Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on August 30, 2013, 05:33:07 PM
-
Random thought:
What would people think of having a separate "Hardcore Arena," with more sim features including things such as:
1. Complex engine management - Manual supercharger gearing, fuel mixture, etc.
2. Disabled ammo counters.
3. Friendly Dot Dar only within radar range.
4. Halved icon distance.
5. Full day/night cycle.
6. Complex bombsight.
7. Additional components for damage modeling - Control cables, oil and fuel lines, degrading control surface/wing effectiveness (damaged wing skin looses lift, damaged ailerons are less effective, etc.).
8. Damaged structural components might fail under excessive stress (IE, a damaged wing might rip off more readily under G forces than if it were intact).
9. Modeled pilot responsiveness - Aircraft modeled so controls account for historical machines not having HOTAS (IE, some aircraft might not be able to manipulate flaps and throttle simultaneously, delays between activating control on stick/keyboard and actual effect in game to reflect this, etc).
That way, those players who would like these more advanced features can enjoy them, without affecting the main server population.
-
I like it. However, I'd say make the ID icon range about 600 yards with a simple red "1ENG, 2ENG, 4ENG" until the enemy plane gets to within 600 yards.
Seriously, just how well can a pilot judge a plane when the closure rate is 600+ mph? If you're flying over Berlin in 1944, it may be easy to narrow it down to about 4 or 5 single engine planes but otherwise it is anyone's guess. Keep the ID ranges close. Let the fog of war mean something. Heck, I say do that in the MA's.
-
That would be a lot of development work for most probably ony very few participating players, so I personally would doubt it's worth the effort... but that's just me.
-
EW arena? Dead
MW Arena? DEad
WW1 Arena? Dead
AVA? Dead
Its a great idea, but Aces just doesnt bring the numbers to fill arenas.
-
Manual supercharger gearing,
Not to derail, but what is this?
I am not sure, but I don't think superchargers were typically operated manually. I base this on a Mossie pilot's comment that when climbing through the altitude where the supercharger's gear changed you had to be careful because one supercharger would often change gears hundreds of feet below the altitude the other would change gears at and that caused one engine to suddenly be producing a lot more power than the other.
-
I believe the Corsairs (and possibly other aircraft with the R-2800) had to manually switch between the high and low gear on the supercharger.
-
I like it. However, I'd say make the ID icon range about 600 yards with a simple red "1ENG, 2ENG, 4ENG" until the enemy plane gets to within 600 yards.
Seriously, just how well can a pilot judge a plane when the closure rate is 600+ mph? If you're flying over Berlin in 1944, it may be easy to narrow it down to about 4 or 5 single engine planes but otherwise it is anyone's guess. Keep the ID ranges close. Let the fog of war mean something. Heck, I say do that in the MA's.
I'm still baffled by people saying they can't identify an aircraft until it's 600 yards away. Heck the
smoke trail on a Phantom was visible alot farther away than that. Of course rarely did both sides of a
fight use the same aircraft in WW2. Yes, it happened, but rarely and you could probably tell by the
direction of flight if the bogey was a probable hostile or not.
I think the important thing is to spot movement, it draws the eye and the way someone is
reacting to your movements can be a big clue.
-
Random thought:
What would people think of having a separate "Hardcore Arena," with more sim features including things such as:
1. Complex engine management - Manual supercharger gearing, fuel mixture, etc.
2. Disabled ammo counters.
3. Friendly Dot Dar only within radar range.
4. Halved icon distance.
5. Full day/night cycle.
6. Complex bombsight.
7. Additional components for damage modeling - Control cables, oil and fuel lines, degrading control surface/wing effectiveness (damaged wing skin looses lift, damaged ailerons are less effective, etc.).
8. Damaged structural components might fail under excessive stress (IE, a damaged wing might rip off more readily under G forces than if it were intact).
9. Modeled pilot responsiveness - Aircraft modeled so controls account for historical machines not having HOTAS (IE, some aircraft might not be able to manipulate flaps and throttle simultaneously, delays between activating control on stick/keyboard and actual effect in game to reflect this, etc).
AvA has tried 3,4 and 6. You probably know the result.
- oldman
-
As someone currently embroiled in the Misery 2.0 mod for Stalker: Call of Pripyat, I can see the appeal of this type of arena. The risk is greater, but the reward is sweeter. Having felt the singular relief of landing a borderline-crippled aircraft in vanilla AH, I can only imagine that the elation of success in a hardcore arena would be even greater.
As previously mentioned, attendance might be slim, so such ideas as transferable perkies, etc, come into play.
-
why halve icons? Why not double them? That would be more realistic. 6 kilometers is 3.75 miles. Realistically you can spot and ID many planes large AND SMALL out to 8-10 miles.
Ammo counters are fully realistic. Half the planes in WW2 had some form of ammo counter.
Night cycle? If you want it realistic, WW2 day fighters were NOT fighting at night. They were clear weather fighters ONLY.
Night time and no icons is simply a request from people that want to pick targets without being seen. They want easy kills with the least amount of effort.
-
why halve icons? Why not double them? That would be more realistic. 6 kilometers is 3.75 miles. Realistically you can spot and ID many planes large AND SMALL out to 8-10 miles.
Ammo counters are fully realistic. Half the planes in WW2 had some form of ammo counter.
Night cycle? If you want it realistic, WW2 day fighters were NOT fighting at night. They were clear weather fighters ONLY.
Night time and no icons is simply a request from people that want to pick targets without being seen. They want easy kills with the least amount of effort.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
ya having a huge neon sign over your plane is realistic :rolleyes:
so many times I see you talk about this...and every time you are as wrong as can be....
the simple fact is most planes in WW2 never saw the guy that killed him....and I am sure they were not just sitting there looking straight ahead....
the icon makes it so you can track and see the icon with NO problem.....you can not lose sight easily with an icon.....
don't take a friggen rocket scientist :rolleyes:
-
Always loved duels with icons off.
If you have good camo, that can decide the fate of the fight.
-
I'll +1 the Hardcore Arena so long as it doesn't give me the under the ballsack view. I hate that shot. Why do they use it? It grosses me out. :uhoh
-
Not to derail, but what is this?
I am not sure, but I don't think superchargers were typically operated manually. I base this on a Mossie pilot's comment that when climbing through the altitude where the supercharger's gear changed you had to be careful because one supercharger would often change gears hundreds of feet below the altitude the other would change gears at and that caused one engine to suddenly be producing a lot more power than the other.
:airplane: Up until "auto-waste-gate" functions became the norm on internal combustion engines, almost all had some Manuel method of adjusting the out put of the super chargers. When the "waste gate" control method of controlling the amount of in-put by the super charger was introduced by placing the auto-waste gate in the exhaust system, the pilot no longer had to pay attention to the superchargers, as the power settings of the engine dictated how much the blower was needed. Low throttle settings, or idle, waste would be closed and no input from blower needed, but high power or full power settings, waste gate would be wide open and blower would be fully engaged. Bottom line, when the waste gate was introduced, the engine power would dictate where not super charging was needed.
Now don't confuse the super charger with turbo-charged engines, as the assistance by the blower to the engine is derived in two different methods. There are trade offs in both systems, namely "lag" in Turbo's and pilot reaction in manual setting superchargers. BOTH do the same thing, which is to make the engine think it is operating at sea level, even up to 20 to 25K before losing its ability to "fool" the engine!
-
if they just could get rid of the GPS .. and automated radar-operator gives vectoring and position if requested in scenarios, I used to follow railroads,roads, learned shape of sea-lines etc to navigate with a map in my knee.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
ya having a huge neon sign over your plane is realistic :rolleyes:
so many times I see you talk about this...and every time you are as wrong as can be....
the simple fact is most planes in WW2 never saw the guy that killed him....and I am sure they were not just sitting there looking straight ahead....
the icon makes it so you can track and see the icon with NO problem.....you can not lose sight easily with an icon.....
don't take a friggen rocket scientist :rolleyes:
No, Ink... I'm sorry but YOU are wrong.
That "most WW2 pilots never saw the guy that killed them" is often used by the "no-icon" advocates, and is out of context. Most never saw the guy that killed them because they didn't look around. That's fact. They didn't have the SA you might have. They had blinders on when trying to stick with their wing leader. THEY were the distraction so the flight leader could get his kills without being shot down. Many's the time a 109 pilot recounted forming up with an entire flight of enemy hurricanes and shooting them down one by one by one until the last guy finally realized something was wrong and broke away just in time to escape.
Fact of the matter the icon fills in for what your eyes can see in real life. You can quite easily lose sight of an icon, and most times if you're maneuvering for a sweet kill-shot it requires under-the-nose aiming (waiting for the target to arrive at a predetermined point so you can kill it).
Fact of the matter is you can SEE a real plane manuevering around at much longer ranges IN REAL LIFE than you can on a flat 2D computer screen. This is made worse by the color palate AH uses (8-bit), the contrast/bright settings of the game, and the fact that 50mm is closer to what the normal eye sees without distortion, but most folks are running at a MUCH wider angle on-screen to simulate peripheral vision. This has the down-side of making everything far smaller than it needs to be. In reality you could VERY easily not only track every plane in a dogfight, but instantly read and recognize the fuselage and tail codes. BOB pilots could instantly tell who was shot down by the codes on the tail, even when they weren't right next to them. Jet fighters have come forward on this very forum and said how they could read tail codes on other fighters up to a mile away (not fuselage codes, smaller tail codes).
Actual commercial pilots, military jet fighter pilots, air traffic controllers, have all gathered many times on these very forums to refute the "no-icons" crowd and explain with not only optics, physics, but real world experiences that happened to them, and have explained how in reality it's far far easier to spot, identify, and track planes than it is in this or any other video game.
It has been proven so many times with facts.
To claim otherwise is just wrong. I'm sorry. You are wrong on this one.
-
Just makes it that much sweeter when you kill one of these "no icon" people and they don't see you coming.
Of course, there's always an excuse. :rolleyes:
-
:rofl
ok
are you seriously this dense?
never mind I know the answer to that question....you proved that a long time ago to me.
remember..."that Ki skin is pure fantasy" :rolleyes:
simple fact is you are wrong once again...(don't you get sick of that?)
icons make it virtually imposable to lose sight of the bandit.....that is fact.
that was not the fact in the real world...
ehhh you know what....im done dealing with you and your idiocy...you chalenge and flyingfin....can enjoy no comments from me...
I don't deal well with idiots..so on ignore you go..... :aok
-
That "most WW2 pilots never saw the guy that killed them" is often used by the "no-icon" advocates, and is out of context. Most never saw the guy that killed them because they didn't look around. That's fact.
How could you possibly know this? Those guys are dead.
Actual commercial pilots, military jet fighter pilots, air traffic controllers, have all gathered many times on these very forums to refute the "no-icons" crowd and explain with not only optics, physics, but real world experiences that happened to them, and have explained how in reality it's far far easier to spot, identify, and track planes than it is in this or any other video game.
It has been proven so many times with facts.
To claim otherwise is just wrong. I'm sorry. You are wrong on this one.
Well I beg to differ with them. Spotting other planes is not easy, PARTICULARLY if you don't have the traffic devices that airlines and military aircraft now have to clue you into where you should look to see the target. Heck, we have passive TCAS on the Saratoga and I still have trouble picking planes out of the sky, even when I know where to look. Was talking to one of Philadelphia's ATC people, a very nice and pretty lady who was also a pilot. She said that when the ATC people took rides in real aeroplanes, the thing that most surprised them was how difficult it was to see other planes. They're used to seeing the radar, of course, and we are not far removed in this game. No-icons in AH is pretty close to real life, so far as I'm concerned.
- oldman
-
How could you possibly know this? Those guys are dead.
Well I beg to differ with them. Spotting other planes is not easy, PARTICULARLY if you don't have the traffic devices that airlines and military aircraft now have to clue you into where you should look to see the target. Heck, we have passive TCAS on the Saratoga and I still have trouble picking planes out of the sky, even when I know where to look. Was talking to one of Philadelphia's ATC people, a very nice and pretty lady who was also a pilot. She said that when the ATC people took rides in real aeroplanes, the thing that most surprised them was how difficult it was to see other planes. They're used to seeing the radar, of course, and we are not far removed in this game. No-icons in AH is pretty close to real life, so far as I'm concerned.
- oldman
it is not difficult to see aircraft at 6000 yds. (~3.4 miles)
and as I've mentioned before, I can see a golf ball at 200+ yds (maybe 250 yds with sun behind) and I can barely pass the eye test to maintain my drivers license.
FYI a golf ball is smaller than an airplane.
I only bring that up because I've seen someone on this forum once suggest icons should only appear within 200 yds as if ID'ing an airplane is only possible within that range. :lol
-
+1 for the Hardcore full realism arena..
This is a great idea, maybe I would play more if this area was setup by HTC.
-
Krusty is not diplomatic about it, but he is mostly correct.
The "most pilots didn't see the one who got him" is greatly misinterpreted to mean "was flying straight and level on cruise settings when he was shot down by an enemy he never saw." While that certainly did happen at times, the phrase would most often mean "was in combat and never saw the guy who got him due to target fixation or inadequate situational awareness." Many players are shot down in AH in the same way, despite the need for SA and ample opportunities to learn it and despite the icons.
Battle of Britain ace Bob Doe described almost being one of those "shot down and never saw the guy who got him" guys in his first fight. He was flying a Spitfire Mk I against Bf110s and was sure he was the worst pilot in his squadron, had only been allow to fire a few rounds at the channel, and was very green. He said it immediately became chaos, he got behind a Bf110 which tried to dive away, he followed it, fixated on it, and shot it down. He kinda froze in surprise at having gotten the Bf110 and after his surprise wore off he pulled back on the stick to go back to the fight. Just as he did so he saw tracers go past under him and then a Bf110 with the cannons firing flashed under him. He ended up getting the second Bf110 as well, but recognized that pure blind luck had saved him and spent time thinking about how he could address that problem and as a result he stopped flying in tight formation and spent a lot of time looking around and behind himself.
Krusty did exaggerate how readily identifiable the letter codes and markings on other aircraft where in a melee.
-
This arena sounds fun, but whatever numbers it got would likely come from the MA. Spending resources to shuffle the existing 100 - 300 guys around probably doesn't make sense. Its not a money maker and further pulls population levels down in arenas that are already almost empty sometimes.
-
Jet fighters have come forward on this very forum and said how they could read tail codes on other fighters up to a mile away (not fuselage codes, smaller tail codes).
You think that may be a tiny tiny exaggeration, perhaps? The tail codes on typical P51s are about 7" tall. At one mile they subtend an angle of 0.4 arcminute. To be able to read that would require 20/3 vision. You really think all those pilots have 20/3 vision?
-
How could you possibly know this? Those guys are dead.
Well I beg to differ with them. Spotting other planes is not easy, PARTICULARLY if you don't have the traffic devices that airlines and military aircraft now have to clue you into where you should look to see the target. Heck, we have passive TCAS on the Saratoga and I still have trouble picking planes out of the sky, even when I know where to look. Was talking to one of Philadelphia's ATC people, a very nice and pretty lady who was also a pilot. She said that when the ATC people took rides in real aeroplanes, the thing that most surprised them was how difficult it was to see other planes. They're used to seeing the radar, of course, and we are not far removed in this game. No-icons in AH is pretty close to real life, so far as I'm concerned.
- oldman
Oldman is absolutely correct. Spot on description of the reality of the no icon issue. :aok
-
it is not difficult to see aircraft at 6000 yds. (~3.4 miles)
and as I've mentioned before, I can see a golf ball at 200+ yds (maybe 250 yds with sun behind) and I can barely pass the eye test to maintain my drivers license.
FYI a golf ball is smaller than an airplane.
Thank you, I had not realized that.
It's not difficult to see an airliner miles away, ESPECIALLY if you know which way to look. Grim experience has taught us that spotting smaller planes is difficult, even at distances of less than one mile, particularly if you don't have advance knowledge of where to look.
- oldman
-
Oldman is absolutely correct. Spot on description of the reality of the no icon issue. :aok
Sorry, going to go with the guys who have actual experience. Oldman is wrong.
Icons make snap IDs too easy, but no icons is farther from reality than with icons is.
-
Sorry, going to go with the guys who have actual experience. Oldman is wrong.
Icons make snap IDs too easy, but no icons is farther from reality than with icons is.
Well, I'm one of the guys with actual experience and you are dead wrong. You are stuck in a close minded loop here in cartoon land. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Oldman is absolutely correct.
-
While sailing along at a liesurely 80mph in a cesspool 150 , I can pick out few of the cars driving on the roads below. I can differentiate bewteen school buses, sedans, pick ups, semi tractor-trailers, motocycles, etc. But I can't tell what brand or model. Typical alt is 1 - 3k. Think about that. As I have said before if ubwere a us pilot in pto u could forget about German planes so it drastically eases the chore. Imo, thr current icon range is too generous.
-
Well, I'm one of the guys with actual experience and you are dead wrong. You are stuck in a close minded loop here in cartoon land. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Oldman is absolutely correct.
Ok, I'll go with every other person with actual experience, including my own.
In addition, something you aren't considering, icons also act as an leveling of the playing field tool where there are many different levels of hardware capability and eyesight.
