Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CRASH on January 25, 2000, 11:43:00 AM
-
Now that we're gonna be payin' fer it soon I'd like to take this opportunity to air some of the ideas I'd like to see implemented if technically feasible. The first being plane size, their just too damn small running 800x600. They need to be 20%larger in my estimation to even approach realistic scale. When runnin 640x480, their better, but the game runs like garbage in that resolution. I get 10 to 15 better frame rates runnin 800x600 and I would guess that the vast majority of AH players are running 800x600 or higher. The staff at AH has done a wonderfull job with the damage graphics, pieces flying off, flames, smoke ect., it's just a shame that we can't see it clearer. I think that increasing plane size is most important idea mentioned here.
Now I realize that increasing plane size makes them easier to hit so I would suggest a corresponding reduction in leathality. It might not be so bad to have to keep guns on target a little longer to get a good kill, and anything that reduces all that head on nonsense would be a welcome change in my book (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Either I'm getting much better at this game or the flight model's been dumbed down a bit. I fly this game for one reason only, realist flight model. I want as close to real life as I can get were flight model is concerned. I realize the guys at AH need to make a buck and they need this game to appeal to as many people as possible to do that. If dumbing down the flight model will draw in paying dweebs, so be it. Put'em in another arena if possible but keep the one I'm flying in as real as possible please (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Quite frankly, the horizon looks fake as hell and completely ruins the illusion of depth. It gets worse the higher u fly. I feel like I'm flying in a large blue fish bowl. I think we need to increase the view to the horzon some. I realize frame rates will take a hit but their are keys built into the game to reduce visible area, the guys with the lesser machines can use those.
I've already brought this up in the arena with HT and Pyro and I understand their working on it, but I wonder how many other players feel the same way so I'm gonna toss it out fer discussion if anyone's interested. When one is in an aircraft or even on a hill, when looking at the horizon it appears whiter towards the horizon and goes deeper blue as you move your gaze skyward. As old as it is, I think Air Warrior has got it about as right as you can where this is concerned. I'd like to see something similiar implemented here if possible. On occasion, some white mist in the valley's wouldn't hurt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
To me these are basic issues. Having more planes is nice, but we have a pretty good basic plane set here already, I'd like to see more emphasis placed on the ideas mentioned above.
Regardless of whether these ideas are ever implemented, thanks for a great game HT.
CRASH
[This message has been edited by CRASH (edited 01-25-2000).]
-
screeeeeechh!
An old soldier drags and easy chair closer to the fire, settles in, opens a beer and gets ready to enjoy the re-fighting of THIS old battle <G>.
-
Need better horizon!!!!!!!!!!
-
Oh no not the plane size question again! Maybe there ought to be a FAQ on the web site, explaining that they are _correct_ and 'this' is the reason why...
//fats
-
Mathematically correct, fats, mathematically correct. <BFG>
-
Crash:
The current field of view (FOV) depicted in AH is 90 degrees without any zoom. To approach realistic scale you have to sit so close to the screen that it occupies 90 degrees of your FOV. The simple calculation shows that you have to sit 8 inches from your 21 inch screen to see everythin realistically sized. Since the normal distance you would sit from your screen is about 22 inches, you see everything 44% of the actual size.
You can set your zoom to x2 to still see everything 100%, but then you will only see 1/4 of the picture (area is proportional to the square, remember). That will affect your situational awareness (SA) dead.
Your choices - bigger screen (50 inch viewed from the same distance will do the trick), VR glasses, Fresnel lense.
Another point.
The planes seem to small to you, so you have problem hitting them. Since even in AH the planes look pretty big from 200 yards - the distance where you should fire at.
You probably open fire from too far when you can barely see the enemy plane - 400 yards or more.
If the planes are made bigger, and bullets weaker, you will still be opening fire when you can barely see the plane, now at 600 yards and with weaker bullets. So you will have even worth results! So you will want the plane even bigger and bullets more potent. And so on.
This is not a Jet sim with a BVR combat. You have to get real close. Close enough to target a specific part of the enemy plane - 200 yards and under. It is very difficult to do - you need to match speeds with the enemy to stay in range enough time to make a good shot and not collide, but you may not want to blow the energy advantage. That is why we have all those tricks like high yo-yo's and barrel rols and displacement rolls that allow you to fly faster then the bandit and still control your rate of closure. With prop planes you have to outfly the enemy before you can shoot him down. It will take you a few months of dilligent study and practice, so you have exiting time ahead of you.
