tell you what is going on. If shades of color were to be use, I think you need two separate colors, one for closing and one for receding.
I don't envy Dale and his crew. They have to come up with a game that not only challenges the experienced, but is easy enough the new guy wants to stick with it.
Good luck to you guys, I hope we are helping you with all these ideas.:aok
-
Get rid of numbers, they are the number 1 cause of spray and pray.
You dont need to know anything less then 200 yrds increments. You have gunsite and these should be used to range in at convergence. Once inside a certain range you "close for the kill" rather then turning on the "hose" with spray and pray.
Heres another image. Like wwiol uses the "half moon" how about a bar that shrinks as you close along with a fade in icon.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1082777505_animation1.gif)
-
"Get rid of numbers, they are the number 1 cause of spray and pray. "
I agree, you don't need numbers inside of 1-1.5K, BUT, you do need them at long ranges, >2K.
There is a BIG difference between how you react to a Bandit that is 5.5K out, and one that is 3.5k out. But it is almost imposable to tell the difference between the dots, just on size alone.
-
Inside 6k they aren't dots, they are rendered. All events have icons set to 3k and have for years. That means no icons at all beyond 3k, there no issues at all. You can easily tell the difference between a bandit at 5k and one at 3k. IIRC correctly the CT uses 3k enemy icons.
Maybe you should try an event. Kurland-Kessel is set to run in about 2 weeks with reduced icons. There will be room for walkons or you can register and see for yourself how the "dots" / "icons" are. Follow the kurland link in my sig.
Anyway with the bar in the above .gif it shortens every 1k or so added with a fade (color depth) it gives you closure. Once the bar is 1/2 its size and the color is no longer translucent you will know the bad guy is 3k.
-
Originally posted by Batz
All events have icons set to 3k and have for years.
Not all.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
I like Batz shortening bar idea.
following HT:
1. Do you wish range info. If so how detailed - some range info is a must over 3k everything is a dot. No need for exact info, just an estimation
2. Is there enof closure rate info giveng with the range info, if not do we wish to give closure rate info - over 2k I'm having difficulties telling whether a plane is comming toward me or away from me (1024x728) without the zoom. Also, the closure is hard to estimate when over 1k away. the planes simply look too small and pixeled over that range. This is a screen limitation that doesn't exist in RL.
3. think about how it will effect game play. Will it change fighting style, if it does is the way it effects it a good thing? - having an estimation of range will reduce long range spraying. Now you see the tracers flying exacly when you hit 1000 yards line.
of all that was suggested, I like Batz's range bar, though I'm not sure how many steps you can have in it.
Make icons appear only under 3k - this reduces people diving 20k down to get someone on the deck (they'll have no ID on him) and reduces the gangbanging of perked planes.
The range bar gives enough range information (estimation - full bar 3k, half bar 1.5k), it's intuitive and gives closure information with the rate of shrinking.
If this can be implemented and how well, I don't know.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
1. Do you wish range info. If so how detailed - some range info is a must over 3k everything is a dot. No need for exact info, just an estimation
Actually in real life, estimating the range of an distant object is very difficult. Its easier when the object is closer.
2. Is there enof closure rate info giveng with the range info, if not do we wish to give closure rate info - over 2k I'm having difficulties telling whether a plane is comming toward me or away from me (1024x728) without the zoom. Also, the closure is hard to estimate when over 1k away. the planes simply look too small and pixeled over that range. This is a screen limitation that doesn't exist in RL.
This is why aerial gunnery was so difficult in real life. HTC should improve the graphics area of target closure to help aid in range estimation. In real life the gunsite itself was used to estimate the targets range. Has anyone noticed the average pilots hit % for gunnery. Its ridicules and does not reflect real world gunnery skills. Thats why AH can sometimes be very "star wars" like even though its a very realistic combat sim/game.
3. think about how it will effect game play. Will it change fighting style, if it does is the way it effects it a good thing? - having an estimation of range will reduce long range spraying. Now you see the tracers flying exacly when you hit 1000 yards line.
AH players spend so much time getting used to playing AH that they become experts at AH. If you change one thing about the icon, alot of people will get upset. However what I would like to see is a dot that appears when an object is within 1000 yards then change in color when its at 500 yards. Thats all the range info I would like to see implimented in AH. I dont even think red green icons should be displayed until well within visual range. One major factor in real life is confusion and havoc which is not modeled in AH due to all the helper icons/radar etc... that make the experienced players into luke skywalkers. More realism = better.
