Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 05, 2001, 12:35:00 PM
-
?
The idea was no dar bar under 500 feet, except when within a certain distance of enemy field.
-
Sounds good to me Rip. Of course I think we should only have input if you have a "visual" sighting of the enemy at all but that is just me I guess.
By "visual" I mean when you get within a certain range and if you choose not to engage but rather edge around them you risk loosing the contact. But I like it when it is hard for the enemy to find me and vice versa.
-
Of course I think we should only have input if you have a "visual" sighting of the enemy at all but that is just me I guess.
Then go fly a WWI sim. Don't try to turn WWII into WWI with WWII aircraft.
I'd like to try the no "Bar Dar" under 500 feet before making up my mind. It might prove to be too powerful. P-47s, P-38s, F4U-1s and Mossies can make an awful big mess while never getting 500 feet above ground level.
-
Why do you take things out of context Karnak? If you are going to quote someone don't be like the media and qoute partially.
At least quote the whole short post and show that it is MY PREFERENCE and I do not attempt to push anything on anyone. As well as expressing my OPINION like others here do all the time.
-
Reschke,
I probably misunderstood you then, because nothing you posted after the sentence I copied changed anything in the sentence.
You were simply saying that you prefered that there be no radar. That is a WWI environment. The only able reason for stating your preference is to get your desires out in the hope that they will be implimented somewhere, at least that's the only reason I can come up with.
Sorry if I offended, but I have no desire to play with WWII aircraft in a WWI environment and will make statements pointing out how silly that desire is whenever somebody expresses it.
-
I don't think I made myself clear to some people there.
What I meant by my statement was you (anyone flying) should only get radar vector information if someone has/had visual sighting on the enemy in the area. Or if they are in the air very close to a base that your country controls. Then and only then you should be receiving radar information on the exact position of enemy forces instead of an estimated position.
But that is only my opinion and I would rather have nothing since that is how 80%+ (again my guess without actually looking up the info) of all air battles were fought in WW2. At least until the later stages of WW2.
-
"I would rather have nothing since that is how 80%+ (again my guess without actually looking up the info) of all air battles were fought in WW2. At least until the later stages of WW2."
All well and good (I agree with your historical assesment), but that's why it's only suitable for the CT or a scenario, not the MA, which has to cater for air quakers, furballers and guys with a quick half hour to kill.
These people need to find a fight quick; the MA dar does require inauthentic tactics; but then so does escorting Lancs with 109's.
-
...but that's why it's only suitable for the CT or a scenario, not the MA ...
I will second that.
Gunner <CAF>
-
I'm still 100% behind the idea of no bar-dar below 500 feet for everything except GVs. It was one aspect of the CA that was awesome (well.. if it woulda worked right).
AKDejaVu
-
Bar-dar above 500 feet, or within visual range of any friendly base, city, factory, etc. Ideally, "visual range" would vary with altitude, 3 miles for aircraft, and 1/2 mile for GVs. This would give defenders about 30 seconds to scramble.
-
I assume no developer reply means "no, not considering it".
-
I wouldnt say that rip. I've seen a few things since I've been here that we're brought up by the community where there was no comment by HTC staff about it but was tried or implemented. Or at least not spoken about until it was researched to be viable or not <-- only my opinion on that one. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I assume no developer reply means "no, not considering it".
Therein lies the mystery.
I've been beating my head against the wall with this. I've asked when they're online, never got any real answers from anybody. Finally about 6 months ago HT said something like they "needed some way to warn people".
I respect his views obviously (if it weren't for HT we wouldn't have warbirds or Aces High) Hard to bicker with him if you know what I mean. :)
But I really hope he will consider removing the bar radar below 500 ft. in the main arena.
The fights would spread out.
Look at the mindanao map.
The way it is now, the country on the to the west can only be attacked in a 50 mile wide area.
Why ?
Because no matter how low you go, you're going to be all over radar. Plan screwed from the time you hit the runway.
