General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Chilli on October 05, 2016, 08:54:29 AM
Title: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 05, 2016, 08:54:29 AM
Please return the enemy aircraft dot distance as it was upon release. :rock :airplane: In the interest of air combat alone, that is WAY more enticing than flashing icons or plane and dar bar. I am certain that it was more accurate as well.
I am not sure if ground vehicles are tied to the same mechanism, but watching a red icon moving before actually having eyes on the ground vehicle from the air is a bit off. Also, GV hide is in full stealth mode when sitting under a tree. :aok Why does it have to be invisible the rest of the time also?
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lusche on October 05, 2016, 09:08:18 AM
Please return the enemy aircraft dot distance as it was upon release. :rock :airplane: In the interest of air combat alone, that is WAY more enticing than flashing icons or plane and dar bar. I am certain that it was more accurate as well.
I found that early long distance dot to be very irritating.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Wiley on October 05, 2016, 09:33:41 AM
I found that early long distance dot to be very irritating.
I liked it. Personally I'dve liked it to stay around that size as you closed on it in the distance band where it gets smaller as the plane starts to render.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: sanfordpaul on October 05, 2016, 10:38:16 AM
-1 The big dots at distance don't really make sense, have a negative impact on the game, and should be abandoned. I'm glad they were taken out of the melee arena. Now, let's get them out of FSO as well.
<S> Sanford
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Dobs on October 05, 2016, 10:46:01 AM
Big dots at distance--aid for fight finding.
Currently, if you zoom and look hard you can see those same "dots"...they are just "right" sized. Icons give you instant 3 mile tally ho's as it is...
No more "circle the thumb on the HAT -instant SA"..have to work to see the aircraft....sort of like real life.
With DarBar, friendlies always on, and ingame voice...plenty of aids to find the fight.
Looking great to me....would be neat if dots could change size based on aspect, but that is a buttload of calculations probably required to properly do that.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Bruv119 on October 05, 2016, 10:46:46 AM
I agree with the sentiment chilli, it did help people with bad SA see and head towards potential enemies.
However I have to agree with it lacks immersion. If anything a larger dot when the con is closer.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: ImADot on October 05, 2016, 10:53:22 AM
I'm glad they were taken out of the melee arena. Now, let's get them out of FSO as well.
<S> Sanford
As far as I know, the dot range and size are built into the game code and are related to your screen size, resolution and dot pitch of the monitor. The only arena setting that can change is the range where icons appear.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: LCADolby on October 05, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
I found that early long distance dot to be very irritating.
:aok it was horrific.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: popeye on October 05, 2016, 11:50:29 AM
-1
I prefer the dots as they are now. The "big-then-small-then-disappear-then-icon" dots were confusing. You can see the "new" small dots from the same distance -- just have to look harder.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Delirium on October 05, 2016, 12:42:19 PM
I still feel my suggestion I made a few years ago would be the best.
1. Use different size dots. Use a very small dot beyond icon range with a slightly larger when they are within icon range that grows until the aircraft shape is revealed.
2. Don't use full icons at beyond 1k visual range. Instead use a red dot that gradually gives additional information as you get closer. For example, red dot at 4-6k, general info between 3-4k, aircraft type between 1-3k, and specific aircraft type model under 1k.
(I'm happy I am on a long AH vacation while the particulars are being worked out. I am still paying for my account to support the process however.)
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: BuckShot on October 05, 2016, 01:04:19 PM
I agree. Although it was easier to see distant planes, the big dot, small dot, then icon was irritating.
Reverse the dot sizes to make it logical and I'd be fine with a change.
The way it is now is good too.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 05, 2016, 03:04:16 PM
What is HORRIFIC, is the ability to find a decent fight when there are only a handful of players on. We even went to channel 201+ vox and reported our positions to each other. I wouldn't expect many of the leet sticks to want to give up their "advantage" with anything that might tip their hat. An old geezer like myself has tried every change possible in order to make this "realistic" SA that you all speak of. My eyes will tell me the shape of military and commercial aircraft as they fly in the distance (several miles from my feet planted on the ground). The contrails are sometimes an aid in locating in the vast sky, but what I see with the naked eye is NOT being accurately reflected in game.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 05, 2016, 03:06:31 PM
ME TOO! I hear alot of AMENs when I comment on "bring back the big black dots" :pray
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 05, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
ME TOO! I hear alot of AMENs when I comment on "bring back the big black dots" :pray
That is what I hear too. Let's leave this fog of war mentality to those fleet / task group skippers sneaking next to undefended fields. That is what the game has devolved into during off hours. <steps off soapbox> :bolt:
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: FESS67 on October 05, 2016, 03:30:27 PM
+1
I kinda liked it.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: NatCigg on October 05, 2016, 05:30:06 PM
the dot would have to go small to large. the previous mspaint square to dot to tiny plane was ugly. also, the big dot would entice me to chase some strange distant foe that I could not tell was coming or going (note size to distance anomaly).
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Vudak on October 05, 2016, 06:21:23 PM
-1 it was counterintuitive and drove me nuts
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: shift8 on October 05, 2016, 07:14:57 PM
-1
---The giant dots were unrealistic as all get out. You could see bandits EFFORTLESSLY from the freaking stratosphere, and be 6+ miles out horizontally.
---They ruined game play by making it too easy to find fights, turning everything into a silly meat grinder decided only by who ended up being last to show up.....
---They were counter intuitive, with the dot size dwindling to almost nothing and then suddenly being the size of a freight train
----They rewarded laziness and a lack of SA building skills.
----The tiny dots of the original game were already excellent. You could spot planes out to 17km if you knew how to scan. The cheesy blimp-sized mega dots we had early release in AH3 were utter nonsense. You could simply glace out your cockpit and instantly spot every plane for 10 miles.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: captain1ma on October 05, 2016, 10:32:29 PM
+1 on the dots. then no enemy icon setups are a joy!! and immersion is rampant!!
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 06, 2016, 01:34:07 AM
+1 on the dots. then no enemy icon setups are a joy!! and immersion is rampant!!
Amen, Captain! I would be more than happy with the dots returned as they use to be in Beta. Even up to the compromise, in my opinion, of reduced icon range. That could add a new twist to the SA as well. In this case, you had better be familiar with your own plane! Because if you make the wrong decision on how you will engage an unknown con, no SA in the world will keep you absolutely safe. You realize of coarse, not every player likes to climb to 30k and BnZ? Sure it means you can pick the terms of YOUR particular fighting style, I get that. Those of us that dont fly like that benefited greatly from the Big dots. With 3k icon range, and a Bnz from altitude, not a whole lot of warning before its to late. Besides most of the top pilots in this game will kill you like that anyway. Whats wrong with a bit of compromise? I feel it worked a bit like ENY. Sure that turns off alot of folk but its up to everyone to learn how to fly higher ENY planes,right? So in this case, an aid to learning how to achieve good SA would be a plus for every one. I wasnt ever irritated about how the dots morphed around, I was too busy trying to figure out how I wanted to engage said dot. Plus tracer vis was pretty lousy at that time too. So I was more than willing to give up the tracers for a boost in SA. Besides, if you saw the big dot are you not going to fly towards it, no matter what the size? If you keep flying towards it and are making no ground, pretty safe to sa he is going away from you? Turn away and find another dot :bolt: All I ever hear in game is alot of folk dissing the "Astronauts and alt monkeys" anyway. This compromise would take a wee bit of that high alt advantage away, might even encourage more mid to low alt fights. Never heard anyone complain about that. If I am not mistaken doesnt King of the Hill have an alt limit? Not calling for that, just saying most of you guys handle that handicap a whole heck of a lot better than newer players, so why not have the dots? Still takes descent SA when some one comes swooping in from alt, not to get killed. Coming in as fast as that, the closure is still pretty fast and lacking SA skill even a minuscule and you get same results any way. What if the dots were optional? Like the aid from auto trim, tracers and stall limiter? If you dont like them and want more immersion in YOUR game play, just turn them off like you can with the HUD
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Delirium on October 06, 2016, 09:46:16 AM
+1 on the dots. then no enemy icon setups are a joy!! and immersion is rampant!!