-
Batz, thanks for the "Heads up" on the walk-ons. But I've been participating in Friday night Squad ops (used to be TOD) for almost a year now, we just finished the Finland ops. this last week. I see you are talking about Saturday night Ops. But I doubt there is much differance between the two.
Your right about "the dots" (I was using a slang term) They are fully rendered, and if you want to zoom in and narrow your field of view to just a couple of degs. you can sometimes get a good picture of what that plane at 4K is doing. Of course this assumes that the bandit is in the center of the screen, if not then you will have to maneuver your plane to get him where you can see him, zoomed in. This may or may not be possible or wise.
As far as "all events" having icon at 3K, swoop is right not all. however in squad ops they are set to 3K, and you are right it is not a problem. As I'm sure you well know, the MA is not Squad ops. they are two entirely different games. I won't go into all the differences now. But suffice it to say, in squad ops. you only have two sides, and you don't have LARGE fur balls that can last for an hour or more, with enemies streaming in from all sides along with the friendlys that are trying to intercept them. It is a completely different game, than the main arena, you can't even compare the two. You should know this, If you didn't, You are welcome to take one of our spare spots this next Friday on the 30th. So you can see the differences between the MA and the SE.
-
"One major factor in real life is confusion and havoc which is not modeled in AH due to all the helper icons/radar etc... "
I can't argue with that statement, but in WWII, your wing man and your target weren't flying the same plane! If you saw a 109, you shot it down, period. not so here. That 109 might be your CO. who's chasing another 109, that is getting help from his wing..... in a 109!
A couple of turns later..... "hmmm which one was my CO?" I believe in good SA, but not many are going to last long in that situation.
-
I like the bar idea........ HTC you should try it for a beta!
-
Lol
I think you must not know I have been AH for 4 years, I flew in the first ToD as matter of fact Co'd the first 2 and many many more.
Swoop is talking about Cap. I wont say much about cap but before my squad stopped flying due to differences in how it was headed 3./JG2 was one of the largest, if not the largest squads, in it with kill scores equally as large. I can’t recall the original settings but I thought they started with 3k icons.
I have been a part of every AH event and Co'd far more then I can count. I wrote the Kurland event. I founded 3 squads. Our squad ranks were almost always in top 5 in the main. In addition I was a CT CM. So I am not a noob.
You talk of large furballs in the main, they get equally large in scenarios (large multi-frame events; like Kurland, Big week, Niemen, BoB etc...) Many had huge fights with reduced icons again no issues at all. The end of frame 4 in Niemen was huge.
With 3k icons you don't need to zoom in to see what’s what. You maybe over exaggerating your point, which isn’t necessary. If you want range counters its enough to just say so. I will stop short of saying "you just don’t what you are talking about" but if you are using zoom for anything then its no wonder your gunnery is at 5% :)
As I said I like the AH2 icons as is but if HT is contemplating making another adjustment then I would suggest (along with many others) get rid of range counters all together. But as I asked above this topic most likely is an excersize in futility.
YMMV
-
One thing about the range bar is you don’t need to have the color fade in, but I am partial to it.
You could also have an outline / border around the bar that stays full size so that you can judge how much the bar has moved.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1082815315_ranbar.gif)
So the outline would be max range and the bar size relative to the border would help you better gauge range.
-
i love the idea of color fade but also like the idea of the box around the bar if those two could be combined i think it would be great
-
If a new icon system means less info being transmitted(dont know) and reducing problems such as 2 sec screen lock just when I,m about to knock off some tailfethers than I'm for it and anything else that would help my 52K(live in the woods) hang in a 500+ arena. I admit I'm not the player most of you who replied to this post are but for me its not a quistion of skill but being able to play at all. If your better than me, you'll still get me but I wonder how many "great shot"s are just blind fish in a barrel. BTW Batz- bars the best one yet.
-
Batz, Thanks for the career stats. So is that a no for the walk on spot?:lol
You and I both know that they are not going to get rid of range icons, nore should they. They may change them some, or change the settings on them, but they will be there.
Batz said: "you just don’t (know) what you are talking about"
LOL If you didn't think I knew what I was talking about we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We both know what we are talking about, we just disagree, And the last time I checked it is ok to disagree. Although maybe it is different outside of the USA.
