Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BiPoLaR on May 23, 2013, 08:21:34 PM
-
The old tank setup back. The new one is complete garbage.
-
bwahaha!!! you gettin smoked in the tanks? toolin around in gv's is ez once you get used to it...
-
The old tank setup back. The new one is complete garbage.
not exactly sure why but I am way better with the current system than the last. Atleast give us x back :pray
-
not exactly sure why but I am way better with the current system than the last. Atleast give us x back :pray
The whole setup is retarded. Hate the sights. Cant zoom them in. Me having diabetes and bad eyes i cant see watermelon through them now. If its not broken, DO NOT fix it.
-
The whole setup is retarded. Hate the sights. Cant zoom them in. Me having diabetes and bad eyes i cant see watermelon through them now. If its not broken, DO NOT fix it.
The current sights work very much like their counter parts in the real life did regarding the magnification and sight picture/reticles. As AH's is to simulate WWII equipment it is better to simulate the individual sights instead having the old generic sights with way too much magnification.
One would think this is straight forward enough to grasp...
-
The whole setup is retarded. Hate the sights. Cant zoom them in. Me having diabetes and bad eyes i cant see watermelon through them now. If its not broken, DO NOT fix it.
a lot of us geezers have failing eyesight. i've found myself having to wear reading glasses on top of contacts, the 24 inch monitor just isn't big enough anymore. i'll have to break down and get bifocals and/or a bigger monitor.
looking at one of these right now...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005396&Tpk=UltraWide%20LED%20Backlight%20LCD%20Monitor&IsVirtualParent=1 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005396&Tpk=UltraWide%20LED%20Backlight%20LCD%20Monitor&IsVirtualParent=1)
-
I prefer the new setup, but some tankers want Manual transmission and i'm all for letting people choose what they want.
Also if manual transmission allows me to put a T-34 in low gear and have it actually climb a small hill, then im +100 because our auto T-34 couldnt climb a 10 degree hill if its life depended on it.
-
So you guys wanting the previous system back want an arcade game??? :bhead
When the new system was put in to place some major upgrades and improvements were instantly noticed by me: First, the tank commander concept is awesome. The coaxial and hull MG's are now linked, the driver is "commanded" by the TC (from the TC's position), and there is now no need for HTC to waste hours and hours on modeling the internals of the gv's since the "unbuttoned" TC is the default position. Also, I'm not sure why people think the manual transmission was better, I find the auto is much preferred. Instead of hammering the "shift up/shift down" key, the same amount of time is can be devoted to holding down a throttle key when with the same results. It isn't rocket science. As far as T34's not being able to climb a hill, ever think that may be historically accurate as well? Ever check the gear ratios on a T34? There is a reason it can go 35 MPH and have only 3 gears, it is not geared for low end power or torque. The world is a big place, understand that there may be things going on that you have no understanding of. ;)
In terms of tank sights, I think HTC went light years in the right direction in giving each tank their HISTORICALLY ACCURATE sights. Kudos to them for doing so. Giving a T34x the same ranging abilities as a German tank was an insult. Not only did HTC give the Germans their due in terms of the mili-radian sights, they gave the optics a crisp and clear sight picture. Likewise, they gave all the other countries their due as well. Each tank had a different main gun, different tank sights, and in the case of the Germans they stood far above the rest of the world with their quality optics. A T34x should not be able to stand at 2400 yards and trade shot for shot with a Panther, not only in the case of the main gun but more so in the case of sights and optics.
If you :cry want to play an arcade game I think World of Tanks is still going. Go check them out.
-
Also if manual transmission allows me to put a T-34 in low gear and have it actually climb a small hill, then im +100 because our auto T-34 couldnt climb a 10 degree hill if its life depended on it.
That was a bug and was actually fixed in a patch quite awhile ago. It's even mentioned in that version patch notes.
And SmokinLoon: both T34s have 4 gears, not 3.
