Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Fester' on July 26, 2001, 08:17:00 PM
-
...is well modelled in Aces High.
the sim does a good job of simulating how modern day fighters use vast amounts of information on the enemy to position themselves for attack and to keep high situational awareness by keeping their head down in the cockpit and seeing far beyond visual range versus scanning the sky for the enemy. one wonders how many pilots in world war 2 would have been saved from bounces, ambushes and other surprise attacks if they were given the tools that our modern fighters have.
-
New id.. not much has changed :(
AKDejaVu
-
Quote: "New id.. not much has changed :("
Hes telling the Truth though,.. How could this be a bad thing for him to tell the truth?
I agree with you fester... I Also Feel that Our heads are too busy scanning the MAP radar, for cons.. as well as FIGHTING Big RED placards placed above the enemy instead of the enemy aircraft.
:mad: :confused: :p :)
Deja,... I do not understand how you could disagree with him :eek: :confused:
-
All we need now is a visual representation that provides 1/10th the information that a pair of eyes in a real 3d world could provide and we'd be set.
Until then, we can just sit back and complain about the way its done. Afterall, nobody's really going to get it perfect for some time.
So... The initial post is simply a troll.. by the master himself.
AKDejaVu
-
dejavu
he has a new id and alot has changed. when he was on the other team from me i goaded him many times and he never took the bait. he hasnt exploded on channel 1 or anything.
how bout you shut the f up once in a while, fester brings up a good point. im tired of you. you have the same handle, and still the same old crap.
bring it.
-
Because hes an ASSasin, thots why. :)
I liked the SEA settings we had.. enemy not icon'd till 3.0..
It's true; we gotta lotta playability concessions for icons and SA crutches galore, but if the MA had anything more difficult ther'd only be about 12 of us icon haters as suscribers in 6 months. :)
-
I thought it was a great change when they first implimented the 6k icons and disappearing when out of sight, and I still do.
It'd be nice to see the radar changed up a bit tho'. I currently use the clipboard radar as an SA crutch all the time, and it'd be interesting how gameplay would change without that option available. Not sure if it would be better, but it'd be nice to try it. Of course, I suppose I could just stop bringing up the clipboard :D
SOB
-
There is an inflight map?
Damn no wonder I die all the time. How ya get it?
S!
Rocket
:cool: :p
-
remove the laserrangefinders, use ww2ol's fading icon feature to tell distance. At d6.0 it would be barely visible, at d1.0 itd be neon colored. That way you will have a harder time telling if a con is jumping you or not.
Another option might be icon visibility per time you look in that direction. say, stare in same direction for 2 seconds and icons will go from barely visible to completely visible (including rangefinder) at the 2nd second.
-
I could see the icons themselves, as in fonts and size, being smaller. I never could understand why they are so big. Would that be so hard to change?
As far as dar, it sure helps me find a fight. Hate to not have it at all, but it would take about 1 minute to adjust and I couldn't care less. At least have a bunker you could go into at your field prior to takeoff and get a visual of the arena situation. Certainly in WWII they had a good idea of what was going on and reports from the front.
Oh, and get a towel, I think Zig pee'd his pants flipping out on AKD.
-
Fester- was great flying with you lately in all those missions in rookland.
On this topic, I have to say that I think your statement regarding WW2 BVR SA is not wholely accurate.
Thread I had posted recently on the topic: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788)
Air defences even early in the WW2 for combatants were fairly sophisticated and definitely favored the defender which could rely on BFR SA from ground controllers that was pretty accurate and timely. It was typically the attacker flying over enemy airspace that had to rely mostly on visual SA.
Let's dis-spell the myth that BVR SA in WW2 was non-existent or even very crude. It was quite the opposite.
I'm not saying there couldn't be improvements to AH's BVR SA, just saying if we are using the "historic" or "realistic" trump cards that we consider the facts.
-
what creamo said
-
how bout you shut the f up once in a while, fester brings up a good point. im tired of you. you have the same handle, and still the same old crap.
Ah.. yes.. he brings up an excellent point.
Why.. just the other day I was thinking that 6k was WAYYYY beyond visible range and the only way I should be able to see it was with the attack radar from a modern day fighter.
And this is so a-typical for cit/fester. I mean... his threads are usually started with such grace and such a valid non-exagerated point.
:rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
i never said 6k was beyond visual range
in fact i found that i could id a f-18 from 3 miles if i concentrated (around 5000 yards)
a hornet is much larger than a p51 though. i doubt i could tell a messer form a p51 at that range, but telling the diff between a p38 or a jug and a 109 would probably not be that much of a stretch.. but i would have to focus onn it a second, leading to the superiority of the general concept of ww2ol's icon system (which while not without flaw is an improvement over what we have here)
the fact thta you can id a con as friend or foe when he is not in visual range, using radar (look at hte bearing, if theres a green dot that way its frinedly, if no dot or a red dot its enemy) is stupid. the fact that you can look at your clipboard and see a con that is you low 6 and not in visual range (obscured) is rediculous. thats what fester is pointing out.
-
How many bounces do you think occured over an enemy base? I mean.. where a fighter completely suprised someone at THEIR base?
Basically.. that's all the removal of dot-dar is going to give you.
Of course, those that like hanging out over an enemy base and suprising people as they launch may not like it quite as much. Nor would they like that uber flack that picks people off that loiter over a base at 10k. Nor would they like that 1 ping ack that kills them as they swoop in on someone spawning.
Mix a little bit of truth in with a lot of exageration and you can twist things to conform to any style you like. Regardless of the handle.. that's what is done here on a regular basis.
If people want suprise bounces like they had in WW2.. they better get ready to be so bored on their flight that they aren't really paying attention. They'd better get ready to be suprised because they don't usually see the enemy at all on a sortie. Of course.. that's the kind of fun everyone is looking for.. even in an HA. Right?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
...the fact thta you can id a con as friend or foe when he is not in visual range, using radar (look at hte bearing, if theres a green dot that way its frinedly, if no dot or a red dot its enemy) is stupid.
Is it? There was a lot of information available to pilots over friendly territory. I think dtango pointed out in another post that the effective range of radar in WW2 was around 100 miles. The vast majority of our fights take place within a 100 miles of friendly fields for all involved so we can reasonably say that the type of information available from the clipboard would be available to a pilot. The challenge is how to simulate the availability of this information. There is a pretty decent discussion of this in dtango's thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788)
bottom line is that the clipboard, while far from perfect, is a pretty decent compromise when you consider the alternatives.
the fact that you can look at your clipboard and see a con that is you low 6 and not in visual range (obscured) is rediculous. thats what fester is pointing out.
This I agree with 100%. My suggested solution in the above mentioned thread was to eliminate dar on any bogies within icon range distance wise. Any plane within 6k of you would have to be tracked by you and you alone.
HaMmeR
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
If people want suprise bounces like they had in WW2.. they better get ready to be so bored on their flight that they aren't really paying attention. They'd better get ready to be suprised because they don't usually see the enemy at all on a sortie. Of course.. that's the kind of fun everyone is looking for.. even in an HA. Right?
AKDejaVu
Didn't you fly WB's at one time? Do you guys not remember the thrill/fear of having to look back occasionally while you kicked a little rudder to check your 6? I do. I thought it was a very friggin cool and realistic part of the game. when ya pulled up your map while flying, that's all it was, a map. You saw where you were on the map, and that was it. When you were in the tower, you could look at the map as a radar screen. You could see the location of all the cons on that map. There was radio chatter about what was going on and where. When your friend landed or got shot down, he would look at the dar and give you the location of baddies as you would when you were in the tower. It actually promoted teamwork.
I liked it and a lot of other people did too.
Don't get me wrong, I am having a good time here in this game, and I rarely, if ever say anything critical about the game itself. But the only thing that I really miss about warbirds was the thrill of the unknown. It's the fun of not knowing exactly what was behind ya til ya looked back there.
Dejavu, you and lazs can conjure up stuff about us just wanting easy kills or that we would NEVER find fights, and all that horsecrap. We did in WB's. The maps were bigger or smaller there? How much bigger or smaller?, is that not codeable??
I love the game, but I'd like to see the radar refined.
-
I would love to see a FR arena one day with no plane ID tags,only range and country colour..Also get rid of zoom function,I doubt many WW2 pilots were like tank commanders and had binocs hanging around their necks.
-
"...Also get rid of zoom function,I doubt many WW2 pilots were like tank commanders and had binocs hanging around their necks...".
Actually it's the normal unzoomed view which is unrealistic but it's done like that so that the gauges are included in your field of view. A playability/PC concession. When you zoom in, the POV is nearer to a realistic POV, the view you would have looking through a real gunsight.
WWIIOnline does it another way, you must select another key to "look down" and view the gauges. I prefer the AH way.
bowser
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: bowser ]
-
Citabria/Cit/Fester(what else?) joins the Assassins, now Zig is running behind him kissing bellybutton like a champion.
GO ZIG GO!
-SW
-
How many bounces do you think occured over an enemy base? I mean.. where a fighter completely suprised someone at THEIR base?
AKDejavu - ever heard of rat scrambles? Or Pearl Harbor?
I say remove range icons completely n reduce the range where icons pop up.
Just my opinion thou, am entitled to it and your entitled to yours.
chow
:D
-
When do we get the programming, video cards and monitors that will allow you to easily see 10 inch high tail numbers at 1000 feet?