I like your sliding bar for ranges below 1.5K.
-
Yes there is plenty of room; no one will be turned away. Naso is the Axis Co Valdd is Soviet. Right now Vladd is still looking for pilots in particular A20G pilots.
You can walk-on or register as I said. Registering gives us (Cos and planners) all your necessary info and allows you to be a part of a flight of your choice. Walk-ons are usually placed as needed.
I don't know what plane types you enjoy but give the web page (link in my sig) a look over.
The difference in these scenarios and say cap or tod is the amount of planning and on occasion "teamwork". Although I have been in plenty a ToD and the early caps that rivaled the best scenario.
I didn't mean to come off as a braggart with the career history but I couldn't help it, its built into my personality ask anyone. J
I don’t suspect the current AH2 icons to change over this discussion. I myself can envision a few things that may have a negative impact on how I like game play, people may become more timid, fly into space rather then get caught low, everyone flying the fastest planes and maybe even more spray and pray. But I don’t think it will be as bad as all that and in fact wont make much of a difference on how I would fly anyway.
Whatever HT decides is cool as I said the current icons are fine.
-
Sled said:"So is that a no for the walk on spot?:lol "
Actually, I was being a smartass. I was asking if YOU were saying no to the walk on spot I offered you.
anyway, no thanks I have enough trouble finding time for the ToDs I am flying right now.
-
All of your examples of distance meters are GREAT....
But what was wrong with the old way?
Thats all I want to know... Nothing more nothing less...
Nothing more nothing less...
I repeat
Nothing more nothing less...
Get the point?
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
All of your examples of distance meters are GREAT....
But what was wrong with the old way?
I think the old way was fine, too.
What is needed (imho etc) at the end of the day is a distance indication whose rate of change can be determined from watching it. That can be be range in numbers which change at intervals sufficiently close to allow this to be done as in AH1 but definately not as done in AH2 or maybe a continuously changing size of bar. I don't think a change in colour saturation would be as useful in allowing rate of change of distance to be inferred from watching it.
As to the actual distances, doesn't anyone else try and close to their convergence distance before firing wing mounted guns? That is another reason I think the 50 yard interval should be a minimum jump on any distance indicator. maybe others know what the plane size is at the best distance and I;ve just been lazt:)
This would be preferable to an additional and seperate indicator of rate of change of distance.
zanshin
-
So is that a no for the walk on spot?
No I dont fly ToD / SSOs any more. I gave them up a long time ago.
I missed your sacasm but its definately a "no thanks".
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
All of your examples of distance meters are GREAT....
But what was wrong with the old way?
Thats all I want to know... Nothing more nothing less...
Nothing more nothing less...
I repeat
Nothing more nothing less...
Get the point?
I guess you are talking to me since I am the only one who recently posted "distance meters".
Actually I ignored your point all together as it is irrelevent to me. AH2 icons have already changed. The point I have been responding to is should icons evolve further.
HT can answer your questions, he's the one with the answers.
I dont like AH1 icons, lotsa other folks don't either. There have been requests going back to AH1 beta about icons, requests to remove range info, to put icons under the plane etc...
I like the way they are in AH2. If you don't, well what has that got to do with me?
-
I guess you are talking to me since I am the only one who recently posted "distance meters"
ROFL... Presumption is the mother the mislead...
Nope, wasnt talking to you. Was reverting back to my original question that was to Hitech. Get it? HiTech...?
Good
Actually I ignored your point all together as it is irrelevent to me
Funny thing though... I dont remember trying to make a point other than making sure that I only got a simple straight answer... From HiTech. It was nothing to be taking in any other form. Just a cuirosity of mine as to what drove Hitech to change the icons. Can YOU answer this for him?
Didnt think so. And do you know WHY you cannot. Because YOU are not him. That wasnt so hard now was it?
I like the way they are in AH2. If you don't, well what has that got to do with me?
I am more than pleased with the current status of AH2 beta. Your comment makes me smile... I NEVER recall saying I was unsatisfied with the current state of AH2 beta... Do you? Didnt think so buddy....
And Oh yeah, as to any of the prior posts having anything to do with you... The didnt so you were better off presuming they didnt from the start. Should have read my first post and you would have found the question I addressed to Hitech and no one else...
Funny how much work and explaining it takes to get a simple point/question across to someone and for those who werent addressed to understand that fact...
