Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: matt72078 on October 27, 2013, 02:21:48 PM
-
How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude. Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him. I play this game to fight not chase people.
-
-1
-
Something to give an indication of altitude would be nice.
Maybe color code the dots going from red through yellow as altitude increased to 30k.
-
+1 some sort of indicator would be nice.
-
-1
No need to drive bombers even higher.
-
Was radar of the period able to distinguish the target's altitude or was that based off of visual observation? It seems like I remember it being able to (no time to look it up for verification).
Players in-flight are able to directly view the number and X-Y position of the enemy cons. Was that simply meant to enhance gameplay or simulate coordination from ground radar units to vector friendly planes? If its meant to simulate ground coordination, then I'd think they would also relay the altitude...and possibly size/type (i.e. single engine vs. four engine) if they knew.
Again, I do not have any source data to support what I just said. I'm just kicking around ideas.
-
How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude. Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him. I play this game to fight not chase people.
-1 Bombers and fighters already get screwed over because of radar.
Something to give an indication of altitude would be nice.
Maybe color code the dots going from red through yellow as altitude increased to 30k.
I could agree with that...
-
It would be neat if the limit of the radar was defined by an inverted truncated cone...
i.e if the radar limit was 10,000ft (radius) at ground level it would be 15,000ft at 30,000ft alt.
if we see dots appearing well out side the radar ring we know they are very high.......... and we have a bot more time for intercept.
BoB the RAF had chain home and chain home low radar stations. The chain home had a longer range but could see nothing clearly below critical altitudes (5000ft) below which chain home low (and chain home extra low) radar stations were used.
-
-6 I say turn off radar in the Main all together :cheers:
-
-6 I say turn off radar in the Main all together :cheers:
that's just so you don't have to fight anyone. :lol
think about is as all the native sheep herders being paid to watch for aircraft and the ones inside the dar circle have binoculars...
-
How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude. Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him. I play this game to fight not chase people.
:airplane: I don't want to start an argument, but I don't believe there were many radar sites capable of projecting altitude. They could most certainly see out to about, depending on the altitude of the object observed because radar is a "Line of sight" piece of equipment and the curve of the earth, limited them to about 200 miles if the aircraft was 18 to 25 thousand feet high.
The GCA, "Ground Controlled Approach" was a system which did have the capability of seeing altitude, as the operator could tell you if you were on "Glide Slope" or not. He could tell you if you 50 feet to high or 50 feet to low as you made your approach to the runway.
Even in the 50's, 60's and early 70's, the radar used by the FAA to handle all "Instrument Flight Rule" aircraft had flaws, such as a heavy rain shower would hide you from the radar, as it just showed a large green blob on the screen. Then in the late 70's, they developed radar which would "filter" out the rain showers. Even with that advanced system, the only way they knew your altitude was by "Transponder" response, or you told them after they asked!
I quit flying professionally in 1998 and even then, with in Terminal Control areas, (50 mile and in), I would be asked constantly my altitude as I was descending for an instrument approach to a large terminal area such as New York, Washington, Atlanta and I could name 20 more busy sites, the point being, they didn't have altitude information on radar systems then and I was less than 50 miles from the radar site.
I know the British were way ahead of us on Radar during WW2 so I don't know if they had that capability then or not. I know the U.S. airman where ask to report their altitude at certain "intersections", (point where 2 different radio signals crossed), so the controllers would know their height above sea level.
there is a ton of information on radar in general on line, but I would bet the military has the most effection radar anywhere and that is certainly not on line, at least not their greatest, latest magic boxes!
-
Old radars did not read altitude by themselves. They used a banana shaped beam scanning a narrow azimuth range at a wide spread of elevation angles. Thus, the operator could tell if there is a plane in the beam, but had no information about altitude. The reason is that in order to get altitude from a single radar, you need a pencil shaped beam and scan in elevations quickly during the azimuth scan. This either limits the time you can sped on a beam (thus range and sensitivity) or forces a very slow azimuth scan speed, which means slow update rate for the targets.