Good luck!
miko--
-
Miko,
What of fighter and bomber "dots" that are exactly the same size at longer ranges?
How does it affect game SA if you can't distinguish between a bomber and a fighter (even when using zoom)at a range that would easily allow this identification in RL?
..Toad whistles as he stirs the pot <G>.....
-
"Flight Model"
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe one day it can evolve into something that can actually be called a 'flight model'
Have fun in the aracde kiddies
out
-
>What of fighter and bomber "dots" that are
>exactly the same size at longer ranges?
That is a little thing in computer graphics called the "aliasing" effect.
The problem is that a pixel is only so small. it can't get any smaller. So if you have an object you wish to render, and it is smaller than a pixel, you have to use a whole pixel if you want to represent it at all. So if a b17, when rendered on the projection plane, would take up 100% of a pixel, and a fighter aircraft when rendered would take up 0.25% of a pixel, and a Mitchell would take up 0.75% of a pixel then you have to use a single pixel to represent them all. Which makes them all look the same size at distance where their angular size resolves to a pixel or less.
Now there are a couple of ways to approach this problem. You can write the engine so that nothing is rendered unless it resolves a full pixel or more. In that case the b17 would show up as a pixel and the nearby fighters and Mitchell would not render at all. the other way to handle this is to add the con's pixel color to the background color in proportion to the % of the pixel it would occupy. So if the con dot color was black and the sky was white (work with me here) then the b17 would render as a solid black dot, the Mitchell as a 75% grey dot and the fighter as a %25 grey dot. This can be used to simulate rendering objects at higher than the physical resolution of the display device.
I'm sure they will add bells and whistles like these eventually. Until then just head towards the dots. Theres bound to be something there worth killing. ;>
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 01-26-2000).]
-
Toad, you've still got me stitches after 5+ years with your little <stories> within the posts! LOL!
------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
+JG2+ ~Richthofen~
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
-
Originally posted by Shacker:
"Flight Model"
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe one day it can evolve into something that can actually be called a 'flight model'
Have fun in the aracde kiddies
out
Sorry the B17 doesn't meet your requirements. Be a good boy and go away now.
-
<<Another point.
The planes seem to small to you, so you have problem hitting them. Since even in AH the planes look pretty big from 200 yards - the distance where you should fire at.
You probably open fire from too far when you can barely see the enemy plane - 400 yards or more>>
I dont have any problem at all hitting from 400yds, hell, half my kills are longer than that. I love long range shots (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...anyway, I know that it's correct when a 90degree field of vision is considered..just think it's a shame to hide all those great graphics.
CRASH
-
Shaker :
Ok can you please now answer my question in thread "B17 flight model"
Or are you going to continue to not back up your statements
P.S. the relevant bit is near the bottom of the thread.
[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 01-26-2000).]
-
Hey Shacker....
This quote look familiar...it should, you posted it on another forum...
We must all remember that everyones opinion is valuable. Just because we disagree does not mean the other individual is an idiot.
Is it do as I say, and not as I do that applies here??
-
Originally posted by Cobra:
Hey Shacker....
This quote look familiar...it should, you posted it on another forum...
We must all remember that everyones opinion is valuable. Just because we disagree does not mean the other individual is an idiot.
Is it do as I say, and not as I do that applies here??
By the way, glad to see you still are interested enough to care (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Actually, I never had a problem with your technical critiques, Shacker. I did feel the condencending tone hurt your points a little. But this last post was completely childish.
-
Okay Here ya go.........
.....Not many flight sims have working MAP and RPM so how do you evaluate these? Thses are the only 2 instruments not yet calibrated yet to my knowledge due to the fact the engine mangement part of the game is not yet written. It is a fair assumption to say that
the speed,altitude etc. indicated are correct......
Not true there are a good number of flight sims that model this quite well, MSCFS, MSFS, Sierra Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited II etc etc etc.
By the way the 'calibration' entailed changing the GRAPHICS on the face of the guages not fixing the underlying problem.
Earlier in this thread you made the comment
=========================================
"To answer your other question the flight models in MSCFS are pretty darn good"
=========================================
......Was this judgement based purley on MAP and RPM settings? If so how did you know the correct settings on every plane?......