How is that immersive? So the AH player can experience the blindness Subaru Sakai had to suffer from at the end of the war?
No icon set ups do not emulate history. They take away an aspect of a game that is in place to make up for the fact monitors do not have good visibility and that VR headsets lack the resolution to truly emulate natural human vision.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: captain1ma on October 06, 2016, 01:07:23 PM
really? cause planes have icons over them. I just came back from Germany, and I didn't see a green icon over the plane flying next to us. I especially didn't see any red icons over them in in the distance. make the planes big enough and you don't need icons.
in AVA wars, in the beta, we had enemy icons off. yet with them off, no one had any trouble seeing the planes coming at them. when they figured out that a big plane with no icons was bad and a big plane with a green icon was good, there was no trouble at all. even some of the most rabid pro icon guys liked it.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 06, 2016, 01:49:15 PM
As far as I know, the dot range and size are built into the game code and are related to your screen size, resolution and dot pitch of the monitor. The only arena setting that can change is the range where icons appear.
Not sure if you spent alot of time in the BETA. I had same resolution and monitor then, as I have now. The out of icon DOTS showed up way past even icon range of the field guns. It was really nice, in my opinion, we had alot going on and being able to scan the sky quickly was a big plus. While true, you didnt know if they were comming or going by dot sizes, at least you knew approx where they were. To me that made up for a whole host of other little problems in the evolving game play of the new AH! :rock
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: guncrasher on October 06, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
really? cause planes have icons over them. I just came back from Germany, and I didn't see a green icon over the plane flying next to us. I especially didn't see any red icons over them in in the distance. make the planes big enough and you don't need icons.
in AVA wars, in the beta, we had enemy icons off. yet with them off, no one had any trouble seeing the planes coming at them. when they figured out that a big plane with no icons was bad and a big plane with a green icon was good, there was no trouble at all. even some of the most rabid pro icon guys liked it.
i had trouble in the ava seeing airplanes with no icons. that's why i don't bother going there.
semp
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: SFRT - Frenchy on October 06, 2016, 03:01:54 PM
I like it the way it is right now. I don't want a neon arrow pointing to the baddies so I can be lazy with my SA.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 06, 2016, 05:43:43 PM
Good discussion here I think. Although the best solution that I heard that covered everyone's concern listed was to allow it as an option. :aok
If you like it then leave it on. If it disgusts you, then turn it off.
The only argument against that has to be that you don't want someone else to have it either, which I did not see expressed at all in any of the comments.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Scca on October 06, 2016, 05:47:23 PM
really? cause planes have icons over them. I just came back from Germany, and I didn't see a green icon over the plane flying next to us. I especially didn't see any red icons over them in in the distance. make the planes big enough and you don't need icons.
You didn't even read my post. Instead you made a kneejerk reaction to post something in opposition.
Please, read it again.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lusche on October 06, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
really? cause planes have icons over them. I just came back from Germany, and I didn't see a green icon over the plane flying next to us. I especially didn't see any red icons over them in in the distance. make the planes big enough and you don't need icons.
in AVA wars, in the beta, we had enemy icons off. yet with them off, no one had any trouble seeing the planes coming at them. when they figured out that a big plane with no icons was bad and a big plane with a green icon was good, there was no trouble at all. even some of the most rabid pro icon guys liked it.
And its a wonder that AvA is so full these days! I know the no icons is one of the reasons I don't bother flying there. Another is the few times I did I was dodging HOs. Figured if I had to dodge HOs I might as well stay in the MA as there a LOT more targets.
Playing the "they didn't have that in the war" card doesn't fly <--- pun intended. There are a lot of things that didn't happen in the war as well and many that did that we don't have to deal with , like death and all that stuff.
The GAME makes concessions because it IS and game. The icons and "dots" are a couple of those. I think if they had the smaller dots morph into larger dots, and then in to plane forms it would be nice. Im use to it as it is right now, but the change won't hurt, and may help newbies find a fight.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 06, 2016, 08:14:17 PM
Could it be that some folks always seem to have opinions not related to the discussion at hand? :salute The AvA icon range has long been a discussion. I see why it was brought up, seeing as icons and dots serve the same purpose, to aid in the lack of visibility.
Those of you who object to the use of no icons at all, most certainly should "see" how the previous dot range in AH3 was "successful" as a much needed tool to find potential threats and targets. As I said in my previous post, if I can have it and you have the ability to turn it off, what is the harm?
Funny, because that was the argument given to AvA staffers when they had icons turned off.
I too, have a very strong opinion, but I will see what the result of discussion will render, if anything. Then, I must do what serves me best. :cheers:
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: shift8 on October 06, 2016, 10:31:02 PM
Could it be that some folks always seem to have opinions not related to the discussion at hand? :salute The AvA icon range has long been a discussion. I see why it was brought up, seeing as icons and dots serve the same purpose, to aid in the lack of visibility.
Those of you who object to the use of no icons at all, most certainly should "see" how the previous dot range in AH3 was "successful" as a much needed tool to find potential threats and targets. As I said in my previous post, if I can have it and you have the ability to turn it off, what is the harm?
Funny, because that was the argument given to AvA staffers when they had icons turned off.
I too, have a very strong opinion, but I will see what the result of discussion will render, if anything. Then, I must do what serves me best. :cheers:
Chilli, altering the icon ranges or adding giant dots ruins game play because it unrealistically skews tactics and alters which aircraft features are more and less important. It ends up turning the entire game into a giant meat-grinder where the main deciding factor is more or less whoever is lucky enough to show up last.
While you are correct in stating that real life vision is better than what is produced by a monitor, AH2 and AH3 already have TONS of compensating factors in game. The Icons are already more than sufficient by themselves. The game does not need small battleships for dots at 10 miles distance. It is not realistic at all.
Building SA, and making decisions based on it, is a critical skill set for any fighter pilot.
It is fairly clear however that there is a growing cult inside of this community whose sole desire is to turn the game into a endless mindless fur ball and nothing else.
These people don't like being ambushed.
They don't like someone running from them.
They don't like it when they get shot down by flak.
They don't like it when bombers bomb things that inconvenience them.
They don't like it when someone climbs away from them.
They don't like people who fly higher than whatever altitude they have deemed to be subjectively unreasonable.
They don't like it when people run into flak to avoid a unfair fight.
Or having to deal with any aspect of the game that doesnt fall into a tiny sub-section of cult-approved activities. Which is more or less just flying around in circles on the deck.