Old radars used one of two things: 1) a banana shaped beam that is limited in its elevation range and then employ a rough vertical scan, or two radars, one scanning low elevations and the other scanning high. That only gave a very rough estimation of altitude because the elevation resolution is very crude and the altitude range covered by each beam changes with range. 2) A dedicated altitude radar with a narrow pencil beam that scans up-down only. The operator then points this radar in the azimuth of the target found by the main radar and does vertical scans. Hopefully this radar will also detect the target and by matching the ranges in both scopes the operator can correlated the target in the main 2D radar with the one in the screen of the altitude radar.
This thing is that altitude measurements are not easy even with a pencil beam. The atmosphere bends the beam and 30,000 feet blips can turn out out to be cars on the highway or windmills. Modern radars take atmospheric conditions into the calculations, but even then altitude readings can sometimes fluctuate quite a bit. Air trafic controllers rely mostly on altitude readings from the transponders in the planes. This is not a radar measurement - the transponder is sending the altitude as measured by the plane instruments, coded as transmission pulses.
-
Old radars did not read altitude by themselves. They used a banana shaped beam scanning a narrow azimuth range at a wide spread of elevation angles. Thus, the operator could tell if there is a plane in the beam, but had no information about altitude. The reason is that in order to get altitude from a single radar, you need a pencil shaped beam and scan in elevations quickly during the azimuth scan. This either limits the time you can sped on a beam (thus range and sensitivity) or forces a very slow azimuth scan speed, which means slow update rate for the targets.
Old radars used one of two things: 1) a banana shaped beam that is limited in its elevation range and then employ a rough vertical scan, or two radars, one scanning low elevations and the other scanning high. That only gave a very rough estimation of altitude because the elevation resolution is very crude and the altitude range covered by each beam changes with range. 2) A dedicated altitude radar with a narrow pencil beam that scans up-down only. The operator then points this radar in the azimuth of the target found by the main radar and does vertical scans. Hopefully this radar will also detect the target and by matching the ranges in both scopes the operator can correlated the target in the main 2D radar with the one in the screen of the altitude radar.
This thing is that altitude measurements are not easy even with a pencil beam. The atmosphere bends the beam and 30,000 feet blips can turn out out to be cars on the highway or windmills. Modern radars take atmospheric conditions into the calculations, but even then altitude readings can sometimes fluctuate quite a bit. Air trafic controllers rely mostly on altitude readings from the transponders in the planes. This is not a radar measurement - the transponder is sending the altitude as measured by the plane instruments, coded as transmission pulses.
:airplane: Excellent post sir! I never have understood the in's and out's of radar, but as a pilot, with no working radar on board, and a dark rainy night in South Georgia, trying to get your people home in one piece, you really get to admiring a good radar controller when there are thunder storms in all quadrants and he works you through without as much a bump!
-
Personally I'd like to be able to tune the trigger for the base flashing from the FE. So for example you could set it to ignore GVs or ignore planes. Or to only flash if over a certain number of enemies were within range of that base. Maybe have two speeds of flashing dependent on the numbers in range. Or set it to ignore enemies over or under a certain alt. Using these settings a player could get a better picture of whats going on in the arena from the tower.
-
-1
I have a feeling that a number of players would just turn around to gain altitude if they see cons higher than them. Who am I going to pick then eh? :D
-
-1
I have a feeling that a number of players would just turn around to gain altitude if they see cons higher than them. Who am I going to pick then eh? :D
Point taken.
-
-1
No need to drive bombers even higher.
Agreed. I think the dot/darbar system is fine. At least some mystery needs to be maintained to get scouts to locate and ascertain altitude, number of bombers & escorts, exact location, and trajectory visually. I don't think I'd be playing this game if all the answers were given away on the map.
As it is on the smaller maps, an enemy darbar has been proven easy to spot the minute it appears out of the launch base. Interception is guaranteed.
-
NO. ww2 radar didnt show altitude
-
-1. There has to be some mystery.