There are changes I'd like to see to icons, but eliminating them is not appropriate. The guys who think they should be eliminated are usually elitists who resort to insulting everybody who has a different opinion and ignoring any data that doesn't support them. These are the guys who are killing the hobby by actively driving out anybody who doesn't meet their level of dedication to "purity".
-
many different levels of hardware capability and eyesight.
Just like in the real world of aviation. You make my point.
The guys who think they should be eliminated are usually elitists who resort to insulting everybody who has a different opinion and ignoring any data that doesn't support them. These are the guys who are killing the hobby by actively driving out anybody who doesn't meet their level of dedication to "purity".
So, are you going to start with name calling and generalizations? Be careful about calling anyone an elitist. Come up with specific names who are "elitists" and the specific data they are ignoring. If you can't, your statement is nothing more than a puff of smoke in the wind.
-
if you think icons make up for the eyes...sorry but that is wrong...especially up close...
a friggin icon is in fact a huge neon sign over the plane....so maybe it makes up for distant viewing...
but once the con is close...the icon makes it imposable to lose sight.....how is that realistic?
a fighter just glancing around is gonna easily miss a plane that is below......
the fact that most painted there planes with a dark top and a light bottom....gee I wonder why they did that...
hmmm could it be that they wanted to be harder to spot........
there is NONE of that in AH period.... You cant miss the plane...why???? because of the icon.
get a friggin clue people.(not that krusty will ever get one thats one guy stuck on stupid)
and no I do not promote a no icon arena...I would like to see icons just become a dot within 800.....and fade away once the bandit is within 400 yards. but I am an elitist. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
and to say that most cons that were killed were not looking around looking for bad guys...... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I disagree that the icon makes it impossible to miss. A propely camo'ed aircraft can still disappear into the terrain making it harder to pick up its outline. You'd still be able to track it, but you certainly can't use the icon to aim.
-
I disagree that the icon makes it impossible to miss. A propely camo'ed aircraft can still disappear into the terrain making it harder to pick up its outline. You'd still be able to track it, but you certainly can't use the icon to aim.
yes you are right its not imposable, I should have said(and did earlier) "virtually imposable" to lose sight :P
-
if you think icons make up for the eyes...sorry but that is wrong...especially up close...
Up close is where I would particularly like to see changes to icons. Under a certain distance I would like the icon to change to just a red bishop, knight or rook symbol, perhaps even just a red dot.
a friggin icon is in fact a huge neon sign over the plane....so maybe it makes up for distant viewing...
Agreed.
but once the con is close...the icon makes it imposable to lose sight.....how is that realistic?
Didn't say it was. I said it was more realistic than no icons, which it is.
a fighter just glancing around is gonna easily miss a plane that is below......
That is one of the flaws of the icon system. I'd like a phase in time of, perhaps, 1 second.
the fact that most painted there planes with a dark top and a light bottom....gee I wonder why they did that...
hmmm could it be that they wanted to be harder to spot........
Indeed, but that doesn't justify simulating pilots who are legally blind, which is what no icons does.
there is NONE of that in AH period.... You cant miss the plane...why???? because of the icon.
Yes, it is a choice between unrealistic option A that acknowledges the shortcomings of computers vs even more unrealistic option B that pretends those problems don't exist.
get a friggin clue people.
Already done.
and to say that most cons that were killed were not looking around looking for bad guys.
What do you mean by this? It isn't clear.
-
Up close is where I would particularly like to see changes to icons. Under a certain distance I would like the icon to change to just a red bishop, knight or rook symbol, perhaps even just a red dot.
Agreed.
Didn't say it was. I said it was more realistic than no icons, which it is.
That is one of the flaws of the icon system. I'd like a phase in time of, perhaps, 1 second.
Indeed, but that doesn't justify simulating pilots who are legally blind, which is what no icons does.
Yes, it is a choice between unrealistic option A that acknowledges the shortcomings of computers vs even more unrealistic option B that pretends those problems don't exist.
Already done.
What do you mean by this? It isn't clear.
there is no way in hell a guy who knows he is going to find enemy..... is not looking around for said enemy.
I do agree that icons even the playing field....and thats why they are needed in the MA. but for a "realistic" arena they should be off.
I like the idea of just a small red dot or like you say a small knight/bish/rook symbol once the con gets say within 400. that would be better for immersion. and still give an icon up close.
-
if you think icons make up for the eyes...sorry but that is wrong...especially up close...
a friggin icon is in fact a huge neon sign over the plane....so maybe it makes up for distant viewing...
but once the con is close...the icon makes it imposable to lose sight.....how is that realistic?
a fighter just glancing around is gonna easily miss a plane that is below......
the fact that most painted there planes with a dark top and a light bottom....gee I wonder why they did that...
hmmm could it be that they wanted to be harder to spot........
there is NONE of that in AH period.... You cant miss the plane...why???? because of the icon.
get a friggin clue people.(not that krusty will ever get one thats one guy stuck on stupid)
and no I do not promote a no icon arena...I would like to see icons just become a dot within 800.....and fade away once the bandit is within 400 yards. but I am an elitist. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
and to say that most cons that were killed were not looking around looking for bad guys...... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
this would kick me out of the game along with a bunch of guys. that is the reason I cant go to the ava, I cant tell the difference between a shadow and the plane itself and I play with all settings on.
I was in fso 3 or 4 weeks ago and I got into a fight with a 109, I was able to get behind it and heard the call from my squadies that there were multiple 109's and low bombers. I looked around trying to find them while trying not to lose the 109. finally the 109 dove to the deck from about 3k and only saw the ju87's when the icon light up, and they were in front of me.
when looking at the film they must have been at least 30 cons within 4 or 5k from me. I never saw them.
you can call the icon unrealistic but it is done for gameplay's sake. that neon sign allows a lot of us to play.
semp
-
this would kick me out of the game along with a bunch of guys. that is the reason I cant go to the ava, I cant tell the difference between a shadow and the plane itself and I play with all settings on.
I was in fso 3 or 4 weeks ago and I got into a fight with a 109, I was able to get behind it and heard the call from my squadies that there were multiple 109's and low bombers. I looked around trying to find them while trying not to lose the 109. finally the 109 dove to the deck from about 3k and only saw the ju87's when the icon light up, and they were in front of me.
when looking at the film they must have been at least 30 cons within 4 or 5k from me. I never saw them.
you can call the icon unrealistic but it is done for gameplay's sake. that neon sign allows a lot of us to play.
semp
ya I understand that, thats why I don't advocate a no icons arena :neener:
-
there is no way in hell a guy who knows he is going to find enemy..... is not looking around for said enemy.
It happened at times. Saburo Sakai shot down a P-39 that was flying straight and level for a long time. Robert Stanford Tuck got bounced by a pair of Bf109s over the North Sea in a Hurricane Mk IIc and said he had been lax on looking around. While he did end up having to bail out the Hurri's durability and luck allowed it to survive and then for him to shoot down his attackers, though at the time one was only a probable.
As I said, most pilots to whom the "did not see his attacker" comment is going to refer to are guys who were target fixated as Bob Doe had been or who simply didn't see their attacker. This doesn't even mean that they never saw the guy, which they may well have as the formations approached each other, but did not seem him as he maneuvered into position and then attacked.
The need to constantly look around was not nearly emphasized as much as it ought to have been and many green pilots died that way.
-
ya I understand that, thats why I don't advocate a no icons arena :neener:
"and no I do not promote a no icon arena...I would like to see icons just become a dot within 800.....and fade away once the bandit is within 400 yards. but I am an elitist"
ink, so no icons from 800 yards doesnt make it a no icon arena? :rolleyes:
semp
-
It happened at times. Saburo Sakai shot down a P-39 that was flying straight and level for a long time. Robert Stanford Tuck got bounced by a pair of Bf109s over the North Sea in a Hurricane Mk IIc and said he had been lax on looking around. While he did end up having to bail out the Hurri's durability and luck allowed it to survive and then for him to shoot down his attackers, though at the time one was only a probable.
As I said, most pilots to whom the "did not see his attacker" comment is going to refer to are guys who were target fixated as Bob Doe had been or who simply didn't see their attacker. This doesn't even mean that they never saw the guy, which they may well have as the formations approached each other, but did not seem him as he maneuvered into position and then attacked.
The need to constantly look around was not nearly emphasized as much as it ought to have been and many green pilots died that way.
with out a doubt it did happen....but there is no way every 352 cons that Erich Hartman shot down were not looking around....and thats just 1 guy......and most he shot never saw him.
I wonder what his kill tally would have been if he had a 30 foot neon sign over his plane. :t
there is just no way that they all were not looking around....if your green and you know you are going into enemy territory...you will craning your neck like a banshee....I know I would be.
hell WW1 pilots wore a scarf so their necks didn't get rubbed raw from what.......looking for bad guys..... :D
but ya icons are more realistic...... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
question....what the hell happened to common sense :headscratch:.....if it is so common how come almost nobody has it.
seems so simple to me I :headscratch: trying to figure how guys actually think icons are more realistic.
"and no I do not promote a no icon arena...I would like to see icons just become a dot within 800.....and fade away once the bandit is within 400 yards. but I am an elitist"
ink, so no icons from 800 yards doesnt make it a no icon arena? :rolleyes:
semp
at 800 a small red dot....again I just said I like that idea..... I didn't say thats how it "should" be....see the difference :banana:
-
at 800 a small red dot....again I just said I like that idea..... I didn't say thats how it "should" be....see the difference :banana:
I understand you dont have a quarter, you have a 25 cent coin
semp
-
Bob Doe had to figure it out for himself. Nobody had told him he had to be looking around, that was the flight leader's job and he was just supposed to maintain formation with the leader. I am sure he was not unique.
While the game is not real and is a far cry from reality, it does offer some lessons that would apply to reality and the need to look around constantly is one of them. I suspect that you undersell the effect that this game has had on your thinking in terms of WWII air combat.
Even in AH where death is just a lesson in what not to do we see absolutely massive levels of target fixation. Some, I am sure, is because death doesn't ultimately matter thant much so the fixated player is gambling that his fixation will pay off with a kill before he dies, but a lot is going to just be the natural human tendency to focus on what they are trying to do.
-
err can't OP just set up and host his own in custom arena? :headscratch:
just advertize it in MA and DA arenas...
If i were OP i'd go far to just set up:
- create a map with just 2 bases... with 7k airspawn
- contemporary fighter vs fighter (spit 5 vs ki-43, yak-7 vs 109F etc, spit 1 vs 109E etc)
- real short icons
- cockpit view only
- global stall limiter off
- MA-style gas consumption
- friendly+enemy bar radar
- friendly dot radar only
-
I understand you dont have a quarter, you have a 25 cent coin
semp
:rofl
thats quick....
but seriously I don't advocate the no icon arena I know not everyone has the system or the eyes for that...so no I know it shouldn't be done in the MA.(that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a small dot up close)
-
Saburo Sakai shot down a P-39 that was flying straight and level for a long time. .
As I said, most pilots to whom the "did not see his attacker" comment is going to refer to are guys who were target fixated as Bob Doe had been or who simply didn't see their attacker. This doesn't even mean that they never saw the guy, which they may well have as the formations approached each other, but did not seem him as he maneuvered into position and then attacked.
The need to constantly look around was not nearly emphasized as much as it ought to have been and many green pilots died that way.
Exactly! In air combat, real life or cartoon life, it is imperative to constantly check six and belly check. If this isn't done, it's only a matter of time before you get tapped. :salute
-
An alternate thought for the complex engine management:
Most of the "Nays" come from people who believe that this would be a significant turn-off to new players, which probably isn't an inaccurate assessment. More to manage means more to worry about outside of just shooting stuff down. However if you think about it, there's already a couple aspects where AH provides similar assistance for players by simplifying the game:
Auto Takeoffs, Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, and Engine Governor.
Players who can't quite manage getting their machine off the ground can turn on auto-takeoffs, while Stall Limiter protect them from spins they might not be able to get out of. Combat Trim makes it easier to quickly adjust aircraft trim to keep it level for gunnery purposes, while the Engine Governor stops the engines on WWI machines from over-revving in a dive and blowing out.
All of them (well, except Auto Takeoff) also give players who DON'T use them a slight advantage, whether by giving them better control over their aircraft's flight characteristics, letting them push deeper into a stall to get a few extra DPS or shave a few extra feet off the turn, or pushing a little extra speed out of a dive.
So why not make complex engine management the same way: A clipboard option that can be turned on or off. Players who want to use it can, and those who don't won't have to worry about it. Maybe a player might want to risk running his cowl flaps or radiator closed at high power settings to reduce drag for a couple extra mph. Or maybe squeeze a little extra range or power out of their engine by tweaking their fuel mixture at the risk of starving it or detonation.
-
Give it up Karnak. These fools are the AvA hijackers that were brainwashed by nrraven and the IL2 converts that have a never-failing pretentious belief that no-icons is the only thing that is realisitc, despite facts, details, historic accounts modern accounts, etc. These are the people that repeatedly turn to insults. The ONLY defense they have is to say "you are less of a person if you don't advocate no-icons" -- and they use this backhanded insult 100% of the time. Even when we've tried to explain the logical fallacy they are using and how this is an insult (even when it's a direct insult) they are so blind they cannot -- literally cannot -- understand they are simply insulting every person that doesn't agree with them. Time and time again many folks on this forum have tried and time and time again they simply ignore it and insult everyone.
And I was NOT exaggerating about IDing plane codes. Many's the time a downed pilot was recognized from a split-second glimpse of his plane, and seeing the codes on it. In a furball, a wild furball with planes zipping around and engaged all around, I've read many accounts where pilots recounted "so and so was up on my right, and I could see what's-his-name on my lower left engaging 2 more, and ahead of me I saw X and Y still in formation, and that's when I saw Z go down without so much as a word" -- this is quite common.
I can see the colors and livery of an airliner flying overhead at 50,000+, but in this game all you can see is a black blob that might vaguely be something with wings. I'm in a residential area that's quite a few miles from a local airport, and under the final approach leg. It's residential, though, so they have to stay a certain altitude up. I can still make out fine details, including oil stains, every detail on landing gears, engines, control surfaces, flaps, the windows, I can see inside the plane if it banks..... All while they're thousands of feet away.
Puma, you're just wrong. Dead flat absurdly wrong. As is Oldman. I'm not talking radar operators that don't know what a plane looks like. I'm talking people that stand in the tower looking out the windows. I'm not making sh** up like you and oldman are. There is actual science at work. The angle of light that hits the eye, the distance of the object, and what details can be distinguished from such things vs pixels on a screen. Somebody even took time to spell out the physics of it on these forums and you AvA hijackers simply ignored it, along with all the first-hand testimonials telling you you're all full of crap. At this point you, Puma, and Oldman, are the equivelant of Gaston and his made-up theories about how flight physics work... booed out of every forum because he religiously believes in things which defy physics, but he proclaims to be correct.
Also, you have absolutely NO right to call Karnak an elitist nor claim he's throwing out insults. EVERY time this conversation comes up the ONLY response from the "AvA vocalists" is to back-handedly insult people by saying you are better than everyone else because you play with no icons. You use key words and catch phrases to cloak your meanings but every time, without fail, you elitists (and that's not an insult, it is the definition of what you are doing) insult every other person no matter how inaccurate your stance or how wrong you are. You jump out of your chair to RALLY to oldman's side because oldman makes an absurd comment: "How do you know? All those guys are dead!" -- without stopping to consider the simply obvious response: Not the guys that shot them down. Not their wingmen. Not everybody else in the battle.
Ink, you're clouding the issues. Simply because you don't think it happened doesn't negate the fact that it happened. Many of Hartman's kills weren't aware he was right behind them. He would often go into a fight right behind an enemy plane, and he recounted "You had to get close, then closer, and closer still, until you thought you might hit" and he was known for firing off just 1 or 2 cannon rounds directly into an occupied P-51's radiator, because he knew that was a sure critical hit for the P-51. That plane would not make it back to base. In 5 minutes it would go down, regardless.
You're also totally clouding historic facts with your own game experiences. No way somebody looking for the enemy isn't going to be looking around? What? Do you even know anything how WW2 combat worked? Squadrons would form up, climb out, have to stay in formation, follow course changes, meet target destinations on a map, all the while spending hours in the air. They didn't know where the enemy was. The enemy could (and often was) already up and looking for them. Through sheer luck one of them will spot the the other first. The vast majority of engagements in WW2 air combat were one group attacking the other unsuspectingly. After that attack (usually after some are shot down) then they know the enemy are there... Usually they would dive away and return home afterwards, and that was the end of their "combat" for the day.
They didn't up a plane, start spraying ammo as soon as they were wheels up, fly for 5 minutes with a death wish, instantly know where the enemy furball was because they had already died in it and knew where it was, and they didn't have 15-20 years of flight experience like Aces High pilots often do. Further, you saying "there's no way they did that, because I don't do that" isn't even a valid argument. You are not them. You want to know how much flight training on-type the Soviet pilots got on the LaGG and Yak-1? 2 hours if they were lucky. 2 hours of flight training and then thrown into combat. They didn't even have combat schools. What they were teaching was how to do the math and how to navigate, and how to operate a high-tech engine system, and what lift is, to people that barely knew what an automobile was. Any combat training they got was sink or swim, or if they happened to get into 1 or 2 units that might already have a smart ace there who takes it upon himself on his own time to teach his fellow pilots. US training was better, but still not good. They trained pilots in the art of flying. They learned how to control their aircraft in all situations... But they didn't know how to teach combat tactics -- not like you might in the DA. You are totally framing the entire debate on your in-game experience. That's just now how it was in WW2.