-
I was the only one who posted "distance meters" besides Karnak who left the thread way back before your posts.
All of your examples of distance meters are GREAT....
HT didn't post any examples.
As for how much work it took you to explain it; who cares. You could have just ignored my reply all together .
-
You could have just ignored my reply all together
LOL I didnt want you to feel left out
and besides I was bored:D
I just wanted to know from Hitech as to what made him go with the new icons is all... Nothing wrong with them just curious :)
-
Should we have range counters? yes, but only for those ranges where it is impossible to estimate the range visually without the zoom. For example, between 1000 and 6000 yards.
How accurate should be the range indicator? it should depend on the range itself. The closer, the more accurate. We can have also some symbol indicating "inside convergence range" based on the current selected convergence.
Should we have closure rate indicators? yes, but only for those ranges where it is impossible to estimage the closure rate visually without the zoom. For example, between 100 and 4000 yards.
IMO the closure rate indicator should be based on symbols, but not fading in/out, that may be a problem for some players.
With all the above:
we have range information between 6000 and 1000 yards.
we have a "inside convergence range" indicator betweem max convergence and 0 yards.
We have a closure rate indicator between 4000 and 100 yards.
-
what a polarizing subject this has become.:cool:
-
Originally posted by SLED
I can't argue with that statement, but in WWII, your wing man and your target weren't flying the same plane! If you saw a 109, you shot it down, period. not so here. That 109 might be your CO. who's chasing another 109, that is getting help from his wing..... in a 109!
Well I never said I wanted HTC to remove the red/green icon, just remove the range. The bar idea is good but I would prefer no range information at all. Thats real, thats why people miss shots, thats why people get in close before shooting, thats how alot of bandits escape, thats more realistic wwII air combat. 3k red/green (prefer low visability icon) plane type icon then icon disapears after 1000 yards is good. You get a red dot if the target is within 500 yards. Everything else you have to figure out including closure rate, angle, timing. The bar still shows closure rate. How many world warII fighters had a closure rate HUD? If thats what people want then cool, Im just saying it changes the dynamics of the game alot.
Also, alot of players use the range information to perform aerial manuevers such as looking at the top of the canopy and waiting for a con to get to D2 or D1 then performing a perfect break. Theres too much information. Its fun but sorta fakey because of that.
-
Actually I think plane type icon should appear at 3k and disapear at 1200 yards with no red dot at 500 yards. That should make for some realistic gunnery and wwII aerial combat.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
senna, what screen resolution do you use?
Bozon
-
he must use 2048000 x 1024000... on a 60" lcd...
SKurj
-
I like the old style, do not like at all the new one, no ofense.
The old style it gives you a sense of action, when you are getting closer by or putting distance between you and the plane(s) that you dogfight with.
To see graphics instead of numbers, that idea in my oppinion is the worse.
Just my two cents, didn't mean to be rude to anyone.
-
he must use 2048000 x 1024000... on a 60" lcd...
LOL:D
-
1600x1200 16bit. Now it may seem strange that a con could be in front of you and without any range indicator its quite difficult to judge the range. He might be 200, 500, 700 yards. Has anybody check 200 yards recently, its a god awfull long distance, no wonder it was so difficult to judge an airplanes distance in real life.
-
200 yard long distance ?
Are you joking ????
-
Originally posted by senna
1600x1200 16bit. Now it may seem strange that a con could be in front of you and without any range indicator its quite difficult to judge the range. He might be 200, 500, 700 yards. Has anybody check 200 yards recently, its a god awfull long distance, no wonder it was so difficult to judge an airplanes distance in real life.
Have you tried a dogfight or formation flying? People tend to under estimate distances - at least in the air, things appear closer then they are (ask any ATC that passed another traffic close to a plane without warning, what the pilot said the distance was...).
on the screen they just don't appear. they are a dot, then they are blurred bunch of pixels, then suddenly they are a plane, with wings, nose and orientation.
This problem is reduced with higher resolution. I can't get a good FPS with more then 1024x728.
SOME of us need a rough range indication, and a hint for closure rate.
Bozon
edit:
I do agree that the laser range finder is too much. The larger increments in range indication is one solution, Batz's range-bar is a little nicer I think.