-
NO. ww2 radar didnt show altitude
Then, as an expert on the subject, you should correct the Wikipedia entry on Chain Home which states: "Most stations were also able to measure the angle of elevation of the formation, which, together with the range, gave the height; local geography prevented some stations from measuring elevation." and "The receiving antennas were directional, so the signal strength received by each depended on the angle between it and the target. An operator would manually adjust a comparator device to find what angle to the target best matched the relative strengths of the two received signals. The angle of elevation to the target was estimated by similar comparison of the signal strengths from a second pair of receiving antennas closer to the ground, which produced a different sensitivity in elevation."
-
-1. There has to be some mystery.
:aok
LtngRydr
-
88 AAA used a three-point verification finder system that were tied together from three different batteries to triangulate altitude. Pretty effective but it was a manual process with the use of fire control towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_control_tower)
Three gunners point their target tracking and then the AAA coordinator had to manually calculate the altitude into the fire control tower. It was first done for naval applications and then adapted for areal AAA batteries.
So yes, any AAA with a FCT (basically any airbase) could tell the altitude of an aircraft until radar systems got better at the pencil method.
And you would also have to visually see the aircraft. Cloud cover meant altitude was impossible to calculate.
-
Then, as an expert on the subject, you should correct the Wikipedia entry on Chain Home which states: "Most stations were also able to measure the angle of elevation of the formation, which, together with the range, gave the height; local geography prevented some stations from measuring elevation." and "The receiving antennas were directional, so the signal strength received by each depended on the angle between it and the target. An operator would manually adjust a comparator device to find what angle to the target best matched the relative strengths of the two received signals. The angle of elevation to the target was estimated by similar comparison of the signal strengths from a second pair of receiving antennas closer to the ground, which produced a different sensitivity in elevation."
:airplane: It might be of some use to some of the new guys reading this to explain how radar works. Simply stated: a radio signal is sent out along the beam which the radar operator looks at on his screen. When that signal hits a target, it is then reflected back to the antenna, there fore showing an object, in this case, an aircraft. I think that the Bell labs and RCA were the first to figure out the time from antenna to object and back, there fore they could compute the distance the object was from the antenna.
The IFF systems and transponder systems in use have this built into the system these days, so the radar operator knows the altitude of the aircraft he is looking at. Don't confuse that with the operators order to "squawk Ident", because that is for a different function, namely to positively ID the correct aircraft when several are around or in the same section of his or her responsibility. Most radar systems in use today, when the radar signal crosses a aircraft, the operator sees 2 small hash marks on his or her screen and when you Squawk Ident, the area between the two small hash marks fill in to make a small square. There is whole host of transponder frequencies in use and you would be told what frequency to tune your transponder to.
Here are just a few in use today and what they are for:
7500 Aircraft hijacking (ICAO, worldwide)
7501-7577 Reserved for use by Continental NORAD Region (CONR) (USA)
7600 Radio Failure (Lost Communications) (ICAO, worldwide)
7601-7607 Reserved for special use by FAA (USA)
7610-7676 External ARTCC subsets (Discrete codes of blocks only except for first primary block, which is used as the ARTCC’s non-discrete code if all discrete codes are assigned) (USA)
7615 Civil flights engaged in littoral surveillance (Australia)
7700 Emergency (ICAO, worldwide)
Hope this info fills in some blank spots for you! :salute
-
How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude. Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him. I play this game to fight not chase people.
Attitude is being used lately to avoid being at a disadvantage. Inversely, the investment time wise to gain that advantage detracts from the given player's fight time whether he knows this. Or adds to their comfort zone feeling of "I'm not dead yet." I've always wondered if rewards were given for the numbers of cons destroyed before biting the big one, would more players become interested in slugging it out? They might accidentally learn fighting is rewarding rather than another opportunity to loose.
HOST: Newbee died with 5 kills confirmed, Better Luck Next Time Killer.
If everyone could hold their mouse over red dots and get an altitude update, would anyone want to fight anymore? Look at how much time is spent waiting for those hiding from all but the most favorable situation to themselves. Compare that to the less than 5 minutes to win, loose, or run away once they come down. Consider how frustrated you become listening to players on country talk about the hiding at altitude phenomenon now. Four 20K ponies over your field who never come down to fight until one of you gets fed up and heads out alone. At this juncture one has to consider our game has a cadre of vets who 4 may not be enough to survive.
