Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: F4UDOA on December 18, 2001, 02:41:00 PM
-
Ok, the Brilliant part is a troll but the idea is sound.
I never liked range Icons but I understand that they are a concession to the available technology for visual identification of range and direction of a moving object at distance on a copmputer screen.
However in the interest of reality these range/identification icons should be scaled based on distance.
For instance
D3K to 6K Gives you only color coded friendly or NME with a generic Fighter/Bomber tag.
D1.1K to 2.9K Gives you Color biased tag with Generic fighter Label IE. FW190, Hawker, F4U or Macchi.
D0.0K to .9K Color Biased tag and specific A/C info IE. F4U-4, FW190D-9, C202, P-51B/D Etc. (I also wouldn't mind seeing the laser range finder disappear since a graphical representation within 1K is suficiant for range detection but that is another subject).
This serves many purposes but mostly the purpose of creating a more realistic interface for the user without degrading gameplay.
It also allows for better use of the perk system without the magnet effect of flying a "Perked" plane (I happen to like the current perk system).
BTW, I do not think that this idea will be embraced by all AH players. But I do think it will take AH farther away from the Arcade type simm and bring it closer to the pure simulation market that I think AH is trying to fill.
Any comments??
-
I like it.
-
good idea!
I think that when the range is shown,
it should only show like 5K, 4K, not
4.7k and so on... :p
-
IMO, the range counter is much more important as a rate of closure indicator, than as a rangefinder. Your system provides no rate of closure information, which I think we need to compensate for our "2D vision".
-
I like everything but the part where you see a completely specific tag at a certain distance - at that range, you should be able to visually identify the aircraft. If you think about it, pilots wouldn't be able to know the exact variant of an enemy plane a lot of the time, as visually they were so similar. We have the benefit of being able to differentiate by color scheme, and I don't think we need more help - some of the responsibility must remain with the pilot.
-
Well, I think we can safely assume the current icon set up is so every pilot has 'Chuck Yeager' vision [tm]
So take the ranges a normal human can identify things at and double it :D
I have no idea what those ranges work out to, but there must be data on it somewhere.
So longest range just do enemy fighter / buff. Medium range do type. Short range do model.
Point blank do actual pilot handle :D
"I recognize that eye twitch and that gap-toothed grin! It's Westy."
As an added benefit (for certain planes) base the contact and ID ranges on the actual size of the aircraft. This gives the smaller planes a bit of an edge.
~Lemur
-
Good idea!
-
Not sure if it's a good idea, but it's deffinatly not a bad idea.
As I understand it you are just propsiing changing the plane type icon?
HiTech
-
Here's my old comments.....
"we're going to actually try a few different means of IFF instead of this 10 year old system, I'd be really happy.
Here's a few points to ponder. These thoughts are based on a non-historical arena, where all sides fly all planes. Strict Historical could/should be different.
Ranges would have to be hashed out but that's an area that affords easy experimentaion once the overall system is set.
1. At long range, a plane <whether friend or foe, fighter or bomber> should just be an unknown dot.
2. As range closes, one would be able to distinguish a dot as a bomber earlier than a fighter. Therefore, some sort of "buff" ID should show at a range that would still be a dot for a fighter. At this range you couldn't tell friend from foe.
This means a dot could be either a long range plane of either type or a closer fighter that is not yet distinguishable. You just couldn't tell.
3. As range further decreased, a fighter ID should show. You should also now be able to tell, in some way, friend from foe, perhaps just a red dot at nose, tail and wingtips. This assumes that we would <in Real Life> be distinguishing plane type. Again, this would be a different range for a bomber than a fighter.
4. Now, after IFF range, add distance information. Range info should perhaps only be shown in 1k or .5k increments to avoid the rapidly running counters. I would not show range beyond a certain distance <a yet to be determined "threat" range> and I would remove it as the aircraft comes to "guns range." Perhaps cut out range info inside of 1k or .5k at minimum. You need IFF here, but you don't need range when you're ready to shoot. That should be part of pilot skills and judgement.