I also vote for a choice of the previous control method (but not for a return to the old sights- the new ones are prototypically accurate). Despite what some people say the auto transmission does not optimize uphill speed and the gear hunting is just annoying. The part I really hate about the new setup though (which I fully admit apparently no one else hates, or even notices) is the steering. The old system had positive steering. The new system is an underdamped auto heading feedback loop. You choose to slew to a desired heading and then center the stick. The feedback loop then oscillates about approximately that heading. For example: see a tree coming up? Steer to the left. OK, I'm going to clear the tree so center the stick. Oops.. it's slewing back right again towards the tree. Guess I have to turn again. I've looked at videos of several real tanks maneuvering, even in mud. None of them do this. They turn to a heading and stay there.
-
I thought that was just me. I'm always crying out for auto heading :pray
-
I use to GV a lot but after the transmission change I just about stopped tanking at all. That new transmission ruined the game for me because the tank will not move when you want it to. you can't creep forward with it and if you start up any sort of hill the tank stops and I get killed five time more now than before the automatic transmission. I want an option in the hangar for the old and correct manuals transmission. An automatic transmission is fine for a soccer Mom's mini van but a WWII tank needs a manual shift transmission.
-
I use to GV a lot but after the transmission change I just about stopped tanking at all. That new transmission ruined the game for me because the tank will not move when you want it to. you can't creep forward with it and if you start up any sort of hill the tank stops and I get killed five time more now than before the automatic transmission. I want an option in the hangar for the old and correct manuals transmission. An automatic transmission is fine for a soccer Mom's mini van but a WWII tank needs a manual shift transmission.
:aok +1
-
I use to GV a lot but after the transmission change I just about stopped tanking at all. That new transmission ruined the game for me because the tank will not move when you want it to. you can't creep forward with it and if you start up any sort of hill the tank stops and I get killed five time more now than before the automatic transmission. I want an option in the hangar for the old and correct manuals transmission. An automatic transmission is fine for a soccer Mom's mini van but a WWII tank needs a manual shift transmission.
AH doesn't model it as an automatic transmission. It models it as having a driver who isn't you. The driver may be a moron, but it is a moron driving a manual transmission.
-
The part I really hate about the new setup though (which I fully admit apparently no one else hates, or even notices) is the steering. The old system had positive steering. The new system is an underdamped auto heading feedback loop. You choose to slew to a desired heading and then center the stick. The feedback loop then oscillates about approximately that heading. For example: see a tree coming up? Steer to the left. OK, I'm going to clear the tree so center the stick. Oops.. it's slewing back right again towards the tree. Guess I have to turn again. I've looked at videos of several real tanks maneuvering, even in mud. None of them do this. They turn to a heading and stay there.
what you see in videos isn't as smooth as one would think. it took a lot of input and control by the driver. coordinating throttle and control input. what is done in ah is very close to the real life counterparts. not sure what's going on with your controls but, i use my rudder input and i can commit a small turn and recenter the controls without the tank slewing the opposite direction.
i know you've seen videos, here is an m4 sherman...watch what the turns closely...then fast forward to 1:35 and watch the steering controls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTdxq_v7y8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTdxq_v7y8)
watch how these panzers turn, pay close attention to the tracks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_9YCxesyM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_9YCxesyM)
interesting videos videos...restored german tanks being driven...again watch the tracks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGq6G-5ouA0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGq6G-5ouA0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCCCKiQWMRM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCCCKiQWMRM)
-
Thanks for the other videos, but I don't see them slewing back away from the drivers chosen heading, although those examples were traveling pretty slowly. The T34-85 video I referenced was moving quite a bit faster, but it doesn't slew backwards either. Also, I am aware of the complex process of turning a tank. On the T34 the driver pulls back on the left or right stick which disengages a clutch on the left or right track. Often that isn't enough to actually steer the tank and he has to pull back further on the stick to engage a brake on that track. When he's going the correct heading he pushes forward on that stick which disengages the brake and re-engages the clutch so the track is powered again.
It happens to me whether I use my stick or just "A" or "D". But, as I mentioned, essentially no one else even notices, so I'm not holding my breath for a fix ;) and I've just learned to live with it. (Actually, I've learned to cheat the feedback loop by recentering the stick then giving it a bit of a bump. The small correction resets the loop amplitude and it oscillates at a much lower amplitude.)
