Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Monkey on October 02, 1999, 06:38:00 PM
-
Ok, i know this is going to be a sore subject, but..........the planes are small. yes, they are probably modelled to exact realistic measurements, but we know nowaday monitors cant handle that, so the shapes are therefor small. Using Z and [] you can ofcourse get a close up view. However, this hurts SA as hte planes come in and out of view quicker.
Also what good is all that eye candy if ya cant see it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). For all you monkeys iwht the "go play AW then" go suck a lemon.
I believe HTC has put out an excellent Beta. In time it should be a great product. I just hope that on this note they dont stick to the "purist" point of view.
------------------
Monkey
-
Realy isn't a purist point of view.
Makeing the planes bigger effects lots of things. but primarly gunnery. By making the planes bigger you have made them easyer to hit at longer ranges. To fix that you need to change gunnery to make it harder at longer range but then you still have head on gunnery and close in gunnery to address.
You also have collision problems.
So I understand that in real life it's easyer to see planes than on the monitor but in my view makeing them bigger only create's more problems than it solves.
BTW on just a technical note there realy isn't any differance between making the planes bigger and slowing everything down.
HiTech
-
<sniff><sniff><sniff> Thxs for shooting me down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). One question, how do i hit the brakes to slow everything down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Guess I will eventually get used to it, wont be happy but i will get used to it. Anyways, it seems i am the Captain and only crew of this boat, soooooo..........i wont squeak about it anymore. Well, until the more important issues are fixed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
_____________________________ ________________
BTW on just a technical note there realy isn't any differance between making the planes bigger and slowing everything down.
HiTech
_____________________________ ________________
------------------
Monkey
-
Hell, ozlikes the zoom. Key is just to use it when needed, and not stay zoomed in. Or, not put it where you used to have the up modifier for yer views, 'cos that'll mess you up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
TKoKFKA-OZDS-
-
I'm with Hitech. Remember the original Falcon and Aces of the Pacific with bloated plane sizes? It was a @#$@#$ joke!
-
Hey! Get off of Aces of the Pacific funked! I actually shot some planes down in there!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My fantasy is a updated re-make of SWOTL and Aces Over Series!:0
------------------
Damn Ghostrider! This bogey is all over me!!
-
HT,
Is it possible to increase plane size while keeping the plane damage map the current size?
We'd have larger planes that would help give us more realistic visual cues but possibly we could leave gunnery alone. You'd just have to shoot "center of mass" to do damage. Clipping wing tips or towards the edges of the image wouldn't do anything.
Is this possible?
I'm all for realism, believe me. Unfortunately, mathematically precise plane sizes haven't given us realistic visual cues.
Given the multitude of other concessions that have been made to make these games "playable" it seems that we ought to be able to come up with a compromise here as well.
I'm not a fan of icons and I'd like to see us find another, more realistic, way to supply the visual cues.
-
Also, I don't understand what you're getting at with the size/slow down remark.
HT: "BTW on just a technical note there realy isn't any differance between making the planes bigger and slowing everything down."
Do you mean if the planes are larger the game will run slower or do you mean if we slow every thing down the planes will appear larger?
As I said, I miss your point here. Please explain.
-
Toad, the game-universe will *appear* to go slower. FPS will be the same.
Right now a plane might be 10m long, flying 600km/h. That is it flies at 60000 plane lengths in an hour.
Make that plane 100m long and you are only flying at 6000 plane lengths per hour.
And to compensate for the larger plane size you'll have to scale up the rest of the world so it won't look funny next to the huge plane. So you'll get N times longer runways, N times taller buildings and so on, yet the plane flies at 600kmh and it takes a lot longer just to get from one end of the runway to the other. Cause you really wouldn't want to change the FM too so planes were faster.
//fats
-
HT wrote:
"BTW on just a technical note there realy isn't any differance between making the planes bigger and slowing everything down."
