Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Toad on December 05, 2001, 10:12:00 PM
-
I'm not going to butt into the other threads about how to change the CT because I suspect I _probably_ won't fly it much if it turns out the way I suspect it will. (More on that later)
I would like someone to explain to me why shorter range icons or "no icons" is more <ahem> realistic.
Or, if it's not more realistic, than why it is "better"?
As most of you know, I've done a little flying. I find I can see WAY more detail and get much more data visually while flying than I can on any computer screen representation of flying that I've played so far.
So why has this "short/no icon" idea become so important?
Is it "realism"... which would be a mistaken assumption IMO... or is it simply that there's a felt need to artificially increase the difficulty level?
No flames here, I'm trying to understand the position.
****
As for the probability of playing, there's one thing I fear most of all in the CT. It was present in other ACM games and for me, it truly had a negative effect on the enjoyment of the overall experience.
Should the CT generate a faction that feels it necessary to blow their own horns about how superior they are because they are "CT" pilots, I'd absolutely not support it.
I've seen it happen before and the divisive influence really tainted the environment.
I'd hate to see that spread to AH; I'm almost certain (from reading some of what has already been written) that it will.
Thanks for "listening".
-
Upside of short/no icons:
- You have to search for bandits. No giant neon sign pointing them out at ranges where it was very easy to miss them in real life. Spotting the other guy first had a huge effect on combat results in WWII, but with long icons it is rarely a factor.
- No using magic laser range finder to judge closure rate at ranges where such judgement would be nigh in possible in real life. This allows a lot of precise ACM at ranges where a WWII pilot would be struggling just to see the enemy. There is a whole school of AH tactics based on exploiting this "feature".
- IFF limitations. With long icons you can tell friend from foe at quite long range. In WWII it happened many times that pilots got within guns range and were still unable to tell friend from foe. IFF range has a huge effect on how you start an engagement.
- Formation flying is rewarded. It was fairly easy to get lost from your wingman or leader in WWII, even if they were still within visual range. They could get far enough away that you couldn't read their distinctive markings. Lots of pilots report this happening. With long icons you can read the names of friendly pilots at 5+ miles. So it's just about impossible to lose your wingie, and you can fly combat spread at distances which were unheard of in the war.
Downside of short/no icons:
- A plane at a given range appears a lot smaller on a monitor than in real life. At some ranges where you can easily spot a plane in real life, or judge closure range in real life, you are looking at a blob of pixels that is harder to spot and harder to judge closure/aspect.
- Due to graphical limitations, planes will disappear against a background of similar color. In real life you could spot the movement or a reflection, but in the game it blends in pefectly. Without an icon, a plane that would be plainly visible in real life could be invisible.
One must balance all these factors.. I think the 3.0k icons (AH scenario settings) are pretty good. Certainly I haven't heard a peep of complaint about them in the TOD series.
I would like to try reducing the ranges by about half, and/or turning off the range indicator, and seeing how it works. But as I have repeated many times, I think the CT should do experiments one at a time. Let's get the arena established as basically an Axis vs. Allies MA, and then try out these changes one at a time and see what the response is.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
shorter icons are fun in the ct but they are no more realistic then icons at at normal ranges.
however no icons aren't realistic because of the size fov and resolution of our monitors.
The thing about icons is you really dont have to "look" to see what the plane is.
We all can see the "black dots" and can tell the difference between a buff and a fighter outside of icon range.
There needs to be some kind of "IFF" 3k icons make you look for those black dots more so then 6k icons but its still the same type of thing.
If you dont pay attention then that 3k-6k dot will be all over you before you can do anything. Especially in the ct where there is no dot dar just bar dar. But its kinda pointless to have friendly icons at 6k and nme icons at 3.
You can easily tell whos who by the size of the dot at 3-6k. If theres no icon its nme.
I dont know of anyway to get "realistic" visual ids and range in a flight sim. I even have a 21 inch monitor.
I do like the way wwiiol icons "fade in" as you stare at them. That would be great for a large area like ct. But in the main it impractical with the large numbers and small maps.