With below 500ft coverage removed the southern country could actually hit the western country effectively. The defenders could have an advantage because the attackers are below 500ft. With this, you'd prolly need some type of text warning message in the radio bar. (I'm not a programme so I don't know whats involved there)
BTW, when 1.08 first came out and there was NO enemy radar for a few days, the arena didn't go nuts, I saw no wild missions all the way across the map, so you might remove the below 500ft radar with out a warning system.
Give it some thought HT. Tell us monkeys what you're thinking. Throw us this small 'nana.
:)
-
It would be interesting to hear HT’s thoughts on this. I think it would add a great deal to the game by removing the dar below 500 feet. I can understand that there may be a challenge of trying to notify the country that a particular base is under attack when GV’s are introduced into the equation.
I do not believe there is any reason to add additional alerts for aircraft at that altitude due to the fact most, or even all, of the attacking aircraft will have to gain a bit of altitude before dropping ordinance. It may be possible that the roadblock for this is the question of how to deal with attacking vehicles.
Zippatuh
-
Exactly Hblair, right now, they are focused on small areas of the map..we need to expand horizons! Not only does this give the agressor the element of surprise, but the Defender also has fair enough warning once the cons get within certain distance of their fields, then, the defender KNOWS they are all low, so its a field day for both!
Seems like HT,Pyro only answer the new guys anymore, since they are prospective customers, and we're , well, addicted! ;)
-
Actually, it seems hitech and crew like to keep quiet about most improvements/fixes to the game. Sure they let us know here and there what new plane they're working on, or that they're gonna add trains for example, but they keep a lot of stuff quiet until the version is released. Heck, for patch 4, I don't even think I saw them address one issue on the board prior to the patch coming out.
I guess with the interview and Pyro saying we're getting the Hiryu, they feel we've got enough info for now. :D
-
No Nifty, most of the time we are told what is going to be in the next version while it is still being developed. Look all the way back to beta, we have been told of just about every major change / new thing added to the game long before upcoming versions are released, with the exception of very few things (like the P47).
HTC stays in touch with their customers.
Right HT?
Throw us the 'nana!
:)
-
My view point is simple,undesided,there for no answer.
HiTech
-
Ok fellas, now we gotta try to convince him of our case. :)
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
(drums fingers on table) It was undecided at the 2000 con! ;)
-
-Jim Carey, Dumb & Dumber
"So your saying theres a chance..." :D
-
Originally posted by AcId:
-Jim Carey, Dumb & Dumber
"So your saying theres a chance..." :D
Not nice to talk about Nate and Super that way... ;)
-
hitech, can you pork hblair's 30mm in his G10? thx.
now where is that link to the bribes... :D
-
HT, while you weigh which way is best, could you disable bar dar below 500ft in the main to see the effect on gameplay? Let that be part of your decision. I can see your concern, you have much more at stake here than we do. This is your livelihood and all.
I am very confident it will have a positive affect on gameplay. The main affect being the spreading out and lowering of the furballs / fights. Ultra high altitude bombing missions will be balanced by low altitude raids where the bombers can be intercepted by witty defenders.
Can we give it a whirl?
'nana HT?
-
My opine:
The following was lifted from:
http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/rdr-hori.htm (http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/rdr-hori.htm)
A nomograph for determining maximum target range is depicted in Figure 2. Although an aircraft is shown to the left, it could just as well be a ship, with radars on a mast of height "h". Any target of height (or altitude) "H" is depicted on the right side.
(http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/rdr-hor2.gif)
As this shows as antenna hieght increases or range decreases detection altitudes decrease. So you could sneek up to a base, but at very close range you would still be detected and have a dot on the dar. This of course neglects radar shadows and atmospheric anomolies.
HT could base aircraft detection, and therefore a dot on the dar, on something similar to the above nomograph. If it is on radar then it has an associated bardar representation. Also, a craft not detected by the radar, but in visual range (normal in-game dot detection range) of a friendly aircraft or GV, then it is displayed on the bardar only.
F.
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]
-
Hitech please consider at least programming a Sector Bar altitude floor as an arena setting that we can use for Events or the Combat Theatre.
Also it would be nice to have seperate dar settings for people in flight or in the tower.
[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
What funkedup said.
Testing these settings is really the only way to know the effect on gameplay. If the controls are in the code, any variation could be tested.