Generally speaking, this cult doesn't like anything that results in a battle that isnt either a rolling scissors or a traditional two-circle geometry turning duel. Heaven forbid they not be granted instant SA no matter how careless they may be, because its a cardinal sin to kill them when they are unawares. It is also unspeakable to insinuate the the game play should feature tactical decisions more complicated than choosing between a left or right turn.
You have to wonder why they havent suggested simply giving planes infinite icons that you can see across the map! After all, this would help everyone "find a fight"
Oh wait I have an even better Idea! We have one single map with 3 airfields in a triangle. Then we remove all the planes in the game except the Hayabusa. Then we put a big concrete sphere around the fields so no one can climb or run. This will also remove all that pesky strategic level stuff from the game. There will be no bombers of course. Then we can all fly around like a bunch of flys next to a lamp post. Sounds fun. :bhead
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: LCADolby on October 07, 2016, 03:03:10 AM
Shift8, are you the same name ingame? I gotta fly with you sometime. Your sarcasm is fantastic :aok
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 07, 2016, 03:29:30 AM
And its a wonder that AvA is so full these days! I know the no icons is one of the reasons I don't bother flying there. Another is the few times I did I was dodging HOs. Figured if I had to dodge HOs I might as well stay in the MA as there a LOT more targets.
Playing the "they didn't have that in the war" card doesn't fly <--- pun intended. There are a lot of things that didn't happen in the war as well and many that did that we don't have to deal with , like death and all that stuff.
The GAME makes concessions because it IS and game. The icons and "dots" are a couple of those. I think if they had the smaller dots morph into larger dots, and then in to plane forms it would be nice. Im use to it as it is right now, but the change won't hurt, and may help newbies find a fight.
Absolutely my point! Pretty sure it would be a plus by a great scale! We are trying to get more players,right? This games learning curve is large enough as it is, WITHOUT the old dot rendering. I have turned off a few of the "NERFING" options as I have gotten better, so pretty sure others would as well.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 07, 2016, 03:49:11 AM
Chilli, altering the icon ranges or adding giant dots ruins game play because it unrealistically skews tactics and alters which aircraft features are more and less important. It ends up turning the entire game into a giant meat-grinder where the main deciding factor is more or less whoever is lucky enough to show up last.
While you are correct in stating that real life vision is better than what is produced by a monitor, AH2 and AH3 already have TONS of compensating factors in game. The Icons are already more than sufficient by themselves. The game does not need small battleships for dots at 10 miles distance. It is not realistic at all.
Building SA, and making decisions based on it, is a critical skill set for any fighter pilot.
It is fairly clear however that there is a growing cult inside of this community whose sole desire is to turn the game into a endless mindless fur ball and nothing else.
These people don't like being ambushed.
They don't like someone running from them.
They don't like it when they get shot down by flak.
They don't like it when bombers bomb things that inconvenience them.
They don't like it when someone climbs away from them.
They don't like people who fly higher than whatever altitude they have deemed to be subjectively unreasonable.
They don't like it when people run into flak to avoid a unfair fight.
Or having to deal with any aspect of the game that doesnt fall into a tiny sub-section of cult-approved activities. Which is more or less just flying around in circles on the deck.
Generally speaking, this cult doesn't like anything that results in a battle that isnt either a rolling scissors or a traditional two-circle geometry turning duel. Heaven forbid they not be granted instant SA no matter how careless they may be, because its a cardinal sin to kill them when they are unawares. It is also unspeakable to insinuate the the game play should feature tactical decisions more complicated than choosing between a left or right turn.
You have to wonder why they havent suggested simply giving planes infinite icons that you can see across the map! After all, this would help everyone "find a fight"
Oh wait I have an even better Idea! We have one single map with 3 airfields in a triangle. Then we remove all the planes in the game except the Hayabusa. Then we put a big concrete sphere around the fields so no one can climb or run. This will also remove all that pesky strategic level stuff from the game. There will be no bombers of course. Then we can all fly around like a bunch of flys next to a lamp post. Sounds fun. :bhead
Not sure if you grasped the intent of this thread? Noone is asking for 10000 mile icons, or any other "CULTISH" ideas. What is wrong with dots visible at field gun ranges? Sure there are alot of things folk complain about, like you listed, but in my humble opinion this isnt one of those things. We are trying to get new players arent we? AH has a big enough learning curve as it is and I certainly dont believe what we are talking about would "NERF" the game play as much as you think it would. I spent countless hours in the BETA and the dot size had very little impact on my survival! Its still the same combat, those that know there plane better, win more. I still got jumped and died just the same. It does help with the frustration factor though, knowing if you had paid attention you would have easily seen that guy diving in from 30k. If it was an option i believe that even those who are poo pooing this idea would still use it. Its not like it would give noobs an advantage anyway. Done correctly, a BMZ attack is hard to dodge no matter what the SA is. Or do you just want easy kills? I could care less about easy kills, its the fun of the fight that keeps me here. In my opinion, the better players get, the better the experience
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 07, 2016, 04:14:51 AM
Chilli, altering the icon ranges or adding giant dots ruins game play because it unrealistically skews tactics and alters which aircraft features are more and less important. It ends up turning the entire game into a giant meat-grinder where the main deciding factor is more or less whoever is lucky enough to show up last.
While you are correct in stating that real life vision is better than what is produced by a monitor, AH2 and AH3 already have TONS of compensating factors in game. The Icons are already more than sufficient by themselves. The game does not need small battleships for dots at 10 miles distance. It is not realistic at all.
Building SA, and making decisions based on it, is a critical skill set for any fighter pilot.
It is fairly clear however that there is a growing cult inside of this community whose sole desire is to turn the game into a endless mindless fur ball and nothing else.
These people don't like being ambushed.
They don't like someone running from them.
They don't like it when they get shot down by flak.
They don't like it when bombers bomb things that inconvenience them.
They don't like it when someone climbs away from them.
They don't like people who fly higher than whatever altitude they have deemed to be subjectively unreasonable.
They don't like it when people run into flak to avoid a unfair fight.
Or having to deal with any aspect of the game that doesnt fall into a tiny sub-section of cult-approved activities. Which is more or less just flying around in circles on the deck.
Generally speaking, this cult doesn't like anything that results in a battle that isnt either a rolling scissors or a traditional two-circle geometry turning duel. Heaven forbid they not be granted instant SA no matter how careless they may be, because its a cardinal sin to kill them when they are unawares. It is also unspeakable to insinuate the the game play should feature tactical decisions more complicated than choosing between a left or right turn.
You have to wonder why they havent suggested simply giving planes infinite icons that you can see across the map! After all, this would help everyone "find a fight"
Oh wait I have an even better Idea! We have one single map with 3 airfields in a triangle. Then we remove all the planes in the game except the Hayabusa. Then we put a big concrete sphere around the fields so no one can climb or run. This will also remove all that pesky strategic level stuff from the game. There will be no bombers of course. Then we can all fly around like a bunch of flys next to a lamp post. Sounds fun. :bhead
So, then do you fit into the category of folks who do not want others to:
Avoid being ambushed.
Choose the fight they engage in with adequate pertinent information.
Adequately identify bombers and relative altitude not requiring satellite images from space.
Adequately identify potential threat and E state as "real life vision" would offer.
Adequately "see" number and position of aircraft in the vicinity so there is never a surprise of an unfair fight.
Again, what is the harm, if this is NOT your intention? I pose this as a rhetorical question, because although I am not familiar with your handle, I do not believe that is your intent, but a lot of good intentions have resulted in a whole lot of bad decisions.