5. I would have no aircraft type ID available at ranges that allow you to distinugish that info from the graphics. (determined for the lowest resolution avail). I would allow some simple "type" info at ranges where you could see it in real life.
Different colored dots, arrows, numbers...any of these could be used to provide this type of information while minimizing and shrinking the huge icons we now have.
Just some thoughts. I'm sure everyone has some ideas and I'd love to read them. I hope we can get a meaningful discussion going and I also hope we can talk HTC into experimenting in the SEA with "alternative Icon lifestyles"."
Clipped in toto from here:
Toad's Icon Ideas (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000328)
-
Thanks for responding HT.
Yes just the plane type depending on range simulating a pilots abilty to itentify first A/C type 3K to 6K(fighter/Bomber) then A/C silhoutte 1K to 3K IE. Messerschmitt(Mess) Macchi, Grumman or just Navy etc. followed by a close range icon tag that gives specific A/C data IE, F4U-4, FW190D9, ME109G10 etc.
I would still include A/C range data at distances further than .9K because of Display resolution limitations but inside d1.0 I don't think they are neccesary based on testing I have done with Icons turned off in the TA.
I think the benifits would be these.
1. Increased realism based on variable range of A/C itentification to further simulate flight conditions.
2. Additional use of the perk system by reducing the "Magnet effect" of flying a perk plane.
3. Additional use of the early war plane set by not giving premature notice of A/C type. This would benifit the LA-5, C202, P-47D11 and future A/C like the A6M2, KI-43, F4F and others.
In any case I'm sure the idea could use refinement however it seems like a good start huh?
-
Let me just clarify that I really like this idea :)
One thing though: exact plane types shouldn't be displayed. If you engaged a Fw190 with a radial engine I don't think you could distinguish between A5 or A8 in the middle of a dogfight.
-
I really like the aspect that u can hope into a earier war model and not be imedeatly picked out from d6.0 away as easy prey. I like the 202 / 205, but i get pounced alot faster in the 202 than the 205... the "perception" of the 202 is easy meat therefore more ppl pounce u. same with perkie plans.. anything to reduce the amount of people that see u at one time and think of free lunch is good
-
toad...i like your idea. it sounds good,but...i'm not so sure people would take it in the MA. i certainly would but there are a lot of people that would down right throw a fit over a setup like that. maybe in the CT tho. that would be excelent. that's where the more "realistic" stuff is gonna be.and sounds like it would be a blast
-
I like Toad's ideas. (F4UDOA, yours are good too ;) ). I would like to see it in the CT or even in the MA, but I understand it requires some programming. Maybe in the next version?
-
Greetings all,
Threw together a quick web-page with some images at various ranges. These are at 1:1 scale with no zoom. Page is at:
http://www.netaces.org/temp/viewdist.html (http://www.netaces.org/temp/viewdist.html)
I am using 1024 x 768 on a 19 inch monitor but find that even at under 200 yds, it is not clear that this is a 109. So, my thoughts?
At long range, some things will be more obvious than others. IRL, a P-38 will be distinctive much sooner than the difference between a 109 and a P-51. A 4-engined bomber will be distinguisable before you could tell the difference between say a B-26 and mossie or a mossie and a Ju-88. In the game, we will have nothing more than a dark pixel or two. A fighter/bomber tag might not provide the info that would really be available. Important? I don't know!
ICONS: In general, I agree that you could distinguish a fighter from a bomber at much longer distances than you could visually ID the type. The question is: what is the distance you can visually ID a plane? I certainly don't know, but I suspect it is much more than the 200 yds that I can get from my monitor, so you have to allow for that at some range. Is it 6k? Got me. And type differences? We have a few discrepencies IMHO. Until you were close enough to see the air-duct on the cowl of a La-5, I would say it looks like a La-7. Maybe another "layer" of general ID until you get up close and personal. The bumps on the cowling of a G6 would seem as identifiable as the air duct on the La-5. Additionally, I would think you'd have to be closer to distinguish between a C202 and C205 than you would a P-51B/D. That bubble canopy is pretty distinctive. So, while the system we have works, it could certainly use some tweaking.