For gameplay I like 3k icons but they should be all round. But its probrably "less realistic" then 6k icons because as Toad says he can see and id things in rl well beyond 6k and certainly 3k.
What icons take away from though is blind side attacks and bounces but so does dot dar and the liberal vision from ah cockpits (head positions).
I would say its about "balance" but thats a red herring because we all know that we can never get more then a hand full of people to agree on what "balance" means.
Thats why we need an uncomprimising dictator as a cm for the ct. Everyone who has flown in the ct and a lot of folks who dont have their own ideas about how it should be run.
The fact is as shown by everyother game out there HA or ct's or what ever you call it are only used regularly by a small part of that particular community. Whether thats because "folks go where the rest are" or whatever.
I do know this the "euro map" is so bug ridden I would withdraw it and rework it. We have a 256 x 256 "euro" map that will be used for BW. But it would need a few more fields to be perfect imho.
Anyway my .2cents
<takes a chair and waits to be told how wrong I am or how stupid I am for such a post>
-
It's mostly according to experience in my case. No icons were a lot more fun in some of the games I've participated in. As I mentioned earlier in other post, the intensity higher, needes more concentration.. need to get real close to confirm and begin shooting etc etc.. all this might be less fun or uncomfortable to some folks, I admit.
ps) and I personally hate those 600~700 yard shots from 4 cannon planes or .50 planes :D... but indeed this is personal..
-
Would this help?
6K icon of neutral type. Just for example, it may be a single charecter such as "!" or "?" in a neutral colour (yellow?).
3K switches to our conventional colour/design.
-
Thanks for the viewpoints. I'll toss out a few observations and hope that you guys will set me straight if I read you wrong.
First, however, I totally support experimenting with icons in order to achieve something "better" (man, that's subjective; the threads will be 200+ posts ;) ) than what we have now. I don't think range itself is the big problem, however.
Funked: I've flown a bit of TOD. I'll register a complaint about the icons. I think it's merely upping the "difficulty slider" a bit and unrelated to realism. It doesn't generate any more or less tension for me. As Wotan said, it's pretty easy to determine the enemy by the process of elimination. It's more the "why bother" feeling on my part.
It is, if anything, less realistic. I've often sat at one end of a 12,000 foot long runway and watched other aircraft crossing to the gate areas at the other end. I can easily distinguish, both by shape and paint job the difference between companies and between types, even with smaller aircraft like a Canadair RJ and the Embraer ERJ-140. These are small aircraft, much smaller than our bombers.
Searching for the enemy: Right now, icons sometimes make it too easy, agreed. OTOH, in some cases, against a particular background, the present system makes it just about right. There are some situtations in the game where picking out a dot or perhaps a paint scheme is much harder than RL; icons counter this. So, I'd say it goes both ways.
I'd be in favor of changing the "rangefinder" aspect. However, shortening icon ranges doesn't really fix that problem, does it? More like a little bandaid. Range still shows if you are in gun range for any of the guns we have and also at good "merge/lead turn" ranges. (Nobody lead turns at 2K, or if they do, I hope the do it in front of me for a change!)
IFF. Too a degree yes. But OTOH, once again it's a compromise. Because the game limits visual ID by it's very nature. Airplanes are "dots" far longer than they would be in RL. Here's a simple example. I (and my copilots as well) can see the configuration change on MD-88/B-737 size aircraft at a measured two MILES when they lower their gear on approach. How close do you have to be to an AH buff to tell if the gear is up or down? Says a lot about "iff range" to me.
I agree on the formation aspect. Again, is the fix to shorten the icon range or simply remove friendly names and replace it with aircraft type or nothing at all? In combat at a certain range you could probably easily tell if that was a Jug or a -109 but you couldn't tell WHICH Jug or read the call letters. See what I'm geting at?
Wotan, I pretty much agree with your post. I will comment that Icons and monitor size are and have to be related. Some guys are playing on a 15" monitor. Some guys on 17", 19" or 21". Some rich guy is probably playing on a 21" digital flat screen or even a huge 45" digital flat screen TV. Aren't icons a way to level that playing field somewhat?
