Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: NHawk on May 14, 2004, 07:15:46 PM
-
I know it's been brought up before, but the distance countdown is really a problem as it is now. There is no way of guaging how fast an enemy is closing on you. If you don't watch them closely they can close on your 6 before you know it.
Example: Enemy 1500 out. Look forward. Look back Enemy 1000 out. Look forward, begin evasive look back and 400 off tail.
Not good at all. At least return the countdown to the old one below 1000 or 1500 so speed can be guaged.
-
We need some kind of "closure rate" indicator. They way they are implemented now is useless for me. With actual graphics, I'm able to notice that closure rate only at very close range.
-
Your problem is you looked forward when you knew there was a enemy 1.5k off your 6.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Your problem is you looked forward when you knew there was a enemy 1.5k off your 6.
LOL!! 1.5k off my six is usually not a problem since I can judge closure rate in AH1 and decide on the proper action based on his closure rate. And most good evasives take place at the last possible second to prevent the attacking pilot from compensating. Starting evasives at 1.5k out gives the attacking pilot far to much time to compensate. :D
Starting at about 1k out is about the max distance for good evasives depending on speed of the attacking plane. To go from 1k out to 400 out in less than a second says his closure rate was HUGE. Being unable to judge that is my whole point. They way it is now, the distance counter may as well be eliminated completely since it's a useless item for combat situations. It's just a nonsensical item of information.
-
I'm not a huge fan of how range is dsiplayed now, but I think a lot of fus will go away when we re learn how to read it. I think you can tell rate of closure. You just have to get used to the new method. You can't tell with just a glance you have to look for a second to get an idea, I think furballs just got a lot less survivable. :)
-
I agree the big jumps don't work, for me anyway.
AH have distance markers to compensate for the fact that computer images on a screen doesn't allow distance judgement as in live flying. It seems settled that distance information is needed to make the virtual flying more realistic by providing information that is lacking in the simulation images alone.
So now closure rate. In live flying (now an assumption not being a pilot) closure rate can be judged by observed rate of change of distance so for a sim to provide the equivalent of live information the artificial distance info has to be updated at rate which allows closure rate to be perceived. This means the distance has to be updated at a suitable rate.
It seems true the current AH2 update rate is not sufficient. Im my view anyway.
If the above assumption is incorrect then difficulty in judging closure rate is like real life and so be it, if correct, however, the distance updates should be at smaller distance increments to allow closure rate to be judged more easily, it seems to me.
-
No problem for me.
Perception of whether an object is closing in or not, is actually not as clear as we think it is. Even for animals, which have incredibly developed reflexes comapred to human beings, still get hit by cars.
Some of those instances are purely because they didn't have enough time to react, but a lot others, where one clearly sees a dear at least 10yards off, and it refuses to move and gets hit - its because a vehicle doesn't show any external sign of movement, and couple that with lack of stereoscopic vision on many animals.. and literally the animal does not sense an object is moving towards it until too late.
Same thing with planes - if an object moves through the air towards you the closure rate can be perceived only by constant watch over a certain length of time, which only then can one be sure that it is either moving, or closing towards you.
The closure and departure by 200yard increments is very effective in simulating that. If you've detected a plane from further out, then it's really no problem. However if a certain plane closes in with you being unaware of just where and how it latched behind you, then you have no idea of the E state until its too late. It makes the fights really more interesting, not to mention make the people a little bit more cautious in shooting and evading.
-
Originally posted by NHawk
LOL!! 1.5k off my six is usually not a problem since I can judge closure rate in AH1 and decide on the proper action based on his closure rate. And most good evasives take place at the last possible second to prevent the attacking pilot from compensating. Starting evasives at 1.5k out gives the attacking pilot far to much time to compensate. :D
Starting at about 1k out is about the max distance for good evasives depending on speed of the attacking plane. To go from 1k out to 400 out in less than a second says his closure rate was HUGE. Being unable to judge that is my whole point. They way it is now, the distance counter may as well be eliminated completely since it's a useless item for combat situations. It's just a nonsensical item of information.
I never said anything about taking, or not taking evasives.
I said you weren't paying attention to enemy that you know is there, is on your 6, and is likely wanting to kill you.
Not paying attention is your own fault, therefore if you die its your fault.
-
np for me either, leave it as is please folks will adapt... Once they break that AH1 crutch it will be fine.....
I don't think pilots new the exact by the yard closure rate. You think yoiu cab spto how fast an object is moving toward you or away from you at 4500feet? Unless the the thing hauling arse I doudt you could....