That's heavy. Does this mean that if the universe is truly expanding that we're really g o i n g s l o w e r ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Sure it does blur it would take longer to cross the universe then, and if you don't know its getting bigger then you must think you are going slower (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
HiTech
-
Toad think about what you are asking for a moment. That would imply that where you see a bullet hit isn't where it would be. So you would see your bullets pass right threw wings and not get hits.
HiTech
-
The plane sizes are fine it just takes a bit of time to get used to it. That and a bgigger monitor helps alot. I can see the p[lane at over 2k out. Plenty of time to adjust.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
I have to agree with indian. They're fine, adjust your Mk I sight system =). At 1.5k distance I can see them well enough to see which way they're turning
------------------
Air power is a thunderbolt launched from an egg shell invisibly tethered to a base. - Hoffman Nickerson
-
First of all, I'm not asking anyone to make 10m planes into 100m planes.
As I've mentioned before, I think the way to go at this is to try incremental increases to _experiment_ while trying to find a size that gives us the necessary visual cues, allows us to generally do away with (most) icons and still maintains the integrity of realistic air combat and the apparent "speed" of the game.
Before everyone cries "Can't be done" remember this: That's the mindset that put AW where it is today.
Now, with respect to keeping the damage map the present size while _slightly_ increasing plane size:
If the bullet misses the damage map simply show no hit sprite at all. It will appear as a miss. We ALL miss..no one shoots much over 15% that I've seen.
After all, if you drill a wingtip, you've made a hole but you really haven't damaged the aircraft to any large degree, especially with an MG round. A cannon round that doesn't detonate (and it very well might not) just makes a larger hole. Shoot, I have a buddy that flies his T-6 without the wingtips attached so it will fit into a T-hangar.
If these plane sizes are "good enough" then lets totally remove all the icons right now, eh? After all, if we're already getting sufficient realistic visual cues, we don't need them at all, right?
I doubt anyone will go for that!
Being able to determine which way an aircraft is headed from 1.5K max is, essentially, pathetic performance.
Inflight, at 20K, you can EASILY tell which way a DC-9 is headed because you can see the vertical stablizer at 5 MILES. That would be around 9K. Bit of a gap between RL and what we have, I think.
Now, we're all clamoring for REALISM! REALISM! and badgering Pyro because one airplane appears to be 3 knots below published max speed. Why do we so blissfully ignore the astonishing LACK of realism in the graphical depiction of the aircraft? In air combat, seeing the enemy is THE key. Yet will gladly settle for a pale imitation of realism in the visual department.
Once again, what I'm driving at is this:
We've come a long, long way since the 386/40 chip with a 1 Meg video card. Yet we are still using the same lame aircraft "icon id" system that we used 10 years ago. It wasn't realistic then and it isn't realistic now.
Isn't it time for some fresh thinking and experimentation?
-
remove the icons, just give me a way to tell if they're friend of foe (paint the foe as a bullseye maybe? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
As for the DC-9 thing. Kinda stretching the bounds a little aren't we? What's the relative size of the v stabs of the DC9 and the -51D? Quite a difference there. I've worked with a few DC9 models in FlightSim 98, building, paiting, and animating the visual models, and they're quite a bit larger than WWII warbirds, so of course you can see more of them at longer distances.
-
Actually, the DC-9 (or B-737) comparison is very apt with respect to the B-17's vertical stabilizer.
What do you see of a B-17 at 9k range here?
This discussion has been carrying through a few different threads for a long while and in an earlier post I mentioned the comparative sizes of the the -17 and the smaller modern airliners. Since it's been a while, I should have been more specific.
They aren't exactly the same size, of course, but they are close enough to give an idea of what you should see.
A 737-200 length is about the wingspan of a -17. A 737-200 wingspan is about the length of a -17.
Or how about this example that a Navy A-6 Instructor I flew with gave me:
His "technique" for flying a 1 mile spread formation was to move out to the side until he could no longer break out the _refueling probe_ in front of the other A-6's canopy. Then he'd slide it in until he could see the probe sticking up. That was almost exactly a mile spread on radar.