As a possible alternative, what about an icon that faded as distance got greater? It would be harder to spot at range, but still give information to someone who was looking hard. As the bogie got closer, the icon gets brighter so the chance of being seen goes up. This could also be an addition to the ideas above.
RANGE INDICATOR: This has to stay pretty much the way it is IMHO. If you look at the pictures on the web-page I posted, you can quickly see that, unless you have been following a bogie closely, the only idincation of what he is doing (from some aspects) is the range indicator. This is more a concession to our 2D simulation of the 3D world, but this can only be harder on smaller screens/lower resolutions.
I think the range indicator must stay as it is at distance, also. If all you can see is a pixel or two, you will have no idea what the bogie is doing if the range indicator is not there or only changes every k or so.
I think the key for HT here would be to implement a change at a time. Throwing them all into the arena at once would make it harder to identify what works and what doesn't.
HaMmeR
www.netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
-
xHaMmeRx,
Thanx for the detail work.
Icons As far as the icons go I believe that once within a certain distance that you should see a A/C distinctive Icon, C202, F4U-1D, P-51D etc. but only within a resonable distance say D1.5 or less since IRL it would be impossible to see the small details of any A/C much less make out a certain model or sub-type. At slighly further distances I would not be opposed to slightly less discriptive tags like just FW190 or F4U. But at distances beyond 3 or 4K I cannot see the value of giving any more info than fighter or bomber.
Range indicator I am less opposed to a detailed range indicator espcially at distances over 1K. It is all but impossible to detect direction of movement on a 2D screen at that range. Inside 1K it becomes more viable but certainly no piece of cake. I have tried flying Iconless in the T/A and I found it challenging however my gunnery seemed to improve because I waited longer to shoot. In any case I would not be opposed to a range counter in the MA.
My biggest issue lies with the abilty to detect sub-types at distances up to 6K.
-
"But at distances beyond 3 or 4K I cannot see the value of giving any more info than fighter or bomber."
4K = about 2.5 miles. Are you suggesting that you can't tell an Me-109 from a P-47D from an F4U at a dstance greater than 2.5 miles?
If that is truly the case, you may need glasses. I'm not trying to be rude, either, I'm serious. A person with good vision (and most fighter pilots have very good vision) will be able to tell these planes apart at considerably more than 2.5 miles. 4 miles seems a bit more reasonable--which, ironically enough, is roughly the distance we recieve this info in AH.
At a distance of 4 miles I am still able to differenciate different types of automobiles--hatchbacks, pickup trucks, sedans, and so on. And a car is quite a bit smaller than a fighter plane (15 feet long versus 30-35 feet). Weather/sun glare can interefere with this identification of course, but that's a different subjest completely.
I agree with the underlying concept of your idea though--Generic ICON at long range followed by a model-specific ICON at short range (1.5K seems about right). In fact I like it a lot.
It is indeed a brilliant idea and would make the ICON system much more realistic in use.
J_A_B
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: J_A_B ]
-
I love this idea.
The only thing I'd change is to modify the ranges according to the size of the aircraft.
And this shouldn't be too hard, since the range you can see / ID something scales linearly with its heigh and width.
This also eliminates the whole buff/fighter id range thing.
If you see a generic 'enemy' icon, and the range is greater than, say, 6 K. Well, it's pretty obvious it's a buff.
This also adds benefit to the smaller bombers: They have significantly shorter ID ranges than the Lanc or B-17
Mind you, this will need some tweaking / testing as this will have a significant effect on the game.
~Lemur
-
Well i love the whole idea about this Icon system. It means people cant gang bang one type of AC from a distance of 6K away.
I fly a lot of Missions in the P47D30 and find at 25K i can easly find a target. without even having looking at it, Instead look at the radar and see how fast its current speed. This gives me a routh idea of what kind of AC it is and what ALT it is traveling at. So, within 10K i know 1/2 of the AC heading and also ALT and speed. Who said a high SA isnt good.