How much more time will be added to this if the ones you are waiting for can get an instantaneous update on your altitude? Just like those times you run into someone finally at 15-20K and they run out over and over again dragging the fight up 2-5k every pass to feel safe.
-
Heck with all of this......if you want dar some one should have to man it....just like in R/L. No one in dar at a base.....no dar no base flash.....so there :rofl
-
Why not.
The wish to be able to give perks to players has been asked repeatedly. Now you have a reason. Radar duty including resupply when it's down. Heck even pay someone to be the radar man for the HQ along with resupply duty.
Still it's not original wanting radar modified to show things like enemy alt, type and speed. The strongest arguments against, were players knowing this info would help them to choose to avoid each other. Like the old radar minimums fostered NOE against undefended targets so that missions were 90% guaranteed to succeed.
Showing red dot altitude would be telling those adverse to running risks how much higher to climb before heading over to get into a furball over a field.
-
I'll make a compromise. You can have altitude sensing tech, if I can have an A-bomb. :P
-
I'll make a compromise. You can have altitude sensing tech, if I can have an A-bomb. :P
there is no way even you could call this some sort of tech...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Battle_of_britain_air_observer.jpg)
-
there is no way even you could call this some sort of tech...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Battle_of_britain_air_observer.jpg)
YES THAT PLANE IS AT 22.5K (I can tell by looking at it) . SHOOT HIM LASER GUIDED PUFFY ACK!
-
YES THAT PLANE IS AT 22.5K (I can tell by looking at it) . SHOOT HIM LASER GUIDED PUFFY ACK!
way to exaggerate...i mean really.
with a little training and a piece of paper, even a backwoods farmboy like yourself could learn to approximate altitude and distance...
-
way to exaggerate...i mean really.
with a little training and a piece of paper, even a backwoods farmboy like yourself could learn to approximate altitude and distance...
Well excuse me. I just hate the idea of having radar show alt. I'm already constantly checking my guns due to paranoia :noid
-
way to exaggerate...i mean really.
with a little training and a piece of paper, even a backwoods farmboy like yourself could learn to approximate altitude and distance...
Point being, that you wouldn't be able to instantly know the altitude that they are at. It would take time. Personally, I think that we don't need to have altitude shown. I like the mystery.
Just too many variables to argue over what is worth while and what isn't. Personally, I don't think that it would be a beneficial thing overall.
To the OP, fair idea, but I don't think it would be good for this game.
-
I'll make a compromise. You can have altitude sensing tech, if I can have an A-bomb. :P
I have thought that the A-bomb should be included in the game, and as a crucial piece. Make it available only when one base on each side is necessary for the win, can be dropped only by a B-29, can be destroyed, only three available say per hour and must be dropped on a specific base/town highlighted and known only to the country which possesses it. :noid
If all three fail, well I haven't thought it through that far...
But I think it would make a great addition, and certainly add a new dimension. I'm sure it's been thought of rejected and re-wished for time and time again...would be fun though, no?
Oh and a heavy perk price, which only be lost if you died.
-
I have thought that the A-bomb should be included in the game, and as a crucial piece. Make it available only when one base on each side is necessary for the win, can be dropped only by a B-29, can be destroyed, only three available say per hour and must be dropped on a specific base/town highlighted and known only to the country which possesses it. :noid
If all three fail, well I haven't thought it through that far...
But I think it would make a great addition, and certainly add a new dimension. I'm sure it's been thought of rejected and re-wished for time and time again...would be fun though, no?
Oh and a heavy perk price, which only be lost if you died.
:noid 3 Atomic bombs every hour? :uhoh NO
-
I have thought that the A-bomb should be included in the game, and as a crucial piece. Make it available only when one base on each side is necessary for the win, can be dropped only by a B-29, can be destroyed, only three available say per hour and must be dropped on a specific base/town highlighted and known only to the country which possesses it. :noid
If all three fail, well I haven't thought it through that far...
But I think it would make a great addition, and certainly add a new dimension. I'm sure it's been thought of rejected and re-wished for time and time again...would be fun though, no?