The "fade ins" aren't too bad. IMO, WW2OL took too long to fade in, however. The other thing that bugged me was that once you "ID'd" a guy, even if it was your wingie just 400 yards away in "route", if you looked away for just a second it took the same long time to re-fade in. That's kinda bogus, I think. Would be fun to experiment with those, however.
Kweassa, I've got really got no comments on your information because mainly it's opinion. You find "no/reduced icons" more fun, etc. Fine with me.... as long as you aren't waving the "more realism" flag. ;)
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
If you dont pay attention then that 3k-6k dot will be all over you before you can do anything.
But isn't this the whole point? The possibility of being bounced by somebody you didn't see. Sure, the resolution of your monitor isn't the same as real life, but that 40ft billboard above the plane definetly isn't there in real life. I'm running an old ATX monitor at home that I've had for 5 years. In resolutions 1024X960 and above, I can ID friend from foe pretty easy if I know what planes they're flying.
This week I have spent a lot of time flying with no icons because I'm making another realplayer movie, which forces me to fly in 800X600 resolution to be in TV mode. Icons look bad in them so I have to turn them off. Been flying in the TA in a P38 with pony and P38 wingmen vs. zekes and N1K's. I have the VCR remote in one hand, stick in the other and I can still ID friend from foe. The only that gives trouble is the pony-B. It kinda looks like a N1K from a distance, so you approach N1K's (or what you think are N1K's) very catiously til you're close enough to see the meatball on the wing. I've spent a lot of time with icons off making these films and sometimes just for the heck of it.
I recall me, zig or regurge flying against AKNimitz and I think grunherz in the DA a few months back, icons off, we were in G6's , they were in Pony B's. That was some of the best fun I've had in this game. There were times when you'd lose the con, look around frantically, the find them right on your 6. You could cause an overshoot easier, I guess because they couldn't see the speed of the distance counter not being present. I ccan live with the bar dar inflight above 500ft, but the icon issue, I think is very important to get the historical "bounce" into the arena. I feel the present short icon range (3.0) is too long for historical style play.
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Wotan, I pretty much agree with your post. I will comment that Icons and monitor size are and have to be related. Some guys are playing on a 15" monitor. Some guys on 17", 19" or 21". Some rich guy is probably playing on a 21" digital flat screen or even a huge 45" digital flat screen TV. Aren't icons a way to level that playing field somewhat?
If somebodys trying to play with a 15 inch monitor, IMHO, it's their own self inflicted handicap. Kinda like trying to run to slow a machine. It's up to them to get with the program. Above a 17-19 inch screen, I don't see any advantge. It's the differences in resolution that could provide an advantage. And probably not in the way you're eluding to. Lower resolutions show the far off con as a larger, unmistakable black dot, whereas a higher resolution requires you checking the dot a little closer...
-
I feel that shorter range icons are a decent compromise between the existing billboard style of icon in use now, the one that jumps out at you and can't miss with it's "hey! here I am and I'm exaclty xxx in range to you" and no icon, which I find unrealistic only for the reason that PC graphics technology has not come far enough for that.
I've found that in the MA one does not need to realy look too much. Just scan for the unmissable red icon in the sky. Where as in the tests of two years ago with no icons in the SEA those who had 21" top end monitors and graphics cards were ok. Those with les were severely handicapped. I personally found that the CheckSix events with the abreviated icon range made me become more aware of what was in the emmediate enviornment on my own. I had to do what WWII pilots advised must be done in that I had to keep my head on a swivel and look for the bogy. A dot or small aircraft form with no icon is harder to spot but not impossible nor unrealistically difficult imo.
I also think that AH models the plane shape graphics very well under 3k and hence the digital counter IMO is much too gamey and obsolete as people do not fire so much at the bogy but at the glaring icon and usually when the counter has reached xxxx range.
I hope I helped answer your question(s) and didn't go off on a tanget.