I merely am of the opinion that HiTech should have stuck with the model that we were first given with dot visibility. Others have suggested that the dots should have had different sizes (as the planes do once they render). What I am left with is nothing like the "game" that I have played for over a dozen years. I guess the horde wins and eny loses in this version that I am seeing.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: LCADolby on October 07, 2016, 04:46:52 AM
What I am left with is nothing like the "game" that I have played for over a dozen years. I guess the horde wins and eny loses in this version that I am seeing.
This is wrong. The dots AH3 released with were massive and out at a ridiculous range, way more visible than any dot on AH2. Not only that at a certain distance the dot would vanish leaving you wondering where it went until the offending target got much closer; leaving a blind period. But worse than that; it was unimmersive, when looking at a horde from range damn distracting which leads to my next one, bloody ugly to look at.
What you are left with now that has been fixed, is very close to AH2 if not just as was AH2. It's much better now; single cons yes are hard to spot as they should be and hordes are still easy to spot as they should be. If you are having trouble now, it means you were having trouble back then in AH2.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lusche on October 07, 2016, 05:00:06 AM
The dots AH3 released with were massive and out at a ridiculous range, way more visible than any dot on AH2. Not only that at a certain distance the dot would vanish leaving you wondering where it went until the offending target got much closer; leaving a blind period. But worse than that; it was unimmersive, when looking at a horde from range damn distracting which leads to my next one, bloody ugly to look at.
That's about what I meant with "irritating" :aok
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 100Coogn on October 07, 2016, 05:22:17 AM
I always felt the icons should fade in/out, the closer/further away other players were. Seems as though it would add a little immersion, as players far away would have very dim icons.
Coogan
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: LCADolby on October 07, 2016, 06:47:32 AM
I always felt the icons should fade in/out, the closer/further away other players were. Seems as though it would add a little immersion, as players far away would have very dim icons.
Coogan
Turn on AA and all icons are dim, blending in with everything around them.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Tilt on October 07, 2016, 06:56:22 AM
Maybe the odd (random) reflective flash at the extreme dot range............ basically if you see it you know something is there but have no real idea as to direction of travel or even how many maybe there.............
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: captain1ma on October 07, 2016, 07:10:46 AM
with the bigger ah3 beta icons, I thought it was a nice balance so that you could go without icons and yet see the bad guys at the same time. just in case, in the AVA, we always keep the Radar full on. This way you get a balance of gameplay, realism and even new guys can learn to enjoy it. its helpful to everyone.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 07, 2016, 07:22:00 AM
Maybe the odd (random) reflective flash at the extreme dot range............ basically if you see it you know something is there but have no real idea as to direction of travel or even how many maybe there.............
:aok Anything but clear blue skies until something is in your backyard.
Dolby, maybe you feel like these MONSTER dots will mess up your films, therefore what would it HARM, if you were able to turn them off and not see them? Same question Snailman?
I agree Jaeger, it would work with no icons, except they go from very visible to almost invisible once they reach whatever range the game is set to actually render the shape. So, the dots wouldn't help with much other than what I am proposing, faster recognition of distant threats and targets. Once the actual aircraft renders its shape the dot is not as noticeable.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: LCADolby on October 07, 2016, 08:13:50 AM
:aok Anything but clear blue skies until something is in your backyard.
Dolby, maybe you feel like these MONSTER dots will mess up your films, therefore what would it HARM, if you were able to turn them off and not see them? Same question Snailman?
I never thought about that, good point, it would crapola films. But in answer to your question, is along the lines of unfair advantage. One of the reasons given to why I cant have mirrors.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: shift8 on October 07, 2016, 08:22:53 AM
So, then do you fit into the category of folks who do not want others to:
Avoid being ambushed.
Choose the fight they engage in with adequate pertinent information.
Adequately identify bombers and relative altitude not requiring satellite images from space.
Adequately identify potential threat and E state as "real life vision" would offer.
Adequately "see" number and position of aircraft in the vicinity so there is never a surprise of an unfair fight.
Again, what is the harm, if this is NOT your intention? I pose this as a rhetorical question, because although I am not familiar with your handle, I do not believe that is your intent, but a lot of good intentions have resulted in a whole lot of bad decisions.
I merely am of the opinion that HiTech should have stuck with the model that we were first given with dot visibility. Others have suggested that the dots should have had different sizes (as the planes do once they render). What I am left with is nothing like the "game" that I have played for over a dozen years. I guess the horde wins and eny loses in this version that I am seeing.
I want players to have a reasonable ability to build SA and do the above things. I am not in favor of unreasonable crutches for players who cannot use the already more than abundant tools for this. These tools should be geared towards compensating for differences between computer screens and IRL, NOT excessively gamey mechanics that alter the combat beyond any reasonable recognition.
The big dots were simply not realistic. Period. The dots as the are now, the ah2 dots, are much more realistic. You can spot a plane out to ten miles or so, but it gets smaller and small until the point it disappears. So at the max range you are less likely to spot several planes, and you will have a harder time keeping track of very distant contacts that are spread apart. This is how it works in real life. The giant dots both give unreasonably easy individual spotting and they also give ludicrous capacity to spot everything at once, without error, and without effort.
The dot model should stay as it was in AH2. They were plenty visible then. Having the freight train dots is just plain stupid. It creates an environment where every battle just a conveyor belt of doom. Where every battle is simply the result of who managed to show up to the fight last. This basically obliterates tactics, and turns everything into a crap shoot.
The harm btw, is rather obvious. I mean how is this a serious question? Turning the "big dots" off is not just an immersion thing. It alters how the game plays. It not fair to insist that some players let others have some giant cheat and then pretend that the players who dont like this should go screw themselves and just turn it off. As if the two things are somehow just cosmetic.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Dobs on October 07, 2016, 10:41:34 AM
So maybe there is another option, albeit a harder/more work intensive one, in that you can "age in" dot size.
Having come from a game where you can select "old man eyes" dot size (tick the box and voila...big old black bomber sized dots at a distance), it does indeed "change" game play.
I know you have to have icons for visual cues which you can't get from the monitor....mainly range and closure, but right now we have guaranteed 3 mile tally-ho's which is quite "nice" for small fighter sized aircraft. Making 6+mile tally's is a bit much...
Having to scan the screen for a tiny pixel is a bear as well..... so my thought is this.
If I'm staring at a view for say 3 seconds, the dot size from icon range (6k) to 9k gets 25% bigger. The dot size for all else stays the same and at 5 seconds the dot size from 9k to 12k gets 25% bigger. If I change views...the dot size resets.
Just tossing some distances and % out there for discussion.
I advocated for "halo" icons in the past in a different game... no icons until xx seconds, then you get a "halo color" around the aircraft you see, which appears based on its range and time spent looking. Also a change from numbers for ranging when inside d1200 to an arrow which coincides to clock position (if clock positions confuse you, google it and go buy yourself a yoohoo...cuz you aint' old enough to drink! :) ) . See link.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 07, 2016, 05:13:40 PM
So Shift8, surprisingly your answer is you don't want others to have it based on your conclusion that they should be considered a cheat. :confused:
:bhead I wonder if VR headsets and TrakIR are "cheats" in your opinion also?