-
Originally posted by popeye:
IMO, the range counter is much more important as a rate of closure indicator, than as a rangefinder. Your system provides no rate of closure information, which I think we need to compensate for our "2D vision".
Words right outa my mouth
-
if you cannot tell a plane type in aces high at 1000 yards without icons you need to invest in a better monitor... i can easily tell a f4u from a p51 or from a (insert name here) at 1000 yards
obviously in the main you nned icons of some sort to differentiate friend from foe
the biggest problem i have with icons is that for some reason hitech is unwilling to add a no icons environment for CM and historical arena use. i know many of you say no icons is less realistic, but for me is it certinly more realistic FEELING. seeing icons spoils a big part of immersion imo.
similarly, you can easily identify from 6000 yards in aces high wiith no icons a bomber from a fighter -- no icons needed for this
in ahistorical environment (lets say japanese vs us navy) you can easily identify plane nationality from 3000 yards (blue planes are very clearly blue and green are very clearly green at 3000 yards)
the major two valid arguments against no icons are
1) lack of depth perception. this actually makes up BOTH arguments against icons. 1) because it is too easy to loose a green plane against a green background or a blue airplane vs a blue background because they are all at the same focal length, when in real life the different distances of te objects would make them stand out
3) lackof stereo vision to aid in sighting and range finding. its not as good as a laser rangefinder, but stereo vision certainly is better than a flat monitor...
solution? buy those stereo glasses they reviewed at simhq and we can get rid of icons :)
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
if you cannot tell a plane type in aces high at 1000 yards without icons you need to invest in a better monitor... i can easily tell a f4u from a p51 or from a (insert name here) at 1000 yards
Well, here is a fair representation of what I see at 1300 yards... :eek:
(http://www.netaces.org/temp/compare1300.gif)
I have a pretty hard time telling them apart on a 19 inch flatscreen monitor at 1024x768 res. Here it is blown up 300%
(http://www.netaces.org/temp/compare1300-2.gif)
Not much to go on IMHO (these are dead 6 o'clock shots btw)
in ahistorical environment (lets say japanese vs us navy) you can easily identify plane nationality from 3000 yards (blue planes are very clearly blue and green are very clearly green at 3000 yards)[/QUOTE]
But what about similarly camo'd planes in the MA or even in a euro environment? German gray/green schemes could look similar to british gray/green schemes.
(http://www.netaces.org/temp/compare875.gif)
(http://www.netaces.org/temp/compare600.gif)
Are you sure that, in a furball with a quick glance, you could tell what these were as well as someone in real life could from similar distances?
the major two valid arguments against no icons are
1) lack of depth perception. this actually makes up BOTH arguments against icons. 1) because it is too easy to loose a green plane against a green background or a blue airplane vs a blue background because they are all at the same focal length, when in real life the different distances of te objects would make them stand out
3) lackof stereo vision to aid in sighting and range finding. its not as good as a laser rangefinder, but stereo vision certainly is better than a flat monitor...
solution? buy those stereo glasses they reviewed at simhq and we can get rid of icons :)[/QUOTE]
Your reasons for leaving the icons in the MA are right on and I'm not arguing at all. I do, however, question the ability to easily distinguish plane types at 3k or more. I think you may be fooling yourself a bit! :D
HaMmeR
www.netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: xHaMmeRx ]
-
Excent ideas about plane-type icons. About the range indicator I would aproach the problem in a different way:
More than 1000 yards and you see the range, between 1000 and 400 yards and you only see the closure rate (+/- # fps), not the range. Less than 400 yards and no more range/closure indications.
Example with 190A8:
6k -> plane (white) - d6
4k -> fighter (white) - d4
2k -> enemy (red) 190 - d2
1.3k -> enemy (red) 190 - d1.3
1k -> enemy (red) 190A8 - d1
900 yards -> enemy (red) 190A8 - +300
500 yards -> enemy (red) 190A8 - +200
350 yars -> enemy (red) 190A8 -
-
Oh!! NO !!!