Westy
-
hblair, the G6 vs P51B is a good example, but P38s? I don't think there are many people at all that can't tell a P38 (or P51D or P47D30 for that matter) from a George or Zeke with or without icons! ;)
Hmm, Toad says that he can tell planes apart sitting on the runway from 4000yds (12,000 ft he said). our current "normal" range is another 2000 yds (1 full nautical mile) which might be a bit too far to ID a fighter sized plane. So how about this for Icons (fighters only, and not range finder mind you, just the IFF and plane type.) You see a dot and put it in your 12 view. It seems you're closing in on the dot, but you get no icon range (it's under 10,000 yds tho). It's now close enough for you to make out it's type (4000 yds) and therefore you know it's an enemy or not (you get the planetype either in green or red). However, you're not close enough to determine squad or plane number. As you get closer, (say 1500yds) the planetype changes to pilot name if it's a friendly. It's still planetype if it's enemy. It's pretty much the same as mentioned above, just the ranges are a bit different. No chess piece placard (there are only two sides, don't need the chess piece, the color is what denotes IFF, and yes, you can change the colors so R-G color blind folks can pick something they can differentiate) and no digital range counter, but perhaps something to give rate of closure to deal with the limitations of monitors showing the planes over 1000yds away.
-
The only reall issue I have with the icons is they denote the aircraft coming at you. Sure, leave the range and such. But leave the aircraft identifier off. Its a real disservice to the F4, Tempest and other perk plane drivers. At least, I think so.
For ranges, its a bit silly to see a 262 coming 5.9k away (not that you can really hide anywhere). But to me, the shorter icon means the pilots need to be surfing the skies, watching for dots more closely.
My 2 cents
-
short answer wich solves the issue:
WWIIOL-like icons.
-
My guess is that the only options available for CT icons are those which already exist in the code. I'm not sure what those are, but I doubt they include, "WWIIOL". ;)
-
shorter range is funnier
no icons with planeset as in CT would be best
mo ppl in CT would even be better :)
-
If you dont pay attention then that 3k-6k dot will be all over you before you can do anything. Especially in the ct where there is no dot dar just bar dar. But its kinda pointless to have friendly icons at 6k and nme icons at 3.
I meant not paying attention to the dot size. Even if they see the dot they dont realize you are about 3k away.
Now in rl if you saw a con at 3-6k chances are you maybe able to id it or at least tell about how far away it was.
I bounced numerous people in ct who just assumed I was further away. Because of 3k icons I had a "unrealistic" advantage. Theres no way to model rl depth perception. A
I agree that the Icons are as if not more "unrealistic" and give the advantge to the one being attacked.....but so does in flight dot dar and exagerated head movements.
I fly lw planes I love short Icons. My point is it not "real" either. And it certainly doesn't make sense to have 3k nme and 6k friendly icons.
The fact is we need some sort of "icon" no one in here will agree on what kind. So who ever "cms" the ct needs to come uop with a plan and stay with. He may ask and take suggestion prior to set icon range but there will be a ton of folks ready to tell him how fediddleed up his descion is. Changing it all around will make that bickering worse.
He will have to accept thats theres no settings that he can make that will fill that arena. In every other game its tried its stay near empty.
Even wb3 tried no icons like they "all" wanted but nobody flew there. Now they have icons and nobodies there. Except for tft's and the like.
Dont fall for that if we only had base capture I'd be there. Because they wont.
Imho I stopped flying oin there because that euro map is crap. Its buggy as hell with the way the facilities are assigned even if you wanted to fly a ju88 to a "strat" target most of the time your country owns it. Then when you rtb "nme" facilities shot at ya.
A good playable map will do more for ct then anything but thats mho. :)
-
I agree in that we need to do what most people like. I'd hate for it to turn into a watered down HA though. As far as icons, All these neat icon solutions require programming. We'll prolly end up with the current short icon setup, for a while anyway.
-
Just a few questions in case anyone knows.
1. What distance does a fighter dot show up?
2. What distance does a fighter dot change to a more details representation of the fighter?
It seems to me that inbetween these two stages, we virtual pilots are getting almost zero information about a cons relative movement (towards or away) and speed and very little information about its type from the aircraft itself.
I think if we ask real pilots, they would tell us that at these distances some of the above information can be inferred.
F.
-
Ecellent post, I fully support this position.