-
HT,
I vote to try it out.
It could make the game more fun and interesting.
eskimo
-
Case in point:
Assassins squad night was last night. We planned on doing some captures and were met with this when we logged on:
(http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/crammed.jpg)
Backs against the wall, no big deal. But with the extra pilots online now, the main arena is one crowded place. Look at the map above. What field would you hit to try to get a toehold and break out? Look at the sector bars. You gonna get a goon thru that. nuh-huh. Tried it 3 times. Look below:
(http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/screwed.jpg)
The closest we got was at A52. We went NOE to stay below dot radar. Got within 10-15 miles of the base and the sector bars are coming alive with bad guys. No big deal, we've done this many times before. We had 8 or so experienced pilots in this mission, we hit the city, have it almost taken out and notice there's like 8-10 light fighters hassling us. They take us down one at a time, all the while more of their countrymen are upping from the field. It's a done deal.
We could either furball or go to the Dueling arena and ffa. We opted for the latter. Because there was absolutely no breaking out of our corner. There's just waaay too much radar for the amount of people in the main arena these days. A blind 90 year old woman could find a fight the way the main arena is now-but an experienced squadron cannot take fields given the situation we were in.
Now, if the radar were off below 500ft, we could have given one of the following plans a try:
(http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/solution.jpg)
Would they have worked? Don't know. But success or failure, the furball in the main arena would have been spread out because of it.
Is that a good thing?
I think it is. All the work HT has put into the mission planner / strat system could be more utilized.
So comes the all-important question we have asked all along:
'nana HT?
:)
[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
<punt> for HT.
-
Case in point:
Assassins squad night was last night. We planned on doing some captures and were met with this when we logged on:
hblair,
If there would be no darbar below 500, what make you think your (our.. I fly Rooks) radar would even be working? If our enemy could sneak in and kill our HQ, they would have. It works both ways.
I notice from the first map, we were not actively defending any of our rear fields including HQ. We were defending HQ when there was a threat. How may people in MA would just fly around defending our rear fields? If say 20 people would think this is fun and fly around the unoccupied rear sectors, what kind of chance would we have to break out and retake fields? The Rooks have held our ground now for several days, and even pushed back several times.
I just don't think "No DarBar Under 500" is right for MA.
Gunner <CAF>
-
It's been a few years since I flew AW3, but I seem to recall DAR being ineffective below 300 ft and messages in text buffer about "XXX field under attack" perhaps we could incorporate something similar. Another feature AW had as I recall was the ability to join missions generated by the server, you selected a mission based on whether you wanted to ATTACK or DEFEND.
Ideally I think a combination of AW's airbase under attack messages, server generated defense missions and ineffective dar below 300 ft IN CONJUNTION WITH WB 2.5 style "TOWER ONLY" radar would give the most balanced gameplay.
As it is now the defender pressed into the corner has little hope of busting out, considering the defender's every move is brodcasted to the whole arena via darbar.
The primary axiom of any combat is to hit the enemy where he is not, how can this be accomplished without surprise? The mission the ASSASSINS flew to A52 should have succeeded as it was flown NOE the entire way and could not possibly have been seen on any type of REALISTIC radar until we popped up for enough altitude to arm our bombs near the airfield/town.
That is not to say that "Coastal Watchers" or "Picket Ships" could not be added to the game warning of our inbound raid. Like the fishing boats did with the 'Doolittle Raid' during WW2. But this raid info should be transmitted in the text buffer, possibly in white text so it is not easily missed by the defending country.
Today in RL modern air combat missions they are planned around radar coverage ranges.
The trick being to "thread the needle" or to fly between radar radius's, trying to avoid 'em where ya can, flying thru them at the edges when ya can't, and ultimately trying to minimize the time ya spend in those radar covered zones.
Most of the AH player base desire the most realistic flight models that computer hardware allows, shouldn't we expect/desire more realistic attack and defense limitations and tactics as well?
-
Originally posted by GunnerCAF:
hblair,
If there would be no darbar below 500, what make you think your (our.. I fly Rooks) radar would even be working? If our enemy could sneak in and kill our HQ, they would have. It works both ways.