As for you "They would SEE" -- well no matter how much you wish they would, they didn't. Even later on during Vietnam there's a famous incident where a flight of F-4s were heading home after a sortie and literally passed head-on through a formation of F-4s flying the other way. One one pilot saw it, it was in the blink of an eye. What with radar and all, it shouldn't have happened according to you.
P.S. WW1 pilots scarves were to wipe their goggles, because the engines used castor oil lubricant and it threw oil all over the pilot's face through the normal course of operating. I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to aviation history man. Your constant fanaticism againt AH icons further reinforces that notion.
Also, Saxman is quite correct. Icons do not mean you do any less work. Camo does not mean a plane in real life goes unspotted. Camo was stationary to protect a plane from attacks while it was parked. A moving target is vastly easier to see, especially aircraft. The human eye instinctively reacts to motion -- even the slightest of motion. Camo is shattered if the object moves. The belief that "oh, that's why camo was on planes in WW2, because they had no icons!" is absurd. Yet, it is a repeating theme from the AvA hijackers. It's all based on ingnorance of how things work in the real world.
Let me put this in a way that you AvA vocalists would put it.... Maybe YOU are all so obsessed with icons because YOU can't fly by looking at the plane. Maybe you see a neon sign and that grabs your attention like a mag-pie so you can't focus on the target itself? I know *I* don't look at the icon outside of the plane type. I know *I* don't use it for maneuvering and killing. I use it to ID the plane and get rough distance, then once I track the plane I'm barely looking at the icon. In fact I don't even notice it, since I'm looking too closely at the plane itself. So maybe you all just suck because I'm so much better at focusing my attention than you?
Yes... that's about how the AvA lot would phrase it.
-
why halve icons? Why not double them? That would be more realistic. 6 kilometers is 3.75 miles. Realistically you can spot and ID many planes large AND SMALL out to 8-10 miles.
You can Identify and camo 109 below you against the terrain at 10 miles?
I call shanagans.
-
Thank you for post #47 Krusty.
I think it's important to remember that most sorties were flown without ever seeing the enemy. After several of these sorties surely even good pilots would not be whipping their heads around constantly scanning everywhere for an enemy.
As a USAF aircraft controller I can tell you positively we can see much better than the game simulates. The Icon's put back the visibility that the game cannot simulate. I could see and identify aircraft type from 3 miles. I could see if their gear was down from 2 miles. I could distinguish flap settings from 1 mile. I could see which way a pilot was looking at 1000 yards.
I love FSO's. I love scenarios. I would much rather fly my luftwaffe aircraft against allied aircraft. I would love to play in a populated AvA arena. The number 1 reason I don't play there is because of the Icon settings. The number 2 reason I don't fly there is because of the elitist attitudes I encounter there fed by the no Icon rule. The number 3 reason I do not fly there is because there is so few or no one else there and I believe #3 is because of #1 & #2.
-
I can see the colors and livery of an airliner flying overhead at 50,000+, but in this game all you can see is a black blob that might vaguely be something with wings. I'm in a residential area that's quite a few miles from a local airport, and under the final approach leg. It's residential, though, so they have to stay a certain altitude up. I can still make out fine details, including oil stains, every detail on landing gears, engines, control surfaces, flaps, the windows, I can see inside the plane if it banks..... All while they're thousands of feet away.
uh huh...ya right... :rofl :lol you can see all that from 9 miles straight up? you weren't looking at anything smaller than a space shuttle. i have 20/10 corrected vision with no color blindness, and i can't see the colors and livery of a passenger plane at 35,000ft overhead. i live 3 miles from an international airport and watch passenger jets frequently take off and land and i have yet to be able to make anything but the windows and landing gear. and i would love to know how it is that you have magically determined that a jet liner is 50,000ft overhead when the max altitude is 41,000ft.
you must have superman vision. :aok
a modified icon system might just be something to "freshen things up"...but it will never happen. too many variables to consider. some people with vision problems would be at a disadvantage. and, too many people with superhuman powers claiming they can see small details from many miles away and can tell the difference between 6 miles and 10 miles.
-
I don't understand why so many proponents of no-icons find it necessary to insult those who disagree. At the very least, it's rude, crude, and impolite. You will not enlist people in your cause by either implying or bluntly saying your opponents are sissies. Just stop, OK? This whole, trumped-up "controversy" has gotten to be very tiresome. Please let it go.
-
An alternate thought for the complex engine management:
Most of the "Nays" come from people who believe that this would be a significant turn-off to new players, which probably isn't an inaccurate assessment. More to manage means more to worry about outside of just shooting stuff down. However if you think about it, there's already a couple aspects where AH provides similar assistance for players by simplifying the game:
Auto Takeoffs, Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, and Engine Governor.
Players who can't quite manage getting their machine off the ground can turn on auto-takeoffs, while Stall Limiter protect them from spins they might not be able to get out of. Combat Trim makes it easier to quickly adjust aircraft trim to keep it level for gunnery purposes, while the Engine Governor stops the engines on WWI machines from over-revving in a dive and blowing out.
All of them (well, except Auto Takeoff) also give players who DON'T use them a slight advantage, whether by giving them better control over their aircraft's flight characteristics, letting them push deeper into a stall to get a few extra DPS or shave a few extra feet off the turn, or pushing a little extra speed out of a dive.
So why not make complex engine management the same way: A clipboard option that can be turned on or off. Players who want to use it can, and those who don't won't have to worry about it. Maybe a player might want to risk running his cowl flaps or radiator closed at high power settings to reduce drag for a couple extra mph. Or maybe squeeze a little extra range or power out of their engine by tweaking their fuel mixture at the risk of starving it or detonation.
So, about that alternative for a way to introduce complex engine management...
-
In the late 70's my father and I were at the Harrisburg PA airport to ferry back to BWI a twin Baron. I was home visiting from college. We ran into an old student pilot of my father, who having money, collected vintage planes. He was taking delivery of a T28 bought from auction out of Pensacola. It was still in it's orange and white NAVY livery. Since we were both heading to BWI, he gave me a ride back.
Having money, and not following rules and laws seems to be a common problem. This resulted in a side trip to check out the T28's performance. Large pasture, herd of Holsteins. 30ft off the deck herding cattle. But, I think it was the school bus we accidentally chased that got us reported.
Anyway we knew my father was heading back to BWI, his alt and speed. So we went hunting for twins to kill time on the way. At 6000yds(3.4miles) on a clear day you can tell the difference between a twin Baron and a Piper twin if you know what both look like from experience. Their motion makes them stand out from the background except if they are passing behind a cloud. Eventually we spotted my father at distance and went into a slight dive and passed about 20yds below and then out and past into a climb. He never knew we were there while he was easy to see as a twin Baron from 6000yds.
You do not see the same in a computer game at long distance as you do in real life. Also depending on the ground clutter in real life, you may see an airplane in motion standing out, or a motion that can't exist in the ground clutter which your eyes are designed to be instantly attracted to. Then you resolve the whole aircraft. Not all these fleeting shadows that seem to hallmark the con you chase until inside of 400. Or on full zoom things are slightly better but, then you have no width of field, just tunnel vision.
The manner in which the game presents our aircraft in motion at distance is not designed well for "no Icons". And most of the best DA monsters in this game impress me as having no hours in anything other than their PC chair and their car. As long as they keep their uberness to the fact they are very good in a kiddy game, then I salute them for that accomplishment. Otherwise since I was 6 years old and before the "IdeiotNet" was invented. I already had several hundreds of hours in real aircraft by the time of the T28 incident over Pennsylvania. One of the benefits of a father and his friends who are all pilots and instructors. I got loaned out on weekends to keep people awake on long trips and the hope I would want to get my ticket some day. It's very easy in a small sunny cockpit to become drowsy on long trips. My first powered flight ride and chance to be at the stick was in a Taylorcraft Austor out of the Peshawar airport in 1962. In 1960 my father soloed his first glider at the London gliding club and earned his Silver C.
So Krusty has it right essentially on the real world merits. Still, with so much time invested into this kiddy game. There is a point that players will blur reality with their accomplishment based affinity and identity with the game. Males identify themselves by their vocation and or accomplishments. Before the "IdeiotNet" it was things like the Society for Creative Anachronism. There they made armor and beat each other senseless with sticks to determine who was the uber stick. And walked around in dresses and a big belt with a cheap replica sword. Acting like that was real life instead of their boring 9-5 where they weren't the top of the food chain.
-
Quite an interesting perspective and post, Buster. :aok
-
:rofl
Bustr and his wall O text..... :rofl :rofl :rofl
I do not disagree with them making up for distance viewing.....
but up close and personal where a sword works the friggen icon is very unrealistic.
who friggen cares who is way over there.... :rolleyes:
oh I know...... the guys who will run at first sign of being killed...or not having the upper hand..... :aok
-
INK,
Before the "IdeotNet" that's how people communicated as the standard to express clear vision and ideas. Oral and written transmission of experience directly related to passing on life experiences. In the hope of being helpful when one of your audience waded into the deep end for their turn in a non "IdeiotNet" world.
I'm sorry you don't value communication like so many now on the "IdeiotNet". At least I spent my time in many real aircraft long before this idioet game was a twinkle in anyone's eye. All at the prime age range that today our xBox generation wastes their lives' away trying to become uber sticks in kiddy shoot em up games. I grew up thinking it was normal going to the airfield on weekends with my father or his friends.
I washed, cleaned wind screens and fueled a lot of planes when other kids were reading comics or outside playing. That was the accepted cost for all the free rides I was given. I even worked for a small field one summer pumping gas, cleaning planes and answering the comm. All of the pilots I personally knew and met, valued communication because of the complex ideas associated with flying. Along with the need to keep up with the ongoing changes in information, or their next check ride to keep current, or their next ticket, or their next FAA required check ride, or learning the manual for the next ride they needed a cert in.
Unlike this game where piu, piu, piu is the coin of respect and all you need is a cheap laptop, mouse and $14.95 a month to be some body. When my father was forced to retire in his 60's for a heart problem. He had just finished his next to last check ride in a Citation to become jet certified. The manual he memorized was 6 inches thick just to get into the left seat for the first ride. All of that started in 1960 with him as a Russian language communications sergeant in the USAFSS getting his Silver C at the London Gliding club. Then by the early 80's achieving multiengine commercial instructor level on his own dime, flying commercial cargo, Air Taxi, Air Ambulance and a contract pilot for the FBI. I rode right seat with him a few times on cargo runs in a Beech 18, speaking about complex engine management.
I'll have to ask my mother if he needed to value communication to finally get into that Citation's left seat.
-
what the hell are you talking about :headscratch:
while you were washing and cleaning and other kids were hanging out with dad, fishing or reading comics.... I was fighting everyday to just stay alive.
ask me again why I don't pull no punches and tell it like it is.
you think I value how "good" someone can go pew pew pew....... :rofl
its how one conducts himself ingame or here on the boards, that I "value"
I call it "talking out the side of your mouth", you..... Krusty.....chalenge..flyfin.. .... and a few others are great at it.....me I am more direct.
I spoke my mind on this subject......wont respond again. :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
:rofl
Bustr and his wall O text..... :rofl :rofl :rofl
I do not disagree with them making up for distance viewing.....
but up close and personal where a sword works the friggen icon is very unrealistic.
who friggen cares who is way over there.... :rolleyes:
oh I know...... the guys who will run at first sign of being killed...or not having the upper hand..... :aok
Black dot in distance?
Let's get closer :banana:
-
Give it up Karnak. These fools are the AvA hijackers that were brainwashed by nrraven and the IL2 converts that have a never-failing pretentious belief that no-icons is the only thing that is realisitc,
You berate everyone who wants Icon modification so here's back at you....
Your entire post is based on the CRAP assumption that people who advocate no-Icon/ shortened-Icon want it because it's visually more realistic. So you go off on your "Human eye vs screen resolution" garbage. Throw in BustR too.
You argue the wrong point EVERY single time this discussion comes up. "OH look at me I fly a REAL plane so mine is the only opinion that matters", "I can See Russia from my house."
The point isn't whether the visual acuity in game is the same as real life. EVERYONE knows it isn't Thanks Captain Obvious.
The issue is at what distance are visual ques REQUIRED for combat, game play etc...
Required means:
At what distance do I need to ID that it's an enemy? Answer: 6K is all you get WITH icon. With No-Icon I know it's an enemy at 5800 because the plane has no Icon. So that function in game is the same with or without Icon.
At what distance do I need to know what kind of enemy plane? Answer: 6K is all you get WITH icon. I can do it at 4-5K in game without Icon. That's plenty.
At what distance do you need to know his gear or flaps are down? Answer: 400-600yrds. I can see them at 1000yds in game. Besides Icon doesn't tell you flap or gear status so why mention it.
So In my opinion ICONS don't make up for a lack of visual acuity, that is required for realistic combat. What they do is over-correct and negatively affect game play because they make it impossible to not be seen at 3.4 miles in a camo airplane on a busy battle field. Sneaking a goon is impossible, flying low penetrating missions is impossible because the Alt monkeys can see you on the deck, in a camo plane, from 18,000ft. Without Icon I can see the dots and plane shapes below me, but I have to LOOK for them. Stop acting like no-icon make planes invisible. Modified Icons may provide relief from the large hordes, because they might not all see you at the same time.
And yet again we have to explain that....numbers in early-war, mid-war, AvA, and personal Arenas are no indication of the acceptance or rejection of those plane sets, or arena set ups. People simply go where the numbers are, and the LWMA has all the planes so it attracts the largest crowd. Then when more players log on, they just follow the crowd. The horde has it's own gravity, and it's that gravity that attracts everyone to it.
So modified Icons might improve game play, that's why people suggest and talk about it. Think about it and stop being a snob.
-
Well what about this then:
Plane is set against a clear blue sky? Full icon range.
Plane ducks into the clouds? Reduced icon range.
Looking down on an aircraft camo'ed against the deck clutter? Reduced icon range.
The problem with the above, though, is how do you handle skins? USN/MC colors would break up the aircraft's outline if you're looking down on it over water but not over land. Vice-versa with aircraft that are varying shades of green or brown. And BMF aircraft are going to be highly visible regardless of the backdrop. And of course the Moo Cow 109 skin sticks out like a sore thumb against anything but snow (which we don't have winter terrains in the Mains). Not to mention aircraft that might have different camo patterns available. IE, what about the F4F, F4U or F6F, which have both USN/MC colors as well as RAF camo patterns? RAF patterns would break up the outline over land but stick out over water, while US would do the opposite.
-
Well what about this then:
Plane is set against a clear blue sky? Full icon range.
Plane ducks into the clouds? Reduced icon range.
Looking down on an aircraft camo'ed against the deck clutter? Reduced icon range.
The problem with the above, though, is how do you handle skins? USN/MC colors would break up the aircraft's outline if you're looking down on it over water but not over land. Vice-versa with aircraft that are varying shades of green or brown. And BMF aircraft are going to be highly visible regardless of the backdrop. And of course the Moo Cow 109 skin sticks out like a sore thumb against anything but snow (which we don't have winter terrains in the Mains). Not to mention aircraft that might have different camo patterns available. IE, what about the F4F, F4U or F6F, which have both USN/MC colors as well as RAF camo patterns? RAF patterns would break up the outline over land but stick out over water, while US would do the opposite.
All creative ideas that that I would support if they could be implemented. Appreciated :salute
-
rather than "reduced icon range" what about simply change the icons in general and a change in the way icons appear based on distance? there are people with vision impairments that need to be taken into consideration but, there should also be a hard set limit to how large the icons can be made on the player end.
i has idears but, they may end up being too complex for gameplay... :rolleyes: :uhoh
-
Give it up Karnak. These fools are the AvA hijackers that were brainwashed by nrraven and the IL2 converts that have a never-failing pretentious belief that no-icons is the only thing that is realisitc, despite facts, details, historic accounts modern accounts, etc. These are the people that repeatedly turn to insults. The ONLY defense they have is to say "you are less of a person if you don't advocate no-icons" -- and they use this backhanded insult 100% of the time. Even when we've tried to explain the logical fallacy they are using and how this is an insult (even when it's a direct insult) they are so blind they cannot -- literally cannot -- understand they are simply insulting every person that doesn't agree with them. Time and time again many folks on this forum have tried and time and time again they simply ignore it and insult everyone.
And I was NOT exaggerating about IDing plane codes. Many's the time a downed pilot was recognized from a split-second glimpse of his plane, and seeing the codes on it. In a furball, a wild furball with planes zipping around and engaged all around, I've read many accounts where pilots recounted "so and so was up on my right, and I could see what's-his-name on my lower left engaging 2 more, and ahead of me I saw X and Y still in formation, and that's when I saw Z go down without so much as a word" -- this is quite common.