CRASH
Originally posted by funkedup:
Upside of short/no icons:
- You have to search for bandits. No giant neon sign pointing them out at ranges where it was very easy to miss them in real life. Spotting the other guy first had a huge effect on combat results in WWII, but with long icons it is rarely a factor.
- No using magic laser range finder to judge closure rate at ranges where such judgement would be nigh in possible in real life. This allows a lot of precise ACM at ranges where a WWII pilot would be struggling just to see the enemy. There is a whole school of AH tactics based on exploiting this "feature".
- IFF limitations. With long icons you can tell friend from foe at quite long range. In WWII it happened many times that pilots got within guns range and were still unable to tell friend from foe. IFF range has a huge effect on how you start an engagement.
- Formation flying is rewarded. It was fairly easy to get lost from your wingman or leader in WWII, even if they were still within visual range. They could get far enough away that you couldn't read their distinctive markings. Lots of pilots report this happening. With long icons you can read the names of friendly pilots at 5+ miles. So it's just about impossible to lose your wingie, and you can fly combat spread at distances which were unheard of in the war.
Downside of short/no icons:
- A plane at a given range appears a lot smaller on a monitor than in real life. At some ranges where you can easily spot a plane in real life, or judge closure range in real life, you are looking at a blob of pixels that is harder to spot and harder to judge closure/aspect.
- Due to graphical limitations, planes will disappear against a background of similar color. In real life you could spot the movement or a reflection, but in the game it blends in pefectly. Without an icon, a plane that would be plainly visible in real life could be invisible.
One must balance all these factors.. I think the 3.0k icons (AH scenario settings) are pretty good. Certainly I haven't heard a peep of complaint about them in the TOD series.
I would like to try reducing the ranges by about half, and/or turning off the range indicator, and seeing how it works. But as I have repeated many times, I think the CT should do experiments one at a time. Let's get the arena established as basically an Axis vs. Allies MA, and then try out these changes one at a time and see what the response is.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, oh yes icon ranges,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzoh ok well yes, listen if its not broken leave it alone just give us a decent map, decent set up, NOT US NAVY VERSUS LW, (thats was the sadest excuse i have ever seen in any Flight sim!! even beats WW2OL flight model!)
And lets us QUALITY pilots get on with it!!!,
Basicly will someone fix it, and please do it soon.
Heheheheh iam bad :D
Marcof.
-
Marcof check your history. FAA fought the Luftwaffe with Corsairs and Hellcats and Avengers, and USN had a few engagements with them too.
-
Yeah true Funked, However come on....would you not agree that a Malta or stalingrad set up might be better??? and more inviting , anyways not looking for long discussion on this, as iam sure you would rather spend your time working on our new CT arena!
Marcof.
-
Read the motd when you enter the arena marcof. The current setup is just a temporary placeholder.
-
Originally posted by marcof:
...And lets us QUALITY pilots get on with it!!!...
Marcof.
That is EXACTLY the attitude I was referring to in the second part of my first post in this thread.
:(
-
"Quality" .. hmm..
...
hmmm...
..
nahhhh~ :D
ps) I haven't any quality, but still, using eyes to madly scan around to find something seems more fun to me :)
-
Yip quality.....hehehhe come on guys read my post and see that it was ment in jest!!!
Man are you a touchy lot or what! :p
Marcof.
(winding up MA arena pilots since 1999!)
[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: marcof ]
-
I loaded up Mig Alley for the first time over the weekend (I know, I'm behind the times..)
Seems to be a most workable icon system. You only get icons around the edge of the windscreen, once the bogey is in your forward hemisphere, no icon.
Something for the future, perhaps?
-
All I can add is, I remember a LONG way back in AH when gruops of us use to go into the SEA and fly no icon battles (it was based on the honor system). Udie had control of DAR in the arena and would shut it down. This team was Axis, that team was Allies and we went at it. Definitely had some of the most fun ever in AH during those set-ups.
GL with the set-up guys!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Should the CT generate a faction that feels it necessary to blow their own horns about how superior they are because they are "CT" pilots, I'd absolutely not support it.
I've seen it happen before and the divisive influence really tainted the environment.
I'd hate to see that spread to AH; I'm almost certain (from reading some of what has already been written) that it will.