Have at it HiTech, you have plenty of support for your change and as a few have said in this thread (myself included) plenty of echoes online in favor of the large dots.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: caldera on October 07, 2016, 05:26:31 PM
I didn't mind the distant dots, but they should have been smaller. The bigger problem was them disappearing in between distant dot and icon range. That was strange and likely confusing for noobs.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 07, 2016, 05:47:08 PM
I didn't mind the distant dots, but they should have been smaller. The bigger problem was them disappearing in between distant dot and icon range. That was strange and likely confusing for noobs.
I could live with that! I dont believe any of the "PLUS 1" guys for dots are asking for giant pulsing disco balls, but most planes are next to impossible to see at distance. With the "FOG" and clouds we have now really obscure players ability to pick up fighters at high alt. Let alone the lack of detail in the water terrains. The dots as they were helped immensely! I think i can count on 3 fingers the number of times that I heard anyone comment about the Dot size being a negative, while it was in testing. True, there were lots of bigger problems and issues to hammer out! I am a bird hunter,not a pilot in real life, and I can spot a lone dove at 5oo yards,but can hardly see a higher bomber right up until almost icon range! More than once icons have merged on radar and still cant see any plane anywhere. Not asking for much here, just a compromise. I dont care if its a 1 pixel moving black dot from 8k to icon range, its more of a heads up than i have now. Icon range from base guns are set at 10k,so why not a dot at 8k for fighters.Choose a color, not pick about that either. In AH2 p-38s and B- 24,26s showed up at far greater distances than other planes did, never heard much complaining about that. Didnt effect ACK ACKs kills lol. In 3 all planes are pretty much same color as the sky.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: shift8 on October 08, 2016, 01:24:53 AM
So Shift8, surprisingly your answer is you don't want others to have it based on your conclusion that they should be considered a cheat. :confused:
:bhead I wonder if VR headsets and TrakIR are "cheats" in your opinion also?
Have at it HiTech, you have plenty of support for your change and as a few have said in this thread (myself included) plenty of echoes online in favor of the large dots.
That is absolutely asinine logic. Track IR, and VR headsets are external peripherals that cannot be controlled by the game. You are comparing a actual aspect of the games coding to peripherals. It is utterly inane to think that you getting your giants dots and the rest of us "just turning them off" is somehow a equal compromise that makes everyone happy. What you want is a unrealistic mechanic that assists your spotting because as laid out in this thread, you are either too impatient, not skilled enough, or cannot be bothered to look for more realistic dots. Quite frankly, your reasoning here is so incredibility dissonant that is hard to believe you are even being genuine, but instead are trying to obfuscate the issue by playing coy and pretending that you are actually being reasonable. :rofl
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: rvflyer on October 08, 2016, 01:52:51 AM
You wrote all of that for real? Maybe you are part of an cult :noid but I don't see all the stuff you wrote happening. I can always find a fight I want be it CV, Buffs, tanks fighters ETC. You have to look. Only guys I feel for are the ones that have to play during a time when not many from the US are logged on. I can start a fight almost anywhere on the map, just show up and they will come. My only gripe with the game is that tanks are way to hard to see from the air. In real flying I can spot ground object from several thousand feet up.
Chilli, altering the icon ranges or adding giant dots ruins game play because it unrealistically skews tactics and alters which aircraft features are more and less important. It ends up turning the entire game into a giant meat-grinder where the main deciding factor is more or less whoever is lucky enough to show up last.
While you are correct in stating that real life vision is better than what is produced by a monitor, AH2 and AH3 already have TONS of compensating factors in game. The Icons are already more than sufficient by themselves. The game does not need small battleships for dots at 10 miles distance. It is not realistic at all.
Building SA, and making decisions based on it, is a critical skill set for any fighter pilot.
It is fairly clear however that there is a growing cult inside of this community whose sole desire is to turn the game into a endless mindless fur ball and nothing else.
These people don't like being ambushed.
They don't like someone running from them.
They don't like it when they get shot down by flak.
They don't like it when bombers bomb things that inconvenience them.
They don't like it when someone climbs away from them.
They don't like people who fly higher than whatever altitude they have deemed to be subjectively unreasonable.
They don't like it when people run into flak to avoid a unfair fight.
Or having to deal with any aspect of the game that doesnt fall into a tiny sub-section of cult-approved activities. Which is more or less just flying around in circles on the deck.
Generally speaking, this cult doesn't like anything that results in a battle that isnt either a rolling scissors or a traditional two-circle geometry turning duel. Heaven forbid they not be granted instant SA no matter how careless they may be, because its a cardinal sin to kill them when they are unawares. It is also unspeakable to insinuate the the game play should feature tactical decisions more complicated than choosing between a left or right turn.
You have to wonder why they havent suggested simply giving planes infinite icons that you can see across the map! After all, this would help everyone "find a fight"
Oh wait I have an even better Idea! We have one single map with 3 airfields in a triangle. Then we remove all the planes in the game except the Hayabusa. Then we put a big concrete sphere around the fields so no one can climb or run. This will also remove all that pesky strategic level stuff from the game. There will be no bombers of course. Then we can all fly around like a bunch of flys next to a lamp post. Sounds fun. :bhead
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 08, 2016, 03:40:03 AM
That is absolutely asinine logic. Track IR, and VR headsets are external peripherals that cannot be controlled by the game. You are comparing a actual aspect of the games coding to peripherals. It is utterly inane to think that you getting your giants dots and the rest of us "just turning them off" is somehow a equal compromise that makes everyone happy. What you want is a unrealistic mechanic that assists your spotting because as laid out in this thread, you are either too impatient, not skilled enough, or cannot be bothered to look for more realistic dots. Quite frankly, your reasoning here is so incredibility dissonant that is hard to believe you are even being genuine, but instead are trying to obfuscate the issue by playing coy and pretending that you are actually being reasonable. :rofl
What? The game ABSOLUTELY has controls it could and does use on these peripherals! What in the heck is asinine about commenting on a feature we liked? Why throw out the slanders about chillis intentions here? That is what is asinine! Seems you dont even want to consider his idea at all! Who made you the voice of reason? I am not trying to be an A hole, but dang! Its a conversation about pros and cons, why make it so personal? Ok we get it your a NO, why belittle anyone with a different view? I guess the internet anonymity is in full force,now. Its a game, why will you not accept that others like different aspects of the older BETA setup, with out going into personal attacks? Ok You know better than he does, happy now? Once again read the Fn posts!!! No one is asking for flashing disco balls here. I believe you are or have been way to eager to argue than you are or were about understanding his and others points. Chilli is no way near the type that wants the game his way or bust, I have known him to be thoughtful and understanding of most discussions, so his intentions are benign! I am done with this as this isnt gonna go anywhere,pretty sure the powers that be could really care less and doubt they even see these issues. Its not on the wish list, so let it go. Its just a discussion, no need to be a RICHARD! Pretty sure this isnt your in game handle, but curious as to how much time you spent in the Open Alpha and Beta phases? Just curious, as several folk keep their BBS accounts up and have zero in game play to have a clue what the discussion is really about. They just like to argue or prove how much they know more than anyone else!