-
Senna,
Someday I hope we have the hardware to do what you are talking about, but for now what you are asking for is to simulate somebody who should be wearing coke bottle glasses flying and fighting without his glasses. You are asking to simulate a pilot with such poor vision he probably wouldn't have been accepted into the infantry, let alone the air corp.
-
I have to laugh ...
It doesn't matter what ranging system that HT comes up with :
* current AH II
* old AH I
* fade in - fade out
* slidler bars
*
the majority, if not all the poster in this thread, will adapt to it in a very short amount of time and carry on business as usual.
Everybody thinks that HT is a programmer ... well I believe that he is a software fisherman. He must find the finest hooks and load them with the finest bait, so as to entice, and hook, newcomers to the flight sim genre ... preferably AH ... not discourage them. I am a not an advocate of the "more realistic" approach when it comes to ranging. These eyes have been going full bore for 50 years and they can use all the help they can get.
Whatever the final solution is, it will be alright with me, just as long as there is ranging. It is a must in a 3-d world, being simulated on a 2-D medium.
-
Lots of people are complaining about the lack of "realism", in one from or another, in AH.
So lets talk some changes to make AH more realistic.
1. no more radar in planes, radar is only available in the tower BEFORE you take off. So look good and remember. In the plane all you get is the map.
2. no more icons, period! No red, no green, maybe the call sine of your friendlys at close range <2K, nothing else. How do you tell friend from foe? let me continue.
3. Two sides. The American, British and Russians vs. the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. (with some sharing of aircraft like bombers) those AC that are shared have a red or green dot at close range, <2k. Now you know who the enemy is. once you ID the AC that is. obviously this part of the plan would have a lot of kinks to work out, but it is workable.
4. One life per 24 hour period, per type of aircraft. This makes people fly like it is REAL. once shot down in a fighter, you can move to buffs, then to Gvs and so on. and when your done, your done for the day. WOW that would make things change!
Obviously I don't expect these changes to take place, but it would be more Realistic!
Does this sound a lot like CT or SE? Good point. If you are looking for more realism, CT and SE are the place to look.
IMHO, The MA is just a big training arena, and that's good! it's the place where all are able to go, and make things blow up! And if you go down? So what! I'll just re-up and try again
Realism is what the CT and SE is for.:aok
-
SLED,
That fails "realism" on many points.
It is only "real" if you want to simulate pilots who are legally blind and ineligible to even get drivers licenses.
They had both radar and radio communication in WWII. Therefore a system that supplies no enemy position data during flight within a reasonable distance of friendly bases is less realistic than a system that provides data. Heck, in some ways the systems in WWII gave more info than the system in AH.
Giving one life per 24 hours would produce a bunch of timid pilots because in AH there is nothing forcing you to fight, even against bad odds. In reality there were orders and defense of one's nation pushing one into battle even if it wasn't absolutely favorable.
-
I said no more Radar in PLANE. Very few planes had radar in WWII. A few night fighters
I didn't say no communication with someone in the tower, who can look at the radar screen. If someone wants to do that and give grid and cord. ok fine.
As far as the 24 hour thing, It's going to make people want to fight in a manor that they can live to return to base. and re-up for another mission. I don't think people would be that timid, after all your life is not really on the line. and you can fly again
I was more trying to make a point than anything else, I don't expect any of this to come to pass. ( although it might be fun) BUT it is more realistic than current by a wide margin.
This was my point vvvvvv
"Does this sound a lot like CT or SE? Good point. If you are looking for more realism, CT and SE are the place to look."
"IMHO, The MA is just a big training arena, and that's good! it's the place where all are able to go, and make things blow up! And if you go down? So what! I'll just re-up and try again "
About WWII Radar. The only info that WWII radar gave that AH does not was ALT info. But AH does a MUCH better job of locating a target, and tracking it.
-
AH does not give speed info or heading info either, nor does it have anything like the range of WWII radar.
-
1. no more radar in planes, radar is only available in the tower BEFORE you take off. So look good and remember. In the plane all you get is the map.
2. no more icons, period! No red, no green, maybe the call sine of your friendlys at close range <2K, nothing else. How do you tell friend from foe? let me continue.
3. Two sides. The American, British and Russians vs. the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. (with some sharing of aircraft like bombers) those AC that are shared have a red or green dot at close range, <2k. Now you know who the enemy is. once you ID the AC that is. obviously this part of the plan would have a lot of kinks to work out, but it is workable.