Oh and a heavy perk price, which only be lost if you died.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLZQaZ.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/voLZQaZ.gif)
:rofl
Sums it up quite nicely.
-
-1
No need to drive bombers even higher.
This
-
-6 I say turn off radar in the Main all together :cheers:
Then radar bar has to go too, without radar - no radar-bar.
-
-no
-
-no
:airplane: I think that Aces High has it about right for this type of sim!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/voLZQaZ.gif)
:rofl That's what I did...
-
Ahhh the typical responses to changing the game. :rolleyes:
Why don't you give some examples why it would be bad for the game. As I said the bomb would have to be used on the highlighted base.
It was necessary to use to defeat Japan, so why not be used here, after all it is realism we're after, no?
-
Ahhh the typical responses to changing the game. :rolleyes:
Why don't you give some examples why it would be bad for the game. As I said the bomb would have to be used on the highlighted base.
It was necessary to use to defeat Japan, so why not be used here, after all it is realism we're after, no?
(http://www.abitofmylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/128776871560328212.jpg)
changing the game for the better is usually the goal. it's already easy to roll bases (at least for bish and rooks). no one needs a cartoon retard device to winz de warz. an atom bomb would not make the game better. and it would really not be realistic, there are no japanese cities to drop one on.
-
Ahhh the typical responses to changing the game. :rolleyes:
Why don't you give some examples why it would be bad for the game. As I said the bomb would have to be used on the highlighted base.
It was necessary to use to defeat Japan, so why not be used here, after all it is realism we're after, no?
If that were the case we would have guns randomly jamming, reloads for some vehicles etc. The atomic bomb - even if limited - would still be a cheap way of getting kills, and would ultimately result in people leaving. Imagine, with no limits, 2+ players could level ALL the strats in 1 pass. The only thing it could be used on, where the player would receive the atomic bomb's full potential would be at the strats. But, even then, it's still too powerful.
The Atomic Bomb would be akin to the "noob tube" grenade launcher in Modern Warfare. I don't think the game is currently designed in a way that would utilize the atomic bomb in an effective way anyways, strats would be the only ideal target (and probably the only target HTC would allow to be bombed, for anything else would be overkill).
The system itself would have to be changed.
Respectively,
Tinkles
P.S. If it were to be added, no less than 2500 perks per atomic bomb. No more than 1 bomb per map per side (so 1 AB per side per map rotation). And perks aren't refunded, whether you get to the target or not. At least.. that's how I would do it :cool:
-
How did radar altitude suddenly change to atomic bomb? :headscratch:
-1 for nuclear weapons.
If it ever arrived then I would take it straight to the tank town or into a place of most intense fighting.
-
Focus people, this was a conversation about radar not nukes. Ok, I get it. Some people want mystery and don't want to know the bad guys altitude. But I do, so what about a compromise. If they are flying around 20K or something we should get to see them on the radar a little sooner since they are farther above the horizon. Increased warning = more intercepts, more intercepts means more fighting for bombers and fighters which is what we should all want because if your not here to fight then you should be playing Microsoft flight simulator instead of this game.
-
Focus people, this was a conversation about radar not nukes. Ok, I get it. Some people want mystery and don't want to know the bad guys altitude. But I do, so what about a compromise. If they are flying around 20K or something we should get to see them on the radar a little sooner since they are farther above the horizon. Increased warning = more intercepts, more intercepts means more fighting for bombers and fighters which is what we should all want because if your not here to fight then you should be playing Microsoft flight simulator instead of this game.
:airplane: Picture this in your mind! Lets have a 3 tiered radar system in the game. Think about a wedding cake, turned upside down over a base. The lowest, would be like it is now, 25 miles, the next layer up would reflect targets which are 35 miles away, the last, or top layer would show targets 45 miles away.
The bottom layer would be from the ground up to 5,000 feet. The next layer would be from 5,000 feet to 6,500 feet and the top layer would be from 6,500 feet to 8,000 feet. The top layer would have a 10,000 feet ceiling and would not show targets above 10,000 feet. What this would do is encourage more air to air combat, as guys would try to come in under the second layer, or below 5,000 feet.