No it was based on overall performance of the flight model, High speed stalls, manuvers, energy management as well as standard flight operations. Data for ALL WWII aircraft is readily available and quite inexpensive and, in many cases even free. Checking the numbers is really easy.I use a nineteen page checklist to evaluate flight models You've seen it.
..........you also said
==========================================
"Without accurately modled instruments I have no way of knowing if induced drag is correct or if parasitic drag is in the right amount for a given aircraft configuration."
==========================================
These 2 factors are purly a function of AoA (hence lift) and speed respectivley and i think it's fair to say the speed gauge is working so why can't you judge?.........
Induced drag is a function of AOA in certain circumstances. Lift produces induced drag so it is present in wings level flight as well. Parasitic drag is purely a function of anything hanging outside the airframe that creates drag, Gear, flaps, etc etc. The airspeed guage is 'working' but the speeds are way high for all phases of flight. It is NOT just me telling you this there are TWO other fellas that have found the exact same things and they have far, far more time in a B-17 than I do like a whole war and then some in the real world.
......You also state :
==========================================
"For instance I know the aircraft will not fly much below about 200 mph indicated without the stall warning starting. Is this correct? no it is about 115 to 120 mph too fast for the proper stall speed."
===========================================
......Any aircraft can stall at any speed the same is true in aces high. E.g. FW 190 A4 in a 6g turn will stall at 311 mph in a clean configuration. If you are talking about stall speed at1G then aces high does pretty good.......
Not in level flight unless there are other factors such as density altitude or a GUSTING tail wind of very high speed.
..........To paraphrase spitfire 9 pilot's handbook Stall speed at training load (full main tanks no ammuntion) is approx 90 mph. An indication of the stall is given by tail buffeting and the stall itself is gentle with the nose and either wing dropping.......
.......In aces high the spit exhibits these cahracteristics although the stall speed is closer to 80-85 than 90 which is probably due to the models not being finalized i.e. the numbers not being put into the physics model not quite right rather than the model being
fundamentally flawed also things such as reverse aileron works at stall........
For the most part in the real world control surfaces loose about 80 to 95 % of their effectiveness at or near stall speed. This is dependent on the specific aircraft in question. Bottom line is in a stall the airfoils cease producing lift. Not all aircraft exhibit reverse aileron at stall.
.........Exact numbers for particular aircraft are not what we are talking about. The numbers plugged into the flight model for each plane can be altered so that a particular plane stalls at the right speeds etc. These numbers still need to be tweaked. You can still though judge the physics model as some principles of flight apply regardless of which reverse ailerons at stall are a good example of this. .....
Yes they can be why weren't they? It is a heart beat away from final even as we speak. I don;t mean changing the graphics on the guage faces either I mean calibrating the FM.
....... If I, a complete novice, can judge what is realistic about some small aspects of this sim simply through a rudimentary knowledge of how a plane should act why can't you? My post above asking about drag and stall where just 2 examples to give you a kick start into the sort of things you could discuss when evaluated the FM and you did manage to comment on the stall aspect but to be honest that answer slightly tainted my confidence in your ability to judge FM's......
A complete novice? How on earth does a complete 'novice' judge anything to be realistic without any frame of reference at all? It is impossible. The nuances of flight are many and varied. They change during the flight and according to the weather and atmospheric conditions. these same conditions act on the aircraft to produce different and unique effects. How on earth is a 'complete novice' equipped to make ANY judgements at all about flight dynamics? There was a time, and it may still be so, that Boeing would not hire an aircraft engineer who did not also hold a pilots license. You must admit that an aeronautics engineer has far more than 'rudementary' knowledge at the 'novice' level. Why then would the holding of a license to fly an airplane be important? Because even with that level of knowledge (PHD in Aeronautical engineering) they cannot truly understand the forces that are acting on an aircraft in flight unless they have flown one.
.......So I ask again what do you think is good about the physics model e.g. aileron reversal at stall and what is bad (how do other sims do it better) e.g. nose down with flaps on b17 You mentioned this as constructive critism and the developer gave you an answer : flaps are not yet moddeled. I'm sure comments in this form would yield a much greater response from HTC. Also if you post them in a new thread they are much more likely to be read.........
God forgive me for this answer. With it's many flaws, and it has em, SDOE does flap deployment on the B-17 quite well IF AND ONLY IF you DO NOT deploy the flaps above 147 MPH. This is Vfe for the B-17. it is a bit too pronounced but not overly so. Some of the add on B-17 for MSCFS do a good job in this area as well. Others do not.