I believe the inverted "L" shape of that probe is about 3 feet high and about 10" wide at the base, tapering as it goes up. I'm sure there's some guy around here who can define it exactly.
Point is, it isn't all that big, it was gray and you could break it out at a mile. The air is clearer at altitude (usually) and you can see much farther.
-
at 9k I see a dot for 17. At 5k I can tell which way he's turning.
The fuse of a 737-300 (couldn't find specs on -200) is 109ft 7in. The -17G wingspan is 103ft 9in. The biggest difference here is that the fuse of a 733 is approx 15ft top to bottom, where the wing on a -17G is maybe 6ft or so, including the engines.
So, for comparison sake, here are the deminsions
Boeing 733
Span - 94ft 9in
Length - 109ft 7in
Height - 36ft 6in
Boeing B17G
Span - 103ft 9in
Length - 74ft 4in
Height - 19ft 2in
The 733 is a much larger aircraft than the -17G. Also, the fuse on the 733 is much larger than the 17G's fuse (I've been in both aircraft). Frankly, I think you're comparing apples to oranges here.
As for the DC-9, the largest of those are the -50 series aircraft, with a length of 133.6ft and a span of 93.4ft. Dinnae find a height spec, but it's most likely in the 25-30ft range (the B717-200, an aircraft of same genre, is 29ft 1in high). This is also a much larger aircraft than the -17G (I've also flown on a DC9-30, and it's fuse is much larger than a 17s also)
I think the sizes are fine and have no problems keeping up with them, even at my pitifully slow 4-6 frames per second when in close/shooting at other aircraft.
[This message has been edited by 214CaveJ (edited 10-25-1999).]
-
I agree with 214, as far as I can tell these sizes are very close. I had an experience of walking around and comparing a B-17 an airshow had, I was surprised by how short that sucker was. He's no midget but he's nowhere near our current jets, probably as wide though. We have DC-10's at the same airfield and it was probably only a 3rd longer than those.
As for size considerations, I don't get it. I can tell fine which way a plane is breaking at 3 or 4k, my only problem is usually picking their outline from the ground on a buzz run. But then why bother shooting at over 500m ranges? I can see them big enough to notice at how bad I am missing, but hitting consistently over 500 is tricky as hell. When you think about it, taking shots at over half a klick is crazy to begin with... in RL what the hell would you try and hit half a klick away???? never mind a plane maybe 20 meters across, you probably couldn't consistently shoot a damn barn!
-
Q: Why do we need range icons?? I thought a big part of air combat was guesstimating ranges?? Of course no range icon would mean we would need a real gunsight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Why compare to the largest DC-9? Why not the DC-9-10? Use a Canadair Regional Jet as the reference, because it essentially doesn't make much difference in flight. The RJ is most definitely smaller than the B-17, yet you can still see the vertical stabilizer sticking up about 5-6 miles away.
Simple fact. Like Ripley, "believe it or not."
With respect to height of the stab, find a spec on the height of the stab from top of tail to base of the stab, not from the ground up. Obviously, the B-17 is a tail dragger, the others aren't.
As I mentioned in another thread, these airliner ranges were personally observed and electronically verified in flight, not estimated by walking around a bomber at an airshow.
Range and shooting:
It's absolutely not about _shooting_ range, it's about the ACM equation. The engagement begins at first sight; you should be evaluating planform (type), aspect, his maneuvering and trying to estimate his E state. In all these games, you are getting these ACM visual cues at probably less than 1/2 the realistic distance.
Like it or not, this undeniably affects the realism of the WWII engagements we are trying to recreate.
I'm not pulling this "visual realism" stuff out of my hat, either. On an almost daily basis, I have the opportunity (and need) to verify ranges on all types of modern civilian planes from the cockpit, using electronic verification.
I suspect I've also had a bit more experience than the average bear on this board with respect to piloting aircraft of the WWII era and flying _with_ other WWII aircraft.