I am sure some of the pilots in this game will recognize this proposal as "terminal radar system", which is in use today by the FAA. Now there dimensions are a little different than what I have listed here, but for game purposes, I think this one would work pretty good. (only problem is, I don't know how AH would blank out targets above 10,000 feet).
-
Now there dimensions are a little different than what I have listed here, but for game purposes, I think this one would work pretty good. (only problem is, I don't know how AH would blank out targets above 10,000 feet).
above 10k would revert to bar dar. not sure if the layers would be a good thing though. increased dot dar detection range has problems. if you look at how the bases are laid out, there isn't 35 or 45 miles between them. there would be a lot more lone pork rangers flying around porking dar.
-
Ahhh the typical responses to changing the game. :rolleyes:
Why don't you give some examples why it would be bad for the game. As I said the bomb would have to be used on the highlighted base.
It was necessary to use to defeat Japan, so why not be used here, after all it is realism we're after, no?
Think. If a 29 (most of the time) draws attention like a sore thumb, then what do you expect of a 29 carrying a game-ending device? None less than 15 262s.
-
Before the radar minimums for red dot dar were changed, large groups of players snuck around the maps below 200ft and attacked fields. The highest most players bothered on average was about 12k otherwise. The NOE hoards were very successful at suddenly overwhelming an isolated field and taking it. But, you were guaranteed fights at reasonable altitudes if you could time being there just right.
During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight."
Maybe get the minimum changed from 65ft back to 200ft so everyone will hide in the bushes again. Over the last decade players have not changed in how they avoid combat. It's always the path of least resistance influenced by the current arena settings. Right now it's above 15k. Back then it was below 200ft.
So we have gone from complaining to HTC that no one wants to fight because they hide in hoards below 200ft avoiding combat. To now, we want HTC to give us red dot altitude indicators so we can make plans for catching them hiding at altitude avoiding combat. The heart of this is "avoiding combat". And then logically,,,,, Me163 everywhere for 30 perks so we can rapidly get to 30k to cut off the new generation of runstangs using the red dot altitude indicator to avoid combat?
So if they want to hide and avoid combat. Isn't it simpler for your time investment that they do it in the bushes and you need only look for flashing bases or the occasional red dot blip as someone drifts above 200ft? At least then you would know where 10-30 of them are, and willing to fight you below 10k. As it is, now altitude indicators are being asked for to counter hiding above 15k. We got to this by the radar red dot minimum reduced lower than our trees. You don't need complexity to fix this.
Low level intruder missions were not the exception to mission types during WW2.
-
How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude. Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him. I play this game to fight not chase people.
-1 NO
-
Before the radar minimums for red dot dar were changed, large groups of players snuck around the maps below 200ft and attacked fields. The highest most players bothered on average was about 12k otherwise. The NOE hoards were very successful at suddenly overwhelming an isolated field and taking it. But, you were guaranteed fights at reasonable altitudes if you could time being there just right.
During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight."
Maybe get the minimum changed from 65ft back to 200ft so everyone will hide in the bushes again. Over the last decade players have not changed in how they avoid combat. It's always the path of least resistance influenced by the current arena settings. Right now it's above 15k. Back then it was below 200ft.
So we have gone from complaining to HTC that no one wants to fight because they hide in hoards below 200ft avoiding combat. To now, we want HTC to give us red dot altitude indicators so we can make plans for catching them hiding at altitude avoiding combat. The heart of this is "avoiding combat". And then logically,,,,, Me163 everywhere for 30 perks so we can rapidly get to 30k to cut off the new generation of runstangs using the red dot altitude indicator to avoid combat?
So if they want to hide and avoid combat. Isn't it simpler for your time investment that they do it in the bushes and you need only look for flashing bases or the occasional red dot blip as someone drifts above 200ft? At least then you would know where 10-30 of them are, and willing to fight you below 10k. As it is, now altitude indicators are being asked for to counter hiding above 15k. We got to this by the radar red dot minimum reduced lower than our trees. You don't need complexity to fix this.
Low level intruder missions were not the exception to mission types during WW2.