Don't get me wrong here. There are folks who love AW and will likewise Love AH (since they are made by the same folks there is little wonder in this). I am not knocking the product or the folks who enjoy it. I do have a serious problem with claims of 'accurate flight modeling' when there are glaring inconsistencies between the published data and the actual result. Believe it or not there are a good number of WW II pilots who still fly PC simulations. To make their job look oversimplified is to demean their contribution and sacrifice IMO. It is by no means 'get on his six and shoot him' that is the ultimate goal to be sure but one must first be an ace pilot in ALL aspects of flight to properly employ a weapons platform as complex as an aircraft in an effective manner.
Here is a quick example. I do not mean to slam anyone or put anyone down by this but it is glaringly WRONG and should have been set straight way earlier by folks who are supposed to 'know' through their research about this sort of thing.
There are no 'BUFF's in AH!! That is unless they have included the B-52 since the last update.
That's right check it out. A BUFF is a B-52
Big
Ugly
Fat
Fella (although other words are sometimes substituted here)
B-17's are FORTS
Am I putting the players down? NO WAY not my intention at all. However IMHO at least HT should have set the record straight on this minor matter some time back.
I learned a LONG time ago doing IG inspections during my 20 years in the Army. Find several little problems that are way too obvious and there are other not so obvious 'oversights' being committed 10 fold. Does that apply here? Only time will tell.
-
Wabbit,
Good stuff. But the emphasis there was "the effect on SA".
Not being able to tell a buff (used as the, ahem, GENERIC slang term for any bomber in most on-line ACM games, not as the specific slang nickname for the Boeing B-52 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) from a fighter when you should be able to does indeed have an adverse effect on SA.
Technology temporarily aside, there should be a somewhat easy fix for this situation IF the never ending but painfully slow advance towards more realism is to continue.
-
Shacker-
No one ever (well, perhaps one in another thread) said your thoughts don't have merit. The only complaint has been on your delivery. Your "have fun in the arcade, kiddies" comment was an attention grabber alright. It tends to prejudice my view towards your opinions. Is that the effect you were seeking?
WRT the word "BUFF", you are absolutely correct in the origin of the word, but certainly you understand that English (like all languages) evolves over time. You could easily correct my usage of "cool" when I use it to mean "something I really like". It's denotation may be the "relative absence of heat", but its connotation is "excellent". Yes, we know that BUFF's are B52's, and that Deathstars are only figments of George Lucas's imagination, but the words are used in a way that serves the purpose, even if it "bastardizes" their meaning.
Take a deep breath. Relax. It isn't as bad as all that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I can't even read one of his posts anymore.
OR... not so much can't as won't bother.
-Westy
-
Shacker:
Calibration of gauges does NOT just entitle an art work change for the MAP gauge.
You try to portray yourself as an expert on flight modeling.
For the most part in the real world control surfaces loose about 80 to 95 % of their effectiveness at or near stall speed. This is dependent on the specific aircraft in question. Bottom line is in a stall the airfoils cease producing lift. Not all aircraft exhibit reverse aileron at stall.
But you fail to even understand basic lift curves. At stall a planes wing does NOT cease to produce lift, All that happens is that you are at the top of the aoa v lift curve. Increasing the aoa past this point makes less lift but by no means stops it.
Both HTC and most of our players wish AH to have as realistic as possible flight model.
But we are an ACM simulator first. This implies that our first task is to make the planes fly and feel like the real planes. We could do this with out any gauges what so ever.
We also need to tapor some things toward game play.
For instance triming and auto pilots. These will be in all planes regardless if the real plane had them or not.
It's a simple fact people need to be able to type while flying, and leave there computers for other of lifes needs.
There are some small pieces still missing that we intend to add but every thing we do is all so tappered toward game design. For instance even after we implement the MAP pressure gauge calibriation you could be saying , how can you call your self a flight sim with out putting all the gauges in the same spots that the real planes had them. We are not planning on doing this.
Shacker: Your love of flight model testing is somthing that can be a great assest to this community.
I would just ask that you would slide more toward the helping build / evaluate what can be evaluted.
Not just flame us for things we have not yet been able to implement or items that you wish to see in the game that we have choose not to implememnt or are planning on in the furture.
HiTech
-
>Technology temporarily aside, there should
>be a somewhat easy fix for this situation...