4. One life per 24 hour period, per type of aircraft. This makes people fly like it is REAL. once shot down in a fighter, you can move to buffs, then to Gvs and so on. and when your done, your done for the day. WOW that would make things change!
SLED, I've tried exactly that in IL2/FB/AEP. As per the result, it sucks.
Now, it does hold SOME immersive qualities. Bascially, in that environment, what happens to you is exactly what happened in real life. A long long long long long long flight into the void, and them WAMMO! Suddenly, you're dead.
Obviously, that kind of setting will be valid for gameplay standards only when other factors of aircombat is also implemented:
1) always fly in squads
2) immediate communications and radio transmissions upon enemy contact
3) extremely organized manner of flying
Which.. obviously IMO, is impossible unless you want to draft everyone playing in the MA into a virtual military and train them, along with a chain of command and threats of reprimandation when orders are not followed.
...
Some of what you mention, may be viable to use in the upcoming ToD mode where people are required to fly as a squad, received basic training, maintain a very basic chain of command and etc etc.. and still, some other aspects should be left out.
The more practical alternative, like Karnak and Batz have suggested, is to tinker with how the icon system works. Things like:
1. Fade-in/Fade-out according to distance (no instant icon popup as soon as bogey hits a certain range..)
2. range indicator limited, or, an alternative in the form of closure/departure indicator
3. plane-type indicator coming ON/OFF according to distances...
and etc etc.
Obviously, AH2 tries method #2, Batz and Karnak suggests a mix of #1 and #2. My personal preference is with 1+2+3.
* icon fade-in upon entering 5.0k yards, fade-out as going outside of 5.0k
* range indicator turned off when target is within 1.0k yards
* plane-type indicator turned on when target is within 2.0k yards
-
Just have the range system tied in with total Kill Statistics, after 100 kills or so, a pilot is graduated to a more difficult icon system etc.
It should be to difficult to track, and it eliminates having to worry about losing newcomers to a difficult system. Could even given them a firing computer for the first 10 kills (tells them lead etc)
-
After a quick look at Sled’s (and xSledx) main stats he has a hard enough time as it is in the main flying fighters. I understand where change could intimidate him and folks like that. But no matter what icons / ranger indicators are used it will require a period of adjustment. Folks need time to adjust to the current AH2 icons.
It took time to adjust to AH1 icons. For me it was mostly timing and learning how to react at the correct distances. This relates to the "effective kill range" in AH. Since I re-subbed in AH my hit percentage has dropped to about 10% form a high of around 18. I have trouble hitting things at convergence. I used to fly without a gun site on most planes and without tracers on the 109s when I had 3cm. Now I have both on and still struggle.
I don’t think HT has an interest in making AH's learning curve so tough as to turn away new players.
I have my own agenda in suggesting an alternative to range counters, I hate spray and pray and long range gunnery. I am biased. A quick search of my previous "gunnery" posts will show that.
Even so a range bar will still provide enough info that over time folks would adapt. Having it adjust at 500-yard intervals with a border would give almost the same info as the current AH icons.
Whatever HT goes with it will all work out, folks will adapt and adjust and the game will move on.
-
Originally posted by SLED
I said no more Radar in PLANE. Very few planes had radar in WWII. A few night fighters
I didn't say no communication with someone in the tower, who can look at the radar screen. If someone wants to do that and give grid and cord. ok fine.
About WWII Radar. The only info that WWII radar gave that AH does not was ALT info. But AH does a MUCH better job of locating a target, and tracking it.
RL ww2 radar could give alt, heading, bearing, speed. all we get in AH is position and general heading. Ground controllers gave thier squadrons alot of info constantly, like our Dar does now.
u gona pay part or all my AH bill to sit in tower to give out info?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
SLED, I've tried exactly that in IL2/FB/AEP. As per the result, it sucks.
1. Fade-in/Fade-out according to distance (no instant icon popup as soon as bogey hits a certain range..)
2. range indicator limited, or, an alternative in the form of closure/departure indicator
3. plane-type indicator coming ON/OFF according to distances...
and etc etc.
>>
some planes in ww2 had gun sights with range marks that could be set. and depending on the enemy plane when the wings
touched each side of the range mark, they were in gun range.
whels
-
Wow Look at that! I got the board all FIRED-UP again!! You want to know something guys, In the last week I have spent more time on the AH Forum winding you guys up than I have in the arenas flying!!:lol :lol :lol
Oh my! Hmmmm..... where do I start?....... Oh what the hell Lets start with Batz, he invites abuse on himself anyway. Just look at his exchange with MoRphEuS a couple of days ago!