Yup, the community keeps going around the circle. Over and Over, HTC doesn't win no matter what they do. Bunch of Bi-Pola.... hey.. wait a minute. :lol
Seriously though, I agree with Bustr. I don't think anything needs to be changed to the radar. It's fine the way it is. It's a sandbox, use the tools provided and get the job done. Don't need things "dumbed down" or easier to get things done. While I understand the OP's wish and that his intent is to bring what he thinks would be good for the game. It wouldn't be.
Sometimes things must be experienced before someone learns, however I again, do not support this wish. I have no ill will against the OP, and he has every right to ask this wish as I do to say "no"; but I honestly believe that this wouldn't be good for the game.
Even though I have played for 6 years, there are some who would be better at explaining the bad side of this. But I will name a few.
#1 Bombers would go higher and higher so that enemies would take longer to get to them so the said bombers would have a chance to get to their target (and probably return home). Which doesn't promote combat.
#2 The immersion, even if it was possible "back in the day" to get such accurate readings from radar, it makes it too easy to find out what is going on. There is no "smoke and mirrors" or the "fog of war". So it takes all the investigative properties of a defender out of the equation, and simply gives them the answer. "Target is large enough to be a heavy bomber, 32,528 ft going 422 mph SW". Even with our current dot system of putting your cursor on the friendly and finding out who it is, some didn't like it because it was too 'gamey' it took the mystery out of it.
#3 Some if they seen an enemy too high would simply not engage that target. Instead of going out and finding out for themselves what that target is, and potentially starting combat; the combat would die before it even had a chance to start, because it was determined that the target was too high.
I'm sure there are a quite a few things I missed. Some of the oldie veterans could give a better description than I could. But still, while your intentions are good, I don't think you would see the repercussions of this wish until after the fact, but the damage would already be done by then.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
We got what we asked for:
During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight."
I think we fudgulated upon our selves when we ran NOE out of town.
But, then Hitech had a real community problem to solve with 2\3 of the players on any large map were often in the bushes avoiding each other rolling undefended fields. One could argue the present economy is influencing the low numbers, and to a point, except the gamey of us now have an alternative to "not buy a subscription from HTC". The low numbers are acting like a magnifying lens to the intensity of the desire by many to avoid risk and loosing by getting shot down. We don't have the excess numbers to offset the stark reality of risk avoidance in our game at this time.
I would venture that the original game play community problems encountered with large MA populations and the subsequent attempts to control them. No longer exist because they were population dependent. Three come to mind, the new town and capture requirements, changing the radar minimums, and splitting the LWMA into two arenas. Now that the LWMA has been reduced to a single arena due to population reductions. Setting the radar minimum back to the previous setting before it was changed to influence NOE missions and player conduct, would oxymoronically promote more combat.
This chart below by Lusche, for combat activity over the years, with highlighted points of HTC changes to the game Along with War Thunder starting up. Is a good illustration for how numbers effected a need to artificially encourage community play style and conduct. Along with having an excess of players to offset numbers focusing on one type of game play predominantly. NOE missions. Look at NOE missions as our little slice of War Thunderness before WT that kept the gamey herd paying HTC for a subscription. And the rest of us in scalps. Every ice skating rink has a minority of hockey and figure skaters who are convinced their rink would be paradise without the nightly hoards of kids and wannabees. And none of them stops to think, how do the lights stay on and ice stays ice?
With the current lack of numbers and predisposition to hide above 15k by many. I think the game would benefit by returning the radar minimums to an earlier time along with subsequently making the capturing of fields easier. A consequence would be concentrating players at lower altitudes making them available to fight with. Just as Dunbar's Number predicts group interaction and how they identify within themselves. This graph, if you have been with the game for a decade or more, reads as a cycle based on population to game play style. We don't have the excess population to support complexity at the moment. The single activity that consistently brought the most players together in the MA was NOE missions. It was always available, simple, easy, and safe in a War Thunder gamey kind of way. Unless the hockey players and figure skaters magically pay the light and ice bill with their skillz and ravishing good looks.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/killstatsbytype_zps3c5d1ef9.jpg)
-
-1