Toad,
I think HTC has the simple fix already. While varying the con's dot color proportional to angular size would be a bell/whistle the use if icon identification can be used to make up for the physical limitations of the display device. Icons should not become visible at the same distance. The icon for each airframe type should become visible at the distance that in real life it should be identifiable by.
So a "buff's" (being naughty) icon might show at d12 and a LA5's might not show til d6. If they really want to get fancy they can vary that con range in relation to the con's aspect angle relative to the viewer. So edge on, they might not be identifiable til d10 but coming up underneath them they might be identifiable from d13.
Hmmm they might be doing the distance thing already I can't remember now. A buff (bad wabbit bad) should definetly be con identifiable at a range greater than a small fighter.
But the point of my ramblings is that the icons are the crutch that allows the programers to simulate the range that the human eye would be able to identify a con even if on the display it only resolves to a non-descript pixel.
Regards,
Wab
-
Ok shacker you've got a lot of text unfortunatly lots of it's mixed up with what i wrote over a month ago so it's hard to follow the points so i will condence previous discussions/my points very specifically and post them for you to reply.
[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 01-27-2000).]
-
Wab,
Interesting discussion, enjoy your input!...to continue.
> Icons should not become visible at the same distance. The icon for each airframe type should become visible at the distance that in real life it should be identifiable by.<
I'd love to be able to do away with ALL icons, but I could go along with this idea for the interim.
Still, it's not that easy. How do we handle the problem of bombers (tips hat to the language-sensitive Shack (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) and fighters beyond ID range? A bomber should be bigger than a fighter dot at an equal range, right?
We come back to those pixel limits you mentioned, however. Zooming won't help; all you see is a bigger dot, not any more detail.
A bomber with a fighter in close trail at 6-7 miles shouldn't show a specific plane type ID, but you should be able to see that one dot is larger than the other.
This is an area that needs some work, IMHO.
Then there's the complication that a bomber at say 10 miles might look like a fighter at 5 miles...just a dot. AH does this pretty well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) they're all just dots!
-
>I'd love to be able to do away with ALL
>icons, but I could go along with this idea
>for the interim.
You never know. Hardware improves all the time. But screen resolution hasn't grown at the same rate as processor power has. So it might be awhile.
>We come back to those pixel limits you
>mentioned, however. Zooming won't help; all
>you see is a bigger dot, not any more
>detail.
Well, back to our previous definition, beyond con range means being beyond the range that in real life the human eye would be able resolve what type aircraft it was. You would see something, but not know what it is. And not knowing what it was, you could not infer distance. It is the realization of what aircraft type it is, and knowing its actual size, that allows you to infer distance from its apperant size. Thats what would happen at con range. Thats when the lightbulb would suddenly click on. Until then, a large unkown object at great distance, looks exactly the same as a smaller unkown object at closer range. You have no frame of reference. So in that case, I still think the non-descript dots work just fine.
>A bomber with a fighter in close trail at 6-
>7 miles shouldn't show a specific plane
>type ID, but you should be able to see that
>one dot is larger than the other.
Agian, if I see two unknown objects there is no way, even in real life, that I can tell if they are big objects far off or smaller objects closer. Only when I can identify what type they are can I infer that information and at that time I should have my icon as well.
>This is an area that needs some work, IMHO.
I agree. I'm sure simulation developers everywhere are always looking for a better way to implement this. If you know, or have seen, a better implementation that is workable on the currently avialable consumer level hardware please share it with us.
Until then, I think the solution that HTC, and many others, have implemented is perfectly reasonable given the limitations.
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 01-27-2000).]
-
Geewillickers...
I thought this was a game?
I surely know that I have a "Ton o'Fun" playing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
-
Uhhhh me too. ;>
Wab
-
For HighHech.
You are correct. I was using very broad brush description of what a stall is.
by the book
............................. .............
Nothing magical happens at the critical angle of attack. Lift does not go to zero; indeed the coefficient of lift is at its maximum there. Vertical damping goes smoothly through zero as the airplane goes through the critical angle of attack, and roll damping goes through zero shortly thereafter. An airplane flying 0.1 degree beyond the critical angle of attack will behave only very slightly worse than it would 0.1 degree below.
If we go far beyond the critical angle of attack (the "deeply stalled" regime) the coefficient of lift is greatly reduced, and the coefficient of drag is greatly increased. The airplane will descend rapidly, perhaps at thousands of feet per minute. Remember, though: the wing is still supporting the weight of the airplane. If it were not, then there would be an unbalanced vertical force, and by Newton's law the airplane would be not only descending but accelerating downward. If the wings were really producing zero force (for instance, if you snapped the wings off the airplane) the fuselage would accelerate downward until it reached a vertical velocity
(several hundred knots) such that weight was balanced by fuselage drag.