Batz, Batz, Batz. Is that name a reference to your mental state? If you had any idea has to what I do for a living, the thought of me being intimidated buy a video game, would make YOU laugh. Anyway, my score in the MA, compared to MANY others is S**t! OH YES! it's true. I could give a lot of excuses as to why this is. but I don't believe in excuses, my numbers are what they are, and those of you that fly in the MA know what kind of actions lead to low scores. But that brings up a good point! people who spend a lot of time in the MA. And guess what! BATZ IS NOT ONE OF THEM! Yes that is right, Batz (who is criticizing my scores in the MA) Has barely 56 hours in the MA since December of 2001. 56 HOURS?!?!? Are you kidding me! And 39 of those were in Feb of 2003. So since Dec of 2001, minus that 39 hours, he has 17 hours in the MA! I have 47 hours just this month, and i don't fly anywhere near as much as some guys.
Now granted, during those 56 hours he had a good K/D ratio about 3-4 kills per death. But criticizing from the sidelines is a dumb thing to do, and quite frankly makes you look like a moron.
I would GLADLY fight you in the DA, and I say this knowing that you are probably a better sim pilot, and most likely will win. But I think I can give you a run for your money.:D
As for the rest of you guys. Give me a brake on the radar thing. I am willing to bet that pilots in WWII would have much rather had the information that we get in AH. I know that a lot of you have seen The History Channel shows that talk about WWII radar. They got a lot of information from radar in WWII but interpreting that info. and getting it to the right people in time for it to be put to use, was quite a challenge to say the least.
Oh.... what do I do for a living? Here's one of our sights.
http://www.powerlineman.com (http://www.powerlineman.com)
I will be out of town till Saturday, so I won't be "stiring the pot" till then.:aok
-
My game handle is no longer Batz.
My previous handle was Wotan. I have flown AH since Tour 3. Before that I did a 2-week trial I think in tour 1. I didn’t fly in the betas.
See where I typed "since I re subbed" above?
Feb 2003 was the Niemen scenario, I returned for it based on a prior commitment to aid Fariz in that scenario. I returned as "Batz". Batz was a temp nik that turned into something longer because I went on the CO the next 2 AH events. When they were over I dropped AH again and I am only back for the Kurland event (actually I agreed to help out with the Ruhr event to gain support with Kurland) then I will leave again until AH2:ToD.
I don’t know when you want to go to the DA but I doubt we can work out a good time anyway. So don't hold your breath on that happening any time soon. I don’t fly spits or la7s so you may be out of your element should we "duel" in something else.
What makes you look like a "moron" is acting as if you are some one who "dogfights" (3 kills per hour and gunnery of 5%). You fly more bombers then anything yet you try to lecture to me about the differences in the SEA and main and the complexity of a furball.
I checked your FSOs score as well. It confirmed what I had thought, you don’t know what you are talking about. However, your fear of change is understandable given the difficulty you are having.
Easiest way to check stats is to use innominates page, saves all the clicking over previous tours.
http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php
-
BTW way Karnak is right all countries had both radar and radio communication in WWII. AH radar doesnt supply the same amount of info as ww2 radar. The only plus the AH main has is instant data to the pilot rather then through a filter room.
In AH scenarios (BoB, Ruhr) the attempt was made to simulate real dar by having ground controllers assigned to the 3rd country. Radar was set on a 2 or 3 min update delay (dot radar updated every 2 or 3 min) to simulate the filter rooms. The gci would vector in the flights. With no alt info it was impossible to recreate the same level of response as the Brits had as early as BoB.
AH radar provides less info then in rl but makes up for it the main with instant data to the pilot. And of course much more of the area in the main is covered by dar.
http://www.stable.demon.co.uk/general/bomb.htm
Incidentally you are quoting Galland out of context in your sig. He asked for spitfires as an answer to Goerings question about the problems the fighter pilots faced escorting bombers.
Adolf Galland reciting his comment to Herman Goering (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav)
To put it into better context
From Here:
http://jg26.vze.com/
Caldwell: By the end of the Battle of Britain JG 26 had established a reputation as an "elite" unit, a reputation that it maintained (to Allied intelligence, at least) until the end of the war. How did you bring JG 26 to the head of the pack?