-
So you guys wanting the previous system back want an arcade game??? :bhead
When the new system was put in to place some major upgrades and improvements were instantly noticed by me: First, the tank commander concept is awesome. The coaxial and hull MG's are now linked, the driver is "commanded" by the TC (from the TC's position), and there is now no need for HTC to waste hours and hours on modeling the internals of the gv's since the "unbuttoned" TC is the default position. Also, I'm not sure why people think the manual transmission was better, I find the auto is much preferred. Instead of hammering the "shift up/shift down" key, the same amount of time is can be devoted to holding down a throttle key when with the same results. It isn't rocket science. As far as T34's not being able to climb a hill, ever think that may be historically accurate as well? Ever check the gear ratios on a T34? There is a reason it can go 35 MPH and have only 3 gears, it is not geared for low end power or torque. The world is a big place, understand that there may be things going on that you have no understanding of. ;)
In terms of tank sights, I think HTC went light years in the right direction in giving each tank their HISTORICALLY ACCURATE sights. Kudos to them for doing so. Giving a T34x the same ranging abilities as a German tank was an insult. Not only did HTC give the Germans their due in terms of the mili-radian sights, they gave the optics a crisp and clear sight picture. Likewise, they gave all the other countries their due as well. Each tank had a different main gun, different tank sights, and in the case of the Germans they stood far above the rest of the world with their quality optics. A T34x should not be able to stand at 2400 yards and trade shot for shot with a Panther, not only in the case of the main gun but more so in the case of sights and optics.
If you :cry want to play an arcade game I think World of Tanks is still going. Go check them out.
Problem is HT copied WOT with WASD. Question to you, did the tanks of WW2 have auto transmissions?, just to make things "HISTORICALLY ACCURATE":huh
M4....not sure but don't think you need a clutch with auto tranny
(https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/221/m4a3shermandriver.jpg)
-
My only complaint is the lack of interior modeling of the tanks with the new model. I liked looking around inside the tank itself.
Not that my opinion matters much since I tank so seldomly.
-
Problem is HT copied WOT with WASD. Question to you, did the tanks of WW2 have auto transmissions?, just to make things "HISTORICALLY ACCURATE":huh
M4....not sure but don't think you need a clutch with auto tranny
(https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/221/m4a3shermandriver.jpg)
tsk tsk. Do not join the ranks of the word benders. My "historically accurate" fish slap to the face dealt directly, as stated, with the sights and optics. ;)
As far as the manual/auto transmission, what HTC did was essentially remove the shifter and applied the activator to the throttle. Same thing, less direct input needed and yet there is a higher degree of results with the new system as the tank can now attain a specific mph. I'm not defending HTC in any case, they don't need me to be a cheerleader, however the WASD thing has been around long before WoT.
-
Problem is HT copied WOT with WASD.
WASD is a controlling standard being around for ages, utilized by at least hundreds of games.
-
lol, Hawker, i think Del and Lusche misunderstood what you meant with your wasd statement...
Problem is HT copied WOT with WASD. Question to you, did the tanks of WW2 have auto transmissions?, just to make things "HISTORICALLY ACCURATE":huh
M4....not sure but don't think you need a clutch with auto tranny
(https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/221/m4a3shermandriver.jpg)
thing is HT didn't "copy" wot with the keyboard control system. it was always there, only now it's the default, you can still use your stick if you want to take the time to set it up. the elimination of the driver position made things easier for people, if they were to put a few seconds of thought into it. gv's are now more user friendly than they were. now you don't have to jump positions to start and stop the tank. you're no longer out of control in a rolling battle, trying to get into position to fire and slow the tank down so you can steady the sights on a target. it hasn't lowered the number of spawn campers sadly. no, tanks did not have automatic transmissions in ww2, but then they didn't have 1 man crews either. the transmission isn't automatic, the driver is, and the uphill speeds are now more realistic. the fact that tanks can no longer easily climb 45 degrees inclines at 30mph is great, exactly the way it should be.
-
To be fair, they should remove the zoom feature from aircraft that didnt have the capability in RL. I mean, to be historically accurate and all. I also HATE the new GV sytstem.