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 08, 2016, 04:04:39 AM
Ok to further the discussion about this... what would be a workable compromise between the OLD vs NEW dot rendering, Icon range (closer to,but not as far as field guns) to get any sort of coming togetherness on this issue? Most of the ideas I have seen are more than acceptable for me,personally anyway. Small to big, to icon works for me. Extended icon ranges, also open to. Dots that render small to large and reduced icon range,also open too. As I have said before, noone that is pro "old dot system" are asking for flashing arrows or disco ball dots. Its just that after month upon month working out bugs in AH3, some of us came to enjoy the increased SA. The "old dots" really leveled the playing field for some. I had a relatively new PC during the Testing phases but went up 1 notch in a newer PC, that would be VR capable.Yes, I can zoom in to see cons like it is now and I have TIR and am proficient with its use. I can track targets with my TIR setup at even ludicrous FOV settings(down to 50). Not everyone has 3 monitors and top of the line gaming PCor the means to upgrade or buy TIR. We already have a Hud and ALT,IAS and mode display on screen and pretty sure real life WW2 didnt have that! Those that dont like it turn it off, so why not do the same with the dot situation?
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 08, 2016, 03:43:47 PM
I had a bit of fun yesterday. Caught up with some Knights when we had a 3% advantage in numbers and they cooperated to capture some sparsely defended fields. Then we used the NEW function :rock (30 minute resupplies) to undo critical damage to all of your strats.
So, I blew up a few buildings, scattered a few defenders with 50 cal rounds and flew the equivalent of 40 minutes to factories to look for destroyed buildings to resupply. Funny, I couldn't see the damaged buildings from the air, but I was told by the "text buffer" that I did good and 'x' number of buildings had 30 minutes less down time.
All this time there was very minimal contact with enemy players. My entertainment, however, did not come from the deeds of my journeys, it came from communications arising from a bunch of adults from across the globe, sitting behind a monitor screen working as a team. :aok
That is the thing that is missing, teamwork that was in just about every engagement during beta dogfights. In my opinion, the poor identification, FOV changes, and "FOG OF WAR" have rendered certain parts of the game in a stagnant state. I don't have to do a survey to predict the result.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 08, 2016, 10:32:01 PM
Yup, I have a few moments like that as well. Its amazing how a little communication works in a base defense as well :rock Had a group of guys that called cons that you were headed towards,even. Was a HUGE plus! We started out numbered 5 to 1(and here I thought only the Bish hoarded) but we stayed in the fight with the 6 calls. Then we got some straggling helpers, ended up being about a 3 hour campaign! NOW that was FUN! We eventually lost out, but that was the most fun I have had in some time. Even got a check 6 from Starfox lol.
Now all I need is to find you out and about, there CHILLI :devil See how the TIR is doing for ya, first hand :x :neener:
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: save on October 09, 2016, 12:20:48 AM
I found that early long distance dot to be very irritating.
In some warbirds scenarios we only had that green or red neon vertical bar at full range (much like the vertical bar in AH, only a bit longer) -indicating friend or foe - info you should have been given from radar control
When you got within 1-2k type designation showed up, but you never were given a range sign.
Maybe something to test for scenarios...but not melee arena.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 09, 2016, 02:45:09 AM
In some warbirds scenarios we only had that green or red neon vertical bar at full range (much like the vertical bar in AH, only a bit longer) -indicating friend or foe - info you should have been given from radar control
When you got within 1-2k type designation showed up, but you never were given a range sign.
Maybe something to test for scenarios...but not melee arena.
I could go with that! Too bad we do not have the sights they had in WW2,meaning dialing in the range by manipulating the gun sight. Gunnery for me, was the biggest change. In testing, cons were visible at or around field gun icon range, but the lack of tracer visibility was biggest issue! When I say cons were visable, I dont mean with icons. I really have a hard time understanding the complaints about the older BETA dot system. How would it make any difference if they went from big to small? True it seems counter intuitive, but a heads up is a heads up. I know I never saw any problem with the old dots. Didnt change squat for me, as far as game play. I got killed anyway, so dont see how its a problem! Like in a previous reply, arent asking for a neon sign at 8 miles just a better visibility out side of icon range. Maybe just a dot that blinks on at intervals? I think that could be reasonable, although not sure how hard the coding would be to right. With this situation, scanning your 6 is still imperative. If you dont have SA developed,you could miss out seeing the dot flash in view. I dont know anyone who flies constantly with their view zoomed way in! Guessing that is why Hightech changed the default FOV from 80 to 90? All I know is, seeing targets is alot harder than I would like them to be. Its not in anyway a deal breaker though! You guys and this game were a life saver. I found it at just the right time,so I will just have to come up with a better plan! I aint going nowhere! You guys are just about the only friends I have and see on a regular basis. I do know one thing for sure! I sure am glad I didnt find this game before my kids were grown up!! Or I had to work! lol This is the cheapest price for feeding an addiction that I am aware of! :rock Adam Parsons aka BW1stpar
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 10, 2016, 11:42:47 AM
1stpar3, you have been the voice of reason, and you are correct, I do value the opinions and views of others and wish that more folks (including my wife) had the immediate ability to listen just once in a while.
I get it, that some don't want to see an awkward looking pixel with no shape representative of physical characteristics of the aircraft. What is surprising, is that folks don't think that others should have it, even if it didn't impact what they themselves had to endure.
If this were a MSFlight Simulator, then objections over icons, icon dar, HUD displays, etc. would carry some weight. Anything that is purely a tool or an aid to compensate for the 2 dimensional, pixel filled, and not quite real time display has limitations as to how "close to" real world experiences they can deliver, so the more the better.
I applaud HiTech for his determination to stick to period aircraft, the skins and their flight and ballistics characteristics. Beyond that, I believe that the"recreation" of historical events has been left up to player based events. In those arenas, there are 2 sides and clearly defined missions that require "fog of war" to complete.
In on of those events I can even personally, tell of the time I scouted for axis in a lone C2 when I spotted the large force of bombers and was able to track there advance undetected. Main arena play however, especially during low participation hours depend on player interaction from 3 chess pieces which has the unfortunate consequence of further diluting this interaction. I was elated to find that dot visibility had increased in beta and had carried over into AH3. It saddens me that for whatever reason that was removed.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2016, 08:23:10 PM
I had a bit of fun yesterday. Caught up with some Knights when we had a 3% advantage in numbers and they cooperated to capture some sparsely defended fields. Then we used the NEW function :rock (30 minute resupplies) to undo critical damage to all of your strats.
So, I blew up a few buildings, scattered a few defenders with 50 cal rounds and flew the equivalent of 40 minutes to factories to look for destroyed buildings to resupply. Funny, I couldn't see the damaged buildings from the air, but I was told by the "text buffer" that I did good and 'x' number of buildings had 30 minutes less down time.
All this time there was very minimal contact with enemy players. My entertainment, however, did not come from the deeds of my journeys, it came from communications arising from a bunch of adults from across the globe, sitting behind a monitor screen working as a team. :aok
That is the thing that is missing, teamwork that was in just about every engagement during beta dogfights. In my opinion, the poor identification, FOV changes, and "FOG OF WAR" have rendered certain parts of the game in a stagnant state. I don't have to do a survey to predict the result.
Teamwork is not allowed on knights..... ask Bob. :D
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Scca on October 10, 2016, 09:28:17 PM
The bigger problem was them disappearing in between distant dot and icon range. That was strange and likely confusing for noobs.