I can see the colors and livery of an airliner flying overhead at 50,000+, but in this game all you can see is a black blob that might vaguely be something with wings. I'm in a residential area that's quite a few miles from a local airport, and under the final approach leg. It's residential, though, so they have to stay a certain altitude up. I can still make out fine details, including oil stains, every detail on landing gears, engines, control surfaces, flaps, the windows, I can see inside the plane if it banks..... All while they're thousands of feet away.
Puma, you're just wrong. Dead flat absurdly wrong. As is Oldman. I'm not talking radar operators that don't know what a plane looks like. I'm talking people that stand in the tower looking out the windows. I'm not making sh** up like you and oldman are. There is actual science at work. The angle of light that hits the eye, the distance of the object, and what details can be distinguished from such things vs pixels on a screen. Somebody even took time to spell out the physics of it on these forums and you AvA hijackers simply ignored it, along with all the first-hand testimonials telling you you're all full of crap. At this point you, Puma, and Oldman, are the equivelant of Gaston and his made-up theories about how flight physics work... booed out of every forum because he religiously believes in things which defy physics, but he proclaims to be correct.
Also, you have absolutely NO right to call Karnak an elitist nor claim he's throwing out insults. EVERY time this conversation comes up the ONLY response from the "AvA vocalists" is to back-handedly insult people by saying you are better than everyone else because you play with no icons. You use key words and catch phrases to cloak your meanings but every time, without fail, you elitists (and that's not an insult, it is the definition of what you are doing) insult every other person no matter how inaccurate your stance or how wrong you are. You jump out of your chair to RALLY to oldman's side because oldman makes an absurd comment: "How do you know? All those guys are dead!" -- without stopping to consider the simply obvious response: Not the guys that shot them down. Not their wingmen. Not everybody else in the battle.
Ink, you're clouding the issues. Simply because you don't think it happened doesn't negate the fact that it happened. Many of Hartman's kills weren't aware he was right behind them. He would often go into a fight right behind an enemy plane, and he recounted "You had to get close, then closer, and closer still, until you thought you might hit" and he was known for firing off just 1 or 2 cannon rounds directly into an occupied P-51's radiator, because he knew that was a sure critical hit for the P-51. That plane would not make it back to base. In 5 minutes it would go down, regardless.
You're also totally clouding historic facts with your own game experiences. No way somebody looking for the enemy isn't going to be looking around? What? Do you even know anything how WW2 combat worked? Squadrons would form up, climb out, have to stay in formation, follow course changes, meet target destinations on a map, all the while spending hours in the air. They didn't know where the enemy was. The enemy could (and often was) already up and looking for them. Through sheer luck one of them will spot the the other first. The vast majority of engagements in WW2 air combat were one group attacking the other unsuspectingly. After that attack (usually after some are shot down) then they know the enemy are there... Usually they would dive away and return home afterwards, and that was the end of their "combat" for the day.
They didn't up a plane, start spraying ammo as soon as they were wheels up, fly for 5 minutes with a death wish, instantly know where the enemy furball was because they had already died in it and knew where it was, and they didn't have 15-20 years of flight experience like Aces High pilots often do. Further, you saying "there's no way they did that, because I don't do that" isn't even a valid argument. You are not them. You want to know how much flight training on-type the Soviet pilots got on the LaGG and Yak-1? 2 hours if they were lucky. 2 hours of flight training and then thrown into combat. They didn't even have combat schools. What they were teaching was how to do the math and how to navigate, and how to operate a high-tech engine system, and what lift is, to people that barely knew what an automobile was. Any combat training they got was sink or swim, or if they happened to get into 1 or 2 units that might already have a smart ace there who takes it upon himself on his own time to teach his fellow pilots. US training was better, but still not good. They trained pilots in the art of flying. They learned how to control their aircraft in all situations... But they didn't know how to teach combat tactics -- not like you might in the DA. You are totally framing the entire debate on your in-game experience. That's just now how it was in WW2.
As for you "They would SEE" -- well no matter how much you wish they would, they didn't. Even later on during Vietnam there's a famous incident where a flight of F-4s were heading home after a sortie and literally passed head-on through a formation of F-4s flying the other way. One one pilot saw it, it was in the blink of an eye. What with radar and all, it shouldn't have happened according to you.
P.S. WW1 pilots scarves were to wipe their goggles, because the engines used castor oil lubricant and it threw oil all over the pilot's face through the normal course of operating. I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to aviation history man. Your constant fanaticism againt AH icons further reinforces that notion.
Also, Saxman is quite correct. Icons do not mean you do any less work. Camo does not mean a plane in real life goes unspotted. Camo was stationary to protect a plane from attacks while it was parked. A moving target is vastly easier to see, especially aircraft. The human eye instinctively reacts to motion -- even the slightest of motion. Camo is shattered if the object moves. The belief that "oh, that's why camo was on planes in WW2, because they had no icons!" is absurd. Yet, it is a repeating theme from the AvA hijackers. It's all based on ingnorance of how things work in the real world.
Let me put this in a way that you AvA vocalists would put it.... Maybe YOU are all so obsessed with icons because YOU can't fly by looking at the plane. Maybe you see a neon sign and that grabs your attention like a mag-pie so you can't focus on the target itself? I know *I* don't look at the icon outside of the plane type. I know *I* don't use it for maneuvering and killing. I use it to ID the plane and get rough distance, then once I track the plane I'm barely looking at the icon. In fact I don't even notice it, since I'm looking too closely at the plane itself. So maybe you all just suck because I'm so much better at focusing my attention than you?
Yes... that's about how the AvA lot would phrase it.
Krusty, since you don't spend time in the AvA, you obviously don't know any of the players who frequent it. None of them consider themselves "elitists" or above anyone else. You are the only one in the discussion that is name calling and talking down to others. In fact, it is commonly known on the forums that this is your normal response when losing an argument to fact or reality; emotionally charged name calling, liberal use of insults, and talking down to others from your perch.
Also, tell us what current, certified commercial airliner is flying overhead your location at 50,000+ feet.
-
INK,
Before the "IdeotNet" that's how people communicated as the standard to express clear vision and ideas. Oral and written transmission of experience directly related to passing on life experiences. In the hope of being helpful when one of your audience waded into the deep end for their turn in a non "IdeiotNet" world.
I'm sorry you don't value communication like so many now on the "IdeiotNet". At least I spent my time in many real aircraft long before this idioet game was a twinkle in anyone's eye. All at the prime age range that today our xBox generation wastes their lives' away trying to become uber sticks in kiddy shoot em up games. I grew up thinking it was normal going to the airfield on weekends with my father or his friends.
I washed, cleaned wind screens and fueled a lot of planes when other kids were reading comics or outside playing. That was the accepted cost for all the free rides I was given. I even worked for a small field one summer pumping gas, cleaning planes and answering the comm. All of the pilots I personally knew and met, valued communication because of the complex ideas associated with flying. Along with the need to keep up with the ongoing changes in information, or their next check ride to keep current, or their next ticket, or their next FAA required check ride, or learning the manual for the next ride they needed a cert in.
Unlike this game where piu, piu, piu is the coin of respect and all you need is a cheap laptop, mouse and $14.95 a month to be some body. When my father was forced to retire in his 60's for a heart problem. He had just finished his next to last check ride in a Citation to become jet certified. The manual he memorized was 6 inches thick just to get into the left seat for the first ride. All of that started in 1960 with him as a Russian language communications sergeant in the USAFSS getting his Silver C at the London Gliding club. Then by the early 80's achieving multiengine commercial instructor level on his own dime, flying commercial cargo, Air Taxi, Air Ambulance and a contract pilot for the FBI. I rode right seat with him a few times on cargo runs in a Beech 18, speaking about complex engine management.
I'll have to ask my mother if he needed to value communication to finally get into that Citation's left seat.
Don't worry about him Bustr.. at the age you were learning to communicate Ink was cleaning/communicating the/with toilets in Juvenile Detention.
and Now a triad of "My father Beat Me" "I had to race up to the top of Wilt Chamberlins head and punch him in the face while doing back flips" and "I'm so stupid I have Ink on my face"
:cheers:
-
UHOH
-
Don't worry about him Bustr.. at the age you were learning to communicate Ink was cleaning/communicating the/with toilets in Juvenile Detention.
and Now a triad of "My father Beat Me" "I had to race up to the top of Wilt Chamberlins head and punch him in the face while doing back flips" and "I'm so stupid I have Ink on my face"
:cheers:
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/138/478/tugboat_display_image_display_image.jpg?1311970006)
-
Last comment for me.
Believe me, I wish no icons could be done realistically. I would very much prefer to have no icons and be able to rely on visual data only, but I am not sure that will ever happen.
So I am not arguing from the standpoint of "icons are good" so much as "icons are, unfortunately, required."
-
So, Krusty, what about the 50,000+feet airliners?
-
So, Krusty, what about the 50,000+feet airliners?
Let it go. Be content to know that WWII pilots were killed because they weren't looking, not because it was hard to spot enemy planes; mid-air collisions do not occur around our airports, because it is not hard to spot other planes; pilots with extensive experience are wrong if they think that is difficult to spot other planes from their cockpits; it is, in fact, easy to lip read at 1000 yards; and anyone who says different is an insulting elitist who has abjured any belief in True Science.
Now get back in your hole.
- oldman
-
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/138/478/tugboat_display_image_display_image.jpg?1311970006)
doesn't help if I have some tard on ignore when he is quoted..... :rofl
I see koolaid boy is still yapping his puppy mouth. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Icons make snap IDs too easy, but no icons is farther from reality than with icons is.
Very true that having icons allows you to aquire a target easier. Once you've spotted the target (real life) it is much easier to ID than it is in game (without icons).
WWIIOnline had a good idea with the icon that didn't appear unless you looked in one direction for a few seconds.
-
:rofl :aok
Hey have you seen that new show... every time I see it I think of you ...Bad Ink :rofl
Yap,
doesn't help if I have some tard on ignore when he is quoted..... :rofl
I see koolaid boy is still yapping his puppy mouth. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Go back to something your good at
what the hell are you talking about :headscratch
I spoke my mind on this subject......wont respond again. :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
Banging your head,
-
no icons is simply a request from people that want to pick targets without being seen. They want easy kills with the least amount of effort.
No matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true
-
Let it go. Be content to know that WWII pilots were killed because they weren't looking, not because it was hard to spot enemy planes; mid-air collisions do not occur around our airports, because it is not hard to spot other planes; pilots with extensive experience are wrong if they think that is difficult to spot other planes from their cockpits; it is, in fact, easy to lip read at 1000 yards; and anyone who says different is an insulting elitist who has abjured any belief in True Science.
Now get back in your hole.
- oldman
:rofl. :lol. :bolt:
-
Give it up Karnak. These fools are the AvA hijackers that were brainwashed by nrraven and the IL2 converts that have a never-failing pretentious belief that no-icons is the only thing that is realisitc, despite facts, details, historic accounts modern accounts, etc. These are the people that repeatedly turn to insults. The ONLY defense they have is to say "you are less of a person if you don't advocate no-icons" -- and they use this backhanded insult 100% of the time. Even when we've tried to explain the logical fallacy they are using and how this is an insult (even when it's a direct insult) they are so blind they cannot -- literally cannot -- understand they are simply insulting every person that doesn't agree with them. Time and time again many folks on this forum have tried and time and time again they simply ignore it and insult everyone.
And I was NOT exaggerating about IDing plane codes. Many's the time a downed pilot was recognized from a split-second glimpse of his plane, and seeing the codes on it. In a furball, a wild furball with planes zipping around and engaged all around, I've read many accounts where pilots recounted "so and so was up on my right, and I could see what's-his-name on my lower left engaging 2 more, and ahead of me I saw X and Y still in formation, and that's when I saw Z go down without so much as a word" -- this is quite common.
I can see the colors and livery of an airliner flying overhead at 50,000+, but in this game all you can see is a black blob that might vaguely be something with wings. I'm in a residential area that's quite a few miles from a local airport, and under the final approach leg. It's residential, though, so they have to stay a certain altitude up. I can still make out fine details, including oil stains, every detail on landing gears, engines, control surfaces, flaps, the windows, I can see inside the plane if it banks..... All while they're thousands of feet away.
Puma, you're just wrong. Dead flat absurdly wrong. As is Oldman. I'm not talking radar operators that don't know what a plane looks like. I'm talking people that stand in the tower looking out the windows. I'm not making sh** up like you and oldman are. There is actual science at work. The angle of light that hits the eye, the distance of the object, and what details can be distinguished from such things vs pixels on a screen. Somebody even took time to spell out the physics of it on these forums and you AvA hijackers simply ignored it, along with all the first-hand testimonials telling you you're all full of crap. At this point you, Puma, and Oldman, are the equivelant of Gaston and his made-up theories about how flight physics work... booed out of every forum because he religiously believes in things which defy physics, but he proclaims to be correct.
Also, you have absolutely NO right to call Karnak an elitist nor claim he's throwing out insults. EVERY time this conversation comes up the ONLY response from the "AvA vocalists" is to back-handedly insult people by saying you are better than everyone else because you play with no icons. You use key words and catch phrases to cloak your meanings but every time, without fail, you elitists (and that's not an insult, it is the definition of what you are doing) insult every other person no matter how inaccurate your stance or how wrong you are. You jump out of your chair to RALLY to oldman's side because oldman makes an absurd comment: "How do you know? All those guys are dead!" -- without stopping to consider the simply obvious response: Not the guys that shot them down. Not their wingmen. Not everybody else in the battle.
Ink, you're clouding the issues. Simply because you don't think it happened doesn't negate the fact that it happened. Many of Hartman's kills weren't aware he was right behind them. He would often go into a fight right behind an enemy plane, and he recounted "You had to get close, then closer, and closer still, until you thought you might hit" and he was known for firing off just 1 or 2 cannon rounds directly into an occupied P-51's radiator, because he knew that was a sure critical hit for the P-51. That plane would not make it back to base. In 5 minutes it would go down, regardless.
You're also totally clouding historic facts with your own game experiences. No way somebody looking for the enemy isn't going to be looking around? What? Do you even know anything how WW2 combat worked? Squadrons would form up, climb out, have to stay in formation, follow course changes, meet target destinations on a map, all the while spending hours in the air. They didn't know where the enemy was. The enemy could (and often was) already up and looking for them. Through sheer luck one of them will spot the the other first. The vast majority of engagements in WW2 air combat were one group attacking the other unsuspectingly. After that attack (usually after some are shot down) then they know the enemy are there... Usually they would dive away and return home afterwards, and that was the end of their "combat" for the day.
They didn't up a plane, start spraying ammo as soon as they were wheels up, fly for 5 minutes with a death wish, instantly know where the enemy furball was because they had already died in it and knew where it was, and they didn't have 15-20 years of flight experience like Aces High pilots often do. Further, you saying "there's no way they did that, because I don't do that" isn't even a valid argument. You are not them. You want to know how much flight training on-type the Soviet pilots got on the LaGG and Yak-1? 2 hours if they were lucky. 2 hours of flight training and then thrown into combat. They didn't even have combat schools. What they were teaching was how to do the math and how to navigate, and how to operate a high-tech engine system, and what lift is, to people that barely knew what an automobile was. Any combat training they got was sink or swim, or if they happened to get into 1 or 2 units that might already have a smart ace there who takes it upon himself on his own time to teach his fellow pilots. US training was better, but still not good. They trained pilots in the art of flying. They learned how to control their aircraft in all situations... But they didn't know how to teach combat tactics -- not like you might in the DA. You are totally framing the entire debate on your in-game experience. That's just now how it was in WW2.
As for you "They would SEE" -- well no matter how much you wish they would, they didn't. Even later on during Vietnam there's a famous incident where a flight of F-4s were heading home after a sortie and literally passed head-on through a formation of F-4s flying the other way. One one pilot saw it, it was in the blink of an eye. What with radar and all, it shouldn't have happened according to you.
P.S. WW1 pilots scarves were to wipe their goggles, because the engines used castor oil lubricant and it threw oil all over the pilot's face through the normal course of operating. I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to aviation history man. Your constant fanaticism againt AH icons further reinforces that notion.
Also, Saxman is quite correct. Icons do not mean you do any less work. Camo does not mean a plane in real life goes unspotted. Camo was stationary to protect a plane from attacks while it was parked. A moving target is vastly easier to see, especially aircraft. The human eye instinctively reacts to motion -- even the slightest of motion. Camo is shattered if the object moves. The belief that "oh, that's why camo was on planes in WW2, because they had no icons!" is absurd. Yet, it is a repeating theme from the AvA hijackers. It's all based on ingnorance of how things work in the real world.
Let me put this in a way that you AvA vocalists would put it.... Maybe YOU are all so obsessed with icons because YOU can't fly by looking at the plane. Maybe you see a neon sign and that grabs your attention like a mag-pie so you can't focus on the target itself? I know *I* don't look at the icon outside of the plane type. I know *I* don't use it for maneuvering and killing. I use it to ID the plane and get rough distance, then once I track the plane I'm barely looking at the icon. In fact I don't even notice it, since I'm looking too closely at the plane itself. So maybe you all just suck because I'm so much better at focusing my attention than you?
Yes... that's about how the AvA lot would phrase it.
You are judging a lot of people by the actions of one and that one was appealing to a sense of challenge to players. It may have rubbed people the wrong way, but that's what it was.