Mandoble is about to do ugly maths again ;)
(J/K :D)
-
ROFLOL straffo.
You have good reasons to be afraid, I'm opening the calculator just now ...
-
in short :
IIINNNNNCOMMMMMINNGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGG !
running for cover :)
-
F4UDoa:
Two things:
1. The use of "realistic" and "game" in the same sentence is confusing and a contradiction in terms, IMO.
2. I do not share your assessment that AH is an Arcade game at all.
Realism has been argued and discussed back and forth on BBs of different sims for many years now, and there has been no clear resolution. It is extremely subjective, and strong opinions vary according to who is making the assessment.
Your suggestions are not without substance though, but for me, not because of any appeal to making the "game" more "realistic" but, because they may enhance gameplay.
-
F4UDoa:
Two things:
1. The use of "realistic" and "game" in the same sentence is confusing and a contradiction in terms, IMO.
2. I do not share your assessment that AH is an Arcade game at all.
1. Actually I try to refer to AH as a simulation and not a game. However when my wife asked me what I'm doing I have to say sheepishly "playing". But as long as we are all under the same dellusion that we are actually "playing" a simulation then the term realism can be used as we are only simulating child like behavior by pretending to be WW2 fighter pilots.
2. The change in Icons can only help to further AH from an "arcade" type game and closer to a WW2 simulation. I'm not really a gamer, my only interest lay in WW2 fighter A/C either in comparative documents or in simulation. If I thought AH were arcadish I would move on to some other simm. For my money it is the best available. :D
-
Ok, so it took me awhile. I like it. :D
Zippatuh
-
Here's my say:
Short icons like the CT. It makes the BOUNCE be possible in the game.
Icons:
Should show general plane type (aka, say "F4U" instead f4u-4 or "190" instead of 152, they are the same airframe (mostly) !).
You can easily tell the difference between a 190a5 and a d9 just because of the performance, same goes for the 109g2 and the g10. So why are the icons different? Because they are perk planes? I really dont think its fair for the perk plane pilot to have everyone in the arena trying to HO him out of it.
The laser range finder should be replaced with a closure indicator.So, like mandoble said, instead of having it read "3.0" it would read something like "+100 or -100" to tell you what is the closure/distace rate in MPH.
If you see the icon, you know you're inside 3.0 and you will know if you're closing on it or if its leaving you behind. It would get rid of the laser range finder and turn the game's gunnery into something MUCH closer to real life dogfights.
[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]
-
Okey. I've been this whole post. Some are for a change and some are against. I can understand both sides actually. I like the icon system, but as many others I'm a "roleplayer" I like to think I'm actually being an ww2 fighterpilot when I play AH. Sometimes this turns out good as hell (exuse the expression) and other times I'm flat out bored to death. I understand some have below average puters.. Me for once, but I compencate my 400mhz puter with faster HD and 64MB graphicscard. My only problem lays in the fps wich chokes when I'm flying through heavily destroyed airfield with lot's of smoke, but as soon as I'm out of the smoke I'm fine. This only happens when flying through smoke of destroyed objects though. Nothing when flying through fleet acks or heavy flak.. Others on the other hand might have poor resolution and will suffer if the icons change.. I have a GeForce2 64MB gc from Gainward and I'm running the game at 1280 x 1024 and 32MB color depth. I can visually ID a B17 (wich IMO is the easiest to ID) at 7-8k.
If it weren't for the share of planeset for all countries in MA I would love to remove the icons, and would be flying without them all the time.
An idea might be to add a new iconsystem wich could be changed to with alt + i for veterans and tweak down the normal icons just a little so new players or players with below average hardware could still use this. I don't know, but I'm up for a change.
And to coment on the pictures shown on this post: Blow those pics up to fullsize and I'll identify them for you. I can see you have magnified the pics using some sort of program, use the zoom in AH and it'll be much more detailed then what we see here. I have experimented with the zoom and can identify a Fw190-A5 or A8 at 3k without any bigger problems. (much because of the paintwork though) This on the other hand could prove difficult for newer players who aren't used to the planes in AH. Off course I know that modeling is accurate when we think of the looks in AH, but they had different paintwork depending on country during WW2.