............................. .............
Bottom line of all this is that in a severe stall the wings cease to produce sufficient lift for the aircraft to maintain it's current attitude.
I got accused in another thread of 'getting WAY too technical' so I thought I would simplify the statement a bit. Guess I over did it.
-
Wab,
>Well, back to our previous definition, beyond con range means being beyond the range that in real life the human eye would be able resolve what type aircraft it was. You would see something, but not know what it is. And not knowing what it was, you could not infer distance. It is the realization of what aircraft type it is, and knowing its actual size, that allows you to infer distance from its apperant size. Thats what would happen at con range. Thats when the lightbulb would suddenly click on. Until then, a large unkown object at great distance, looks exactly the same as a smaller unkown object at closer range. You have no frame of reference. So in that case, I still think the non-descript dots work just fine.<
I don't see this exactly this way.
1. There is "con range". Whatever the plane is, it's close enough that you can tell WHAT it is...like a P-51. I agree, they should be different for fighters and bombers.
2. There is "beyond con range (ID range?) but inside of "dot range". This is the area that you can tell that it's either a fighter or a bomber but not what type.
This is the area we DON'T have now...and it should extend much farther than most folks think, depending quite a bit on aspect angle. Believe it or not, at 90 aspect you can easily see a dark horizontal line with a vert stab sticking up on a MD-80 about 8-10 miles away(on a reasonably clear day). We're talking 14,000 yards here. In AH I'm not sure we even see any DOT at that range.
3. The last situation, the "unknown dot" range, is where we can't tell if it's a far bomber or an "beyond ID range" fighter. We have lots and lots of "unknown dots" in AH. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'd appreciate HTC telling us what the dot ranges are, if they are different for fighters and bombers and if there's any way to make a bomber into a bit bigger dot than a fighter at the mid-ranges.
This would help SA. Sometimes it's OK to drift towards a higher "unknown dot" that turns out to be a bomber. It's not so nice when it's a -109. We should be able to tell fighter from bomber before we get toooooooo close to run <G>.
Just my .02
-
Dot range is currently 20,000 yards i.e. 11.3 miles
-
Thanks HT!
If you've got a minute, can you shine a little more light?
If present "dot range" is 20,000 yards, is it the same for both fighter and bomber? Or does it shorten for fighters?
Would it be possible to have different "con ranges" for say 3 different "classes" of planes? Large bombers at the longest range, "medium big" aircraft (P-47, P-38?) at a mid range and small fighters (109?) at the shortest range?
At the "beyond con range (ID range?) but inside of "dot range" area could we have say a short underline "con" on a fighter and perhaps a "overline" on a bomber?
Just tossing out some ideas that would hopefully not be tooooo hard to implement but that would improve SA with a bit of a RL slant.
Keep up the good work...thx for answering.
-
>2. There is "beyond con range (ID range?)
>but inside of "dot range". This is the area
>that you can tell that it's either a
>fighter or a bomber but not what type.
Lets see if I understand...
Well there is always going to be a range at which you see something, just a dot, just a glint of sun off a metal surface, and there will be no icon and you have no idea what it really is. Unless you have eyes like Chuck Yeager you're not going to be identifying aircraft at 11.3 miles.
Then there is going to be the icon range at which you see "ahh thats a b17! He's pretty small he must be 8 miles out."
If I understand, what you are suggesting is an additional level of icon that identifies the dot as "Fighter" or "Bomber" but not model or variant in between unknown dot and full icon info. That sounds reasonable to me. But again, we're stuck with having to use icons to reley information beyond the physical resolution of the display. Unless you can think of any other means of releying that information. The only other way I can think of would be and infinite zoom view where you could keep zooming and zooming until you could descern the amount of detail that you could in real life but the field of view would be so small that it would be impossible to get or keep the object centered.
Yeah its sorta depressing to con a high 109 when you were hoping for a fat juicy BUFF.(there I said it and I'm glad I said it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)BUFF BUFF BUFF BUFF BUFF)
Regards,
Wab
-
Yah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.
...and zoom should show detail when you zoom an object that is in RL detail range. No point in zooming a dot into a bigger dot!