That's what I'm seeing. First you get the silly blob that jumps around, then it switches to the tiny, faint rendering before coming into icon range. With the big dot we might as well have unlimited icons.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: JimmyC on October 11, 2016, 12:21:15 AM
It's back and I for one do not like it.. Its more like chasing ghosts..some thing off in the distance..go that way..it disappears ..is it coming your way or gone the other....seems to go the other more often than not ..15k away?? Makes no sense to me..it does not really help matters..in my opinion ... If any thing it should be small to large... Or not at all.. That's my 2pence worth on the matter
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Squire on October 11, 2016, 12:29:35 AM
I hate the big dots. They are counter intuitive (farther away but bigger turning into closer and smaller) and way too gamey.
I absolutely hate them.
I can see them for BETA for getting fights going but it's time to remove them.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lusche on October 11, 2016, 02:10:04 AM
Yup, I saw them to. Big fat, slow updating dots jumping on the screen at some unknown, but far distance. Then they disappeared. Did the fly away? Or did they come closer? I can only say it again: Highly irritating, absolutely counter intuitive.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: puller on October 11, 2016, 08:05:06 AM
I like the big dots at far distance...gives you a good enemy count when your over enemy territory
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: popeye on October 11, 2016, 08:58:14 AM
Yup, I saw them to. Big fat, slow updating dots jumping on the screen at some unknown, but far distance. Then they disappeared. Did the fly away? Or did they come closer? I can only say it again: Highly irritating, absolutely counter intuitive.
+1
Ugh!
:(
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: BuckShot on October 11, 2016, 11:20:54 AM
Wait, they switched it back to no dot, big dot, small dot, icon?!? I hope not.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 11, 2016, 11:58:52 AM
I thought it was the fact that I changed everything imaginable to better be able to see every detail .... and used up all of my gpu resources to boot. I am just reading from this thread there was some change that occurred. I might have to undo all of my gpu settings to confirm.... :headscratch:
What I saw was a dot that showed at maybe about 9k (I can only guess). It properly showed the altitude and good proximity. I zoomed in to try and track them, and did NOT see it revert to small almost invisible pixels, unless that happened after the icon appeared.
What I did notice, at long distance the dot did appear to warp with extreme change in altitude, but when I was zoomed in, this was not the case.
I even visited AvA when I saw another pilot had also entered. There were no enemy icons at all. Dot radar was the only clue for aircraft that had not "fully" rendered say about 6k. The dot was a great advantage in locating potential threat's altitude. It seems to work well in this setting, giving the initial SA and then reverting to clues only given by the rendering of the plane itself.
Indeed fixed!
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 11, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
Yup, I saw them to. Big fat, slow updating dots jumping on the screen at some unknown, but far distance. Then they disappeared. Did the fly away? Or did they come closer? I can only say it again: Highly irritating, absolutely counter intuitive.
Lusche,
I went to very high resolution to see if that could improve my visibility of enemy aircraft in the distance without anticipating there was a change coming. What you describe as big fat dots, I wish to have clarified as with my resolution bumped, it was very much representative of a "speck". Let's put it to a test. Assuming that AHFilmviewer will have the same properties. Take a film and see when the dots first appear. There should be a distance corresponding to each visible dot.
I am curious, at what resolution you are seeing these "big, fat" dots. I will do the same and post a screen shot hopefully soon. :salute
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lusche on October 11, 2016, 12:28:31 PM
I am curious, at what resolution you are seeing these "big, fat" dots.
I run at my monitors native resolution of 1920x1080.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: TWCAxew on October 11, 2016, 02:59:32 PM
The huge dots are weird, I constantly was thinking an enemy was close and when I actually got closer to them those dots shrunk to how they where supposed to be and as a result I thought I was losing on them and suddenly there icons appear behind me or in frond of me.
So -1 for me
DutchVII <S>
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 11, 2016, 03:01:19 PM
I noticed as well! :cheers: I honestly dont understand why some would have a problem with this? Maybe defining a bit why I DONT have a problem may help. First, this game has a distinctly difficult learning curve. Not only do you need a bit of familiarity with flight sims, but also a basic understanding of flight dynamics in real world. By basic i am not saying flight training, more like holding your arm out a window while doing 65 on a highway. Second, the HAT switch views are pretty good but they take a while to get it down in such a way as it feels natural. I have a few medical disabilities and have limited feeling in fingers, and that was a problem. My first year in AH2 I got descent at this, but being engaged with a con was a bad situation for me. To keep the con I SEE, where I can see him, required more concentration than I would have liked. The look back hat switch, was great but I tended to not feel I had time to scan enough of my 6 to spot bad guys. So, TrackIR was a big time upgrade!!! Even with TIR, you still have to scan your surroundings, did it give me an advantage? Not really sure, as lots of guys that have played longer already have their view setups run flawlessly. It was still difficult to see enemies while tracking the plane you were already aware of. As everyone who plays will understand, it still really SUCKS to get shot by someone you never saw! Well it did for me! BUT in AH beta, we had visible dots at some distance beyond Icon range. :rock Now with TIR a quick scan and you will see any dots behind or above you. Its not that you see them so far away...ITS THAT YOU KNOW someone is there :eek: You would still have to keep them in mind as you engage someone else. For me, knowing that there WAS a con behind me, helps keep the need to look, in the forefront of my mind. I still lose track of them, but I would rather be frustrated with something I can fix(SA skills).. than something I have no control over(game design, other players etc.). Hope that helps some to understand the Pro dot opinion, at least as it is for me. I have never been in a situation where I couldnt tell if a dot at distance was a friend or foe. Friends are on radar, enemies are on Darbar, If you have 2 friendlies in sector, a enemy dar bar in sector and you see more than 2 dots :eek: One of those is a BAD GUY You guys have flown this game for years!! With hat switch viewing, bad or cheap joysticks(OR a mouse :uhoh) and cant deal with this? Just saying, not trying to be an arse, but that was my first thought when I read some of the comments. It struck me funny. LOVE you GUYS! :rock
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 11, 2016, 07:08:14 PM
6. Changed size and color of distant airplane dots. <- from the latest patch...... anxiously awaiting download on latest patch.... nervously anticipating great things!!! :banana:
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 12, 2016, 12:16:28 AM
Well, not quite the dots we had, but it is better than what it was recently( not same as beta time). I could see cons up to around 7k, depending on the back drop. I will take it, as it seems a fairly middle of the road improvement. So now I guess I owe the powers that be an apology as it seems they do read these threads. Sorry for doubting and a big thank you :salute
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Scca on October 12, 2016, 03:27:12 PM
Wait, they switched it back to no dot, big dot, small dot, icon?!? I hope not.
Seems they did... At least it's closer to what it was when Alpha went live.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 12, 2016, 03:48:06 PM
I don't know what they have now? Seems I was premature :( Back to the drawing board for me..... contrast, resolution, AA, monitor settings, SweetFx, new eyeglasses... HELL I tell you....... :bhead
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Wiley on October 12, 2016, 03:51:28 PM
I don't know what they have now? Seems I was premature :( Back to the drawing board for me..... contrast, resolution, AA, monitor settings, SweetFx, new eyeglasses... HELL I tell you....... :bhead
Seeing eye wingman is my solution.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 12, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lazerr on October 13, 2016, 01:44:41 AM
I got to play a few sorties tonight, and the dots look really good in my opinion.
I personally would leave them as they sit in patch 6. :cheers:
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 13, 2016, 03:12:27 AM
So.............. it's okay with you that a B24 is invisible at 5 k yards? While, you can see a bunch of sandbags piled around a mound 2 to 3 k yds further away? I mean to point these things out, because fore ONE, this CANNOT be representative of situation awareness of any sort.