NOT
-
what aircraft have a zoom feature? :headscratch:
-
To be fair, they should remove the zoom feature from aircraft that didnt have the capability in RL.
FWIW... I agree completely. Aircraft shouldn't be able to zoom at all, or at least to the extreme they currently are able to achieve. Tank commanders at least have binocs to use, fighter pilots had to squint. ;)
At the most, I say halve the current zoom capability. It gives pilots an unfair advantage, imo.
-
what aircraft have a zoom feature? :headscratch:
You have the ability to zoom in the sights on all AC in AH, only the perk tanks give you this option. The tank commander didnt aim and shoot the gun, the guy looking through the sight did. Might as well give F3 mode to planes, just to be fair.......
NOT
-
You have the ability to zoom in the sights on all AC in AH, only the perk tanks give you this option. The tank commander didnt aim and shoot the gun, the guy looking through the sight did. Might as well give F3 mode to planes, just to be fair.......
NOT
Aircraft don't have zoom in AH. They can adjust their field of view, but there is no zoom.
-
You have the ability to zoom in the sights on all AC in AH, only the perk tanks give you this option. The tank commander didnt aim and shoot the gun, the guy looking through the sight did. Might as well give F3 mode to planes, just to be fair.......
NOT
There is no zoom feature for aircraft. The feature you are talking about is a concession to a concession.
A life size view cannot be used on video games on the typical desktop monitors or you would have no situational awareness or peripheral vision. So they shrink your cartoon world to give you more peripheral vision.
The smaller the world, the less detail you have, the gunsight zoom gives you that detail back.
The "zoom" gives you a life size picture at the cost of your peripheral vision. You don't get inhuman eyesight, it is more like what you would see while sitting in a ww2 cockpit looking through a 10" diameter tube.
-
lol, Hawker, i think Del and Lusche misunderstood what you meant with your wasd statement...
My post had nothing to do with Hawkers, it was just my opinion between the two versions of tank warfare in AH.
I didn't even mention manual vs automatic or wasd controls as I tank so seldom it doesn't matter to me. It was a comment on pure aesthetics.
-
Aircraft don't have zoom in AH. They can adjust their field of view, but there is no zoom.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. There is no functional difference between zoom and field of view. They are identical (if you decrease the field of view on a fixed width monitor it is the same as increasing the zoom, i.e. making things bigger). And AH pilots can zoom in quite a bit (a concession to limited pixel resolution of computer screens and a way to give users the high visual acuity of a fighter pilot). The tank gun sight doesn't make such a concession.
Here's what I posted in a previous similar thread: I've measured my screen (24" 1920x1080 at automatic FOV setting) and the tank sight is exactly the right magnification (2.5X in a T34/85) when my eyes are 18" from the screen (which is my normal distance). The commanders zoom setting is also 2.5X. For planes the default non zoomed view is about 0.4X, i.e. wide angle, the default zoomed level (no [ or ]) is about 0.86X, and the maximum zoom is 2.5X. So it comes down to justifying why the limitations of a pixelated screen require 2.5X zoom above reality for pilots but don't require any zoom past 1:1 reality (i.e. the 2.5X the gunsight had in reality) for the tanker.
-
Depends on the monitor's size. On a 17" or 19" screen, as I recall, the "zoom" only gets you to 1:1 if you were sitting in the Spitfire or what have you.
I doubt any computer screen would be large enough to match the magnification the tank sights have in AH. Maybe if I hooked my PC up to my 50" TV it would, but certainly not on my 19" screen.
-
In AH, I look at an aircraft 200 yards out with my gunsight at full zoom and I see nearly the same thing I would see if I were in the same real life situation. Little or no difference in relative size. No one gets super human sight out of the deal.
The only advantages come from higher end hardware and an extremely negligible advantage with a bigger screen.
-
WASD is a controlling standard being around for ages, utilized by at least hundreds of games.
i used wasd to play games back in the day using an apple2c
semp
-
What happens when you press the "z" key?? The field of view zooms in... Is this way in all AC. I understand it is a concession, and one I couldnt do without as I dont have the eyes of a 15 or 20 or even 30 year old..... The feature is given to the tank commanders position to simulate binocs, but used to be available in the gun sight, as it is in AC.