I notice from the first map, we were not actively defending any of our rear fields including HQ. We were defending HQ when there was a threat. How may people in MA would just fly around defending our rear fields? If say 20 people would think this is fun and fly around the unoccupied rear sectors, what kind of chance would we have to break out and retake fields? The Rooks have held our ground now for several days, and even pushed back several times.
I just don't think "No DarBar Under 500" is right for MA.
Gunner <CAF>
Thanks for replying.
To answer your question about our HQ being vulnerable, well, look at the map:
(http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/hqbotch.jpg)
Notice I have hi-lighted the sectors that are full of friendlies. Also notice that they are pretty much covering the whole forward area of our home island. For a flight of 4 or more bombers (typical HQ raid) to slip thru that on the deck (below 500ft) is very unlikely. Ask goon drivers about that. The most likely route would be around the rear of our home island (notice red flightpaths). If a guy (or squadron) wants to organize a raid that would take the amount of time it would take them to get to our HQ unseen, on the deck, well, more power to 'em. In my opinion, that's what the mission planner is all about.
------------------------------------------------------------
[semi rant to get HT's attention]
Isn't that what the mission planner is all about? Why have a mission planner if any mission of any size is fubar from the time they click "fly"?
I'm sorry if I sound redundant here, it's just dissapointing to find myself having to beg and plead my case to not have radar below 500ft. I gave up on tower only dar long ago. I gave up on limited bar dar long ago I gave up on limited dot radar long ago. I mean fer cryin out loud, the guy's gotta be practically on the water to be below radar coverage and that's too much to ask? The main arena right now (for whatever reason) is a big furball for the most part. Can't we try this HT?
[/semi rant to get HT's attention]
BTW, this is a great game, you guys do an admirable job with it, I'm not disgruntled, I just disagree about radar in the main arena.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Ploesti raid, US Liberators traveling NOE (nap of earth) avoid German radar bomb oil refineries in Romania. Would be cool if we could fly NOE to bomb bish/knight/rook oil refineries:
While Allied and Axis forces were battling in Sicily, the AAF staged one of the war's most daring heavy bomber raids. The target was the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania, estimated to be supplying 60% of Germany's crude oil requirements.
Shortly after dawn on August 1, 1943, AAF B-24s took off from bases in Libya and headed toward the heavily defended target, deep inside enemy territory a thousand miles away. Over Bulgaria, clouds broke up the B-24 formations and the bombing elements became widely separated. Tracked by German radar which alerted Rumanian defenses, the B-24s arrived over the target at treetop height without the planned element of surprise.
Despite intense defensive fire from the ground and from the Axis planes, the AAF pressed the attack. In the confusion of battle, some B-24s made bombing runs through heavy smoke over targets that had already been attacked and were caught in the bursts of delayed action bombs dropped several minutes previously. Although overall damage to the target was heavy, the cost was high. Of 177 planes and 1,726 men who took off on the mission, 54 planes and 532 men failed to return.
Look at these pics:
(http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82638b.jpg)
(http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82638a.jpg)
(http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82638c.jpg)
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
I think you are right Heath but as you say it's his call .
You stated your case very well , we tryed to sneak A4 Saturday late afternoon , no way . If you ain't in big numbers it won't happen IMO .
Either way this is the game I fly online .
I hope you decide to give it a try HT , just the thought of all those low boggies makes my mouth drool :p
-
For what its worth, here's my vote for no bar dar under 500. I agree with hb, with the numbers we have now, it can be darn near impossble to do any field captures. The only other solution I could see would be to make the maps bigger, to make more targets, but that would only be a band aid solution, as I assume our numbers wil continue to grow. I say why not give it a try?
-
Let’s remember that in order to do an adequate JABO some altitude will need to be gained before drop. Also don’t forget that a bomb has to travel 1000 feet before it will arm. 500 feet is not very much altitude. As soon as the attacking aircraft are in range the radar will light up like a Christmas tree with everyone trying to get some altitude for drop. Even if all aircraft are carrying cannons it’s not very advisable to go in level to de-ack a field.