I've flown in WWII airshows, with bombers (B-17, B-25) and fighters (51's, 47's, 40's,Yak 9, Spits, the CAF Tora, Tora, Tora planes and about a dozen other WWII types. We had predefined geographic holding points and altitudes at known distances from "show center." I think I have a fairly realistic idea of what you can see on these planes inflight from various aspects. Present WWII online ACM game's aren't even close.
I admit I don't have much time modeling aircraft in plastic or on computers and I'm not the highest-time computer flight sim guy around. I merely have RL experience; I think I'll just go with that.
I feel quite strongly that the visual cues we are getting are a long way from realistic. I believe that after all the improvements in computer speed and video we should be able to do better than we did 10 years ago. I think it's time for a new approach.
But hey, what do I know? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
If the visuals seem adequate to you, if you're not interested in a more realistic visual presentation, if you think the icons add to the realism, it's fine by me.
You have to evaluate this stuff based on your own experience.
I have to evalutate it based on mine.
I'm going to keep asking for more detail to achieve more realism.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-25-1999).]
-
--- Toad: ---
First of all, I'm not asking anyone to make 10m planes into 100m planes.
--- end ---
The numbers were not for judging, only to illustrate the point it often seems that people understand it better with real numbers than giving them a formula of something. But the good thing is it doesn't matter, cause I am certain we'll _never_ see artificially inflated planes in AH. All the artificially inflated egos aren't enough for you - now you want the planes to match the egos? Scop's plane would easily fill 5 map sectors...
//fats
-
Yes, I believe the "technical realists" may sleep snug in their beds. The mathematically correct pixel ratios are safe for a while yet.
Just as the scientists can confidently show you that it is "impossible" for a bumblebee to fly", one can prove that the pixel-ratio formulae are correct.
Neither example will match real life experiences, but hey...
Anyway, HE is out there....and someday HE will come. The Pilot/Programmer...the one that will bring air combat _simulation_ to the PC. I can wait; I'll just keep playing these games until then. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Heck, it might even be HT, if he keeps flying with those civilian ACM schools. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
"Neither example will match real life experiences, but hey.."
Here's an example of something not matching "real life experiences."
Let's put you in a real Me 109. You sit exactly 2' from the windscreen. We put a P-51D 100 yds ahead of you. The wingspan takes up about 1/4 of the gap between the framing on the armor glass.
Now let's put virtual you in an AH Me 109. Put your virtual head 2' from the windscreen. Put a P-51D 100 yds ahead of the AH Me 109. It takes up about 1/4 of the gap between the framing on the armor glass. Why? Because of the sacred pixel ratios.
Now let's do something like what you propose, and make the Me 109 twice as large as it should be. Put your virtual booty back in the AH Me 109. Put that P-51D 100 yds ahead. Lo and behold the P-51D now takes up half of the gap between the framing on the armor glass.
So your proposal does not "match real life experiences."
It comes down to what you value more. Do you value seeing the detail on the plane? Or do you value having the plane appear to be the correct size with respect to its surroundings?
It's not "right or wrong" it's just a question of what you like.
And PULLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZE don't give me that anti-science crap. You'd be flying diddly squat if it weren't for slide-rule jockeys. If some guy predicted a bumblebee wouldn't fly, he's a handsomehunk. Where I work my results better frikkin match real life or else some stick & rudder monkey ends up walking or doing a Superman impression
Anyways I agree with you that icons suck. I used to drink on the patio at a bar about 5 miles from NAS Miramar, and I could ID F-5/A-4/F-21/F-16/F-15(yep)/F-14/A-7/F-8/F-4/E-2/A-6/you name it. Sure those are bigger than WW2 fighter but at 4 miles in Aces High you see just a dot even on a B-17. Same stuff in all the planes I've ridden in. I'm spotting B737's 5 miles away, planes taking off 5 miles below, and I can make out details easily.
BTW we fly with bandit icons off outside 1500 yds in the Warbirds Historical Arena, but (at least in the current versions) WB does a better job of giving attitude and range cues at long ranges. It's still a pain in the butt to ID them though, so there is a friendly icon at 3000 yds or so.