Why do you constantly demean players by suggested the worst possible motive?
Can't you just accept that some people like different things than you do?
Here are the facts.
Yes, no icons isn't realistic but some people like the way it looks and feels. They think it has a more realistic look to it and that big bright icons is an immersion killer. No, they aren't looking for an advantage, otherwise they would only want everyone else to not see icons, not the same thing for all.
I've been up in planes, most recently with Puma. I saw another plane in the air. I don't know exactly what distance but it wasn't all that far. I could tell it was a white one. That's all.
Puma is a retired air force and a current commercial pilot. Oldman has a ton of hours as a private pilot, and you think you are qualified to tell them they are dead wrong?
At least qualify it as different opinions, instead of speaking authoritively.
-
listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.
-
At some point in the future we will play games in a 3D format rather than 2D fooling our eyes into seeing 3D. At that point distant objects will be rendered as 3D with 3D light response standing them out as independent elements. This is how we are able to see aircraft at 5miles in real life and some of us even tell the difference between a 150 or 172 at that distance. When I was young and had good eyes, I could. But, back then I looked at a lot of them every weekend and had that advantage.
Until then, AH is not optimized for showing distant objects or anything very clearly moving 100mph+ past about 400 yards. That's why it's so easy to turn down the ambient lighting in the AvA and most visitors can never see anyone below the horizon. And in some cases even against the weather\sky setup for that evening. Past 400 you are tracking some shade of grey to black at distance while loosing them into the ground dots and low lighting that seems to be the AvA hallmark.
I don't visit the AvA because the lighting is always turned down making seeing the grey and black images and dots past 400 unrealistic. Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots. WW2 was not fought on only poor weather days or exclusively at dawn and dusk. The lighting and terrain choices are someone choosing to make a graphics engine not optimized for no Icon worse than it has to be. Rather than work with it to provide an enjoyable experience for more than themselves.
I'm not the only MA player who has mentioned in casual conversation this as a primary turn off and why they won't attend future offerings in the AvA.
May I suggest you find in the MA an average player with the worst possible computer and video card. Then adjust the AvA no-Icon conditions until that player can happily chase around with in reason. Once you have that, then ask MA players to come back and give you an opportunity to see how they like it. If your goal is being part of the general player community friendly offerings that we pay $14.95 to support?
Other wise, is Krusty that far off in his observations about what motivates the AvA current staff? Your "foot traffic" would tend to speak louder than most of your responses since taking over the "AvA Bar and Grill". One might say the AvA is the largest personal custom arena in the game that seems to have wandered out of the custom arena sub menu and lost it's password protection.
-
How could you possibly know this? Those guys are dead.
Well I beg to differ with them. Spotting other planes is not easy, PARTICULARLY if you don't have the traffic devices that airlines and military aircraft now have to clue you into where you should look to see the target. Heck, we have passive TCAS on the Saratoga and I still have trouble picking planes out of the sky, even when I know where to look. Was talking to one of Philadelphia's ATC people, a very nice and pretty lady who was also a pilot. She said that when the ATC people took rides in real aeroplanes, the thing that most surprised them was how difficult it was to see other planes. They're used to seeing the radar, of course, and we are not far removed in this game. No-icons in AH is pretty close to real life, so far as I'm concerned.
- oldman
:airplane: I agreed whole heartly with your statement! The one statement that I have not seen so far is this: When an aircraft is on your same altitude, that is the hardest aircraft to get a visual handle on. They blend in with the horizon and it is very, very difficult to see them, especially if they are showing their head on view to you.
-
I don't visit the AvA because the lighting is always turned down making seeing the grey and black images and dots past 400 unrealistic. Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots. WW2 was not fought on only poor weather days or exclusively at dawn and dusk. The lighting and terrain choices are someone choosing to make a graphics engine not optimized for no Icon worse than it has to be. Rather than work with it to provide an enjoyable experience for more than themselves.
Actually, the lighting is not "always turned down". That is a generalization based on what I'm guessing is a very infrequent visit to the AvA, and now used as an inaccurate and unfair "always" to berate the arena. On occasion there is a setup, that is based on poor weather conditions like those sometimes experienced in WWII. Using your logic and lack of facts, one could say that FSOs, SEAs, etc aren't worth participating in because of the clouds and poor weather that is "always" present.
-
A 'hardcore' arena should at least have sound files that tell a player something like "Oh baby, I love the way your big cannon penetrates my tail section."
-
listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.
Absolutely correct, you are, sir. Quite often the visual is picked up at much greater distances, and sometimes at much shorter distances, for instance at the merge with a mere 1,000 feet of assigned altitude separation. All is of course dependent on weather, light magnitude/angles, visual acuity of individual pilots, bugs and dirt on the windshield/windows, etc, etc. So, with all of theses factors affecting the environment, pilots just plain deal with it in the most safe and efficient manner possible vs its "always" hazy around the D.C. area so, I'm not going to go in there. :salute
-
Come to think of it. The old man was always yelling at me for not seeing the one at distance in the horizon. I could always see them as a child through teen age at 5miles either a bit higher or a bit lower. They just looked like something that didn't belong there. Then all of a sudden my brain registered the type. I got an arse chewing for calling them bandits instead of type. Watched too much 12 O'clock High.
He always said the horizon acted as a blind spot. But, I always found all white dominant paint scheme planes stood out better against the horizon then heavily colored aircraft. Blue ones were a nightmare to spot on low light days. Also it was easier to see them if they were parallel or offline to your line of travel. I knew a lot of kids who's fathers took them along besides hoping they would want to get a ticket some day, their eyesight.
Kids tended to see those tiny specs sooner once you got them involved with the idea they were part of the flying process by finding every single one of them. At least that's what we kids talked about when our dads were taking pit stop leaks at their favorite airfields on weekends. BWI or Ft. Mead to Lancaster got your dad really curt talking to you by the time you were walking towards the nearest facility. When he was younger Kelley to Ft. Worth was easier.
Texas seemed hazier than Maryland and tended to swallow up distant dots in that haze. On the other hand on clear days from Hokkaido you could see Sakhalin 26 miles away and the occasional patrol planes that worked the area past 5mils out to sea. On clear days here near San Francisco from a view spot half the way up Mt. Tamalpais. You can see 50ft whale watching boats 10 - 12 miles out heading for the Farallon islands 23 miles off shore Or 25ft sport boats.
Lots of factors affect being able to see aircraft at distance. Including your age, geographic region, weather, time of day and eyesight. Aces High with it's haze reminds me of flying in Texas when my father was stationed at Kelley in 65. Wish our haze was a lot more like Hokkaido.
In this game somebody is choosing what we see. And I think no matter where in the AH world you are. It's hazy Texas.
-
Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots.
Here is another perfect example of unfair misinformation. You ascribing some nefarious motive to the choice of terrain tiles. Ranger started using custom tiles because they look nice and it never had anything to do with icons.
The arena does not always have turned down lighting. I know, because I often run a CAVU sky, I have also heard from more than one person that black dots stick out better against gray than bright blue, but that's more matter of opinion I don't care to get into
You keep bringing up foot traffic as though we would have a full arena if we only listened to you.
How many times do you have to be told that running full icons doesn't work either? The arena died out long before anyone ever touched the icon settings and you refuse to acknowledge that.
We have tried nearly every combination that can be thought of, including turning full icons back on, to increase the population.
My latest focus is the staged missions. We can be really creative with that and then when people come to play, there will always be something to do in there. By the way, during the tests I ran Tuesday, I saw several unfamiliar players and heard not one negative comment about the no enemy icons.
Another thing I can say is that during the building of staged missions when testing for timing of events etc, I often have to turn off ALL icons because with formations, they block out the sky and prevent me from seeing when opposing fighters first come into view.
One more thing I will add is if we get the ability to load a series of staged missions to automatically launch every hour or every 30 minutes and it includes the ability to alternate icon settings I will sure use it.
That way, there will be something for everyone.
Finally, We do work with groups.
If you just can't stand the fact that we have enemy icons off in the AvA arena, then pick a night per week (other than Tuesday, that's going to be staged mission night) and bring us a bunch of players. We just might be willing to set the arena up per your specifications. In the past year or so, we have done just that for 2 different groups on Thursday night, but those nights died out too.
-
Friendly icons only, works like a charm.
-C+
-
listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.
Kvuo, your illustration reinforces our point: ATC guidance is often required for the pilots to spot the plane they're supposed to follow. Controllers tell us where to look, and if we look long enough we can pick out the plane. The WWII Online's system Colmbo mentioned mimics this. Also, from the tower's position most aircraft are above the horizon, and even in a no-icons arena, planes above you are usually easy to spot. From a pilot's viewpoint, though, much of the traffic is either co-alt or below the horizon, and those planes are much harder to pick out - just as in a no-icons arena.
One other matter: Bustr's and Zoney's complaints about an AvA "elitist" attitude refer to an earlier time, an earlier AvA "generation," if you will, typified by yours truly. That generation has largely departed, and certainly we're no longer in control of the arena in any way. The new folks, Jimson, Puma, USRanger, Jaeger1 and the rest, work very hard to be non-judgmental (and have really been busting their humps for a few months on this staged mission business). I don't mind taking the heat for the past, but you shouldn't be blaming current staff and participants for the sins of others.
- oldman
-
Friendly icons only, works like a charm.
-C+
If only it were that simple. It isn't thought.
One other matter: Bustr's and Zoney's complaints about an AvA "elitist" attitude refer to an earlier time, an earlier AvA "generation," if you will, typified by yours truly. That generation has largely departed, and certainly we're no longer in control of the arena in any way. The new folks, Jimson, Puma, USRanger, Jaeger1 and the rest, work very hard to be non-judgmental (and have really been busting their humps for a few months on this staged mission business). I don't mind taking the heat for the past, but you shouldn't be blaming current staff and participants for the sins of others.
Is that why I was attacked the other week when I made a non-confrontational post in there the other week? Sorry, but this is pure wishful thinking on your part. I was there at the start and it was different back then, it was better. Then others took over and it became elitist and hostile to the rest of the players and anybody who didn't agree with them was chased off. I don't know how many times management of the AvA has been changed since, but the elitist, hostile attitude and sheer disdain for the rest of AH's players is still powerfully present in the AvA.
-
If only it were that simple. It isn't thought.
Is that why I was attacked the other week when I made a non-confrontational post in there the other week? Sorry, but this is pure wishful thinking on your part. I was there at the start and it was different back then, it was better. Then others took over and it became elitist and hostile to the rest of the players and anybody who didn't agree with them was chased off. I don't know how many times management of the AvA has been changed since, but the elitist, hostile attitude and sheer disdain for the rest of AH's players is still powerfully present in the AvA.
Well, there have been times when your posts were confrontational. Accusing us of a bias because we thought certain Spitfires or the Brewster would be too dominate in a particular setup.
Just as we have apparently been assigned an elitist reputation, there are some players that have a reputation for being quite hostile to us.
There have been times that you made constructive suggestions to improve historical accuracy that we felt would retain a balance and those suggestions were implemented.
I'm sorry you were subjected to a comment that was to the effect of "why does it matter to someone who never plays in the arena anyway?"
There is some lasting bitterness over being insulted and raked over the coals over the icon issue, then turning them back on for 8 months and seeing that the ones who were the loudest and most nasty about it still never entered the arena.
but... I'd rather light a candle then curse the darkness, so all of you who hate what we are doing, get together and bring us a bunch of players on a particular night and we will set the arena up just for you so that you can enjoy it too.
-
Well, there have been times when your posts were confrontational. Accusing us of a bias because we thought certain Spitfires or the Brewster would be too dominate in a particular setup.
The people running the AvA have had, for years, a demonstrated contempt for the RAF, Spitfires in particular, while being detail oriented about German and American units. It seems as though balance is not so often sought as a predetermined outcome that is acceptable to the Luftwaffe fans that dominate the AvA and when this is challenged we're told it is for "balance". Sometimes it is, but there are other times when it is blatantly not.
Just as we have apparently been assigned an elitist reputation, there are some players that have a reputation for being quite hostile to us.
You guys started the hostility. I was there at the start when it was called CT and there was no hostility.
There have been times that you made constructive suggestions to improve historical accuracy that we felt would retain a balance and those suggestions were implemented.
I acknowledge those times, such as the recent Dieppe setting. I, however, greatly dispute that the 1942 Spitfire Mk IX is balanced against the Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9, against which you guys have repeatably set it in 1945 scenarios in the apparently uneducated (remember, Spitfire knowledge is verboten/dirty) idea that a Spitfire Mk IX is a Spitfire Mk IX and since you see many Spitfire Mk IXs in the RAF order of battle for 1944 and 1945 it is appropriate. The apparently persistent refusal to understand that saying "Spitfire Mk IX" is similar to saying "Bf109G" in terms of how precisely that identifies the expected performance is irritating to any RAF fan who would like to fly against their historical opponents rather than the all vs all of the MA. The RAF fans don't want to be functionally saddled with a war weary cast off from 1942 while their Luftwaffe opponents come at them in kites that are 50mph faster with a climb rate 1000fpm higher. It isn't fun because it isn't the historical match up we want when we think about RAF vs Luftwaffe. Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-5? Bring it on. Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9? I'll pass, thanks.
I'm sorry you were subjected to a comment that was to the effect of "why does it matter to someone who never plays in the arena anyway?"
Every time I go to play in the AvA it has literally 0 players in it. You can hardly blame me for not jumping in to play by myself.
There is some lasting bitterness over being insulted and raked over the coals over the icon issue, then turning them back on for 8 months and seeing that the ones who were the loudest and most nasty about it still never entered the arena.
Sorry. You guys damaged your "brand" and we're at fault?
but... I'd rather light a candle then curse the darkness, so all of you who hate what we are doing, get together and bring us a bunch of players on a particular night and we will set the arena up just for you so that you can enjoy it too.
I don't have that option. Sorry. I can bring myself though, if you can suggest a time when there are players in the AvA.
-
I'd like to keep pointing out that again most are arguing the wrong point. The issue is not whether the eye sees better than the game. It's who much visual acuity is required for best/realistic game play.
What's realistic? The answer should include the statistical probability that you would miss a camo airplane when looking down from 18K ft above the bandit. Without Icon that probability is 70% if I'm looking at a camo 109. But probably only 30% if I'm looking at a shiny P-38L.
With ICON the answer is ZERO % In real life was the probability ZERO? If not then Icon are over kill that affect game play by making to too easy to spot aircraft. That affects strategy and tactics and makes for less realistic attack scenarios.
In Real life was it 70% for the 109? Maybe that's too high. This discussion needs to drop the snobbery and hidden-agenda-conspiracies and focus on how to improve the visual system to allow a little more "realism" in terms of game play. :salute
-
I'd like to keep pointing out that again most are arguing the wrong point. The issue is not whether the eye sees better than the game. It's who much visual acuity is required for best/realistic game play.
What's realistic? The answer should include the statistical probability that you would miss a camo airplane when looking down from 18K ft above the bandit. Without Icon that probability is 70% if I'm looking at a camo 109. But probably only 30% if I'm looking at a shiny P-38L.
With ICON the answer is ZERO % In real life was the probability ZERO? If not then Icon are over kill that affect game play by making to too easy to spot aircraft. That affects strategy and tactics and makes for less realistic attack scenarios.
In Real life was it 70% for the 109? Maybe that's too high. This discussion needs to drop the snobbery and hidden-agenda-conspiracies and focus on how to improve the visual system to allow a little more "realism" in terms of game play. :salute
Without icons it is near 100% and dependent on one's personal computer's capabilities, and sometimes eyesight. It doesn't have to be 18,000ft either, 3,000 has much the same effect to the point that many times in the AvA it has been reported that the best tactic isn't the historical truth to be above your enemy, but rather to be below and get lost in the clutter allowing a zoom up to ambush attack.
-
Without icons it is near 100% and dependent on one's personal computer's capabilities, and sometimes eyesight. It doesn't have to be 18,000ft either, 3,000 has much the same effect to the point that many times in the AvA it has been reported that the best tactic isn't the historical truth to be above your enemy, but rather to be below and get lost in the clutter allowing a zoom up to ambush attack.
!00% only if you are visually impaired and have a low performing graphics card. But if it's that bad, you can't read the icons anyway. :salute
-
You guys started the hostility. I was there at the start when it was called CT and there was no hostility.
News flash: it's no longer called CT and to the best of my knowledge, none of the current staff were a part of it then.
Enough of your generalizations, name calling, and accusations. When you say "you guys" that's pointed at me personally. So, since you are attacking me with that statement, you state specifics where I have come out of nowhere and attacked you with hostility. YOU don't even know me, who I am, what I stand for, and why I am on the AvA staff.
If YOU don't like the AvA arena, then don't play there. There are a couple of the other arenas and events that I don't particularly care for so, I choose not to play there. I certainly do not come on the forums and blast others with unfair, inaccurate generalizations, and name calling because "their" arena doesn't suit me.
So, put up or shut up!
-
The people running the AvA have had, for years, a demonstrated contempt for the RAF, Spitfires in particular, while being detail oriented about German and American units. It seems as though balance is not so often sought as a predetermined outcome that is acceptable to the Luftwaffe fans that dominate the AvA and when this is challenged we're told it is for "balance". Sometimes it is, but there are other times when it is blatantly not.