Thanks for "listening".
I'd bet on it too. But how would it be any different than the current "QuAkErZ vs. accountants" squeakfest in the MA? So long as there is more than one style of play there will be those that think their style is better, and feel the need to tell everyone about it. In the end what difference does it make? Not one engagement I've ever had was won with a BBS or buffer rant.
Maybe I'm just a wacky guy, but I never understood people who quit flying because they didn't like what was said on the BBS.
Back on topic (nice discussion btw). I can only argue that, for me, short/no icon is just more fun. In and of itself, I'll take your word for it that short/no icons is less realistic. But I believe the overall outcome may be more realistic, when you take into account our unrealistic advantages like no fear of death, vast experience, etc.
Like hblair said, those no icon fights were a blast. I had differenciate plane type using visual cues like wing/fuselage shape. Granted the ID might have occurred at much greater ranges in real life, but with long icons there's no need for ID at all. What it comes down to is those fights had by far the closest resemblance to the combat stories I've read about and for me that = fun.
-
In my opinion, "friendly only icons" offers the best gameplay.
Our squadron has been using "friendly icons only" in H2H training since the icon settings were introduced. We've also had a few squadron duels with 5 GIAP, with "friendly only" as well as "no icons" -settings.
Camo
-
Since the goal is increased historical accuracy...
We should all sell everything we have, pool our money together, buy as many warbirds as we can afford, and duke it out with real planes and real bullets ;)
But more seriously, I will never find icons preferable to no icons. Regardless of any penalties due to graphics rendering and hardware limitations, no one ever had a glowing neon billboard saying "I am the enemy, I am flying plane x at range y, and my range rate is z". I am willing to degrade my ability to recognize landing gear position and paint scheme by a relatively small margin for the sake of losing the icons. You want 6k neon billboards, fly MA. Let us psycho "realism" fanatics do our own thing whatever that turns out to be until it fails and is shut down or replaced ;)
-
Toad..dont get yur stuff in a knot...
I just flew in the CT for an hour.
Its more like a different settings furball then a historical arena. The LW needs to lose the G10 and A8 and pick up a G6 and A5..
I found the different icon range quite fun. Like funk says it forces you to look alot longer at an enemy from distance to get a feel for what he is up too. It gives each side lots of time to change what is happening on a merge and keeps both sides guessing alot longer.
I found I could merge alot more effectivly then I typically can in the MA.
As a furball I definatly rate it above the MA.
-
I like icons. I guess virtual ACM is more fun for me than squinting at a monitor.
-
I really enjoy flying with "icons off" but many do not.
As a CM we have asked for more options for the icon settings, just to name a few:
off enemy 3k friendly
1k enemy 3k friendly
range counter only friend and foe
1k range counter only enemy 3k friendly
You get the idea. :) Just not something they want to give us at this time. Personally I would use different settings for the TOD's and find one that most players like. I think range counter only would be great. For now we only have short and long. :(
I hope that will change... :)
-
Because the game is out to simulate WW2 aerial combat, not what you can see in real life.
Billboard icon takes away any and all suprise bounces and evasive manouvers. Just by seeing an icon you have instant SA with no effort on your part.
Fly in the MA with no enemy icons. Yes, you will be at a HUGE disadvantage and will die a lot, but once you get the hang of it, just closing into an enemy plane and blasting it to little iddy biddy pieces is most satisfying. you will also notice that the evasives other players do WILL throw you off rather quickly... because there are no icons to scream out to you that the con is below your nose and has suddenly changed vector and banked the other way (you see icons if you see only a small part of the enemy plane). Just as in real combat, planes engaged and disengaged to reacquire visual constantly... not possible with icons.
-
I've got no problem with those who think reduced/no icons are more fun.
That's an opinion, everyone's entitled to one and seems to have one. I have never cared how the "other guy" chooses to play.
You think it's more fun, good. Fun is what this is about. I'm totally in favor of having fun.
***
As for "realism", sorry. Those of you who want to make the case for "no/reduced icons are more realistic" are simply wrong.