Sure the reaction time for such an attack will have to be a little quicker but at the same time the attacking aircraft are not going to carrying very much of an altitude or energy advantage.
I think it’s a good idea.
Zippatuh
-
I also think it's a good idea, but would suggest adding a system warning that alerts a country to the fact that the field is being attacked as soon as a structure is destroyed. Maybe after 10-15 minutes of nothing being destroyed the alert is reset. I can envision pretty easily people going in under 500 feet with enough cannon armed planes to level a city for capture without much(or any)exposure time on radar.
-
I concur. No bar dar below 500ft. Hows a poor country like Rooksters supposed to break out of Billy and Bubba's head lock without alittle stealth to help em along.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
You were simply saying that you prefered that there be no radar. That is a WWI environment.
Name one plane varient we currently have in AH that had any form of Air to Air radar in cockpit during WW2.
-
Okay, I agree with Heath.
No bar dar for planes under 500 feet would be good for gameplay, IMO. Gives all involved a chance to get in their shots at the risk of getting caught low. All countries would have to be vigilant and not just spawn wherever they saw the biggest friendly dar bar. I also think it would work if no dar bar appeared unless someone popped into the tower at the base under attack. Example: In the isles terrain, V6 is not that far from either A7 or A5, right? Say someone decides to NOE from A12, they take jabos, a couple goons, and go for it. They fly at wavetop level, deack the place, kill the VH, land the goon, take the base. The way I see it, with the numbers we have in the MA lately, out of about 120 people per side, one person is not gonna be looking at the map and thinking "Where are we vulnerable?"...........all it would take is a couple minutes to pop into a base and check. Once you pop in and spot the attackers, spawn or sound the alert. Spawning activates the dar bar (at least the way I think it should work), and your countrymen can choose to respond or ignore the threat.
For that matter, I think no dar bar for GV's in a sector would be interesting.......kinda like the NOE sneak attack in reverse.....you come rolling in on a target, no dar bar, then BOOM! GV's engage you, dar bar comes to life for both sides, and the battle is joined. Would be interesting to say the least. Almost would encourage some sort of recon flights............hehehe. And the best part is that neither side has an advantage over the other.......defenders would not know an attack is definitely coming, attackers would not know what awaits them.......til the furr started flying......... :D
-
It's equal advantage to both agressor and defender...agressor gets to use routes to attack the enemy from various different points.
Defender will know when and where the agressor is coming from once within 25 miles of any field, via dot dar, regardless of altitude.
Agressor must pop up to to make a good attack without dying droves.
Defender already knows the agressor is popping up due to the 25 mile dot dar.
A huge furball ensures if defender chooses to challenge the agressor.
The odds of getting a goon in safely on a distant field is slim. If agressor does pull it off, more power to them.
To me, its a no brainer.
-
I agree with Ripsnort....I've had a blast doing a few NOE Lancaster raids. Its one of the few times the fighters can't get under my belly and cream me! However, its a real trick to pop up high enough to get bombs off without being crucified by acks, if the fighter sweep hasn't already popped them.
The radar bar just plain stinks, to me. I understand its purpose but this awacs/jstar radar system is just a bit too much. Make folks rely on reconaissance flights to get a better idea of what the enemy is doing. Arado is a good platform for that, as well as the P38 and other birds. Chat buffer could actually be used for important communications for once! :D
Suggested future perk plane....
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/f_117a.jpg)
-
Well here is my 2cents worth :D
I'm all for no dar below 500'
Just another aspect to use with strat :)
-
And while we're making requests, how bout a bomb load of "windows" tinfoil for Lancs and B-17's so we can blanket there feild dot and bar dar for 30 minutes or so?
-
er...time of blanket depends on alt. of the drop.
-
Lizzard just hit the dar for same effect...
I too am stepping up to remove bardar below 500 ft AGL, I want to know that the valleys and mountains can mask my app. to a base.
I like the idea of an alerting system say within 2 miles, when below bar dar, seems that would be when a real life vis could be attained.
On the GV side when a structure is destroyed an alert gets sent.. (including ack) bases that close to a gv spawn should have A2G birds patrolling for them anyway.