Because THAT is reality.
Give me that, I'll gladly dump icons.
Oh, yes... one more thing... Normal human FOV is easily 160 degrees. I'll be wanting that displayed in correct proportion on my monitor as well.
:)
I look at all these guys complaining and remember that NONE... that is NONE like in ZERO... had the guts to even make a guess at how far they should be able to see numbers in the "Visual Realism Test" thread. Afraid to embarass themselves and show that they had no clue about all this? :D
-
Dejavu, you and lazs can conjure up stuff about us just wanting easy kills or that we would NEVER find fights, and all that horsecrap. We did in WB's. The maps were bigger or smaller there? How much bigger or smaller?, is that not codeable??
I played warbirds too. I remember the fun people had (as a matter of fact.. the person starting this thread comes to mind) just hanging off the end of a runway bouncing people as they took off.
I also know that dot dar only works in a portion of this map... only close to friendly bases. Maybe this only applies to people who like to hang out in one particular area.
Of course, I do like that it moves to AH vs realism to AH vs Warbirds on that one. :rolleyes:
I also know that I get good solid bounces virtually every day I fly. Not every time I go up, but every day I do. Some people seem to want it to be more the norm.
AKDejaVu
-
I think they even made a movie bout that second one AK?
-
Let's all get this straight. To say get rid of the current dar to make it more realistic to a WW2 enviroment is incorrect. It is a myth that all you had was your eyes in WW2 for SA. You are proving your lack of knowledge of "reality" by saying this.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788)
It's fine to argue the point in WB that it was more of a rush with only visual SA. But don't argue that this would be more realistic for WW2 because that is completely a myth.
As to the comment about Pearl Harbor. As I pointed out in the above thread the Japanese raid was DETECTED by radar but since the US was dumb enough not to receive the IFF system offered by the brits the radar operators assumed they were B17's returning back to Hawaii.
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: dtango ]
-
dtango is correct about Pearl Harbor.
It always amazes me(or stupifies me, I'm not sure which yet) that people are actually here using Pearl Harbor as a reason for radar being too potent in AH.
Wake up, read a book, do something but buy yourself a clue.
Japan hadn't even declared WAR on the U.S. when Pearl Harbor was attacked, why would we be watching radar LOOKING for the raid?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I played warbirds too. I remember the fun people had (as a matter of fact.. the person starting this thread comes to mind) just hanging off the end of a runway bouncing people as they took off.
Thanks for talking sense into me here. I've yet to see any vulching in this game. BTW, how does dar have anything to do with vulching? Lemme guess, with inplane dar, ya see the baddie coming to get you? Well then why are there such world class vulches here? hmmmm..
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Of course, I do like that it moves to AH vs realism to AH vs Warbirds on that one. :rolleyes:
What's funny is that you apparently think we need to ask your permission to bring up other subjects in a post. ;)
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I also know that I get good solid bounces virtually every day I fly. Not every time I go up, but every day I do. Some people seem to want it to be more the norm.
Poor guy still doesn't get it. I understand your view deja. You like more radar than I do. I'm ok with that. Why do you guys feel so threatened when we express our dislike for it?
Did you hear guys on AGW 3-4 ago posting that they wanted in-plane radar? I can't remember one post concerning the subject. How many do you see here now that say there is too much radar?
That should tell you something.
-
hblair... in WB there was a hell of a lot less fields. It wasn't rocket science to find a fite in prime time. "kick a little rudder to check six" LOL!! not in U.S. planes... you had to almost come to a ded stop using the rudder or make a 90 degree turn to "check" six.. the hellcat rear view was like sticking your nose up against a wall.... laughable. Still that way far as i know... compound that with the piss poor acceleration and climb of the U.S. planes and the poor performance of mg's compared to cannon and u know why I left. It must have been nice to fly 109's that historicly had bad vision and in WB were like being in a glass bubble.
I agree with toad. we can't even come close to the good view real life offers.. we could even use a few more concessions in my opinion. Granted... it is a little tough on those who tend to favor the "sneak up on em" style but... it should be. I was thrilled when the audible 'check six' feature came out... I love nothing more than spoiling a sneak killers shot... unless it is shooting a bombers chute.
lazs
-
What is it? Realism or "This is what I want"?
When the realism thing was disputed, it moved onto "WarBirds does it better" or maybe it was WWIIOl... I don't care.
If you are going to use an argument, use ONE argument... otherwise you start to sound like you are whining about the Chog again.
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
dtango is correct about Pearl Harbor.
It always amazes me(or stupifies me, I'm not sure which yet) that people are actually here using Pearl Harbor as a reason for radar being too potent in AH.
Wake up, read a book, do something but buy yourself a clue.
Japan hadn't even declared WAR on the U.S. when Pearl Harbor was attacked, why would we be watching radar LOOKING for the raid?
-SW
I'll sale you a clue for $5. How many of the P40's or Val's had a radar screen in their plane? I'll give you a hint, the number resembles a goose egg.
That's what I'm talking about.
-
I'll sell you a dictionary/thesaurus and some real clues... how many P40s and Vals had wingmen? How many had tower operators? How many had radar operators on the ground? How many had visual spotters?
The inflight radar makes up for our lack of having lots of people and organized order of battles.
-SW
-
I like icons, cause I think bouncers are girliemen.
-
They were watching the radar. But it was a brand new technology and they didnt trust it or understand it well. Comanders at Guadalcanal where still distrusting it and still losing ships and 1000s of men to thier distrust.
-
Originally posted by Fester':
the sim does a good job of simulating how modern day fighters use vast amounts of information on the enemy to position themselves for attack and to keep high situational awareness by keeping their head down in the cockpit and seeing far beyond visual range versus scanning the sky for the enemy. one wonders how many pilots in world war 2 would have been saved from bounces, ambushes and other surprise attacks if they were given the tools that our modern fighters have.
So true Fester. The AWACS downlink gives you the ability to pick your way through a big fight even when you can't see a single plane. WW2 fighter pilots NEVER had the ability to see this information on a display like that, and what VERBAL information they did receive came at a much lower rate and with much less spatial precision. It's probably the worst aspect of this game, next to the ground vehicle models. :(
(Edit: I haven't dealt with the vehicles for a few months - they might be better now. AWACS downlink vertical situation display is still lame though.)
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Didnt HT say something about the size of the icons being a font size issue? related to the font size of the chat buffer i seem to remember, but I have slept since then so who knows...
-
How far out have I spotted a B-17? My personal record is something like 8k, but since icons don't go that far I can't confirm the distance. Yesterday morning I had a B-17 ID'd when he was at 24k; I was climbing up to him, passing 14-16k at the time. I can tell the difference between a P-51B and a -51D at 6k. How? One shimmers, one doesn't. Same thing goes for the P-47's; I can spot the difference between them at hideous ranges for the same reason I can with the 51. One is silver and shimmers, the other don't!
I think radar could be tweaked with some. Namely killing the dar-bar a certain distance out, pulling the inflight dot dar, and doing something about con detection. Icons I see has a nifty feature that helps some, and since they vanish when the aircraft passes behind a canopy piece there's no deflection shooting crutch. Range could be pulled a bit I think; what about the tin horns? Some new guys are so green they have trouble taking off on their own. This ain't an expert's sim until we get pre-flight walk arounds and have to blow perk points on our assigned A/C's repairs.
So implement user-selected settings for icons. Each player could turn 'em off, set the range they pop on at, have 'em fade in or out (both if they wanted) etc... Icons fixed. Next: radar. You can't do the WB's system. Why? Cause it's in WB's and HTC isn't about taking the best everyone else has and copying it. There are some things you can't do much with; the NOE dar-bar for example. A text warning? Won't work cause the messages scroll by dang fast when a country is getting blasted. Sound warnings could work along with a quick message in bright green "Enemy spotted in 11.12.1" or something in the text buffer. Ala Check 6 calls. Dot dar is so limited in the MA now there's no reason to change it. Dar-bar on the other hand NEEDS a fix; I've seen enemy build-ups clear across the fraggin map before. So has everyone else. Limit the dar-bar max range down to say 3 grids around a field. Anything farther and you get squat. Altitude could be thrown into the mix too. How? It's like a cone; the lower you are the closer you gotta get before being picked up. So if you're comin in at 40k you'll get picked up farther out, say 1.5 grids instead of half a grid.
Anything else I should add or will this work?
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
the hellcat rear view was like sticking your nose up against a wall.... laughable
====
It was a trade off in terms of engineering design. That big grey wall saved many a cat pilot by protecting him against high velocity projectiles. The trade off was they could not see well and easily avoid those nasty projectiles before the fact?
Would it have been preferred to design the cats with a more worthwhile aft view? Looking at the historical record, No. The Jap designs were superior in performance thus the decision to build that tough wall aft turned out to be correct. Coupled with resiliant tactics, the western airmen prevailed.
The 6 views in AH are too permissive.
Yeager
-
what Toad said.
it's a sim. remember that. enjoy it.
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: mason22 ]
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I'll sell you a dictionary/thesaurus and some real clues... how many P40s and Vals had wingmen? How many had tower operators? How many had radar operators on the ground? How many had visual spotters?
The inflight radar makes up for our lack of having lots of people and organized order of battles.