And it's not just the size we are missing on the visual cues. There's reflectivity - shiny green paint looks different from green foliage even if you match the color perfectly. There's stereo vision, which makes a difference when you are flying formation. There's field of view - even if you get the monitor big enough to get the plane angle right, and jack the resolution up to see detail, you still don't get your peripheral vision. There's contrails, there's flashes of reflection off canopies, etc.
-
It always all or nothing, isn't it? No compromise, no experimentation allowed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There _is_ an "aerodynamic proof" floating around that purports to prove a bumblebee can't fly. I saw it MANY years ago. I'm sure it was written as a joke to remind us all that we can "never say never".
Perhaps I should have used a different comparison...like on the visits to training when the simulator instructors, guys that fly 2 trips a year, try to tell the line pilots how it _really_ is "out there."
I want to see as much DETAIL as possible while keeping the size as close to correct as possible. We need both, but detail is key.
If we can't squeeze more detail onto these plane shapes, maybe, just maybe, we should slightly increase the size?
I don't feel it's mutually exclusive; we fudge almost everything else; why should we be afraid to experiment a little with size?
And if we just can't get rid of icons, why don't we turn them off at ranges where technology CAN provide some detail? Maybe we _do_ need them at long ranges where there would be RL detail but technology presently can't supply it. But we sure shouldn't need them "in close", where detail _is_ tecnologically available.
I flew WB HA; it's just the opposite there. No icons till you're at a range where you should be able to see for yourself what the icon is telling you. Say what?
I'm not anti-science, never have been, although I do prefer hand-flying to autopilot/fms; the electronics are nice but have no judgement. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But until airliners full of paying passengers routinely launch with no "stick and rudder monkey" at the controls I'll assume the "slide-rule jockeys" are still aware that some things can't be quantified and formulated. Experience and judgement aren't easily replaced by "science."
I am glad that we agree about icons...THEY are the enemy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hehe Toad we pretty much agree then.
"why don't we turn them off at ranges where technology CAN provide some detail?"
Yep this is needed.
Also at long range there is a problem. At longer ranges the icon greatly increases your chance of picking up an enemy in your visual scan. In real life you might not see him unless you really scan but in these games you can't miss the billboard.
The WB HA settings are intended to rectify that, but as you point out they deny the pilot range, attitude, and type information at distances where he could obtain it in real life.
I honestly think the only cure for this is going to be some kind of display you wear on your head, that fills your entire field of view and renders objects at exactly the size you would see in the real world. This would also allow stereo vision. The only limitations would be resolution and color depth (how good is the display) the rendering software (reflection, diffusion, etc.), and the changes in eye focus between objects up close and far away. Fortunately in flying, almost all objects use "infinity" focus, so this only comes into play when you look inside the cockpit or at a plane in close formation.
Here's what I would suggest until then:
1. Allow the pilot to set a custom field of view. For instance a pilot who likes to see detail could use a 45 degree field of view.
2. Allow the pilot to customize the scale factor of the rendering of the planes, just like Falcon. Scale factor is the ratio of the rendered size to the actual size. Keep the hit maps at the actual size, not the rendered sizes. This may give false cues to the pilot but it's the only fair way to do it.
3. Make the icons extremely customizable. Implement everything from "Brand W" but also allow the pilot to set font size, number of lines, what info is displayed (type, nationality, range), as well as the units (yds, ft, meters) on the range values.
I also was thinking about the idea of a variable scale factor. At close ranges render the plane at actual size but at long ranges render the plane at a larger size to allow viewing of detail. The problem here is that you will get false range cues. The only way to judge range is by observing the change of the apparent size of the aircraft, and changing the scale factor will screw this up. To judge range you would then need a range icon. But at least you would be able to get type and attitude information.