You guys started the hostility. I was there at the start when it was called CT and there was no hostility.
I acknowledge those times, such as the recent Dieppe setting. I, however, greatly dispute that the 1942 Spitfire Mk IX is balanced against the Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9, against which you guys have repeatably set it in 1945 scenarios in the apparently uneducated (remember, Spitfire knowledge is verboten/dirty) idea that a Spitfire Mk IX is a Spitfire Mk IX and since you see many Spitfire Mk IXs in the RAF order of battle for 1944 and 1945 it is appropriate. The apparently persistent refusal to understand that saying "Spitfire Mk IX" is similar to saying "Bf109G" in terms of how precisely that identifies the expected performance is irritating to any RAF fan who would like to fly against their historical opponents rather than the all vs all of the MA. The RAF fans don't want to be functionally saddled with a war weary cast off from 1942 while their Luftwaffe opponents come at them in kites that are 50mph faster with a climb rate 1000fpm higher. It isn't fun because it isn't the historical match up we want when we think about RAF vs Luftwaffe. Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-5? Bring it on. Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9? I'll pass, thanks.
Every time I go to play in the AvA it has literally 0 players in it. You can hardly blame me for not jumping in to play by myself.
Sorry. You guys damaged your "brand" and we're at fault?
I don't have that option. Sorry. I can bring myself though, if you can suggest a time when there are players in the AvA.
It depends, the view that the Spit 16 is an unbalancing super plane isn't confined to AvA. but we do have them sometimes. I really think people often see demons or agendas when there aren't any. Some of the things you suggest we are guilty of would be counter productive. Unless you really think we don't want players in the arena and if you think that, well I don't know what to say.
I truly do believe that in all cases the planes are chosen to be as historically accurate without being unbalanced as possible. We make mistakes sure and there have been times where you very diplomatically and constructively pointed them out. Those have been good exchanges.
Tone and choice of wording makes a lot of difference and that is something we all, me included, would do well to keep in mind.
Whether you believe it or not, we get a ton of crap no matter what we do. No matter what settings we run, we get raked over the coals by a segment of the player base.
The arena may evolve again. With the addition of staged missions, players won't always be dependent on a population to have fun in there which may in turn draw more players, turning staged missions into largely player populated missions.
-
Spit VIII is a good stand in for the Spit LF.Mk IXc. Much better than the Mk IX. That is something I made clear going all the way back to when I suggested it be added for just such a purpose before the Spit's were redone.
I know you'll get flack regardless, but from an RAF fan's standpoint the setups have much too often looked like the RAF players were just supposed to be punching bags for the Luftwaffe fans and that gets old. Look at the Dieppe scenario that just ran, it had to err either in favor of the RAF by having Spit IX with only the weak restriction of a single field or on the side of the Luftwaffe by pitting the 1941 Mk Vb against the 1943 Fw190A-5 and, of course, it picked the latter. That is fine and all, but when the choice seems to usually go that way it gets frustrating.
That said, I note in the current setup the Germans don't have their jets and putting the Ju88 and He111 against the 1945 Allied rides seems gruesomely unfair. I suppose a significant part of my view at this point is colored by the arguments I have had with past choices.
I do continue to pay attention to the AvA and I would play in there at times if it wasn't empty.
-
Sounds like Hitech could introduce an A2-3 kluge FW to solve this 1941 problem. The A5 against the spitVb is over kill. The spit9 by the A5 time was the answer to FW dominance. And even at that only "if" the A5 driver wants to stay and play close.
That's one of the reasons when later matchups happen with the mossi6 available, many use it instead of the spit9. Or the matchup leaving out the spit9 but, allowing the 51B and mossi6 against G6, A5 and A8. Even though the spit9 was the primary Brit contender.
Historical matchups are such a pain since they quickly showcase the reasons for the evolution in each breed's arms race. So often in an attempt to make one period of the war "more fair", it just makes one side dominant by reading that nights matchup list. After all, most of the players looking at the list have spent years in the MA getting to know the relative value of any two in 1 on 1 situations. That "certainty" probably has a bit to do with the low foot traffic. In the MA you have many ways to counter the "certainty" other than joining the side with the better rides for the given matchup. Then I wonder how many pop in, look at the roster names and leave??
-
.
-
The spit9 by the A5 time was the answer to FW dominance. And even at that only "if" the A5 driver wants to stay and play close.
Against the Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IX at low altitude, sure. That is the Spitfire Mk IX we have in AH. There were only about 300 of those made and they entered service in June of 1942. The F.Mk IX with the slightly more powerful Merlin 63 followed and then in 1943 the lower blown Merlin 66 was introduced in the LF.Mk IX, which while still slower than the Fw190A-5 at low altitude did greatly close the speed gap. In reality the two stage Merlin engined Spitfire versions we have in AH were powered by the Merlin 61 for the Mk IX, Merlin 66 for our Mk VIII and Packard Merlin 266 (same as Merlin 66 but with critical altitude 1000ft higher) in the Mk XVI. In AH the Mk IX is has a Merlin 61 and the Mk VIII and MK XVI both have a Merlin 66, meaning that our Mk XVI is actually a LF.Mk IXe.
Due to those facts the Mk VIII ought to be used in place of the Mk IX for European settings at some point in the 1943/1944 time range and the Mk XVI introduced in any setting that includes the RAF and the Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9. I recognize that the Spit LF.IXe/Spit XVI is a very potent fighter, but so are the Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4. Using the Spitfire Mk IX against the Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9 forces a significantly ahistorical situation on the RAF players in the name of balance, pushing them into a version of the MK IX that is two years or more out of date and built in small numbers when they should be in the LF.Mk IX or Mk XVI of which about 4,500 were built. I honestly cannot believe that the D-9 and K-4 don't match the Mk XVI. Certainly in the MA I find K-4s in particular to be nigh impossible to beat.
-
My opinion is that the D-9 and K-4 can be an effective counter but not so much in the hands of the average. We don't have a Mk XVI without clipped wings. A slightly diminished roll rate might be just enough of a chink in the armor to feel better about including the fighter more often.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I started to talk about staged missions. When using these, we will be able to further tailor the battle by enabling only limited numbers of certain AC available on a first come and served basis and model attrition.
Really looking forward to having this system fleshed out and large numbers of missions to run.
It just seems that whenever we enable the 16, few even want to fly axis. The beauty of staged missions is that everyone could be on the same side and still have a battle, only against AI and that would cause some heartburn, but the bots seem to be better now than they were in some of the past offline mission versions.
-
I think the reason isn't the Mk XVI so much as the myth of the Mk XVI that has grown in this game. "It is over-modeled" "It can do a 180 and run down a BnZing fighter that is doing 450", "It only saw 36 hours of action in WWII" and so on. No film of it performing these miraculous feats ever surfaces, but all these, and other, myths persist. I strongly suspect based on the posting of Luftwaffe fans on the boards that their boycott of facing the Mk XVI is along the lines of "<Bleep> that setup. I am not going to go against a fantasy plane that's favored by history ignorant MAers."
The problem with that is the counter response is that RAF fans have mostly just given up on the AvA entirely. I recall some fan made videos for a BoB event the AvA ran some time ago and every single video was from, and pushing, the Luftwaffe's view. That is fine as it is fan made (I certainly don't have the skills to put such a video together) but it is part of the tapestry of evidence about where the energy is. Look at the BBS avatars in the AvA and they are dominated by Luftwaffe symbols.
As to the clipped wings, that was a 30 minute conversion at an airfield to change the wingtips between standard, clipped and extended. By 1944 most LF.Mk IXs were clipped and all Mk XVI's were delivered clipped, though you can find photos of Mk XVIs with standard wings that had standard tips put on at the field.
When the AvA was created as the Combat Theater I joined in supporting it by joining the CT squadron "27th Sentai" because we knew the Japanese side would need support to make x vs Japan settings viable. We wanted it to succeed.
-
Back to R/L visual detection of airborne targets for a moment.
After looking around the net I found a few interesting pdf's on BVR and WVR, etc.
Lt Col Patrick Higby, in Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat, presented to the Air War College, cited an USAF officer who evaluated missiles:
"Colonel James Burton selected five nautical miles—in daylight—as his BVR limit for evaluating air-to-air missiles."
footnoted: Burton, James G., “Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile,” USAF Slide Presentation, 1985
So, evidently these two aviators have some lack of optimism on detecting enemy A/C at great distances.
The following citations are taken from a PhD thesis:
IMPROVING TARGET ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
PERFORMANCE IN AIR-TO-AIR FLIGHT SIMULATION
May 2003
"A total of 759 training engagements at the Naval Air Station Oceana Tactical Air Combat Training System (TACTS) range revealed that in 624 of the engagements the pilots first sighted the target as a dot against the background at an average distance of 5.67 nmi (Hamilton & Monaco, 1986; Monaco & Hamilton, 1985). In the remaining 135 engagements exhaust smoke, contrails and sun glint off the aircraft allowed the pilots to detect the aircraft at even greater distances. In the 122 engagements where exhaust smoke was the primary cue, detection distances averaged 7.64 nmi."
A dot at less than 6 miles for a jet fighter means a dot at some closer distance for a WWII fighter. E.G. ME 109's are quite a bit smaller than modern combat jets.
"In 1983, Kress & Brictson studied 87 air-to-air engagements at the Yuma TACTS range. Average unaided detection distances for the target F-5 and F-4 aircraft were 3.1 nmi. When the pilots were aided with a head-up display (HUD) symbol that cued the pilot to the target’s location, the mean detection distance grew to 6.8 nmi."
F-5's are about the smallest jets around, around Mig-21 size, but they are still some amount larger than WWII fighters.
"Another study that investigated detection distances was Temme & Still (1991). They measured air-to-air target detection distances at the Naval Air Station Oceana TACTS range to see if there was a performance difference between those pilots who wore corrective eyeglasses and those who did not. Those with eyeglasses did not detect the targets until they were about 10% closer than those with unaided vision. Two very closely matched groups of eyeglass and non-eyeglass wearers had average detection ranges of 4.52 and 5.64 nmi respectively when using all detection means including aircraft sighting, target glint, contrails and exhaust smoke. When limiting subjects to aircraft-only detections, the corresponding distances were 4.35 and 5.54 nmi respectively."
"Another study by Hutchins in 1978 at the Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR), which is the earlier name of the TACTS, involved 45 air combat training engagements. The mean detection distance of the A-4 targets was 3.09, with a range of 0.38 to 6.23 nmi.
"Other studies were done using observers on the ground. With visibility conditions spanning 7 to 10 miles over an 8-day testing period, O’Neal & Miller (1998) found detection distances for approaching T-38 aircraft to ranged from 4.77 to 6.73 nmi."
"Another ground observer study used 400 visual detections of a T-38 aircraft (Provines, Rahe, Block, Pena, & Tredici, 1983). The aircraft was approaching from a known direction and a distance of 9 miles and mean detection distance was 4.55 miles over the 400 trials."
So these studies put an outer limit on unaided detection of modern jets to a range of less than 6 miles. IMHO, during WWII in many combat situations where there was no CGI to guide pilots to the enemy, unaided visual detections of smaller WWII fighters are going to be less than the distances listed above.
IMHO, as I've mentioned before, for FSO or AvA there could be a parameter for a neutral icon color at greater distances that lets people see the "dot" as a bogey with the descriptor - inline, radial, twin, multi, or something like that, and then depending on parameter settings, the closer it gets it suddenly reveals itself to be friend or foe.
Best.
-
3.1 nautical miles is 6278 yards, a tad longer than the AH icon range. Remember, the AH icon range also accommodates bombers that are larger than jet fighters.
-
I'm curious.
It appears in the past 9 months Hitech has made some strides in haze as a 3D effect to your ability to see at distance. What are the specific arena settings to adjust that? Are they an H2O air density value 0-xxxxx, or a combination of layer colors for different times of day. Or a cloud generation setting that allows you to change the density of a world covering fog cloud?
Can the air density or haze along with the ambient light be set so that dots stand out with clarity so everyone can see them on maps? And if that is possible, wouldn't it be easier to attract players to no-Icons by starting everyone out at being able to see the dots. Then over time gradually lead them to the more hazy dots?
If there is a setting to make the dots visible, I'd like to experiment with it offline and see how it looks.
We often kill great ideas because we are addicted to the complexity of our cherished dreams we assume others will cherish just the same. So the unintended consequence is, rejection of your dream becomes a personal rejection of you, and a knee jerk fight against mean haters of you. This is one of several basic reasons small businesses fail. I suspect if Hitech required you guys to turn a profit with the AvA, you would be looking for answers to the low foot traffic rather than your status quo. Since some one else is paying all the bills and not requiring accountability and performance. I will venture the fires you light under yourselves don't burn very hot near your dreams.
I still think the CT\AvA has a role to play with the AH community. So far your implementation of the offering is less attractive to the goodly number of two sided historic matchup fans than the MA or special events. If you treated it like foot traffic equaled profit, your outcomes might change. But, then you might have to change your cherished dreams a bit to suit the paying customer. Even Hitech makes changes to his offering for the customer, which keeps your arena doors open even if the foot traffic is very light.
Do you think if Hitech duplicated your AvA as the MA that he could keep his company running?
-
Edit:
It's a waste of time conversing with you because you seem to be stuck on the fantasy that we killed the already dead arena. If it was required to show a profit it would have been gone long before any of us got there.
It's always going to be a low use arena and I swear I'd love to turn it over to you and watch you be unable to keep it populated either. That goes for the K squad too.
The addition of the staged mission system offers us a chance to be a real alternative and that's what I am working my butt off on.
If all you are ever going to do is talk and never offer any sort of realistic ideas (We can't change color or size of dots) or compromise, then I am done with you.
-
Edit:
It's a waste of time conversing with you because you seem to be stuck on the fantasy that we killed the already dead arena with the settings. If it was required to show a profit it would have been gone long before any of us got there.
At least now we are having an honest conversation with the cherished dreams set aside.
Does AH survive because the game is tailored to the wants of the 20% or to attract the 80% such that they feel like staying around and paying the rent to keep the doors open?
So with no-Icons there is no way to improve the dots for the 80% then?
Honestly I was hoping there was........
The old CT and the AvA before your group took over ran into the periodic difficulties that 20%ers would run out the 80% and get bored killing each other. The secret for the MA and the SEA events is the 80% feel they have options to counter the 20% other than their whole evening being abused for their $14.95. The AvA periodic side balancing problems and then the favoring of one country's rides over another from setup to setup showcases this human nature. Why do the 80%ers like furball lake but, the 20% duel?
And what really will the staged missions populated with AI give the 80%? The illusion of not getting their kester whomped all night long by 20%ers.
Over the years some of the best times in the CT, the skill levels were about even across everyone fighting on both sides. As the resident sharks grew in skill level, the 80% stopped showing up. At that point the CT was turning into the DA's annex with resident CT squads of sharks.
So there is something to Icons and the illusion of safety they give to the 80% who constitute more $14.95's than the 20%. And don't play this game for the same reasons the 20% do. And Hitech is offering them enough illusion of safety and chances of personal accomplishment in the MA that they stay.
The CT\AvA acts like a dinner bell for the 20%. I've always wondered why after they run off the 80% that they don't stay and beat each others brains out in their now uber 20%er utopia? As soon as the 80%er kibble is gone, they leave it a dead waste land. Many of them don't even hide this irony by at least choosing to fly only the worst rides of the matchups to show case their superior skillz before finishing off the kibble in a few bites.
Guess maybe the AvA should be renamed the Shark Diner and a for sale sign put up.
I bet Lusche could come up with a (Kill to Death\Hit%) ratio average to reasonably determine the 80% at any time. Then Hitech could adjust access to a "fun combat" arena based on that number for each player's LWMA K\D. That which drives a 20% to be one will keep most of them from trying to play with their own K\D just to get into that arena to crap on everyone's fun.
And this is human nature. For any given moment it's not about the future concept of the 80%er can get better, or see a Trainer, or keep upping over and over again to loose to a 20%er as the price to get better. It's about the quality of the 80%er's fun in this moment that he is paying for. 20%er's love free lunches of 80%er's any time they can find that free lunch line, and in general don't care how badly they are humiliating them. It's a free lunch is all that counts. Even 20%ers have 20%ers who humiliate them.
And Hitech is doing something in the MA that gives the 80%ers the idea they have a chance to survive the sharks that keeps them coming back every day.
-
How many times do I have to say that there was no improvement in the arena population when we turned the icons on? How many times do I have to tell you that recently, there were two separate groups that wanted to play in AvA on Thursday nights with icons on. We accommodated them. It died after a few weeks.
ADDRESS THAT INSTEAD OF IGNORING IT LIKE YOU HAVE EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, BECAUSE IT'S A REALITY THAT DOESN'T FIT YOUR NARRATIVE.
Buddy, you are focusing on something that has been proven to have zero net negative effect on arena population. Every time we have tried a new approach, we got a very brief bump that quickly faded.
In the past several years, the icon change is about the only thing that created a sustained excitement and population increase. That's because it was a new experience. Something you could find no where else. We actually lost a core group when we turned them on and didn't replace them with another core group. Where was the foot traffic then? Where were all the people who turn every thread like this into an anti AvA, anti icon change bash fest? because they sure as hell weren't in the arena.