-SW
Are you for turning down the gunnery about 50% to make up for the inexperience of the WWII pilots as cmpared to us?
How much for the thesarus and dictionary?
-
Several things... First, in last week's check 6, hang and I were up in Jugs with no inflight dar at all. Maybe 8 people were left in the arena. We had a decent idea of where the enemy was, and we eventually found them; 10 minutes after starting our search (daddog turned the radar back on shortly after this.) It was fun for a SEA event, but I don't think most would find it fun in the MA. Then again, it was with just a few people in the arena, yet all in a very small area.
Icons... get rid of range and replace with rate of closure, tho that might be a little too difficult for gunnery purposes. I wouldn't mind short icons for plane ID purposes tho. In most SEA events, friendlies are named at 10K and enemies are named at 3K. Modifying it a bit, country icons could pop up at 6k, and plane types at 3k. However, I don't really care if it changes or it stays the same.
Radar... NOE is what I want to see. Under XXX feet, things shouldn't shouldn't show on DAR (bar or dot). Once within X miles of a enemy field it does appear (visual spotters, I guess you could say). This could include GVs within X miles too. Of course if the dar is out at the field, oh well! ;)
-
funkedup is a smart man
while they did have uradar, they recieved radar updates infrequently
i think radar should stay as is when not in flight but in the air no way
eaw had good modeling of radar oin the air.. loki bundecontroller, request vector to nearest threat. then he would give you bearing, range, and altitude. that would be nicee. make it so you could only request updates every minute orso to prevent flooding.
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Are you for turning down the gunnery about 50% to make up for the inexperience of the WWII pilots as cmpared to us?
Oh dear jebus... this thread has officially gone down the sh*tter.
I have 7 years of WarBirds, Fighter Duel, and various other WWII simulation games.
This would make me experienced wouldn't it?
Okay then.
-SW
-
AKs, ASSASSINS, would you please report to the dueling arena :D
-
SW, Does that mean you are not for turning down the gunnery and/or damage model to put us on a level playing field with the WWII pilots? Well, why not?
You are for giving us AWACS in our planes to simulate spotters, wingmen and the like but you are not for other concessions? Why?
-
These are team work concessions. You are talking about artificially enforcing something that you can naturally improve upon.
You are just doing this to say "well if I can't have mine, I'm going to screw up yours."
I'll go a step further, you want to artificially tone down gunnery and pork the radar so you can jump more people easily..
You have to pay a start up fee of 15$ (cost of a solo in 1940), you have to sign up for an air force and can only fly what you are given for that air force and only fly planes assigned to you. If you lose the plane, you have to fly the squadron crap plane until the end of the TOD.
If you want to be rediculous, I can be equally as rediculous.
-SW
-
Thanks for talking sense into me here. I've yet to see any vulching in this game. BTW, how does dar have anything to do with vulching? Lemme guess, with inplane dar, ya see the baddie coming to get you? Well then why are there such world class vulches here? hmmmm.
Now you're being ignorant.
Vulching occurs plenty here. It occurs plenty at brand x too.
What doesn't occur here (as often) is someone hanging at 5k near a feild hoping someone takes off away from him so he can sneak in for the easy autoclimb vulch on the poor unsuspecting victim. The dot dar tells you when someone is near the field. That is it. Removing this is for the benifit of whom?
The dot dar does not tell you that someone is behind you. Not unless you take the time to zoom it in, take your eyes off the sky and rely on something that gives you no altitude indication to tell you exactly where a nearby enemy is.
People use dar to vector to incoming enemies AT THEIR OWN FIELDS. They don't use it to lock onto a target with a pip showing in the hud to highlight the bvr plane for you. Its simply "dot that way somewhere" and shut the map down.
What's funny is that you apparently think we need to ask your permission to bring up other subjects in a post.
Wow.. you keep sinking to new levels.
Permission?
Ummm.. no.
But if the argument decides to switch directions whimsically.. don't get too upset when its pointed out to you. The point was stupid... you don't need my permission to be that as you demonstrate on a regular basis.
Poor guy still doesn't get it. I understand your view deja. You like more radar than I do. I'm ok with that. Why do you guys feel so threatened when we express our dislike for it?
And why do you feel threatened when people disagree with your reasoning?
The logic being used to justify major modification or removal is assenine. Yet.. it comes up again and again. "realism" gets tossed in... then switched to "whell brand-x does it different" when "realism" doesn't work too well. The whole thing is pathetic.
The things that happen within 12.5 miles of an enemy base are being discussed here. Within 12.5 miles.. they had a tad clue things were coming in. Did they have enough time to do anything about it... nope. Do they here? Nope.
Raids like Pearl Harbor were detected on radar, but they were misinterpreted. How many times have major raids on bases been overlooked until it was too late in AH?
The information was there in both scenarios.. how people chose to act on the information is virtually identical too.
Did you hear guys on AGW 3-4 ago posting that they wanted in-plane radar? I can't remember one post concerning the subject. How many do you see here now that say there is too much radar?
LOL! OK... you have to win this one. Of course, I played a little AGW 2 and 3 and can say that if you're using them as an example of what should be done in AH... you are way off base.
Pick and chose.. pick and chose. Who can be the defense/example for the day. :rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
One wonders how many pilots in world war 2 would have died from bounces, ambushes, and other suprise attacks had they been limited to even 1600x1200 pixel views, required to make input combinations simply to move his eyeballs and view the forward horizon range, and had to look down and type simply to speak to his wingman as our modern fighters do.
-
I'm guessing that the supporters of no icons in MA all fly in high res mode.
-
Originally posted by flakbait:
How far out have I spotted a B-17? My personal record is something like 8k, but since icons don't go that far I can't confirm the distance. Yesterday morning I had a B-17 ID'd when he was at 24k; I was climbing up to him, passing 14-16k at the time. I can tell the difference between a P-51B and a -51D at 6k. How? One shimmers, one doesn't. Same thing goes for the P-47's; I can spot the difference between them at hideous ranges for the same reason I can with the 51. One is silver and shimmers, the other don't!
I think radar could be tweaked with some. Namely killing the dar-bar a certain distance out, pulling the inflight dot dar, and doing something about con detection. Icons I see has a nifty feature that helps some, and since they vanish when the aircraft passes behind a canopy piece there's no deflection shooting crutch. Range could be pulled a bit I think; what about the tin horns? Some new guys are so green they have trouble taking off on their own. This ain't an expert's sim until we get pre-flight walk arounds and have to blow perk points on our assigned A/C's repairs.
So implement user-selected settings for icons. Each player could turn 'em off, set the range they pop on at, have 'em fade in or out (both if they wanted) etc... Icons fixed. Next: radar. You can't do the WB's system. Why? Cause it's in WB's and HTC isn't about taking the best everyone else has and copying it. There are some things you can't do much with; the NOE dar-bar for example. A text warning? Won't work cause the messages scroll by dang fast when a country is getting blasted. Sound warnings could work along with a quick message in bright green "Enemy spotted in 11.12.1" or something in the text buffer. Ala Check 6 calls. Dot dar is so limited in the MA now there's no reason to change it. Dar-bar on the other hand NEEDS a fix; I've seen enemy build-ups clear across the fraggin map before. So has everyone else. Limit the dar-bar max range down to say 3 grids around a field. Anything farther and you get squat. Altitude could be thrown into the mix too. How? It's like a cone; the lower you are the closer you gotta get before being picked up. So if you're comin in at 40k you'll get picked up farther out, say 1.5 grids instead of half a grid.
Anything else I should add or will this work?
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
My thoughts EXACTLY Flakbait! Well said.
Please carefully read what he had to say everyone, it makes a lot of sense.
eskimo
-
Doh, not gonna say anymore really cause I think AKdejavu n SKwulfe gonna start balling soon. Taking away their precious UNREALISTIC dar.
fine leave dotdar, darbars, toejame why not add powerups too, could float around in the air and when you run into them might give you quantum shields, lasers, BFGS and nailguns? Ohh and while we're being unrealistic, those A-bomb powerups which kill all cons in icon range with 1 keypress.
doh, facts are that SA awareness in AH is a ton better then any WW2 pilot ever dreamed off. The dar was crap, communications were unreliable and when the towers went down, they did'nt up 15mins later. In fact some AC did'nt even have radio, notably russian n japanese AC.
Chow
:D
-
Sorry Zygote, you aren't taking away anything. You haven't even give a reasonable or thought out idea as to why radar is unrealistic or should be removed.
Yes it IS unrealistic, in case you ain't noticed just about everything in the game is with exception to the flight models and how the planes look.
So next time you step on your realism pedastal, I hope that your common sense chimes in and says "Hey buddy, it's the MA there isn't a lick of realism in there and never will be!"
Now go back to reading your WW2 romance novels. Dweeb.
-SW
-
lol deja, you're such a granny. Don't have time to go through your post, but I read enough to see you're back off your midol. ;)
SW, lazs sheddup! :)
BTW, a few months ago HT said he was considering friendly only radar. If this gets implemented you guys will be against it no? I mean your views on it wouldn't instantly change would they? I know lazs would speak his mind, not too sure about Rosco and Cletus though.
:)
-
Friendly only radar huh?
When that comes around the mountain I'll log out for my final time.
Germany would of been in deep cheese if it weren't for radar, you know they actually launched interceptors before they broke the coast right?