I'll say it again, I'm up for a more "realistic" icon system, but bear in mind that there are players who might have a hard time to achieve anything in the virtual skies if you overdo it. I have faith in HTC and I think they'll do what's for the best for all AH players
-XroverX
-
Originally posted by Nordman:
...And to coment on the pictures shown on this post: Blow those pics up to fullsize and I'll identify them for you. I can see you have magnified the pics using some sort of program, use the zoom in AH and it'll be much more detailed then what we see here. I have experimented with the zoom and can identify a Fw190-A5 or A8 at 3k without any bigger problems. (much because of the paintwork though) This on the other hand could prove difficult for newer players who aren't used to the planes in AH. Off course I know that modeling is accurate when we think of the looks in AH, but they had different paintwork depending on country during WW2.
-XroverX
Just so there's no confusion, the pictures above and on the web page are full size for the "normal" view unless otherwise noted.
While zooming is fine when you have a target in your sights, IMHO it takes away too much of your view angle to use while looking anywhere else.
HaMmeR
www.netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
-
OK i have a varient on the issue.
Why do we need the Tag to include the Country Logo. You know...the little Knoght horse picture or Bish symbol and Rook symbol.?
For me,this is too much information!
I dont need to know what country the NME is from. If hes RED hes DEAD! or at least i hope so. LOL
That little country LOGO on the flight Tag can really be a pain in a furball.
-
Regarding the removal of the below 1k counter, what kind of effect would that have on folks with slower machines running with all their settings off? Reason I ask is that I run a fairly beefy system and have res set to 1024/768 and all bells and whistles on. For those that fly at lower res or in "combat mode" is the elimination of that range counter going to allow them enough visual ques to sufficiently determine range?
I don't know the answer to this at all as I've never flown at those reduced resolutions. I ask though because the visual changes (color, markings, etc) as I close would play an important role in determing range, if that counter is not there. Are those same visual reference points there at the reduced video/detail settings?
Vortex
-
Why do we need the Tag to include the Country Logo. You know...the little Knoght horse picture or Bish symbol and Rook symbol.?
For me,this is too much information!
I dont need to know what country the NME is from. If hes RED hes DEAD! or at least i hope so. LOL
have been in several fight where to my suprise 2 red icons i was fighting shot each other down... then i noticed the bish and rook symbols on them and realized we were having a 3 country furball. Or watching rook fighter shooting down bish buffs bombing knits base...lol. happens quite a lot, especialy on center island on ndiles.
as for the icons and ranges. try the CT setting (icons at d3.0) it's perfect!
at this range it gives you very little time (but just enough, if you really spot it early) to tulips the situation and decide whether to engage. and we do need the range indicator since at my 1000x700 resolution you cant tell whether the bandit is comming or going till he's less the ~d1.5 .
as for the A/C tags - good idea, I like it.
Bozon
-
IMO the CT settings are there to make it harder, not more realistic. Difficulty and realism are NOT necessarily the same thing. I'm not saying increased difficulty is a bad thing--players who've been with AH longer might be somewhat bored with the regular game and would doubtlessly like the increased challenge. But calling something "realistic" just because it's harder is incorrect.
CT ICON = 3K yards, about 1.75 miles (about 3 km for you metric types). That is not far at all. Do you really think it's impossible to tell a P-47 from a 109 at only 1.7 miles? AH's graphics, as good as they are, are simply not up to the task of providing enough detail at this range.
MA ICON = 6K yards, or a little over 3.5 miles. A person with good eyes (like 99% of fighter pilots) will be able to tell apart most WW2 fighters at this distance from most angles. Heck, from some angles I can still tell apart cars from vans from pickup trucks at 4 miles and my eyes aren't that good.
This setting is indeed easier than the 3K setting, but it is also unquestionably more realistic.
J_A_B