What is it that you think? That after running the arena with icons turned back on for 6 months, we changed it back despite the fact that foot traffic increased dramatically? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? If that had happened, no one would have ever thought we should try to change it back to no enemy icons.
In case you haven't noticed, population is down across the board in this game.
I'll say it one last time. Pick a night and bring in players and I'll lobby hard to have it set up the way you like. If you have all the answers like you think you do, it should be damned easy for you to consistently fill the arena one night per week with all the players we have allegedly driven away.
It's well past time for you to put up or shut up. Lets see what you got.
Here is what staged missions will provide. A semi organized game with more realistic missions with lot's of ear and eye candy that they can play most anytime, that will have an actual objective.
A lot more targets so that a player may be less likely to have to experience being shot down by the same guy 5 times in a row.
New features like limited numbers of certain planes and modeled attrition.
Something to do in there rather than avoid it because there is no one there and nothing to do but fly around by themselves.
The uncertainty that the AI they think they are going to fight is really AI or another player that joined in.
In lower population times, it might even give the 80% and new players a less intimidating experience to cut their teeth on than the MA. They will at least have a little direction, a clue as to what to do.
This can all be done already in custom arenas but they aren't consistently open and require someone to set it all up. We are hoping that in the future, it will be more automated in AvA.
We already have some advantages over custom arenas in that we don't automatically close in five minutes after the arena goes empty, meaning that if I advertise a Euro time mission to be run at 3pm est and I cant be around to run it, at 2pm est I can set it to start in one hour and all players will have to do is come in and pick their ride and wait for it to start.
Believe me, I am still learning, but I am trying to make the coolest missions possible with briefings, sound effects etc, to provide the right atmosphere so that players will want to come back just to see what we come up with next.
We will be testing them again on Tuesday open to the public.
-
ADDRESS THAT INSTEAD OF IGNORING IT LIKE YOU HAVE EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP
Jimson. Dude. Chill.
Bustr's point, which he brings up in virtually every forum, is that new players don't want to go where experienced players will gobble them up. AvA has (or had) a lot of dedicated, experienced players. QED, new people won't go there because they don't want to be gobbled up.
This is not news. AvA has always attracted people who aren't particularly concerned with score.
- oldman
-
Ah heck with it. Wasting my breath anyway.
Bye now.
-
At least now we are having an honest conversation with the cherished dreams set aside.
Does AH survive because the game is tailored to the wants of the 20% or to attract the 80% such that they feel like staying around and paying the rent to keep the doors open?
So with no-Icons there is no way to improve the dots for the 80% then?
Honestly I was hoping there was........
The old CT and the AvA before your group took over ran into the periodic difficulties that 20%ers would run out the 80% and get bored killing each other. The secret for the MA and the SEA events is the 80% feel they have options to counter the 20% other than their whole evening being abused for their $14.95. The AvA periodic side balancing problems and then the favoring of one country's rides over another from setup to setup showcases this human nature. Why do the 80%ers like furball lake but, the 20% duel?
And what really will the staged missions populated with AI give the 80%? The illusion of not getting their kester whomped all night long by 20%ers.
Over the years some of the best times in the CT, the skill levels were about even across everyone fighting on both sides. As the resident sharks grew in skill level, the 80% stopped showing up. At that point the CT was turning into the DA's annex with resident CT squads of sharks.
So there is something to Icons and the illusion of safety they give to the 80% who constitute more $14.95's than the 20%. And don't play this game for the same reasons the 20% do. And Hitech is offering them enough illusion of safety and chances of personal accomplishment in the MA that they stay.
The CT\AvA acts like a dinner bell for the 20%. I've always wondered why after they run off the 80% that they don't stay and beat each others brains out in their now uber 20%er utopia? As soon as the 80%er kibble is gone, they leave it a dead waste land. Many of them don't even hide this irony by at least choosing to fly only the worst rides of the matchups to show case their superior skillz before finishing off the kibble in a few bites.
Guess maybe the AvA should be renamed the Shark Diner and a for sale sign put up.
I bet Lusche could come up with a (Kill to Death\Hit%) ratio average to reasonably determine the 80% at any time. Then Hitech could adjust access to a "fun combat" arena based on that number for each player's LWMA K\D. That which drives a 20% to be one will keep most of them from trying to play with their own K\D just to get into that arena to crap on everyone's fun.
And this is human nature. For any given moment it's not about the future concept of the 80%er can get better, or see a Trainer, or keep upping over and over again to loose to a 20%er as the price to get better. It's about the quality of the 80%er's fun in this moment that he is paying for. 20%er's love free lunches of 80%er's any time they can find that free lunch line, and in general don't care how badly they are humiliating them. It's a free lunch is all that counts. Even 20%ers have 20%ers who humiliate them.
And Hitech is doing something in the MA that gives the 80%ers the idea they have a chance to survive the sharks that keeps them coming back every day.
Where do you get the 80%/20%? Did you just pull the numbers out of an orifice to support your lame agenda? You are certainly a 20%er, but not in the context you are using. You are among the very small minority, who doesn't frequent the AvA, keeps your argument stuck in the past, can't come up with something productive to say, and can't get out of your close minded viewpoint. You are in the 20% percent that causes 80% of the unnecessary problems and just makes racket for the sake of self satisfaction.
Comes up with REAL statistics, have something productive to say, come participate in the AvA, and get to know the ones who do enjoy it and put in an enormous of work to constantly improve it or, as Jimson so eloquently put it "Put up or shut up".
-
3.1 nautical miles is 6278 yards, a tad longer than the AH icon range. Remember, the AH icon range also accommodates bombers that are larger than jet fighters.
Point taken Karnak. The main reason I posted the info was to show that some of the claims made here, such as 10 mile unaided visual detection of fighter-sized aircraft, are not what sober studies of the subject prove, at least any that I've found. There are quite a few factors involved in R/L vision that the computer screen cannot duplicate, some that diminish detection of bogies, some that enhance. I hoped that the citations would help provide a balance to the debate.
Best.
-
Point taken Karnak. The main reason I posted the info was to show that some of the claims made here, such as 10 mile unaided visual detection of fighter-sized aircraft, are not what sober studies of the subject prove, at least any that I've found. There are quite a few factors involved in R/L vision that the computer screen cannot duplicate, some that diminish detection of bogies, some that enhance. I hoped that the citations would help provide a balance to the debate.
Best.
Old Sport, thank you for the constructive contribution. :salute
-
Point taken Karnak. The main reason I posted the info was to show that some of the claims made here, such as 10 mile unaided visual detection of fighter-sized aircraft, are not what sober studies of the subject prove, at least any that I've found. There are quite a few factors involved in R/L vision that the computer screen cannot duplicate, some that diminish detection of bogies, some that enhance. I hoped that the citations would help provide a balance to the debate.
Best.
I believe that longer range IDs can happen at times under the right circumstances, but I certainly wouldn't ask for longer ranged icons than we have. I don't think there is a perfect solution as every solution introduces other problems while solving the problems it targets. I think icons could be done better than they are now though, even in the MA.
Concerns I have:
1) Seeing enemy aircraft at long enough range to set up a fight. I am more interested in a fight than I am in a free kill against a guy who didn't see me, even if that requires unrealistically high situational awareness courtesy of the icons.
2) Ability to tell if I am gaining or losing ground on a target at long range. I have an experience that sticks out in my mind, one that happened in the MA long ago. It was on the Mindanao map and our HQ was destroyed. I was at about 20,000ft and I spotted a co-alt dot in the direction of enemy territory and gave chase. After about 15-20 minutes I finally got into icon range only to find that it was a friendly and upon chatting him found that he had been running from my dot. It was frustrating to spend that much time chasing a dot, not sure if I was even gaining and I want that sort of activity minimized.
3) Icons make snap IDs too easy at short ranges. I would like to see enemy icons reduced, below 800 perhaps, to change to a simple red Bishop, Knight or Rook symbol. Perhaps a .5 to 1 second delay before they show up as well.
-
I'm curious.
It appears in the past 9 months Hitech has made some strides in haze as a 3D effect to your ability to see at distance. What are the specific arena settings to adjust that? Are they an H2O air density value 0-xxxxx, or a combination of layer colors for different times of day. Or a cloud generation setting that allows you to change the density of a world covering fog cloud?
Can the air density or haze along with the ambient light be set so that dots stand out with clarity so everyone can see them on maps? And if that is possible, wouldn't it be easier to attract players to no-Icons by starting everyone out at being able to see the dots. Then over time gradually lead them to the more hazy dots?
If there is a setting to make the dots visible, I'd like to experiment with it offline and see how it looks.
We often kill great ideas because we are addicted to the complexity of our cherished dreams we assume others will cherish just the same. So the unintended consequence is, rejection of your dream becomes a personal rejection of you, and a knee jerk fight against mean haters of you. This is one of several basic reasons small businesses fail. I suspect if Hitech required you guys to turn a profit with the AvA, you would be looking for answers to the low foot traffic rather than your status quo. Since some one else is paying all the bills and not requiring accountability and performance. I will venture the fires you light under yourselves don't burn very hot near your dreams.
I still think the CT\AvA has a role to play with the AH community. So far your implementation of the offering is less attractive to the goodly number of two sided historic matchup fans than the MA or special events. If you treated it like foot traffic equaled profit, your outcomes might change. But, then you might have to change your cherished dreams a bit to suit the paying customer. Even Hitech makes changes to his offering for the customer, which keeps your arena doors open even if the foot traffic is very light.
Do you think if Hitech duplicated your AvA as the MA that he could keep his company running?
Above is based on the mis-understanding that foot trafic is driven by arena settings. It isn't. :salute
-
Point taken Karnak. The main reason I posted the info was to show that some of the claims made here, such as 10 mile unaided visual detection of fighter-sized aircraft, are not what sober studies of the subject prove, at least any that I've found. There are quite a few factors involved in R/L vision that the computer screen cannot duplicate, some that diminish detection of bogies, some that enhance. I hoped that the citations would help provide a balance to the debate.
Best.
Karnak is still wrong. At 6K yards in real life The AVERAGE pilot sees a dot. That's not the same as AH where EVERY the pilots see EVERY plane due to a giant neon sign under it.
-
Karnak is still wrong. At 6K yards in real life The AVERAGE pilot sees a dot. That's not the same as AH where EVERY the pilots see EVERY plane due to a giant neon sign under it.
No, that is the range when the aircraft were IDed, not a dot.
I'm 40 years old and an airplane isn't a dot to my eyes at that range.
In addition my bias is towards wanting fights. Ambush kills are boring as <bleep>. Perhaps you're not as interested in actual combat and just want freebie kills?
-
No, that is the range when the aircraft were IDed, not a dot.
It's the distance at which the aircraft is SPOTTED. Not Id. :salute
-
I'm 40 years old and an airplane isn't a dot to my eyes at that range.
It's not in game either. you can see the whole plane at 6K in game. It's a dot at 10K
In addition my bias is towards wanting fights. Ambush kills are boring as <bleep>. Perhaps you're not as interested in actual combat and just want freebie kills?
Ambush kills and how it affects game play is worth discussing, If we can ever get off this eyesight vs screen resolution nonsense.
Your analysis is not well thought out. Freebie kills and freebie deaths I suppose. It would work both ways. I think it would lead to more base taking, and more low level sneaking around. In the air I think it will lead to more ambushing (as you said) but also less gang-banging. Those might be trade offs that could improve play. Depends on your point of view. :salute
...and stop making nefarious accusations about people's motives. It's just insights off topic arguments. :aok
-
It's not in game either. you can see the whole plane at 6K in game. It's a dot at 10K
Depends on your hardware, and that is part of the problem that you are ignoring. On my system a single engined fighter is a single pixel at 6k yards.
Ambush kills and how it affects game play is worth discussing, If we can ever get off this eyesight vs screen resolution nonsense.
That makes no sense.
Your analysis is not well thought out. Freebie kills and freebie deaths I suppose. It would work both ways. I think it would lead to more base taking, and more low level sneaking around. In the air I think it will lead to more ambushing (as you said) but also less gang-banging. Those might be trade offs that could improve play. Depends on your point of view. :salute
...and stop making nefarious accusations about people's motives. It's just insights off topic arguments. :aok
Exactly, less fights.
-
Depends on your hardware, and that is part of the problem that you are ignoring. On my system a single engined fighter is a single pixel at 6k yards.
That makes no sense.
Exactly, less fights.
You forgot to factor in the effect on ganging. Better fighting through not being ganged is a positive thing. :aok
-
Depends on your hardware, and that is part of the problem that you are ignoring. On my system a single engined fighter is a single pixel at 6k yards.
Ditto mine, at normal zoom. If I zoom in, it grows wings though. Not sure how far out zoomed in shows as a dot, I rarely see stuff outside icon range.
I've often thought the solution that would work for my eyes is the ability to set a 'minimum plane dot size', either having it be 1 pixel, 2x2, or 3x3 so when plane dots render that's how they show. I think it would be a good balance between visibility and ability to hide.
IMO no icons is fun once in a while in scenario stype play, but a horrible idea for MA style play in this game.
You forgot to factor in the effect on ganging. Better fighting through not being ganged is a positive thing. :aok
I played a lot of no icons in the backwhen. If your friendly is at all competent at describing where he is, ganging is still not that difficult.
Wiley.
-
You forgot to factor in the effect on ganging. Better fighting through not being ganged is a positive thing. :aok
:old:
I Disagree :huh
-
yes but you're a madman!!!!!!! :devil
-
yes but you're a madman!!!!!!! :devil
Ive heard that before :D
-
Where do you get the 80%/20%? Did you just pull the numbers out of an orifice to support your lame agenda? You are certainly a 20%er, but not in the context you are using. You are among the very small minority, who doesn't frequent the AvA, keeps your argument stuck in the past, can't come up with something productive to say, and can't get out of your close minded viewpoint. You are in the 20% percent that causes 80% of the unnecessary problems and just makes racket for the sake of self satisfaction.
Comes up with REAL statistics, have something productive to say, come participate in the AvA, and get to know the ones who do enjoy it and put in an enormous of work to constantly improve it or, as Jimson so eloquently put it "Put up or shut up".
Pareto principle
Only 20% of the player base becomes sticks of any note. That same 20% will demand the most in terms of game changes to suit themselves as they age with the game and become bored. Some portion of the 20% will create the most trouble in this forum for personal pleasure. The 20% assume the 80% will like whatever they come up with CMing an arena because the 80% don't matter to them other than to pay the light bill and be cannon fodder. The 20% are not communicating to the 80% but, to other 20%ers because only players like themselves are the real players. The rest are cannon fodder, or all the bad names the 20% uses to describe the 80%.
Hitech's MA works because he serves both parties.
Why do the 80% vote their foot traffic to the MA knowing it's populated with well known hungry sharks? For one, the population density is enough that they don't up into the mouths of hungry sharks more than 20% of the time. They feel like they have a chance. The CT and AvA attracts too many sharks eventually unbalancing the fun 80%er's are seeking. They return to the MA where their chances of not getting their kester handed to them all night long is much higher.
Why in the DA are there two distinct kinds of players who self segregate by dueling and by furball action at Furball Lake? The CT\AvA fails for the same reason a fun corner bar with pool tables does when a pool shark shows up and hustles the patrons. That's why on occasions the CT in the past, and the AvA have both had some fun nights. A population density and skill spread was achieved that made the 80%ers feel comfortable with their kester whuppins from the sharks, while they were able to whup a few in turn against other 80%ers.
The 80% generally doesn't have the stomach for, nor cares to accept being whacked with a stick repeatedly as the price for their fun. No matter how much you repeat: "This will make a better Aces High ACM god out of you". The MA allows them to avoid this for 80% of their play time because they are not paying for the same fun that the 20% are paying for. Just the illusion 80% of their session time.
-
Pareto principle
Only 20% of the player base becomes sticks of any note. That same 20% will demand the most in terms of game changes to suit themselves as they age with the game and become bored. Some portion of the 20% will create the most trouble in this forum for personal pleasure. The 20% assume the 80% will like whatever they come up with CMing an arena because the 80% don't matter to them other than to pay the light bill and be cannon fodder. The 20% are not communicating to the 80% but, to other 20%ers because only players like themselves are the real players. The rest are cannon fodder, or all the bad names the 20% uses to describe the 80%.
Hitech's MA works because he serves both parties.
Why do the 80% vote their foot traffic to the MA knowing it's populated with well known hungry sharks? For one, the population density is enough that they don't up into the mouths of hungry sharks more than 20% of the time. They feel like they have a chance. The CT and AvA attracts too many sharks eventually unbalancing the fun 80%er's are seeking. They return to the MA where their chances of not getting their kester handed to them all night long is much higher.
Why in the DA are there two distinct kinds of players who self segregate by dueling and by furball action at Furball Lake? The CT\AvA fails for the same reason a fun corner bar with pool tables does when a pool shark shows up and hustles the patrons. That's why on occasions the CT in the past, and the AvA have both had some fun nights. A population density and skill spread was achieved that made the 80%ers feel comfortable with their kester whuppins from the sharks, while they were able to whup a few in turn against other 80%ers.