Britain too... damn and that was in 1940, imagine that!
-SW
-
Why do people want this game to be so easy?
get rid of icons when in close range
get rid of big dar bars
get rid of dar that detects under 500ft agl
get rid of these stupid "GAMEPLAY" throw -ins
make a 50 cal act like a 50 reguardless if its on a b17, or a 202
blah...
-
Those stupid game play concessions are because WE ARE PLAYING WITH A 90 DEGREE FIELD OF VIEW ON A FLAT MONITOR AT LOW RESOLUTIONS USING A HAT SWITCH TO ACT AS OUR NECKS!!
What is so freaking hard to understand about that?
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Citabria/Cit/Fester(what else?) joins the Assassins, now Zig is running behind him kissing bellybutton like a champion.
GO ZIG GO!
-SW
C'mon Wulfe, ya really think that's true, or even a fair thing to say? Zig is expressing his opinion which is in agreement with Fester's, thats all there is to it.
The original post was a back-handed slap at the current radar settings, but Fester was jumped on for expressing it, when the content should have been addressed.
If DJV likes the current radar setup, he should argue in it's favor, not antagonize the person who expressed a different opinion from his.
Zig was a bit strong in his response to DJV I'll grant U, but the TOPIC is about DAR SETTINGS, not Fester.
<S>
Mil
-
Milenko, check your UBB private message thingie.
EDIT: I do believe what Zig posted warranted my reply.
-SW
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
because hes an ASSasin, thots why.
====
Theres actually TWO tulips in ASS-ASS-INS Hangtime. And No, Hblair aint one of em :D
Just thought Id clear that up.....
Yeager
-
RADAR
I am in favour of toning down the dar....but not eliminating it. I think a 10 mile radius aroung the fields is a good compromise. It could simulate a radar controller calling out contacts out to 10 miles.
Historiclly I think the British had a system that was able to see much farther and the communication system was able to eliminate any surprises the Germans were working on. Sine we can't have a virtual voice call out all cons our "in flight dar" would show icons up to 10 miles out.
ICONS
This has been talked about too friggin much in my opinion. I think this game is hard enough already and I stand on the side that says KEEP ICONS. I would be in favour of 3k range which cuts them in half. For you guys that want them shut off....sorry but that is a bad idea.
-
Quote : "I think this game is hard enough"
lol... yeah those Icons are very "hard" to keep track of :rolleyes: :D
I like the idea of having to be on your TOES when in the virtual skies... IT MAKES it alittle more realistic.
You need to have good SA to stay alive.. Always checking your 360 degree Up/down/all around when in a combat situation.
Enemy Icons off would encourage this.
That is plain and simple truth... I dont see how it could possibly be argued...
The current icon system allows you to know who/what you are fighting Just by barely catching a glimpse of your surrounding environment... (too easy)
I do like the 10mile radius radar availibity right outside of a base.
-
You want icons off because it FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS good right DeeZCamp?
-SW
-
BTW, a few months ago HT said he was considering friendly only radar. If this gets implemented you guys will be against it no? I mean your views on it wouldn't instantly change would they? I know lazs would speak his mind, not too sure about Rosco and Cletus though.
That's so diddlying typical of you staga. Yeah.. whatever HTC says Cletus and I support.
I mean.. we've been 100% supportive of the CHog perking. Right? Lord knows we don't speak out on that one. :rolleyes:
How about this:
I'm so tired of people thinking that WHINING ABOUT THE SAME DAMN THING INCESSANTLY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN is the same thing as it being popular oppinion. I'm tired of people thinking that IF THEY COMPLAIN LONG ENOUGH AND LOUD ENOUGH that the change will be made... basically regardless of merit.
Present some good ideas for a fix. Cit doesn't do this.. he just highlights his percieved problem and runs off. This thread is no different. Thus the openning remark.
Having an oppinion is one thing. Expressing it over and over and over and over is another. Of course, the usuall double standards apply for myself and people like staga and zigrat.
AKDejaVu
-
DJ.. hblair, not who you have in your post.
-SW
-
Deez you can laugh out loud and right in my face.
I am at least HONEST about the game being hard for me. I don't run up a 10 kill streak in anything. I get outflown a whole bunch and not having icons would probably mean my exit from Aces High.
I am willing to hear ideas and suggestions on them...for example.
1. Limit the range to 3k
2. NOT HAVE THE PLANETYPE IN IT -- instead just be red with rook or knight in the icon.
3. Keep range on the icon -- i need this crutch sorry :) It might be ok to have no range until you are under 1k.
If you wanna be a salamander and laugh at everybody go to WW2OL and fit right in. If you want contribute to a discussion and listen to other opinions and ideas then check the attitude at the door sit down and by all means let's hear some ideas.
-
SKernsk,... I am not making fun of you, infact thats cool that you have an opinon,... and yes MINE IS HONEST too. I HONESTLY "FEEL" that Icons are too easy to fight against.
You have labled it as a Crutch (good) its nice to hear the truth once in a while. <S> you for actually saying it.
Others like Wulfie who need icons also just blabber on about how its Good to have them protest that the end the world would seemingly happen, if they were removed from Aces. They KNOW it would be harder to fly and Fight without them. Stop hiding behind your real reasons.
SAY IT WULF it would be harder to fly and fight without them. IT would require more SA, and Would enable alot more realism tactical, real world uses. CAMOFLAGE comes TO MIND.
Anyway yeah... REmove em.. OR make a HARDCORE realism ARENA that gets rid of all the "GAMEPLAY garbage"
The only thing that should be kept "GAMEY"
would be the ability to DIE, and then start again.
-out
-
Sorry for getting hot.
Deez..it is a necessary part of gameplay. You are the not so silent minority. I am willing to hear suggestions and make compromises, but not willing to let icons go without a knock down, drag out fight :)
-
LOL... :D Skernsk
Round 1 skernsk ;)
Lets compromise
Keep the "gamey" Main arena and also
Lets push for an ALL-OUT-Hardcore realism Arena Also :)
One that involves planes that fought against each other for specific time periods with the aformentioned posts of Iconless challenge :D
-
What the totally mistaken "harder = more real-er" crowd fails to recognize is that "Beyond Visual Range Air Combat is artificially the defacto situation in ALL the current ACM games.
This is because pixel-limited, FOV limited, 2D monitors artificially SHORTEN visual range vis-a-vis a real life situation. So you are always fighting "beyond visual range" because "normal" visual cues occur at much closer ranges than they should. (Thus normal ACM moves are usually started much later than they should be, generating a-historical combat situations.)
The games are AUTOMATICALLY harder than real life due to technological limitations.
You can't see planform, detail or definition at the "normal" ranges that you would in real life. SIMPLE, INDISPUTABLE, FACT, guys.
Totally doing away with Icons is the incorrect solution. You NEED icons to give you the information that would normally be available.
Before you jump on me for being too "pro icon" read this post from LONG ago. I've got even older ones that state my position, but not as well as this one does. :)
**********
03-06-2000
If we're going to actually try a few different means of IFF instead of this 10 year old system, I'd be really happy.
Here's a few points to ponder. These thoughts are based on a non-historical arena, where all sides fly all planes. Strict Historical could/should be different.
Ranges would have to be hashed out but that's an area that affords easy experimentaion once the overall system is set.
1. At long range, a plane <whether friend or foe, fighter or bomber> should just be an unknown dot.
2. As range closes, one would be able to distinguish a dot as a bomber earlier than a fighter. Therefore, some sort of "buff" ID should show at a range that would still be a dot for a fighter. At this range you couldn't tell friend from foe.
This means a dot could be either a long range plane of either type or a closer fighter that is not yet distinguishable. You just couldn't tell.
3. As range further decreased, a fighter ID should show. You should also now be able to tell, in some way, friend from foe, perhaps just a red dot at nose, tail and wingtips. This assumes that we would <in Real Life> be distinguishing plane type. Again, this would be a different range for a bomber than a fighter.
4. Now, after IFF range, add distance information. Range info should perhaps only be shown in 1k or .5k increments to avoid the rapidly running counters. I would not show range beyond a certain distance <a yet to be determined "threat" range> and I would remove it as the aircraft comes to "guns range." Perhaps cut out range info inside of 1k or .5k at minimum. You need IFF here, but you don't need range when you're ready to shoot. That should be part of pilot skills and judgement.
5. I would have no aircraft type ID available at ranges that allow you to distinugish that info from the graphics. (determined for the lowest resolution avail). I would allow some simple "type" info at ranges where you could see it in real life.
Different colored dots, arrows, numbers...any of these could be used to provide this type of information while minimizing and shrinking the huge icons we now have.
Just some thoughts. I'm sure everyone has some ideas and I'd love to read them. I hope we can get a meaningful discussion going and I also hope we can talk HTC into experimenting in the SEA with "alternative Icon lifestyles".
This DOES NOT, however, mean the current Icon system is perfect. It could be improved and should be experimented."
-
all my post was about was inflight radar and darbars on the map clipboard is to much information for a ww2 game
if this info was in tower only that would be preferable
-
When each country can get the same planes, Icons are esential. Which spit is my wingman, which is the enemy? I'll guess I'll just shoot and find out!
Being more difficult does not neccesarily make a game better, and things shouldn't be made more difficult just for the sake of it.
There always must be a balance between realism and gameplay.