-
Originally posted by BenDover
I never said anything about taking, or not taking evasives.
I said you weren't paying attention to enemy that you know is there, is on your 6, and is likely wanting to kill you.
Not paying attention is your own fault, therefore if you die its your fault.
I think you misunderstand my point. The amount of time I looked forward was about the amount of time it takes to release and depress the hatswitch. The distance is deceiving because it reads 1500 until they are 1000 out. Or at least that's what I saw. Hence no way to tell closure rate.
And if your system is that good that you can tell something is getting closer and at what speed that's happening. Terrific! Mine isn't. All I saw was a dot.
Again, if it's going to be there make it usefull. Else, get rid of it completely.
-
I think you misunderstand my point. The amount of time I looked forward was about the amount of time it takes to release and depress the hatswitch. The distance is deceiving because it reads 1500 until they are 1000 out. Or at least that's what I saw. Hence no way to tell closure rate.
And if your system is that good that you can tell something is getting closer and at what speed that's happening. Terrific! Mine isn't. All I saw was a dot.
No, it depends. It's got nothing to do with system specs.
...
You look behind, see a bogey at you which reads '1000'
Okay, how fast is he coming in? Obviously, it's not hard to guess if you have been tracking his movement since he was further out. Over 1000 yards, the distance changes in increments of 500 yards. So how fast it changes by 500 yards, gives you the general idea of how fast it is moving, by observing the "500yard ticks".
But if you didn't notice him before? Then obviously you have no previous knowledge of from where, and how fast he closed in. You have to wait and see how fast it changes by 200yard ticks.
I presume it's the latter case you have problems with - and basically, that's how it should be. Having just one glance at a bogey behind you at dangerous distances like 1000yards, and immediately being able to judge relative E status by the "countdown" in 1 yard increments, is a too big of a crutch.
Again, if it's going to be there make it usefull. Else, get rid of it completely.
It's useful - gunnery is harder, judgement of distance is more difficult, and close-range fights are lot more exciting.
-
Any way it shags out the distance count down the way it is does not add anything to the experiance for me. While buffing you are forced to look away from time to time it helps to know how fast they are coming.
At least make an option field to change the setting.
-
Judging closure rate at long distances is very difficult in real life too, and IMHO this system is much better than the old AH "laser range finder". Below 600 yards or so it is relatively easy to judge closure rate by looking at the target ... you know, like they had to do back in WWII.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
You look behind, see a bogey at you which reads '1000'
Okay, how fast is he coming in? Obviously, it's not hard to guess if you have been tracking his movement since he was further out. Over 1000 yards, the distance changes in increments of 500 yards. So how fast it changes by 500 yards, gives you the general idea of how fast it is moving, by observing the "500yard ticks".
But if you didn't notice him before? Then obviously you have no previous knowledge of from where, and how fast he closed in. You have to wait and see how fast it changes by 200yard ticks.
At 1000 I started evasives, it's the tick from 1500 to 1000 that bothers me. In the time it took to look back (1500 out) glance forward so I know what's in front of me and look back the bogie was at 1000. Look forward so I know what not to hit and start evasives, look back again and he's 400 off tail.
I guess what I'm saying is a bogie could be at 1001 and the display will show 1500. That is the part that really bothers me. That extra 499 makes a difference when it comes to the split second decision making process.
-
In R/L you can't judge the difference of 1500 yards and 1000 yards. Its just a speck in the distance.
-
If it at least dropped and increased in hundred or fifty or 25 instead of the huge and sudden changes now, it wouldn't be an issue. But I really don't like it as it is. There is a huge difference between 1000 and 1500, but no way to guage the fine differences as it stands now.
Please change it.
-
I'm not finding an incredible amount of difficulty in timing in AH2. It's a little more difficult and certainly different, but after flying the beta for several months now it kind of gels. Rather than taking two pieces of information (the distance and closure rate in one yard increments) you have to consider three pieces of information:
(1) Distance (now in large increments)
(2) The closure rate prior to that distance -- for example, how fast did the plane go from 2000 to 1.5k? That's a pretty good indication of how fast he's going to go from 1.5k to 1k
(3) The plane's size; 1.5k is noticably smaller than 1k. You can guestimate distance based on closure rate, plane size, and the stated distance.
Again, it's less complete than before and thus more difficult, but it is something you'll become more comfortable doing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Leviathan pretty much nailed it smack on the head.
I guess what I'm saying is a bogie could be at 1001 and the display will show 1500. That is the part that really bothers me. That extra 499 makes a difference when it comes to the split second decision making process.