From my point of view, there's absolutely no possible discussion. I've spent too much time looking at other aircraft in the air (as well as mock dogfighting in WW2 trainers) and too much time "flying" computer ACM games not to know the truth.
ALL computer ACM games provide severely reduced visual information when compared to RL. That's it. That's the truth. Period.
But, hey... go ahead and be wrong. :D
***
Tac, this statement:
"Because the game is out to simulate WW2 aerial combat, not what you can see in real life."
speaks for all the "selective realists" on the board.
Seems so many only want THEIR version of realism.
If given this, then you would allow compromise on the "realism" of the P-38 modeling then right? :D
***
As for the "elitism", I am near certain it will eventually rear its head and I feel it will be a detriment to the community. It won't kill it, it will just split it. That's no benefit, IMO.
***
Lastly, please remember that I've often said that the icon system should be subject to experimentation in order to improve it.
Cyas.
-
Question for you all! :)
From a gameplay point of view, which of these settings would you find better for the CT:
-Short enemy icons, long friendly icons. (Current setting)
-No enemy icons, short friendly icons. (Hopefully a setting that will be made available in the near future)
Camo
-
Originally posted by Toad:
ALL computer ACM games provide severely reduced visual information when compared to RL. That's it. That's the truth. Period.
Makes ya wonder how anyone ever got bounced in WW2, doesn't it :)
-
Jekyll. Strange to see you here these days. I found the same point Toads made to comment on.
"ALL computer ACM games provide severely reduced visual information when compared to RL. That's it. That's the truth. Period."
I agree. The average graphics and monitor technology folks are using is simply not up to the task of replciating what we could see in RL. And won't be for some time. That is why I always agree to long friendly, short enemy icons as it is the most changed (and challengin) from the 8k billboard like readouts we have in the MA.
I've also always advocated having icons but sans the digital readout and one that has increased/decreased transparancy depending on rnage and how long you've looked at it. Much like what WWIIOl ended up using. What WWIIO has is nice although I'd dump the circular analog range inidcator as it's still a range counter.
Westy
-
IMO, the range counter is much more useful as a rate of closure indicator, than rangefinder. I think this is one function that must be included to compensate for our 2D "vision". Doesn't have to be numbers, but there needs to be some form of rate of closure indicator.
(I also think that icons even the playing field between people using "minimal" systems on dialup connections, and those with Cadillac systems and very fast connects.)
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
That is why I always agree to long friendly, short enemy icons as it is the most changed (and challengin) from the 8k billboard like readouts we have in the MA.
Sorry Westy, I must have misunderstood Toad. I thought he was including AH when he spoke about 'all computer ACM games'. IMO, ANY game which includes exact to the yard range and closure info provides far MORE detail than a real pilot had ... not only in WW2, but even in today's air combat environment.
I've also always advocated having icons but sans the digital readout and one that has increased/decreased transparancy depending on rnage and how long you've looked at it. Much like what WWIIOl ended up using. What WWIIO has is nice although I'd dump the circular analog range inidcator as it's still a range counter.
Westy
Yup, no doubt about it that some kind of alpha fade-in is gonna be just about mandatory for flight sims in the future. It's just SO different from the 'insta-billboard' type icon that's been so popular since AW back in 91 or so. I'd say that ANYTHING which forces the fights closer to RL engagement ranges has got to be good for AH. And you're right about losing the analog range circle.. its not really necessary at close engagement ranges.
See Westy, we CAN agree on some things :)
Regards.. Jekyll
-
Well, of course you misunderstood me Jekyll.
While I try to write as clearly as possible, I do sometimes fail to do so...and at other times some people deliberately misunderstand for their own posting purposes, don't they? :)
It seemed pretty clear to me that "visual information" in that post refers to the aircraft graphics and detail in ACM games, not the icons. Especially when one considers it in the context of the entire thread.
Then there's that line at the bottom as well... the one about experimenting to improve the icon system.
In fact, if you're real ambitious, I've posted several times about improving the icon system. Search it out; I'm sure there's some things even you would agree with.
If you have time, do that "shooting while jogging" riff you do. I always find that one entertaining.
Ta-ta for now.
:D
[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Geez Toad.. you should really learn to chill out a bit more. :D