Twist it however you want to.
NOT
-
FYI: I encourage people to NOT use zoom on aircraft and just see how well you hit. I've found that I'm actually more accurate when I do not zoom in, at least not zoomed all the way it. It is easier, or at least I perceive it to be easier to judge all the variables of the enemy plane when I'm not zoomed in all the way. This is especially even more true when attacking bombers.
I don't always go by the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" maxim. Sometimes, I think people forget that everything outside of the "hard" data is completely arbitrary. Meaning things that are not hard wired to rate of fire, airspeed, climb rates, turn rates, etc, are %100 pulled out of the air by HTC. Did pilots in WWII have the capability to zoom in??? Obviously not. There is a trade off most certainly, the players need to be able to play the game. I sometimes wish that HTC would adjust things like pilot and TC zoom view abilities from time to time. Same goes for the rate of fire for tanks, G force threshold for black outs (not all pilots blacked out at the same G force), and other "soft" data.
-
What happens when you press the "z" key?? The field of view zooms in... Is this way in all AC. I understand it is a concession, and one I couldnt do without as I dont have the eyes of a 15 or 20 or even 30 year old..... The feature is given to the tank commanders position to simulate binocs, but used to be available in the gun sight, as it is in AC.
Twist it however you want to.
NOT
As I said, on my 19" screen it barely goes the 1:1 I'd have if I was seeing the scene in reality. That isn't twisting anything, it is fact. Even on a 27" monitor it won't come close to the magnification the tank sights provide.
FYI: I encourage people to NOT use zoom on aircraft and just see how well you hit. I've found that I'm actually more accurate when I do not zoom in, at least not zoomed all the way it. It is easier, or at least I perceive it to be easier to judge all the variables of the enemy plane when I'm not zoomed in all the way. This is especially even more true when attacking bombers.
I don't always go by the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" maxim. Sometimes, I think people forget that everything outside of the "hard" data is completely arbitrary. Meaning things that are not hard wired to rate of fire, airspeed, climb rates, turn rates, etc, are %100 pulled out of the air by HTC. Did pilots in WWII have the capability to zoom in??? Obviously not. There is a trade off most certainly, the players need to be able to play the game. I sometimes wish that HTC would adjust things like pilot and TC zoom view abilities from time to time. Same goes for the rate of fire for tanks, G force threshold for black outs (not all pilots blacked out at the same G force), and other "soft" data.
If my screen were larger I'd agree, but at 200 yards it is hard to make out what my enemy is doing on a 19" screen.
-
What happens when you press the "z" key?? The field of view zooms in... Is this way in all AC. I understand it is a concession, and one I couldnt do without as I dont have the eyes of a 15 or 20 or even 30 year old..... The feature is given to the tank commanders position to simulate binocs, but used to be available in the gun sight, as it is in AC.
Twist it however you want to.
NOT
What was on the tank sights is not "as it is in AC." They were not the same at all. Don't get what your point is if you "can't do without it" then why are you suggesting it be removed?
It's obvious you assumed that the zoom feature gave you super human eyesight. It doesn't, it gives you normal human sight along with the huge disadvantage of taking away peripheral vision.
It provides no unnatural advantage and is an absolute necessity when dive bombing or strafing ground targets because of how difficult it is to keep track of well hidden targets.
-
Depends on the monitor's size. On a 17" or 19" screen, as I recall, the "zoom" only gets you to 1:1 if you were sitting in the Spitfire or what have you.
No, a 17" screen would give you (17/24)*2.5 = 1.77. My numbers were based on actual direct measurements, not "looks to me like".
I doubt any computer screen would be large enough to match the magnification the tank sights have in AH. Maybe if I hooked my PC up to my 50" TV it would, but certainly not on my 19" screen.