The 80% generally doesn't have the stomach for, nor cares to accept being whacked with a stick repeatedly as the price for their fun. No matter how much you repeat: "This will make a better Aces High ACM god out of you". The MA allows them to avoid this for 80% of their play time because they are not paying for the same fun that the 20% are paying for. Just the illusion 80% of their session time.
Excellent post, Buster. :aok
-
You forgot to factor in the effect on ganging. Better fighting through not being ganged is a positive thing. :aok
I doubt hording and ganging would be reduced. I can even see reasons it might increase.
-
Pareto principle
Only 20% of the player base becomes sticks of any note. That same 20% will demand the most in terms of game changes to suit themselves as they age with the game and become bored. Some portion of the 20% will create the most trouble in this forum for personal pleasure. The 20% assume the 80% will like whatever they come up with CMing an arena because the 80% don't matter to them other than to pay the light bill and be cannon fodder. The 20% are not communicating to the 80% but, to other 20%ers because only players like themselves are the real players. The rest are cannon fodder, or all the bad names the 20% uses to describe the 80%.
Hitech's MA works because he serves both parties.
Why do the 80% vote their foot traffic to the MA knowing it's populated with well known hungry sharks? For one, the population density is enough that they don't up into the mouths of hungry sharks more than 20% of the time. They feel like they have a chance. The CT and AvA attracts too many sharks eventually unbalancing the fun 80%er's are seeking. They return to the MA where their chances of not getting their kester handed to them all night long is much higher.
Why in the DA are there two distinct kinds of players who self segregate by dueling and by furball action at Furball Lake? The CT\AvA fails for the same reason a fun corner bar with pool tables does when a pool shark shows up and hustles the patrons. That's why on occasions the CT in the past, and the AvA have both had some fun nights. A population density and skill spread was achieved that made the 80%ers feel comfortable with their kester whuppins from the sharks, while they were able to whup a few in turn against other 80%ers.
The 80% generally doesn't have the stomach for, nor cares to accept being whacked with a stick repeatedly as the price for their fun. No matter how much you repeat: "This will make a better Aces High ACM god out of you". The MA allows them to avoid this for 80% of their play time because they are not paying for the same fun that the 20% are paying for. Just the illusion 80% of their session time.
this post explains why people go to MA...Because there is safety in numbers. But what foes hot shot sticks vs the rest of us, have to do with arena settings? :headscratch:
-
this post explains why people go to MA...Because there is safety in numbers. But what foes hot shot sticks vs the rest of us, have to do with arena settings? :headscratch:
:airplane: Some people like to play "Pacman" and some "Donkey Kong", personally I like Texas "holdem"!
-
:airplane: Some people like to play "Pacman" and some "Donkey Kong", personally I like Texas "holdem"!
Exactly.
-
I doubt hording and ganging would be reduced. I can even see reasons it might increase.
From experience in the AvA, it doesn't happen very often. Most players who frequent it tend to stay out of a good fight in progress, unless invited in to help. Most times the fights are 1v1s, 2v1s, or 2v2s, unless more than a 1v1 is considered hording or ganging. Seems most ganging turns out to be a 3,4,5+ v 1 in the MAs.
-
From experience in the AvA, it doesn't happen very often. Most players who frequent it tend to stay out of a good fight in progress, unless invited in to help. Most times the fights are 1v1s, 2v1s, or 2v2s, unless more than a 1v1 is considered hording or ganging. Seems most ganging turns out to be a 3,4,5+ v 1 in the MAs.
True, but the OP's request was for a hardcore MA which, even if low usage, would still be a lot more wild west than the AvA.
Put another way, I don't think the AvA's icon settings play any part in the lack of gangbangs. I think that is entirely based on the AvA's culture.
-
Put another way, I don't think the AvA's icon settings play any part in the lack of gangbangs. I think that is entirely based on the AvA's culture.
I guess that would be a matter of opinion based on time spent in the AvA and actual familiarity of those who do.
-
I guess that would be a matter of opinion based on time spent in the AvA and actual familiarity of those who do.
You described it as thus. Are you now calling yourself a liar?
-
Back to name calling, eh?
-
Back to name calling, eh?
It was your choice, when I was complimenting the AvA, to toss an insult at me. That is ok, but me pointing out (harshly admittedly, but you had just thrown an insult at me) that you were contradicting your prior statement is not ok?
You said:
Most players who frequent it tend to stay out of a good fight in progress, unless invited in to help. Most times the fights are 1v1s, 2v1s, or 2v2s, unless more than a 1v1 is considered hording or ganging.
Those are cultural choices and they have nothing to do with the icons or lack of icons. There is no other way to describe that.
-
No insult intended.
-
The AvA fails from the start because it bills itself as an adjunct to the DA culture in it's spirit. Not as an adjunct to the MA culture. You guys want a country club where everyone is playing on two sides of WW2 while DAing. So it fails when the riff raff from the MA show up and play MA. Then you guys have apple ducky, yell at them, mod them, big brother is watching you oversight them, and they don't come back. But, your chastity and gentlemanly virtue is intact even if your arena is a cricket farm.
The DA gods infrequently show up because they have their own arena to play god in. Even though for years you've kept waving the welcome mat saying we are worthy because we conform to DA standards and even mod the riff raff. The DA gods got their fiefdom from Hitech, and don't need another one.
The CT or AvA could have easily been a quarter of the DA bordered with 27K mountains for all the foot traffic you get with your patrician rules to control the plebeians. And you get to see just how many paying customers want to be rule bound for $14.95 when they have the MA. FSO and other SEA WW2 events work because the rules are for helping several hundred willing players get off the tarmac in one piece and have the fun of playing WW2 air war for several hours. Not, you are a bad Aces High paying customer game citizen because you are MA riff raff.
The CT\AvA rules insult most players who didn't sign up to Aces High to have someone telling them how to play the game and labeling them a bad citizen for ignoring big brother. And then you cannot control the Pareto principle or maybe you exacerbate it trying to be an exclusive country club.
Reference back to the DA arena self segregation of the duelers and the furball lake window licking, Hoing, picking, running, greifer coward riff raff. But, those AI imbedded missions in the AvA may work. As long as you stop trying to control how players want to kill the AI or each other. You will have to let the riff raff have the run of the place on their terms just like the MA does. Free market versus centralized control for everyone's own good.
-
The AvA fails from the start because it bills itself as an adjunct to the DA culture in it's spirit. Not as an adjunct to the MA culture. You guys want a country club where everyone is playing on two sides of WW2 while DAing. So it fails when the riff raff from the MA show up and play MA. Then you guys have apple ducky, yell at them, mod them, big brother is watching you oversight them, and they don't come back. But, your chastity and gentlemanly virtue is intact even if your arena is a cricket farm.
The DA gods infrequently show up because they have their own arena to play god in. Even though for years you've kept waving the welcome mat saying we are worthy because we conform to DA standards and even mod the riff raff. The DA gods got their fiefdom from Hitech, and don't need another one.
The CT or AvA could have easily been a quarter of the DA bordered with 27K mountains for all the foot traffic you get with your patrician rules to control the plebeians. And you get to see just how many paying customers want to be rule bound for $14.95 when they have the MA. FSO and other SEA WW2 events work because the rules are for helping several hundred willing players get off the tarmac in one piece and have the fun of playing WW2 air war for several hours. Not, you are a bad Aces High paying customer game citizen because you are MA riff raff.
The CT\AvA rules insult most players who didn't sign up to Aces High to have someone telling them how to play the game and labeling them a bad citizen for ignoring big brother. And then you cannot control the Pareto principle or maybe you exacerbate it trying to be an exclusive country club.
Reference back to the DA arena self segregation of the duelers and the furball lake window licking, Hoing, picking, running, greifer coward riff raff. But, those AI imbedded missions in the AvA may work. As long as you stop trying to control how players want to kill the AI or each other. You will have to let the riff raff have the run of the place on their terms just like the MA does. Free market versus centralized control for everyone's own good.
There are no rules. There was once a statement on the special events page indicating that there were some sort of gentleman's rules but that was removed years ago. There is very little moderation in the arena, and never any warnings or mutings-bootings given for hoing, ganging and the like.
I have never encouraged billing the AvA in such a way. I only want it billed for the things we can control, otherwise we set up expectations that may not be met. Just as soon as we say "come play here and you won't get ganged or ho'd" someone will come in and get ganged and ho'd and complain about it.
There are a lot of things that work against the AvA.
1. We cannot use the perk system. It just won't work to have Grizz zooming around in a 262 during the Battle of Britain.
2. No objectives. We cannot set it up to have a win the war map reset because our custom tables with historical planesets cannot be pinned to a terrain that would rotate in, and we cannot set up an ordered map rotation. It could rotate to the TA for all we know. With no tangible reward for objective play and base taking, bombers sit idle and it becomes a 2 sided limited plane furball.
3. Players cannot always find their favorite hot rod plane available in the arena.
4. We have no sort of event logging and cannot get it, therefore there is no way to have scores and stats match our weekly rather than monthly "tours"
5. The LW is referred to as the "main arena" and the main arena has to be the place to be right?
6. We can't even enable the acheivement system if we wanted to.
We are sort of in no man's land without the key features that make the LW successful and without the key features that make the SEA successful.
You can add a percentage of the AvA community railing against that "MA crap being brought in here" but we are well behind the eight ball long before that comes into play.
The staged missions may add a new dynamic because even if the players only want to fly fighters in escort or intercept roles there will be plenty of AI to fly the bombers, and we can make missions that have victory parameters as in percentage of target destroyed or protected. Of course that still requires manual tabulation, but at least the AI won't complain about getting ho'd.
-
3k friendly icons and no enemy icons. Simulates best the difficulty of recognizing your friends from foes.
:aok
-C+
-
The AI missions may well save the AvA but, you might want to speak with Hitech and rebrand the arena name to remove any previous stigma once the AI missions become a standard game offering. And the whole concept of the original CT really could be placed into the DA by having a 27-30k mountain range wall cutting off 1\4 of the arena and setting up tiny wars there. Other wise that's a lot of wasted space.
Everything else was simply observing the CT\AvA for a decade. The most fun was the few times a density of players was reached that conformed to 80\20 and the sharks weren't making the 80% feel like it wasn't worth the effort to up a plane. All while big brother kept telling them they were bad people for trying to do anything to get even in the short time they had to play that night.
The sharks don't pay the bills, the 80% do. The sharks like to think because they are the sharks everything is about them. Sharks never consider their survival depends on the 80% being happy first, to keep paying the light bill, and have a place to abuse 80%ers. Sharks by their nature believe, if not for them, there wouldn't be any game. The 80% are happy to play with the 80% and wouldn't really notice if all the sharks dropped dead.
In the real world this is why it's so easy for cultures to stratify into classes. With a ruling class of about 20% of the population controlling 80% of the resources and the freedom of the 80% lower class population. And just like our sharks in AH treat our 80% with peer bullying and social ostracization, so does the real world 20% tend to act out many forms of tyranny against their 80%.
The irony about all this. You pay $14.95 to HTC so someone in bunny slippers and their smelly boxer briefs can tell you that you are an unfit human being. Simply because you don't go piu, piu, piu his way in a kiddy cartoon game because he's a CM or is more equal than you in the Aces High Animal Farm.
The greatest lie told in this game, is your dignity as a man depends on your ability to measure up to the sharks on their terms. And that's how the 80% are conned into being a lower social class to the sharks while paying the same $14.95 they do. Not very fun being an 80% buying into this lie and all the other garbage about the rules of how to play this game for $14.95.
-
You might have had a vague point in there some where but, the name calling and false accusations completely erases any credibility you may of had, turning the rest into "blah, blah,blah, blah, blah........".
-
Bustr must have gotten into some sort of politics or something in real life...seems his soap box has gotten bigger and rife with partial truths.
-
:rofl
Someone has a severe inferiority complex.
-
The irony about all this. You pay $14.95 to HTC so someone in bunny slippers and their smelly boxer briefs can tell you that you are an unfit human being. Simply because you don't go piu, piu, piu his way in a kiddy cartoon game because he's a CM or is more equal than you in the Aces High Animal Farm.
You might get a more serious conversation if you could refrain from crapping all over the CM staff.
1. People prefer to play in the all planes from every country enabled at all times arena. Special events satisfy a lot of the historical market, leaving less of a base to gather in a 24/7 arena at the same time.
2. Numbers draw numbers. When there were 2 LW's, everyone tried first to get in the one that had the most people in it.
3. Those who may prefer an AvA type setup will sacrifice that to play right away, rather than be the first in an empty arena and have nothing to do until someone else shows up. It happens all the time, when we were testing mission tuesday morning, other folks saw people in the arena and popped in just for that reason, they weren't aware that it was a mission test.
4. Numbers 2 and 3 are true only because it all begins with number 1.
-
I guess the AvA as a venture didn't go well because the customers failed it then. Or the product rebelled and conspired to make management fail.
As for the rest of what I discussed. Management has to heat those coals and grill themselves in the real world with that garbage to try and discover how they are failing. Closing the doors is generally managements fault if the market or location isn't an obvious looser for the time and place. Not the customer. The AvA is your hobby and costs you nothing. The MA is Hitech's payroll and his future.
Aces High is unique in being like a sports bar. Customers out of control or deciding the bar is their territory can destroy a sports bar by driving away other customers. But, that still comes back to management allowing it or, even being part of it because they identify with only one segment of their customers.
The CT\AvA being two countries only, was handicapped before you even got to the problems with 80\20. Most 80% are not good enough as casual players to avoid taking an ongoing kester whuppin in the dog rides of a 2 sided historical matchup arena. So the AI missions may well pan out if there aren't any serious bugs. The odds are much lower you will run into a lot of sharks. Unless a group of them decides they want to teach the 80% some kind of a lesson about being cowards for playing against the panzy AI instead of real people like themselves.
Wonder what kind of names the AI mission players are going to be branded with for their $14.95? Considering there was at one time a good deal of interest in the original Tour of Duty and AI development. How many players could AI missions potentially remove from the active roster of targets in the MA for the sharks? Or, just to get away from all of the perceived evils we label as lame game play because of no structure or rules?
Six Sigma training can be translated into two useful directions in corporate America. How to identify who to fire more easily to get a boost in your stock offering while avoiding responsibility for someone's failures. Or, how to systematically identify why you failed and a starting place to work yourself out of it by taking responsibility. But, then this usually means money and futures are at stake while all the associated actors can't just walk away tossing their income down the drain.
So did you guys ask HTC to run the AI missions in your AvA or, did HTC ask you to run their AI missions in your AvA?
-
What in the holy hell have you been smoking?!? Not one sentence of your gibberish is true. Wow. I'm actually in awe of the outright lies you have posted in this thread with absolutely nothing to back up your (I'll say it) INSANE opinion of an arena or population you know absolutely nothing about. Normally I ignore the slandering/condecending gibberish you post about other players, but this is just over the top. You buddy, are a lying nutbag. Come out of the Matrix and give reality a try.
Wow, still can't believe the outright lies I just read. You are waaayyy out there for sure. Wow.... :confused:
-
What in the holy hell have you been smoking?!? Not one sentence of your gibberish is true. Wow. I'm actually in awe of the outright lies you have posted in this thread with absolutely nothing to back up your (I'll say it) INSANE opinion of an arena or population you know absolutely nothing about. Normally I ignore the slandering/condecending gibberish you post about other players, but this is just over the top. You buddy, are a lying nutbag. Come out of the Matrix and give reality a try.
Wow, still can't believe the outright lies I just read. You are waaayyy out there for sure. Wow.... :confused:
"smoking" has nothing to do with it..... ;)
-
why halve icons? Why not double them? That would be more realistic. 6 kilometers is 3.75 miles. Realistically you can spot and ID many planes large AND SMALL out to 8-10 miles.
I fly airplanes for a living. Ocassionally I can spot something 10 miles out, but it's a speck. A weeny teeny tiny speck. I was following a Skywest jet (probably an ERJ145 or CRJ) he was 8 miles out, and he was a dot. That isn't a small airplane. I'd say to truly identify an airplane unless its enormous, you need to be 2-4 miles away so I think HTC has it right.
-
I fly airplanes for a living. Ocassionally I can spot something 10 miles out, but it's a speck. A weeny teeny tiny speck. I was following a Skywest jet (probably an ERJ145 or CRJ) he was 8 miles out, and he was a dot. That isn't a small airplane. I'd say to truly identify an airplane unless its enormous, you need to be 2-4 miles away so I think HTC has it right.
:aok. Which is why our friendly icons are set to 3k. When we set the standard for no icons back in 2010 Jaeger, Oldman and I figured it was the closest to realistic distance to ID a friendly so that those with smaller monitors are not punished unfairly and to balance gameplay.
-
:aok. Which is why our friendly icons are set to 3k. When we set the standard for no icons back in 2010 Jaeger, Oldman and I figured it was the closest to realistic distance to ID a friendly so that those with smaller monitors are not punished unfairly and to balance gameplay.
and yet my eyesight wont let me identify which is the plane and which is the shadow at 400 yards in the ava when flying close to the ground. but I can clearly identify airplanes at 3 or 4 miles as they land at ontario airport :).
semp
-
No insult intended.
It very much came across as "You're wrong and I won't say why you're wrong because you don't fly in the AvA and thus cannot possibly understand why you're wrong."
-
This is very much strayed from the purpose of this forum.