We all want things to be as realistic as possible, yet we are playing a game and some concessions must be made to make it fun. The vast majority of a combat pilot's life was relatively dull. Many pilots went for months without even seeing an enemy plane. Is this what we want? It would be realistic, wouldn't it?
eskimo
-
I too disagree with ya deez about the icons in the main arena. There's gotta be some way to identify the baddies. I just feel the current in-plane radar oughta be toned way down.
Deja, you gonna be ok man? I could just see your face turning red, you shouldn't get so worked up, your gonna blow a circuit.
-
As I told you elsewhere, I can fly with or without icons. It makes no difference to me.
As I also told you elsewhere, in a simulated world that is 1/500th the size of the real one being displayed on anywhere from a 14" to a 21" flat screen monitor icons are necessary because you do NOT get the detail or visual cues you would in the real world.
You are such a dud (yes without an e at the end) DeeZCamp, words to describe your inability to understand don't exist.
-SW
-
SW, I'm glad you agree that radar should be toned down. Now you need to speak to Deja about it.
-
Oh.. sorry hblair.. didn't know this was a "what's your oppinion" thread. Thought it was just more of a "say something increadibly stupid and run" thread.
I think dar-bar should be dissabled to promote NOE flying. Other than that, the dar system works good enough. I've said it before in threads where the topic was actually discussed.
AKDejaVu
-
WOW – I almost missed out on the “get rid of dar” thread, whew. :rolleyes:
From hblair:
Why do you guys feel so threatened when we express our dislike for it?
Well, because I, not being the old timer that some of you are, feel threatened when you all make some suggestions about changing the game. It may not be true, but impression is 9 tenths the law right? ;) I get the impression that some of you “old timers” actually have the ear of the big man himself. One person with a good report can make a lot more difference than 100 nobody’s. Why do I think this, I won’t go into it. The C-hog debate has been voiced enough, without any good conclusion as far as I’m concerned.
When the hblair’s, Cit’s, and you insert whatever other well know nic’s come out with drastic changes. Then continually voice them. Yeah, it worries me.
Fights may not be that hard to find if dar was gone; however, finding the “kind” of fight you want to get into is if it’s gone. I’ve got an hour, hmmm, what do I want to do? Look for the good 1v1 fight, go for the furball, attack a heavily defended base, attack a base not being defended, etc etc. I can spend anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes when I first get on looking at the map trying to figure out what I want to do.
In flight dar, well, that’s already limited anyway. Icons, I like em. Ya wanna shorten ‘em, don’t know what to think about that. The Rumble was kind of cool but not sure about the MA. I’m all for no dar below 500 ft.
Zippatuh
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Zippatuh ]
-
Originally posted by Zygote:
Chow
:D
Well although this is one long tard ridden "Hide my dar and icon cuzI wanna bounce you and have 40 kill streaks instead of fight", at least we know who this Chow guy Hblair is blowing.
-
Ahhhh that was a good one Creamo!
Hblair, I believe radar should be adjusted not toned down.
Revisions for NOE. Radar should only reach 1 1/2 sectors into a enemy territory (beyond that it makes no difference if there are enemies there or not). Dot Radar should be updated every 5 seconds (10 is entirely too long) instead of continuously.
That's my opinion of radar, but to say in-flight radar needs to be removed completely... would be like asking me to kick you in the crotch. Just ain't gonna be fun.
-SW
-
Creamo, get a girlfriend.
Cletus, I agree that radar should be adjusted down. Please talk some sense into Rosco.
:)
[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
toad i like your idea. it sounds pretty good, and you certainly have much more experience looking at other vintage aircraft form a cockpit than i do :)
as a quick fix, id be happy with just havingthe sea icon settings in the main arena.... 3k instead of 6k. For those that have flown in events with these settings, it certainly makes things more fun.
ive found that from 3-6k i can get a pretty solid id on a con even without icons, especially since all of the same plane types have the same camo. but you have to focus on the con for a second to id it.
i guess my iggest problem with the current id system isthe ability to scan 90 degree segments instantaneously.... in 1/4 of a second you can snap rear (you can even do this while fighintg another aircraft) and confirm (hey i see no red icon, i must be clear) i'd like a fade in of icons of sort, mabye on a linear scare from instantaneous at 0 yards to 3 seconds or so at max icon range.
for the ranges, i would eliminate the precision. i think having range in incriments of 100 yards (ie 1 2 3 for 100 200 300 yards) where the game rounds, would be good enough. we do need some type of range cue imo intil there is some sort of stereo vision for these games.
for radar, i would leave it as is within the tower, except
1) no bar dar behind enemy lines. bar dar should only be over friendly territory. this is to simulate "ground observers" or whatever. i would have this even indicate NOE flights from the tower, a farmer might very well be able to call in a noe airplane flying over his home :)
2) extend the range of dot dar to 25 miles. from the tower, so fights can still be located easier. 12.5 miles range of dot dar is kinda low. this would also make hitting radar at airfields more important strategically, a plus imo.
3) have hitting the hq kill only the radar in flight, and make it so when the hq is dead, you can still get in tower radar updates by switching to the different individual fields. hitting the hq should not kill the dot radar for each individual field, only the observers(bar). it is very frustrating to log on and not be able to "find the fight" becasue hq is down for 2.5 hours.
in flight--
in flight i would have bar dar only. if hq was destroyed no in flight radar at all.
thats what i would like to see.
-
Zig: I like your dar ideas. Modifications I would make.
INFLIGHT:
- Bar dar + dot dar only under friendly dar coverage.
- Dot dar updated at some interval (5-10 s?)- simulating ground controllers.
- No dot dar of a/c within visual range (xHammerx's idea)
OTHER ITEMS:
Some other things that might be interesting but a little more difficult to implement, maybe a little controversial.
- dot dar for both inflight & tower disabled for the field of coverage for dar at a field when the dar is destroyed at that field.
- buffs with finite load of chaff that disables dot dar for both tower and inflight for a given sector as it drifts down.
- inflight realtime dot dar with limited range for night fighters especially equipped
:D.
[/list]
-
Zigrat and dtango;
Good constructive ideas, they make sense, seam realistic, and would be good for gameplay.
Another idea;
Big planes (B-17, Lanc) could have icons as far out as 8 or 9 K. Smaller planes (109 and other small fighters) icons apear at 4 or 5 K. The rest inbetween based on plane size.
I also think all icon info under 2 or 3 K should remain just as it is, even instantaneous under snap view. Remember, in the main arena, your wingman can be flying the same plane as your enemy.
eskimo
-
again good ideas eskimo
-
Originally posted by hblair:
Cletus, I agree that radar should be adjusted down. Please talk some sense into Rosco.
Alright Billy Bob, just as soon as he see him down at the ol' waterin' hole.
-SW
-
Quote from "luftwaffe pilot Ernst Schröder"
"The P-51 pilot quickly lost the camouflaged Focke Wulf against the trees of the forest covered valley sides over which they were flying."
Cant do this With placards above the planes...
-
Originally posted by Zygote:
Chow
Well although this is one long tard ridden "Hide my dar and icon cuzI wanna bounce you and have 40 kill streaks instead of fight", at least we know who this Chow guy Hblair is blowing.
WOW Creamo, you are so witty n smart!
Look forward to blowing your N1K uber bellybutton outta the sky in the MA!!!
BTW have set up a lil crying thread where you n SKMoron n AKMoron can go n snuggle n stuff!!!
Chow Idiot
:D
-
"the hellcat rear view was like sticking your nose up against a wall.... laughable
====
It was a trade off in terms of engineering design. "
yeager.. the reason I said the hellcat view IN WB was laughable was because.... it was wrong. You could see perfectly well behind you in a Hellcat. Any old hellcat pilot will tell you that... there was no "trade off"... nobody traded view for protection. If anythihg the razorback on most planes was a stability tradeoff not a visual one.
Hbair... u are going to have to leave.. the adults wish to speak. Read what toad says and then write a report on it by Sunday... I generally do speak up when I think a feature is wrong... as you may have noticed in the past.
I believe we don't get enough info. The MA is much more crowded than a real WWII airspace where you pretty much knew friend from foe anyhow. the real pilot got updates and the real pilot got alt estimates.
We cannot tell who is "on our low six" with the current radar and so what if we could???? does that mean you would have and advantage in the fite by looking at your clipboard instead of using your views?
Who cares if you can sneak up on people? what kind of a wuss even wants to? Sheesh... fite the damn guy... shoot him down. quit getting so anal looking for some kind of imaginary edge that compliments your "skill"..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
"the hellcat rear view was like sticking your nose up against a wall.... laughable
====
It was a trade off in terms of engineering design. "
yeager.. the reason I said the hellcat view IN WB was laughable was because.... it was wrong. You could see perfectly well behind you in a Hellcat. Any old hellcat pilot will tell you that... there was no "trade off"... nobody traded view for protection. If anythihg the razorback on most planes was a stability tradeoff not a visual one.
Hbair... u are going to have to leave.. the adults wish to speak. Read what toad says and then write a report on it by Sunday... I generally do speak up when I think a feature is wrong... as you may have noticed in the past.
I believe we don't get enough info. The MA is much more crowded than a real WWII airspace where you pretty much knew friend from foe anyhow. the real pilot got updates and the real pilot got alt estimates.