Again, direct measurements: T34/85 tank sight magnification in AH (for 24" screen viewed at 18") is 2.5X, which matches the real one. Max zoom view of an AH pilot is also 2.5X under the same hardware setup. You can make the measurements yourself offline: park a T34/85 a given distance away and broadside to a tank on the field. Use a ruler to measure the width of the tank in the gunsight view (or commanders view, they're the same for the T34/85). Then park a P38 (or any other non tail dragger) at the exact same spot and measure the width of the same tank using max zoom. It will be identical showing the same magnification. Here, I'll do it for you: large field with TigerI on the runway viewed from T34/85 parked at the crossing point of all runways using gunsight view is 17.5 mm wide on my monitor. Viewed from a P38 parked at the same point using max zoom (Z plus full []) the Tiger I is 17.5 mm wide. Exactly the same view.
-
Please state your point. No rational person believes that what we see is an exact translation of real world dimensions. There are too many variables. But it is a reasonable facsimile.
Use a ruler to measure the width of the tank in the gunsight view (or commanders view, they're the same for the T34/85). Then park a P38 (or any other non tail dragger) at the exact same spot and measure the width of the same tank using max zoom. It will be identical
I'm assuming you zoomed both the tank gun sight and the commander's view as well, because you didn't specify. I may test this result of yours one day.
msg4612608#msg4612608 date=1369601608]
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. There is no functional difference between zoom and field of view.
Here's what I posted in a previous similar thread: I've measured my screen (24" 1920x1080 at automatic FOV setting) and the tank sight is exactly the right magnification (2.5X in a T34/85) when my eyes are 18" from the screen (which is my normal distance). The commanders zoom setting is also 2.5X. For planes the default non zoomed view is about 0.4X, i.e. wide angle, the default zoomed level (no [ or ]) is about 0.86X, and the maximum zoom is 2.5X. So it comes down to justifying why the limitations of a pixelated screen require 2.5X zoom above reality for pilots but don't require any zoom past 1:1 reality (i.e. the 2.5X the gunsight had in reality) for the tanker.
Karnak's post makes perfect sense. It sounds as if you are equating the zoom AH pilots have to a pair of binoculars. They are not the same "functionally" because a magnified gunsight or binoculars increase the distance you can see details. Pilots zoom does not increase the distance your virtual pilot can see, it only closes in on the details at the expense of peripheral vision.
Mathematically there may be some unintended magnification but a few pixels here and there or screen size doesn't make any "functional" difference when the average person could see virtually the same details looking at an object 2 or 3 hundred yards away in real life and in game.
But regardless of how accurate your numbers sound at the moment, I think you are missing some pieces of the equation here. For example one variable is that some tiny little number of pixels on your screen might add up to less than .1mm on your ruler, but at 300 yds could equate to a much larger measurement.
-
I dont GV nearly enough anymore to want to waste the energy explaining myself any further. I will just say I agree with the OP that the current system is garbage. Thank you and have a nice day.
NOT
-
I dont GV nearly enough anymore to want to waste the energy explaining myself any further. I will just say I agree with the OP that the current system is garbage. Thank you and have a nice day.
NOT
Oh but we need further explanation! Those of us who appreciate the nod towards realism in the tank sights and optical quality, and are intelligent enough to grasp the concept of the TC (and the linked MG's, "auto" transmission, etc), really like to hear why the system is so bad. For that matter, I'm sure HTC needs to know as well. We all want to know why we should go back to the same-same tank sights for every tank, have HTC's modelers waste dozens of hours of time modeling tank interiors, and why the manual transmission was superior. Inquiring minds want to know! :aok
-
why the manual transmission was superior. Inquiring minds want to know! :aok
you could actually keep it in one gear up a hill and not be constantly down shifting and shifting up
-
you could actually keep it in one gear up a hill and not be constantly down shifting and shifting up
You can still do that. Hold W until its about to change. Let go when it is 1 mph from changing gear. It will hold that gear and speed while it can up the current slope. Now this is not quite as quick as the old setup... by 1 mph.
-
you could actually keep it in one gear up a hill and not be constantly down shifting and shifting up
i must be doing something wrong, i don't have such problems going up hills.
-
I'm assuming you zoomed both the tank gun sight and the commander's view as well, because you didn't specify. I may test this result of yours one day.