P.S. sorry for the stick & rudder monkey comments. On the WB boards we have some guys who think a few hours in a 172 qualifies them to rewrite the flight physics models. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As far as the relationship between performance in a simulation and performance in the real world, the one thing I've learned in school and at work is that any mathematical model you make always has something missing - an assumption is made to simplify some effect. When you investigate that effect, you get a book or paper on it and you find out the guy who wrote the book is making an assumption about yet another effect. Then you get the book HE used, so on and so forth. You never get to the end of it. But you do get a bit closer to the real behavior - never all the way there but you can get pretty damn close.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-28-1999).]
-
I am very curious about scaling, Hitech, if you read this, What would the effect of having the plane scaled to a larger size at long range in our view, then hold that size between say 8k and 5k, as at these ranges there is actually fairly low visual changes in size in RL. I am not talking a ridiculous scaling, just hold it into a recognizable wing/tail shape between these ranges.
As it is now I don't see much difference in the model until it is within 3k of me, if it's growing larger after it's transition from dot to model I can't see it. Only when your 3 or 4k from me can I recognize size increasing as I close.
-
--- Toad: ---
But we sure shouldn't need them "in close", where detail _is_ tecnologically available.
--- end ---
It might be available but it isn't in AH. I can't see the plane dot of a N1K2 from 600yds or more against the ground textures until it is rendered as a black dot. P-51 against the grey patches is practically invisible and so on. All I go by is the floating icon and shoot below it if trying to make some long shot.
Right now I fly on a 21'' monitor with properly gamma corrected setup for my lighting sittuation ( which is the same during day time and night ), and _everything_ that has ever come from ICI/iMOL/iEN or HTC has been extremely dark and lacking contrast and clear colors. I have had various graphics boards and monitors in between from CK beta to AH beta. It has been the same with all combinations I have had, if you keep stuff set up right, the game colors are very dark.
I have often tried to ask for user defined gamma setting with in the game ( Quake is _very_ good in this regard ), so one doesn't have to go adjust monitor and gfx driver settings everytime you want to play a game - thus screwing it up for everything else. Also I have been wondering how have the artist making these gfx set up their system? Monitor brightness and contrast at 100%? I hope not.
//fats
-
Hmm...
Would it be feasible to make the planes larger at long range and real size at gun convergence distance? Say, like a variable scale type thingy? Have the planes 3 times as large WAY the @$#% out there, and then gradually scale them back to normal as they get closer?
-
Wells read my long-ass post above. If you scale them like that you won't be able to judge range.
-
I dont' think it would be that bad funked,
It would have to depend on the maximum range that you wanted to be able to make out the orientation (I have no idea what a realistic range would be for a fighter sized plane). Sure, you wouldn't be able to tell range if the maximum range was only 1500 yrds, but if we're talking 5000 yrds or so (3 miles?), then you'd probably still be able to tell range. A plane at d50 would be like looking at one at d15 or so in WB. It would still get big pretty quick as you got close enough to shoot, at least I think it would. Might be worth a try anyway...just to see.
-
So the plane gets bigger as you get closer, but the rate at which it gets bigger is slightly less than in real life?
That might work. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Note that they've already imposed an artificial restriction on how small the plane can get - the "dots" are several pixels in size.
I just want them to make sure that any of this stuff is a user-defined setting. I'll stick with the proper sizes thank you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Just a point about that "bumblebee can't fly" thing (it's something of a crusade for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)). The proof prooves only that bumblebees can't GLIDE, not that bumblebees can't FLY.
When the engineer who made the calculations did it he failed to take into account the movement of wings and this version spread around. Later when he checked it he took into account the movement of wings it was clear that bumblebee could easily fly, but science prooving that bumblebees can't fly was a much better story than science prooving that they can fly.
------------------
-
Heheh see I told ya that scientist was a handsomehunk. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There's another similar fantasy that the motion of a spinning top can not be predicted by physics. Yawwwnnnn. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Gentlemen,
This is _exactly_ the type of discussion I had hoped to see develop.
I just got in from a 3-day , though, and I'm flat toasted. So, I'm going to re-read in a day or two and digest and comment on these ideas. The only way we're going to raise the bar is to come up with some ideas and give them a try.
Bless you all...sniff!