I don't know why they were ever changed one way or the other, but my hopes would have been to benefit the product, not to squash complaints of seeing annoying dots. What about the annoying red icons? What's next, are we going to remove the base alert sound, the flashing icons, the aircraft silhouettes?? .... because those things really occur right??
Unless you guys are seeing something other than what I have pictured, I can't figure out this fixation on destruction of situation awareness in a flight combat game. :headscratch: Sorry, but as it is this has turned into "Aces Where?"
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Lazerr on October 13, 2016, 09:50:09 AM
So.............. it's okay with you that a B24 is invisible at 5 k yards? While, you can see a bunch of sandbags piled around a mound 2 to 3 k yds further away? I mean to point these things out, because fore ONE, this CANNOT be representative of situation awareness of any sort.
I don't know why they were ever changed one way or the other, but my hopes would have been to benefit the product, not to squash complaints of seeing annoying dots. What about the annoying red icons? What's next, are we going to remove the base alert sound, the flashing icons, the aircraft silhouettes?? .... because those things really occur right??
Unless you guys are seeing something other than what I have pictured, I can't figure out this fixation on destruction of situation awareness in a flight combat game. :headscratch: Sorry, but as it is this has turned into "Aces Where?"
That looks nothing like my dots, and i was also seeing bombers in formation.
Does AA mess with dots like it does with icons i wonder?
I know a lot of people have theirs off, while i leave mine on.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: hitech on October 13, 2016, 10:39:12 AM
Chilli was taking images off line which has a different fog range settings.
HiTech
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 13, 2016, 12:21:38 PM
Yes, he was. Its not quite that bad online. Lazer, i keep AA on also, never noticed a difference with dots. Like i stated,not as good as beta(which I loved) but better than pre patch 5. Seems a descent compromise. You still have a harder job to find cons out of icon range, but it isnt nearly as impossible as it was. For me anyway, i think I can live with this. Heck, I aint going any where, either way. So once again,just because I feel bad about what I said before....Sorry Hightech, for assuming you dont keep track of these threads. Thank You :rock
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 13, 2016, 03:01:43 PM
Having a real life crisis here, so I will be brief. So, I gather that fog, is what is effecting the dot distance in this particular shot. I tried an online film from the AvA but in filmviewer it showed it at night time.
Will try again thanks. :salute
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Dobs on October 13, 2016, 03:06:17 PM
So this is what I see....
Posted while processing...sorry 1505 Central time..has a few minutes to go.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 14, 2016, 07:50:20 AM
The speck about midway of picture, and above the hills is a friendly aircraft just beyond the 6k icon range.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Dobs on October 14, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
6000 yards...18000 feet...3+ "miles".. WWII fighter sized aircraft. Not unrealistic. Getting a tally is a bear in RL....usually pick up movement first. Take that black dot and put him against those green trees....you won't see it though.
Things that are missing--size due to aspect/planform, sunglint, shadow on ground, all things which help you get tally's in RL.
Dobs
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Oldman731 on October 14, 2016, 09:32:19 AM
6000 yards...18000 feet...3+ "miles".. WWII fighter sized aircraft. Not unrealistic. Getting a tally is a bear in RL....usually pick up movement first. Take that black dot and put him against those green trees....you won't see it though.
Things that are missing--size due to aspect/planform, sunglint, shadow on ground, all things which help you get tally's in RL.
I agree with all of this.
- oldman
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 14, 2016, 03:00:07 PM
Things that are missing--size due to aspect/planform, sunglint, shadow on ground, all things which help you get tally's in RL.
Dobs
Basically, you have precisely described what IS missing. So, not unlike the change in tracer size, and the fact this is a combat game, not MSFlight Simulator, shouldn't there be some kind of concession? (and what we started with was much more appropriate in those terms). The sudden appearance and disappearance of red label, just doesn't do it for me.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: GrandpaChaps on October 14, 2016, 07:14:02 PM
Please return the enemy aircraft dot distance as it was upon release. :rock :airplane: In the interest of air combat alone, that is WAY more enticing than flashing icons or plane and dar bar. I am certain that it was more accurate as well.
I am not sure if ground vehicles are tied to the same mechanism, but watching a red icon moving before actually having eyes on the ground vehicle from the air is a bit off. Also, GV hide is in full stealth mode when sitting under a tree. :aok Why does it have to be invisible the rest of the time also?
Chilli is way beyond my expertise level.
Question 1) enemy aircraft dot distance. huh? Question 2) not sure what you are meaning on red icon moving, so what do you mean there again? Question 3) what is "gv hide" and "full stealth mode" for said hide? So far my experience under a tree has meant sure sure death just as in previous version of the game...
Not trying to argue but understand the questions because they aren't making sense to me.
Gramps
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 15, 2016, 03:37:47 AM
Ok, Gramps, In the pre-release Beta, we had air con dots that could be seen at near field gun ranges. It really helped to find planes/ fights. Some didnt like that though, for a reason that eludes me. :bhead It was a big dot, then as you approached the dot would change size and then you would see icon, granted he wasnt flying away from you. As far as the "red icon moving" goes, its a whole lot easier to spot a GV's icon while it is moving. The stealth mode is REAL! If you tuck in to a hedgerow or cluster of trees and turn off your engine, its extremely more difficult to find the GV. Some folk dont like to sit with engine running for various reasons,I.E. the start up time seems to be a bit longer now, and that staying mobile is life. I think what Chilli is getting at is that Icons seem to show up before you can actually pinpoint whitch tree the guy is parked under. Even vehichle "DOTS" were visible further than they are now. I am constantly diving in on targets icons,just to see at the last second that the vehicle ist where the icon led me to believe! :bhead :bhead All this is about Con vis from a plane. Hiding under a tree isnt near as effective against other tanks though. To hide in a tank fight, best bet to stay hidden is to find the Bamboo or shrubs that you can drive through and just position where your gun wont be hindered by the brush. Hope that helps you! :rock
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: Chilli on October 17, 2016, 03:51:40 AM
Thanks again 1stpar3 your explanation is spot on. My opinion is the game is best known for online multiple player combat , not fog of war.
Scenarios where arena settings may vary to provide warlike simulations are available and very exciting due to their objectives and challenging environment.
Main Arena play however, should have concessions like dar, icons, and better visible dots that cue online customers there is a fight opportunity.
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: popeye on October 18, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
I wonder how often the "better visible" dots were used to avoid a fight. If you encounter an enemy at icon distance who has a clear alt advantage and you turn and climb in the opposite direction, there is a good chance that the higher enemy can run you down and force a fight. If you see a "better visible" dot with an alt advantage from 9 miles away, there is plenty of room to turn away and avoid that fight.
Just sayin....
Title: Re: Distant dot removal experiment = Unsuccessful
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 18, 2016, 04:20:10 PM
That happens anyway! If you are a player that is pre disposed to dodge fights this would make little difference. On the other hand, if you are a player who loves a good fight, this will vastly improve you chances. If you see the con at distance, with the bigger dots further visible, you have a bit more time to climb and reduce any alt advantage. Well as much as you can,depending on whether or not the high con is paying attention. So sure, you can run away, or climb towards to mitigate disadvantages. If you do decide to climb and the high con doesnt see it and lets you continue to even out the E state between you, you may have a GREAT fight. If he does notice you and turns to keep his alt advantage, you still may have a great fight.At the least you know he is there anyway,the rest is up to him. :x