Yes, max zoom commanders view is identical to the gunsight view in the T34/85 (the gunsight has no zoom for the T34). And, as I measured, it is the same as max zoom in a pilots view: the image of the tank is the same size and contains the same number of pixels when viewed from the same spot.
-
Yes, max zoom commanders view is identical to the gunsight view in the T34/85 (the gunsight has no zoom for the T34). And, as I measured, it is the same as max zoom in a pilots view: the image of the tank is the same size and contains the same number of pixels when viewed from the same spot.
Ok I buy that, but I still think you're missing some pieces of the equation. I'm wondering how you could possibly pick the exact same spot when driving a tank or plane without your pilot getting out and putting tape on the ground. Those little details compound errors over longer distances.
The bottom line is that when I use zoom in a plane looking at other planes it is always just for a second. I don't fly around with it and if added up, the amount of time I use it is .000001% of my flight time. And I don't think it is used much more by anyone else. It just has too big a disadvantage.
Plus what I see in that zoom is not super high detail by any means unless I am 100 yards from the object, which is never the case.
So the real answer to this question, if you can pull it off, can be found if you find someone with fighter pilot eyesight, have him look at a ww2 aircraft from exactly 200 yds, 400 yds, etc and compare what he sees to the same (zoomed of course) sight picture in AH.
I don't think he will find that much difference.
-
Ok I buy that, but I still think you're missing some pieces of the equation. I'm wondering how you could possibly pick the exact same spot when driving a tank or plane without your pilot getting out and putting tape on the ground. Those little details compound errors over longer distances.
That's very easy to do. just drive to the exact same spot on a base (for example right in the center of the rearm pad), and look at the same 'drone' tank. A difference of 1-5' is negligible at total distances of D800 or so.
And that's exactly how I tested the different views and magnifications right after the GV system redesign, coming tot he same conclusions. An enterprising soul could even try to dig up this old thread...
-
Oh but we need further explanation! Those of us who appreciate the nod towards realism in the tank sights and optical quality, and are intelligent enough to grasp the concept of the TC (and the linked MG's, "auto" transmission, etc), really like to hear why the system is so bad. For that matter, I'm sure HTC needs to know as well. We all want to know why we should go back to the same-same tank sights for every tank, have HTC's modelers waste dozens of hours of time modeling tank interiors, and why the manual transmission was superior. Inquiring minds want to know! :aok
Thank you smokin for pointing out your superior intellect, those of us having a different opinion than yours are obviously not all there........ :aok There is the token smiley to make things all nice and friendly ........... :neener: :cheers:
NOT
-
That's very easy to do. just drive to the exact same spot on a base (for example right in the center of the rearm pad), and look at the same 'drone' tank. A difference of 1-5' is negligible at total distances of D800 or so.
And that's exactly how I tested the different views and magnifications right after the GV system redesign, coming tot he same conclusions. An enterprising soul could even try to dig up this old thread...
I've never been interested enough to learn the mathematics of magnification so I will concede 715's and your points.
A brief search got me to another thread on zoom. It seems proven that the zoom is not 1 to 1, but something still seems missing though I can't put my finger on it yet.
The example I used of proper placement was not particularly what I had in mind for this missing data though.
It just occurred to me that maybe what I couldn't put my finger on was this, when using gunsight zoom the aircraft at a distance is not the only thing zoomed; the gunsight itself is also zoomed. So my question now is this, doesn't that mean the net effect of using zoom is 1:1? Because you are not only increasing size and clarity of something 300yds out, but increasing the size of the reticle which is right in front of you.
You are magnifying everything in your virtual world at a 1 to 1 ratio.
-
You are magnifying everything in your virtual world at a 1 to 1 ratio.
Yes, everything gets magnified the same amount, but it isn't 1:1 to what you'd see if you were sitting in a real plane. It's 2.5 to 1 (at max zoom).
Try this: get in a Spit and use max zoom (Z plus max ]). Now pan down to look at the dashboard. It looks huge does it. Remember, your virutal pilot doesn't have his face right up next to the dashboard like you have yours up near your screen. Yet the instruments are huge, way bigger (2.5 times bigger to be exact) than real life.