BTW, Funked, the whole damn trip I was thinking of this comment of yours:
"Where I work my results better frikkin match real life or else some stick & rudder monkey ends up walking or doing a Superman impression"
Basically, if you screw up big time, somebody else does the dying.
We have got to get THAT into OUR next contract (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(A joke, son, just a joke!)
-
First, I think we all agree that the "hit map" has to remain the correct size. Even if we experiment with plane art size, the damage/hit area should remain where it is.
Second, I think Fats has a valid point on the gamma correction idea. I agree with him that the game is dark and it's a pain that we can't easily alter it in the game.
This should be done now and it shouldn't be too hard. Camo should have an effect, of course, but with most of the terrain a "frog-skin green" the terrain texture itself is "camo." So we have camo planes flying over camo terrain. If all the ground texture were field, forest or buildings that would help but framerates would suffer. Perhaps it would help to make terrain textures a bit more unfriendly to aircraft by altering the color.
Third, I still believe ICONS are the enemy. Thus, the goal is to provide essentially the same ACM cues that icons presently provide but to do that without the huge neon halos.
So, we've basically got to convey country, type and range by using aircraft color, shape and size. As I see it, those are the only real variables,unless you guys can think of another.
Here's some ideas to kick around:
Range might be handled by using a known color scaling. The shape would be black at long range, changing to a dark gray then gray then the color scheme of the aircraft. This would give 4 "range categories". Use black at long range (6+ miles), dark gray (6-2), gray (2-1) and inside a mile use the color texture.
We could use larger shapes in the same way. Thus even at 6+ miles bombers would be larger than fighters. A big black shape is a buff, a 1/2 size of that is a fighter. If you zoom, you might be able to tell type inside of, say 4 miles or so. In zoom, telltale color marks should appear on the shape to tell friend/foe. For example, in zoom at 4 miles, you see red tips on spinner, wingtips and stab of enemies, green on friends.
Then inside of a mile we use current plane colors and perhaps _slightly_ (5%? 10%) increase plane size, with the friend/foe coloring as above.
I don't suggest that this is the answer. It's a place to start the discussion and then perhaps give a system something like this a chance.
The icons are bogus, no way around it.
We're going to have to experiment to see if we can come up with a workable alternative.
BTW, I don't think any icons should be user selectable. Once we get rid of them, they're gone. It's part of SA. We're working towards as much realism as we can get. It will take some doing, but icons aren't in it.
Flame on...but this is meant not to condemn but improve.
-
It would be very well possible to have user settable scale factor for aircraft size. The coding part is almost trivial ( damn I love making statements like that, hate them when I hear them daily from others though! ).
Just do .planeScale 5000 and you get planes even Toad can see! You'll get lotsa weird effects with that though, as gun hits and collisions would/should still be checked against the normal sized volume. I guess people will then find a happy medium that suits them - balance between weird visuals and more visible planes.
There should be a reasonable maximum value limit how ever. Because you couldn't hide behind a mountain for example if your wings stick through from the other side on someone's FE. Make a SA macro for your programmeable TM-CH-fancy-stick: ".planeScale 10000; wait; wait; wait; wait; wait; wait; .planeScale 1;" so you can see folks easily but still shoot the normal shapes. Or perhaps if you have a two stage trigger make the first stage make planes normal size so you can shoot at the normal 1:1 visuals.
Mind you I have _no interest_ to use such system. The icons are the perfect sollution for me at the moment. The nature of icons making you quite easily seeable doesn't bother me, as AH/AW/WB is not WWII air combat with WWII planes for me nor do I want it to be so anymore, it's air combat with WWII-like planes.