We cannot tell who is "on our low six" with the current radar and so what if we could???? does that mean you would have and advantage in the fite by looking at your clipboard instead of using your views?
Who cares if you can sneak up on people? what kind of a wuss even wants to? Sheesh... fite the damn guy... shoot him down. quit getting so anal looking for some kind of imaginary edge that compliments your "skill"..
lazs
I remember your big campaign on AGW about the *six-view*. Then somebody like Scop got tired of hearing it, He sat in an F6F at an airshow, took pictures of his confined rear view, said the WB's six-view was "dead-on", then you continued your rant and whine like he had never posted. You were unaffected by his proof. Even after WB's had the revised six-view, you still moaned about IT!
That's why I don't bother arguing reason with you, and don't take you too awful seriously, (another reason is that you're a car guy and seem to be a very likeable fella)
OK, I know that there are some of you who like the radar the way it is. There are many others who don't, before you fantasize that there are more who like than do not, look at all the past threads on the topic. There's usually 3-4 who want no changes, the rest favor some type of change. (that's not my opinion, read the threads) I hope HT will implement some type of change, I know he's probably gotten some good laughs seeing us beat each other up over it.
:D
Truce 'dar boys?
Now go fix me a sammich.
-
Someone bundle all of these dar ideas into one post and start a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of it.
-
Originally posted by Zygote:
BTW have set up a lil crying thread where you n SKMoron n AKMoron can go n snuggle n stuff!!!
You're a big man now.
DeeZ, was that pilot playing on a 15" monitor with a low resolution on a computer?
Okay then.
-SW
-
Good call Pongo. This thread has gotten way too overloaded and there are a lot of good ideas buried in it.
So who's gonna do it? I'm too lazy!
SOB
-
DeeZ, was that pilot playing on a 15" monitor with a low resolution on a computer?
Okay then.
What resolution do you need inorder to determine that an aircraft is below/above/or around you?
I can see just fine from 640x480 all the way up to 1600x1200
Nothing is truely different... In fact the lower resolution allows for bigger redraw of the Objects.. (THEY APPEAR BIGGER) = Easier to see.
THe only difference is that instead of seeing a nice CLEAR USAF/LUFTWAFFE symbol, it is not as detailed.
Are you worried about SEEING the PLANE, or every SINGLE PITOT tube?(MINOR DETAILS ala...Eyecandy)
I dont think that This extreme detail is necessary. Its nice... but who cares..
Fact of the matter is with all resolutions, All planes can be seen VERY CLEAR when inside a 2k DISTANCE(aka dogfight) without ICONS..
Some planes blend better than others given a particular background they are flying over.
A P51/47D-30/38L is ALOT EASIER to spot at lowlevel compared to 190F/202...etc
Anyway... Resolution should not even be the crutch to use in order to say Iconless at Very close distance is bad.
Saying that resolution is the factor when in a close in fight is just a lame excuse...
Fight the plane not the Icon
-
hblair.. mookie works for a guy who owns many WWII fighters, and flys em, including both a Hellcat and a F4f... his pictures showed that you could see most of the rear horizontal stabilizer by looking back with very little effort. (that was sitting on a chute with the strapps loose and seat adjusted). I took that and the fact that all the Hellcat pilots I have talked to said that they could see quite well to the rear over and above one guy who was taking a pic as if it were a WB view... straight back. he was trying to prove that the WB camera was not prejudiced and that if you looked straight back (right at the headrest) that is what you would see.
did you also see that the 109 pics showed an even worse six view in other pics of someone actually sitting in one?
Oh... everyone says that the mirrors on U.S. planes worked quite well. If you didn't like that some of em were convex you could replace em with an automotive one (except external ones like spits).. The corsair had at least 3.
Also.... I don't think the bored,flabby "vets" on this board are who HTC should be listening to anyway if profit is at all their motive. Having said flabby vets vulch a bunch of blinded newbies out of the game is not such a great idea.
No matter what tho... The real fact of the matter is that those who like action are the real and obvious majority... Look at the map during peak hours. People are going to the action. They go where the closest easiest to get to fite is. They do it because that is what they prefer. you make it harder to find a fite and you will make it harder for HTC to find customers. We have all the flabby ol vets we need. we can use some new blood.
lazs
-
Yeah.. it's time for this sim to 'grow'... let's get it trimmed down to the 20 or so guys who really appreciate "Historical" flight sims and get rid of all the trash who just want to have a good time.
lazs
-
DeeZ, you are using the same arguments you used to convince me that X-Plane is somehow magically better.
You don't bother to understand anything, and insist your way is the right way. Trying to discuss anything with you turns into an argument because you are so arrogant, you have yourself convinced that YOUR way is the right way.
-SW
-
hblair:
Even Hitech and Pyro don't think the WB hellcat 6-view is that accurate (compare it to their latest work). Aircraft in WB got good or bad 6-views based solely on how far the "camera lens" was from the headrest. It really had nothing to do with the actual visibility in the aircraft. In the Hellcat the lens was very close (about 7") and it had a horrible 6-view. If the lens was 20" from the headrest (ala the WB 109) the 6-view would have been similar to the spit 6-view.
AH's current adjustable system is infinitely better. No doubt the amount of head movement allowed in each aircraft in not precisely accurate (whatever that means) but at least the system does not give certain aircraft huge artificial and innacurate SA advantages or disadvantages.
As far as the icons, view system in general etc... go. I very much like AH's current setup and consider it to be a very elegant solution to a complex problem.
When we all have five 40" monitors arrayed around us displaying 160 degree views at 10,000 x 10,000 resolution then we can eliminate hat switches, icons etc.. and just turn our heads to look at life scaled video representations. Until then I am perfectly happy with the current system and would hate to be burdened with artificially crippled visibility. Toad and some others have some nice ideas, and I'm sure that improvements can be made. But simply getting rid of DAR or icons or whatever would decrease realism not enhance it.
Hooligan
-
Gee Swulf... How lame can you be? lets see.. oh yes... you have not once adressed the issue at hand, instead you had to fall back on the x-plane issue.
I guess you know that What I have posted about the Resolution makes perfect sense, but because you are empty minded you have no real response.
Keep bashing.. its okay, There is a thread created for your Whineing.. about how we shouldnt do anything..
Whatever wulf.. you have shown repeatedly that you are close minded.. and obviously not to bright with all the dumb empty answer replies.
I think that your very boring person Wulf, infact Everything that you seemingly enlighten people with, is nothing short of dull predictable anti- topic bashing crap.
It is you who have not learned anything, and it is you that do not seem to understand opinions and facts.
oh well you are continuing to be a lost cause, there is nothing I nor anyone else can say to change that little peice of tissue in your head from bashing and being ignorant.
Wulf you can continue to be a clone like a vast majority of the world now. Just go along with the flow,.. it suites you.
Oh yeah keep your Icon excusses comming, I cant wait to hear the next empty excuse for why they shouldnt be off when in close fighting distance.
Dont worry.. Im sure HTC will never appease the hardcore crowd of simmer completely, they have to balance it out between the GAMEY people like yourself.
Rock on Wulf with your Icons.. You need em
:rolleyes: :)
-
I listed several reasons above, apparently you are a) ignoring them because they are too difficult for you to understand or b) you are just a tard.
I think just about everyone that had to deal with your X-Plane diatrabe is going to agree on option b.
-SW
-
WOW WULF where are your reasons..??? :rolleyes: I sure cant find anything except your EMPTY monitor speech..
SO wheres your argument? Please enlighten me as to All the "listed" reasons YOU have provided????
:rolleyes:
Hey wulf guess what.. Heres a clue for you.
YOU can EVEN see the PLanes on a 14 Inch monitor...at 640x480 clearly.
WICH means you should obviously be able to see them on a 15" as well...
I guess it is starting to come down to the fact that You cannot track or play without icons, or you have this SURPISING inability to look at something whether it be on a wall, or a flat screen and determine what/where it is doing.
I guess you must have a hard time watching TV. I mean,.. wow the resolution on tv is horride, You must never play nintendo or other console games, because the clutter of the screens must drive you nuts. You know being that its a limited FOV, and resolution and ALL. :rolleyes:
Wheres your argument now?.. what are you going to try and pull out of your _ _ _ and conjure up?
Keep searching for the next excuse wulf.. you need em.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by hblair:
I remember your big campaign on AGW about the *six-view*. Then somebody like Scop got tired of hearing it, He sat in an F6F at an airshow, took pictures of his confined rear view, said the WB's six-view was "dead-on", then you continued your rant and whine like he had never posted. You were unaffected by his proof. Even after WB's had the revised six-view, you still moaned about IT!
That's why I don't bother arguing reason with you, and don't take you too awful seriously, (another reason is that you're a car guy and seem to be a very likeable fella)
OK, I know that there are some of you who like the radar the way it is. There are many others who don't, before you fantasize that there are more who like than do not, look at all the past threads on the topic. There's usually 3-4 who want no changes, the rest favor some type of change. (that's not my opinion, read the threads) I hope HT will implement some type of change, I know he's probably gotten some good laughs seeing us beat each other up over it.
:D
Truce 'dar boys?