The math is really easy. Take my example: a Tiger I viewed broadside from the crossing point of the three runways. The Tiger I hull is 6.32 meters long. The distance from the Tiger I to the crossing point is 448 yds = 409.65 meters (according to AH Film viewer). That means in real life, with no optical magnification, the Tiger I should subtend an angle of arctan(6.32meters/409.5meters) = 0.884 deg. Now the Tiger I on my screen, at max zoom, is 17.5 mm wide and I normally view the screen from 18 inches (=457mm) so it subtends an angle of arctan(17.5mm/457mm) = 2.19 degrees. So the AH max zoom view is bigger than real life by 2.19deg/0.884deg = 2.48 (i.e. about 2.5X).
-
Remember, your virutal pilot doesn't have his face right up next to the dashboard like you have yours up near your screen.
My virtual pilots head gets 2.5x bigger also, not just figuratively anymore considering this revelation. Not used to admitting that, but there you go. :D
Magnification in RL doesn't do what you are describing. I couldn't look down at my dash panel if I was looking through a scope. It would be blurry. My head and the dash panel also don't increase in size at a 1:1 nor would the reticle you see so clearly. This means little except that something is not a precise translation of zoom function; therefor something is not being included in the equations and the equations you are using probably only apply to real life..
All the math you have done still doesn't prove anything to me other than the virtual objects get 2.5x bigger, not that it is actually increasing the pilots vision 2.5x.
Tell me this, at what distance does AH model pilot furthest sighting of another aircraft? 8k for fighters? I don't remember. So when I hit max zoom can I see a fighter further than 8k out? I don't recall that happening.
At what distance can the pilot start to see details of the aircraft? And does zoom increase that distance?
I've seen no magnification happening and It still seems that if the gunsight increases in size at a 1:1 with an aircraft in sight, then everything else also increases, including the pilots head, at a 1:1. The only thing that changes is the amount of fine details.
If someone had the money for a 10' x 15' screen and a super graphics card that can render details so far buried in the coads of AH that they never see the light of day, ...then you would have actual 2.5 magnification.
I'm beggining to believe that the 2.5x you are getting in tanks is also just an illusion.
-
All the math you have done still doesn't prove anything to me other than the virtual objects get 2.5x bigger, not that it is actually increasing the pilots vision 2.5x.
If the image is bigger, it has more detail and is easier to see.
Tell me this, at what distance does AH model pilot furthest sighting of another aircraft? 8k for fighters? I don't remember. So when I hit max zoom can I see a fighter further than 8k out? I don't recall that happening.
At what distance can the pilot start to see details of the aircraft? And does zoom increase that distance?
At that range a plane is just a dot, less than one pixel. AH has a fixed range at which it decides to stop rendering planes independent of zoom. However, using zoom at ranges somewhat below that can increase detail: a dot turns into something you can identify as, say, Lancs. I do it all the time.
I'm sorry but I give up. I can't think of a clearer way to explain this (and I don't want to derail the thread anymore). <S>
-
If the image is bigger, it has more detail and is easier to see.
Not trying to be confrontational here, I'm just trying to understand where this magnification is.
Some seem to forget we started playing AH with 100x less detail than real life. So I fail to see 2.5x being a problem when we are still 87.5 in the hole.
At that range a plane is just a dot, less than one pixel. AH has a fixed range at which it decides to stop rendering planes independent of zoom.
Which apparently proves my point. Objects are visible at fixed ranges. Those ranges are determined by (my assumption) what Htc determined to be "fighter pilot abilities."
If you have a monitor that allowed you to have a 1:1 life size rendition of everything in AH, and you have enough resolution on that screen and in game, then you would see exactly what everyone else sees with full zoom, without you yourself using zoom at all.
8k would be about 4.5 miles. I recently saw someone say Chuck Yeager could pick out dots at 50 miles. Don't know how true, but if he could see dots even half that far he could surely identify an aircraft at 4.5, which makes this...
can increase detail: a dot turns into something you can identify as, say, Lancs. I do it all the time.
...not unreasonable. Especially bombers. I have seen or heard plenty of accounts by pilots "identifying" aircraft miles away.