//fats
-
In regard of "Stick and rudder monkey looks outta windscreen to see another similar size plane beeing piloted by another stick and rudder monkey at medium to low altitude at a normal visibility day" ... i'm doing a lot of glider towing on some _very_ busy airfields here (what's this underscore deal btw (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) and i can tell you that i have my head on a swivel the whole time to see objects about the same size a WW2 fighter like a 109 had (this is a tiny aircraft and it's pretty darn fast too) and i can tell you that you won't see those at distances like 5 miles.. (we don't have TCAS either) sometimes you're surprised on how LATE you see another incoming traffic even thou you heared him calling base and you know where to look for him.. you might say now that usually the dogfights in WW2 were at high altitude .. but still between GND and 20.000 feet there is a lot of haze and stuff that hinders visibility (and that's where 99% of all AH fights are ) .. plus windscreens are less than perfectly clear (scrapes, bugs, etc...) . i think as far as realism is concerned it's not that bad to get only a little dot above 2-3 miles out (actually IMHO this dot should be light grey further out and get darker wehn you get closer). I have to admit thou that i can't really tell what the orientation of a bogey is in AH until i'm pretty close.. but hey that's not really unrealistic either because in RL you'd judge his orientation by the relative movement of the target until you can realy make out details...
Regarding Icons... well i don't like them either but i guess they are necessary for playability reasons unless you give a certain plane set to every nation adn each of this planes has a distinct color scheme or some other cue that helps you ID it... i would like too see them come on a bit later thou (again the range where you could normaly easily ID the bogey in RL... not easy to say (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Duckwng6
-
Another thing to remember is the resolution you play at. In brand W, I used to play with a resolution of 640 x 480. This gave me an advantage when looking for cons, since pixels were larger. I knew of a few others who did so for just that reason.
As for icons, I'll be glad when they're either displayed at closer ranges, or done away with, altogether. However, I'm fine with present plane sizes.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Fats: Hey! Yah, I'm getting older but I was still 20/15 on my last Class 1 vision test. I'm just now starting to wear the "cheaters" to read phone books though <g>.
I think you have a real point with the gamma though.
Duck: What's with the "wall-o-text" anyway? <g>. I spend most of my time above 18K anymore and up there I've found that the dots first appear dark, transitioning to lighter then full color as they close. I still wallow around in the dirt in my PT though and there is some difference in visual range and air clarity there. Aspect has a lot to do with how far away you notice and/or ID a bogie, I agree.
As far as range, I have seen a 109 from the air and I could see it at 5 miles. It was the Cavanaugh Museum 109 at the Nellis show in '97. They had the Battle of Britain flight Spit and the 109 chasing each other while the trainers orbited away from the field. Yes, it's Nevada desert air and it was pretty clear but there they were, low and co-alt and they were quite recognizable. Anecdotal right? Sure, for you guys. I saw it, so it's fact to me.
I think icons shouldn't be used in close.If used at all, they should work way out there, when present technology can't give you visual cues.
We can come up with colored wing tips or something to show friend/foe and if you're close (gun range for sure) you should be able to see "type" without a bogus neon cue. At medium ranges, use a quick zoom to tell type or something like that.
Leonid, don't you find it interesting that lower technology (640x480) gives better acm cues than hi-tech? Sort of underscores what I've been saying about progress. 10 years ago I was playing AW on a 386/40 with a 1MB video card on a 13" monitor. Now I'm running a 450 with a 32MB card and a 19" monitor. Despite the technological progress, we are still dependent on bogus neon icons to give us acm cues. Time to demand better, I think!
TAFN...I'm off to slip the surlies.
-
I Have not read any previous messages (like I would have time to read 39 messages (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But this is based on my personal opinion about aircraft sizes.
I play with 800x600 resolution and 15" monitor + slide show hardware.
After v0.37 I have seen planes very well and even able to identify planes from 9000 yards or so, without looking for the icon.
What comes to the size of plane, Its not too small from 1000 yards, I see its wings still fine without any zoom (usually i just mess up my aiming with zoom, not used to it).
From close distance they really look big (if gets that close without colliding before hitting aircraft <read; bug> )
After all, current size of planes is fine and also IF those planes are small (for someones), I should be happy because that makes people learn to shoot from CLOSER distances, instead of spread & pray tactics from 700 yards into maneuvering planes.
(talk about more realism and more intresting fights)