Well just my .02 :) really no complaints just think a few refinments can really balance the real deal guys and the quick quakers.
Gwjr2 George Walker
-
"Name one plane varient we currently have in AH that had any form of Air to Air radar in cockpit during WW2"
Thats easy. P-38M :D :D
-
Besides the P-38? There was also the F6F-5N, F4U-2, ME-262B1A-U1 and the JU-88G1 for four aircraft right off the top of my head.
I do wish the DOT radar only showed one color. IFF was not that advanced, to say the least in WWII, and I think if we're to have inflight DOT radar it should not be so exact.
And of course no dar under 500 feet :)
Westy
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
-
Er, we don't have any varients in AH that had radar in the cockpit.
At the same time we don't have any that didn't have radios with ground control personnel directing them at some point in the war either.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Er, we don't have any varients in AH that had radar in the cockpit.
At the same time we don't have any that didn't have radios with ground control personnel directing them at some point in the war either.
What we DO have is built in game play concessions, I'm for reducing some of those concessions such as bar dar. After all, most in this sim have been doing online sims a very long time.
-
Ripsnort,
I know that.
I was responding to the specific question, and insinuation that we should have no info.
I would like to try the no bar dar below 500 feet, except for vehicles.
-
Rgr that Karnak, I was just relating to that person via your post in quotes, LOL! :)
-
Yep, bar dar makes about 40% of EVERY map useless. How about drone like PBYs that patrol around a countries airspace (ala F22 Raptor) that can be downed to eliminate bar-dar for that area (say 3x3 squares around that PBY) and the replacement PBY flies in from off map or has its own bases to replace the downed one. So in a nutshell a computer controlled PBY relays bar-dar and even dots if enemy in visual distance for an area 3x3 grids or whatever around it but can be shot down eliminating bar-dar info. Worked great in F22 Raptor. Even if not using PBYs use ground radar stations that can be disabled for x # of mins.
-
Originally posted by Furious:
My opine:
So you could sneek up to a base, but at very close range you would still be detected and have a dot on the dar. This of course neglects radar shadows and atmospheric anomolies.
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]
Not all *that* close, either, according to your chart. For an antenna on the ground, an attacker at around 50 feet, 7 or 8 miles away, would be above the radar horizon. That's most of a sector right there. If the radar were atop the tower, say 25 feet, you could see anything within 12.5 miles, if it were 150 feet or higher, and your 50-foot target is visible from 12 miles or so. Thirty-six miles would be the range for 500-foot-high targets with this tower-mounted radar. Let's not even think what it would be like if the radar were on a nearby hill.
Considering that transportable (3000-lb, fits in a gooney) radar sets used by the US in WWII had a range of 150 miles (I cite Eric Bergerud, _Fire in the Sky_, page 463,) I don't think our current bar dar is all that unreasonable. Dot dar may be more so, but viewed as an abstraction of the guidance one would get from a ground controller, it's not altogether ridiculous.
Yeah, it eliminates the element of surprise, but it seems to me that surprise in the air war in WWII had more to do with lax vigilance, than with equipment shortcomings. The incoming Pearl Harbor raid was detected by radar, but misinterpreted. Bodenplatte happened on New Years' Day and was a failure anyway. I just don't think surprise happened as a result of radar being lacking.
Hell, hblair's excerpt about the Ploesti raid points out that the treetop raid *did not* avoid German radar, and the bombers got creamed as a result.
While I think the datalink aspect is a bit fanciful, it helps make up for aspects of reality that would be hard to model (like being vectored in on bogies by a controller, for example.)
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Runny ]
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
Besides the P-38? There was also the F6F-5N, F4U-2, ME-262B1A-U1 and the JU-88G1 for four aircraft right off the top of my head.
Westy
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
What sim are you flying? We dont have ANY of those varients in this sim. That P-38M aint here either.
-
i like the idea of no dar bar under 500 ft. AFL. but common guys you're gettin to "precise" lon what you want for realism.for example: someone was saying something about how accurate the dar is and dont want it that accurate. lets remember...we're talkin bout the MA here. Historical Accuracy should be for sinario's, not the MA.
just my opinion