Levi's 2nd Rule:
(2) The closure rate prior to that distance -- for example, how fast did the plane go from 2000 to 1.5k? That's a pretty good indication of how fast he's going to go from 1.5k to 1k
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Leviathan pretty much nailed it smack on the head.
Levi's 2nd Rule:
(2) The closure rate prior to that distance -- for example, how fast did the plane go from 2000 to 1.5k? That's a pretty good indication of how fast he's going to go from 1.5k to 1k
Provided you did spot it at 2K, because If you spoted it at 1.7 your doomed.
I find this setup is a bit to much but you already knew my opinion :D
-
Provided you did spot it at 2K, because If you spoted it at 1.7 your doomed.
Here is something else that the Full Realism advocates are completey forgeting in their adgenda , Their are alot of people (like me) who are sight impaired and (wear glasses ) and have a hell of a-time looking at the best of PC Monitors and of clearest of skys in the different arenas ,and depend on the "closure rate indicator tag " and gun sights in AH 1, just to beable to play the game . The way iAH 2 is setup at present with the glare of the sun ,the S.W.A.G. Gun Sights and the usless closure rate and plane tags that disappears on and off, Really needs a no-compromise fix , to the setup used in AH 1 . If the FR advocates don't like it , they can always put on their "hero hat " and fly the game without it ......
np for me either, leave it as is please folks will adapt... Once they break that AH1 crutch it will be fine.....
I and others, have seen this exact system of Ideology applied by "the click" at WarBirds and now all the arenas combined at IEN, are lucky to have 100 olayers online at prime time . AH community is more than just lucky to have HiTech and Pyro , they left IEN and built the best WW II online combat sim ever, based on community and fun and I'm sure that AH 2 will continue to be built on player imput and game fun . .............Every players imput is important and sometimes the best of gameplay settings come from the dumbest comments .... "Like the one I have decided to post here" .
Thank you for reading .
CHECKERS
-
Here is something else that the Full Realism advocates are completey forgeting in their adgenda , Their are alot of people (like me) who are sight impaired and (wear glasses ) and have a hell of a-time looking at the best of PC Monitors and of clearest of skys in the different arenas ,and depend on the "closure rate indicator tag " and gun sights in AH 1, just to beable to play the game . The way iAH 2 is setup at present with the glare of the sun ,the S.W.A.G. Gun Sights and the usless closure rate and plane tags that disappears on and off, Really needs a no-compromise fix , to the setup used in AH 1 . If the FR advocates don't like it , they can always put on their "hero hat " and fly the game without it ......
I'm not exactly Superman when it comes to sight. The sunglare is tough for everyone alike(unless having poor sight makes him unable to tell brightness and darkness). And the distance indicator, and planetype tags are consistent in everyway.
There's nothing "full real" about this - it's just a different setting than it was. All the most important stuff is there - distance, planetype, country indications and icon color. The only difference is belly scratching at very low alts will obscure the icon from time to time, making it difficult to tell stuff(as it should be), and the different increments advocate a steady observation of the enemey instead of the one-look-says-all type of jiffy convenient distancemeter(as it should be).
I and others, have seen this exact system of Ideology applied by "the click" at WarBirds and now all the arenas combined at IEN, are lucky to have 100 olayers online at prime time . AH community is more than just lucky to have HiTech and Pyro , they left IEN and built the best WW II online combat sim ever, based on community and fun and I'm sure that AH 2 will continue to be built on player imput and game fun . .............Every players imput is important and sometimes the best of gameplay settings come from the dumbest comments .... "Like the one I have decided to post here" .
Thank you for reading .
The stagnance of WB is for many reasons and not systems alone. Besides, as it is, pretty much all of the veterans are getting tired of the game becoming Quake everday - the veterans have been, and still are, the most important player base. I'm not sure if I can speak for all of them, but many I know would love to see things become more refined towards realism - it's not like the icons totally taken away or something.
Also, many IL2/FB servers thrive even with penalizingly "realistic" options on. It's just a matter of how one synchronizes game-play aspects with reality. In AH1, it was a little towards "gamey", so in AH2, they moved it a little towards "reality". If this system is really so problematic - then they'd change it. No worries there.
..
The problem in the mean time, is adaptation. It takes time to adapt to changes. Spend some time with it and see if its really so difficult to play AH as a game. As for me, I've tried all the Betas online, and so far see a significant improvement in gameplay because of this.
-
I really like how the distance counter is now. It gives some uncertainty to when to shoot, but not so much so that a person is clueless.
Cheers to the HTC crew for making some good moves lately.
My vote.. Keep It!
-BM