Now go fix me a sammich.
and how many of the paying customers actually read this BBS? does there opinion count? What should HTC use as a basis for their decision? Is there even a "decision" to be made..or do they just say in their office.." LOL.they are whining again" :)
Maybe most folks just enjoy this product too much to worry with all the complaining and "BBS discussions"
Just a thought
Personally, with or without radar..I enjoy the game immensely. For the guy that is not entirely focussed on the gmae while climbing out, its a nice feature. If you are able to completely engross yourself without distractions in your home or play area then the "no inflight radar" option is for you. If you have many distractions in your home or play area and it is impossible to completely give 100% of your attention to the computer screen, then it is entirely possible that you appreciate the game feature.
ammo
-
i need to try out warbirds again to see if their radar settings, Scenarios and HA make for more entertaining game than current aces high modern technology arena
-
Originally posted by Fester':
i need to try out warbirds again to see if their radar settings, Scenarios and HA make for more entertaining game than current aces high modern technology arena
There you go. Now you are making sense. If you are that unhappy with the game. Go find another "drug" that does. Being proactive is good.
-
"WE ARE PLAYING WITH A 90 DEGREE FIELD OF VIEW ON A FLAT MONITOR AT LOW RESOLUTIONS USING A HAT SWITCH TO ACT AS OUR NECKS!!"
"As I told you elsewhere, I can fly with or without icons. It makes no difference to me.
As I also told you elsewhere, in a simulated world that is 1/500th the size of the real one being displayed on anywhere from a 14" to a 21" flat screen monitor icons are necessary because you do NOT get the detail or visual cues you would in the real world."
Like I said before Deez, you are just a tard.
-SW
-
Geezus H. Christ Festard, WBS will definatley kick themselves for going flat rate.
At 157 hours current in AH THIS MONTH, they'd make a fortune.
-
Hell DeeZ, remember this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001635 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001635)
Those guys gave a list of good reasons why no icons is a bad idea.
I don't know where they grow people like you DeeZ, but next time you go back there you might wanna let them know there's entirely too much chlorine in your gene pool.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hornet:
I'm guessing that the supporters of no icons in MA all fly in high res mode.
Good point Hornet. I fly in 1600x1200 with a 21" at home, and can see everything just fine, just about anywhere. However, when I play on my laptop, it is at 800x600 on a much smaller screen, and objects have a tendancy to disappear very easily. For example, a fighter coming right at me (direct cross section) can disappear do to pixel restrictions and the ONLY thing I can see is the icon for it. If we had no icons, or radar, it would be very tough for the low-res, small monitor guys to play very well.
Once the minimum system requirements are upgraded to faster CPU, more RAM, more Video RAM, minimum display resolution, etc. Then would be a good time to think about icon removal / radar reductions etc.
-
Lazs, when I left WB's a blind 90 year old woman could run up a 10 kill sortie in the F6F. It was an easy plane, whether the 6 view was a couple inches off or not you could still easily check your 6 (or I could anyways) and rock and roll in it.
If the 109 needs the 6 view reduced, have at it. It wouldn't bother me in the least, matter of fact it might shake off some the weekend luftwaffles.
;)
-
The AWACS downlink gives you the ability to pick your way through a big fight even when you can't see a single plane. WW2 fighter pilots NEVER had the ability to see this information on a display like that, and what VERBAL information they did receive came at a much lower rate and with much less spatial precision. It's probably the worst aspect of this game, next to the ground vehicle models.
You said it Funked, in-flight radar in a WWII flight sim you might as well be playing playstation.
-
but skybax, there's no way it would ever work without in-plane dar! What on earth are you talking about?
;)
-
Hey fester, would changing the dar as suggested by some in this thread to either no inflight dot or just periodical updates alleviate some of the irritation?
For me it would. I'm just hoping and hoping that HTC will reach a critical mass so that we can have a HA.
-
Ok... no inflight dar but you should have the ability to contact the tower and get info on where, how many and what alt cons are by voice. If that is too dificult then in flight radar seems a good substitute.
hblair.. what does kills have to do with six view. who cares if you would like an artifically bad six view just to make things tougher for ... whoever?
lazs
-
a picture is worth a thousand words.
the picture inflight dar gives is massive complete and infalible
-
"a picture is worth a thousand words" That's it?? a crappy colloquialism is the best arguement for removing dar you can come up with???? Pitiful... prove it. Prove any of the substitututes we have are better than having real vision in 3d and contact with a tower and air controller... Heck, prove that lone wolves hunting half blind cons was realistic.. What are you trying to achieve? you want the result to be less realistic than we have so that single planes have an easier time vultching newbies and people away from their keyboards it would appear. Heck... just get in there and fite em. Who cares if they see ya. kill one that is preoccupied if that dont work for ya.
lazs
-
lazs why are you oposed to radar information being displayed in the tower only?
are you saying you wont be able to find an enemy plane without its red dot or sector bar showing inflight?
that you cant determine where the action is before you takeoff and plan your flight acording to that information?
are you concerned that there is the element of the unknown after you launch that the situation will not be exactly as it was when you left?
will you be unable to comunicate with your fellow team members who just landed or were killed and are in the tower?
will you be unable to ask them for information about the enemy?
what are you worried about?
-
Originally posted by Fester':
what are you worried about?
I think the same can be asked of you.
Why are you so avidly afraid of in flight radar?
Don't cite percieved realism either.
-SW
-
Festerd, please.
The MA is not a HA, nor should it have to be.
The MA is fun, really fun.
I don’t like flying for more than 10 minutes tops before a fight, and knowing were the NME is helps.
You haven’t offered a solution to updating NME activity while in flight.
The way I see it, with no dar info, guys would blitzkrieg through the extreme ends of the country’s map until someone took it upon themselves to get in the dar bunker, check it out, and actually be useful and tell everyone. This would just make vulchfests as guys finally went to a area that was being hit. Considering I’ve been on country channel when you were SCREAMING to stop shooting the hangars at a de-acked field so you could vulch, that might be some of the appeal.
Your asking for cooperation between total strangers for NME recon unless you just land and find out yourself, wasting 15-20 minutes in the process. (and guys scream now cuz they can’t get one player to bring a goon somewhere)
I’d like to see dar changed for being able to “fly under” radar for sneak missions, but I’d have to see a strong argument for eliminating dar in flight TOTALLY, without one helluva solution next to the complaint.
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I think the same can be asked of you.
Why are you so avidly afraid of in flight radar?
Don't cite percieved realism either.
-SW
inflight awacs jstars is totally out of place for a ww2 sim.
there is no two ways about it
-
i want radar info.
i dont want inflight radar info
I proposed that when HQ was destroyed inflight radar/darbars was disabled but tower radar/darbars was operable.
everyone liked this idea because it gives more info than there would be otherwise.
but HTC ignored this compromise it seems
-
Originally posted by Fester':
inflight awacs jstars is totally out of place for a ww2 sim.
there is no two ways about it
Why? It's more in place recieving NO info unless you are on the ground?
I have enough problems finding out what needs to be blown up at field when there's 50 people there... how will this change if you put radar in the tower only.
It won't... you are just doing this so it's easier to jump people and escape to save your streak.
I'm here to dogfight, not play lilly livered hide and go seek in the air.
-SW
-
"All cons clear A5, now where's the fight?"
"Hey guys, where's the Fight"
"whoopee it! Where's the fight!"
"You guys suck, Im switching to Knit"
"Hi Knits!!! Where's the fight?"
"Hello?"
"I quit."
Now THAT's realistic.
-
So, Fester... What was the kill streak up to last night? That damn in flight DAR really worked against you didn’t it?
Zippatuh
-
SWulfe friend:
as it wanted to know how to speak english and not to have to use this damn translator.
It wanted to make see (from my data) many things him that I believe that you have mistaken, like for example its note on the radar in pearl harbour.
It was not an attack with as much surprise as people create, the Japanese notification of attack to the embassy of Japan in the U.S.A. was even deciphered before to the own ambassador japanese. The radar I detect the attack, warning, but measures were not taken nor I watch the route of return of the airplanes to their aircraft carriers. The attack japanese was predicted, but I do not interest that the base was prepared to repel it, that is the real history that you can find you watch where she watches please but, that all we are in favor of one or another option of the fighters of the WWII and for that reason we are due to respect, or paid to our parents the errors committed by its leaders, I request it to all, when somebody begins post we deal with respect the answers.
An affectionate greeting to all
SUPONGO
Spanish:
Amigo SWulfe:
como quisiera saber hablar ingles y no tener que usar este maldito traductor.
Quisiera hacerle ver (desde mis datos) muchas cosas que creo que usted tiene equivocadas, como por ejemplo su nota sobre el radar en pearl harbour.
No fue un ataque con tanta sorpresa como la gente cree, incluso la notificacion de ataque japonesa a la embajada de Japon en los EEUU fue descifrada antes que el propio embajador japones.
El radar detecto el ataque, se aviso, pero no se tomaron medidas ni se miro la ruta de vuelta de los aviones a sus portaaviones.
El ataque japones estaba previsto, pero no intereso que la base se preparase para repelerlo, esa es la historia real que usted puede encontrar mire donde mire.
pero por favor, se que todos somos partidarios de una u otra opcion de los luchadores de la WWII y por eso nos debemos respetar, ya pagaron nuestros padres los errores cometidos por sus dirigentes, se lo pido a todos, cuando alguien comience un post tratemos con respeto las respuestas.