Galland: The original wing commanders and group commanders were excellent officers in peacetime, but were in no way the best leaders in air battles. Replacement of commanders was the necessary first step. From then on, I led every wing strength operation and mission. I knew exactly what was needed and what was possible in the big air battles.
As my next step I established, documented, and carried out a wing system for bomber escort which was well-known and well-liked as the best one possible. And in 1941, when we had to defend our bases and other targets against escorted RAF bomber formations, I developed fighter defense tactics which had the objective of attacking at one time and in the same air space with the largest force of fighters possible.
Caldwell: What was the Galland escort formation?
Galland: JG 26 was known as the most reliable wing for fighter escort, which was one of the most difficult tasks for a fighter wing. It needs a lot of discipline, and I know that all the bomber wings asked to be escorted by 26. So I think you can say that in 1940, at least, 26 was the best wing for escort. I organized this thing myself, because we didn't have any experience or rules to follow. I split up the escort between direct escort, which flies in direct contact with the bombers, mostly at the same speed, which was much too low. This was about one-third of the numbers - one Gruppe. They stayed with the bombers, and defended them - not the best way, but this was the way that the bombers wanted it. Better is the erwiderte escort ["detached" escort], which keeps the bomber stream in sight, but can go to one side, and if it finds the enemy, can go attack. Even so, after the combat, it must try to reestablish contact with the bombers after the fighting. And then we had the freie Jagd, which flew in advance of the bombers. This was many times the most successful escort. Of course, it was not seen by the bombers, and the bomber crews didn't trust it. I have discussed these tactics with the bombers many, many times, without success. They kept complaining to Goering, who listened to them. For more than forty minutes outside his train Goering blamed Moelders and myself:
.........."What do you want?"
.........."I can't even slow down to the bomber speed, without sacrificing all my mobility."
.........."What? You have the best fighter in the world!"
And this was the occasion that, when Goering asked Moelders and myself what he could do to improve the capability of our wings, Moelders wanted his wing equipped with the DB 601N, and I said I wanted a wing of Spitfires. Of course, that was the end of the discussion.
Caldwell: Why, exactly, did you say that?
Galland: Why? He said we had the best fighter in the world. I said that the Spitfire was better able to slow down, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at lower speeds. Our advantage was not in turning, but in flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing. Our turns were not tight enough. So when he said, "We have the best fighter in the world! Don't blame me!" I tried to tell him otherwise.
-
Please stop the personal insults. This thread was interesting untill 10 posts ago.
The thread is about the icon/range system. The radar issue is also an interesting one but it needs it's own thread - start one is you want to discuss it.
Bozon
-
No problem Bonzo, and you're right.
-
The only thing that will suffer in my opinion is formation flying. It is nice to know down to the yard how close you are to your wingman. There is a point where realism just becomes dull. What if you had to sign up for a new account everytime you died in-game or when your pilot was wounded it was permanent?
The previous statement should be taken with an aire of sarcasm but my point remains the same. I enjoy realism but only to the point that keeps the game fun. There are things that are assumed of your 'character' in the game. Things like he's strong enough to pull the stick at all times, has 2 arms and 2 legs, never gets hungry, and comes back to live instantly after death. As for AH1, it also assumes that your pilot can judge distance very well. I'm fine with this assumption. I don't want to bail out and spend a week in a trench suffering from a stomach wound, but that would be more 'realistic'. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
I never had a problem with the AH1 way of doing the icons nor have I ever heard anyone having issues with it until this post but I am fairly new to the game.
Frankly, it won't matter to me in the long run because they're going to do it the way they want to do it in the end and that's that.
That's my 2 cents, guess I'll wait and see what happens at release.
-
One thing I have just remembered from AW was that we could switch between 'long' and 'short' icons according to personal preference. Some preferred the short icons, which only gave the nearest k - 1k, 2k, 3k - and the other gave the longer numbers we currently have in AH. I always preferred the long numbers, as I seem to remember the short numbers also shortened the players GameID (CPID) to the first 3 instead of all 5 characters. :)
-
The only thing that will suffer in my opinion is formation flying. It is nice to know down to the yard how close you are to your wingman.
I think the friendly icons are still 1 yard accurate. need to check again.
Bozon
-
AW also had that T shape which you could use instead of plain dot for a plane.
// fats