Un saludo afectuoso a todos
SUPONGO
-
Supongo,
There were many reasons that the attack was not intercepted. The biggest ones were chain of command. All I was arguing is that radar picked up the signal from the incoming raid and it was mistaken for a flight of B17Es coming in to land after training. We knew of the attack, but not when. War was not declared on us by Japan until after the attack. The carriers were at sea, but the Japanese believed they were in the port.
There was a lot of old intel floating about on both sides, and a lot of ignorance/arrogance on the American high command side. They did not believe that Japan would attack the United States.
The only difference in the radar we have now is that instead of a person directing us to the bogies and the estimated altitude of the bogies- something we do not currently know- we can look at the map and see where they are.
I do not believe Festerbria or anyone that believes he's right in his assumption understands the altercations that going to a more "realistic" radar brings.
Altitude estimates (currently unknown), vectoring directly to the bogies based on heading, numbers of bogies (even where dots can not be seen currently), and a number of other examples. In the end it leads to getting MORE information than we currently are recieving. Right now we know generally where they are. We don't know at what alt, and sometimes we don't even know if they are already engaged.
People promoting removal of radar for a more realistic approach apparently don't see the connection between the inflight radar we currently have and inflight voice direction radar we could have (realism right?)..
-SW
-
Creamo, what other online simms have you played other than this? Pac-man doesn't count :D. Most of the guys who played warbirds are for some kind of in-tower only radar, or the toning down of what we have. There are some like lazs, SW, deja who lean more towards radar than the others.
Fellas, I'm tired of knocking each other in the head over this issue. I think DJ is really mad at me this time. Too bad, hate that it's gotta be that way.
SW, you mentioned something about us guys who are anti-dar only wanting the ability to to sneak up on people. You know what? You are right. I would like that to be more of a part of the game. Not just so I can sneak up on people, but it's actually more fun to me if I have to check my 6 a lot, to know some joker can sneak up on me, I've gotta be on my toes. It builds situational awareness. I'd like that to be more of a part of the game than it is right now. I have come very close to downloading warbirds and opening an account just to fly in the historical arena. I used to really enjoy that. I didn't do it because I know that I'd be coming back to Aces High. I love this game, but the in-plane radar is something I have despised since the beginning. I remember the very first night of open beta, when the game first rolled out in sept '99. I downloaded it, went online and noticed the in-flight radar. I thought to myself "they'll get that fixed soon, this is just for beta" and there was actually more in-plane radar added a couple months later. Here we are two years later with the same radar. :( I just wish HT and pyro would review this and make some big changes.
SW, DJ, lazs and others who like the radar, I don't have anything against you fellas, lets try to be civil with each other.
-
Hblair, in case you still haven't caught on. I WILL compromise.
I WILL compromise in the concept that I will NOT let in flight radar be removed.
I welcome ideas to improve it. Less frequent updates. Modifications for NOE flight. No dot dar or bar dar 1 1/2 sectors behind enemy lines.
If this is not agreeable with you, then we will never meet half way.
It's simple as that, I do not find removing in flight radar completely agreeable in any way.
-SW
-
Pacman isn't a online game, hardee fuking har.
What I play online is AH. That's what I know, that's what I like. The dar ain't ruining my day, it's making it better.
Id like to see dar changed for being able to “fly under” radar for sneak missions, but I’d have to see a strong argument for eliminating dar in flight TOTALLY, without one helluva solution next to the complaint.[/b]
Be civil, flame, I don't care. Just tell HTC and everyone else what the solution is.
-
Radar shows nothing if you are:
1) Hiding in Ack
2) Above 25 000 feet
3) Flying a "shiny" and therefore stealty plane...
Implement and lock thread..... :D
[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: bigUC ]
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I WILL compromise in the concept that I will NOT let in flight radar be removed.
-SW
Hear that HT?
If you guys were planning on removing in-plane radar, SW will not let it happen.
:D
Seriously SW, give me a hug, I love you man.
-
I will not let that happen in the sense that I will not let in flight radar go without repeatedly posting my concerns until you are completely annoyed with my postings that in flight radar should be in the game.
Sound familiar? It should, you people are doing it incessantly, repeatedly and obnoxiously over and over again.
This was not an open ended discussion, Festerbria posted that he did not like it and left no option for discussion. I will leave no option for discussion either then, I do not want in flight radar removed so you dweebs can simply jump people- simple as that.
-SW
-
inflight radar is kinda quakish.. its a big lead.. to go find the next furball...
IT IS MY OPINION THAT.... if radar were to be removed you. would have more intersting base captures.. and Suprise attacks... Making people spread out.. and Not have some huge gange bang every time you go up..
everyone would try to on a whole, defend their bases with shared resouces.
Inflight radar is a dead give away of what is happening at all times..
Get rid of it.. and the Element of suprise will be more prevailent.
-
hey seawulfe
i agree with you. i dont think it should be gone either but i think less frequent updates, no bar dar 1.5 sectors behind enemy lines, and allowments for noe flight not being on bar dar until in an enemy sector would be grrrreeat.
i would also like to see killing the hq not kill teh dot dar at individual fiields when in the tower (killing hq would disable all in flight dar, but by going to each individual airfield you could still check dar at that field, provided its tower wasn't also down)
compromise is what we need. i think a total absense of inflight radar isnt the answer.
-
Zig, I agree with your ideas. My "compromises" actually came from some of your ideas compiled with a few other people.
The type of inflight radar you propose sounds interesting.
S!
-SW
-
i agree with you. i dont think it should be gone either but i think less frequent updates, no bar dar 1.5 sectors behind enemy lines, and allowments for noe flight not being on bar dar until in an enemy sector would be grrrreeat.
Hmm... 1.5 sectors = about 37 miles. Maybe we could have bar dar be limited to a 35 mile radius around any friendly base or CV. ..and keep the .dar as it is... though less frequent updates are fine (don't really care about them). Maybe NOE flying could remain invisible until 3-5 miles from a field (.dar becomes visible at all alts then too).
The important thing to remember is that the MA is not a war-zone. Nobody is assigned to be on patrol. No advanced inteligence is provided. Nobody is planning at a high level to set up defense grids. Nobody is doing any coordinating of any kind. Each individual is left to do that on his own. There needs to be more tools than simply looking out the windows of a tower.
AKDejaVu
-
I never said I was against any kind of compromise SW, DJ. If having some kinda watered down in-plane version no NOE coverage, hey, it's better than what we got (in my opinion)
BTW, Since DJ's playin hard to get, SW, pucker up big boy!
:p
-
These aren't negotiations. There isn't a "comprimise".
Basically, we discuss alternatives and HTC decides if there is any merit to what we are discussing. The better the presentation on the suggestion, the closer someone will look at it.
That's why there was no real response to the issue after the initial post... but rather after some intelligent rational discussion took place.
AKDejaVu
-
You don't think that if HTC considers the people "pro" radar, and the people "anti" radar, and come up with a solution that satisfies both camps, that soltuion wouldn't be called a compromise?
[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
No Hblair.
Currently we have Dar. There are people that don't want dar. Any change HTC makes will fall somewhere in between by default and does not require a concensus amongst those posting in this thread.
Comprimise involves giving in on something in order to get something. You don't comprimise to make something better. You comprimise to settle for less.
AKDejaVu
-
Uhm.. sorry ..your wrong deja..
heres a stupid anology.... :D
Comprimise is like.. having a friend with you at mcdonalds, and you guys only have 5 bucks. You want a big mac, he wants chicken nuggets.. but you both cant get that because you dont have enuff money.... YOU both like happy meals.. and happy meals are the only thing that will feed the both of ya..for thje amount of money..... so you COMPRIMISE and both share somehting for the common interest of the two of you.
Now apply this to the dumb radar thread and eat macdonlads while flying NOE in a FW190 against an uber N1k :)
-
No.
HT said to me in the MA that he was looking at changes. (ie. changes likely coming down the pike)
So with that in mind, the changes that are being made are what they are probably looking at, wouldn't you think they would devise a plan? Wouldn't you think the plan would be a compromise between much and little dar?
Try to slow down and think more DJ. You are wrong waaay too often now.
;)
-
No hblair.
Do you see HTC participating in these discussions? Do you see them trying to fenagle a dar deal here?
This is simply a feature that can be changed. There is no realism in relation to it. There is no physics model to change. There is only suggestions for improving gameplay. There really isn't anything to comprimise on.
I equate this to any other suggestion that HTC implimented. They are suggestions for improvement in gameplay. If HTC likes them, they impliment them (if possible). The word "comprimise" is very inapropriate.
AKDejaVu
-
--"This is simply a feature that can be changed. There is no realism in relation to it. ""There is no physics model to change."" There is only suggestions for improving gameplay. There really isn't anything to comprimise on.
I equate this to any other suggestion that HTC implimented."
---------------------------------------------
So you think that hitech is wrong for looking into n1k issues? I mean what other n1k issues could they be looking into other than flight? The paint job and details of the plane seem pretty good to me.
I think that the FM is going to also always evolve into somehting that they can create to be more realistic. I am sure that they are always going to look into flight charachteristics and how to improve upon them.
Not just gameplay alone.
-
deezcamp, you must be lost. This thread is about dar not flight models. The two are not interchangeable.
AKDejaVu
-
I was replying to your post you POST(ed) to
Hblair.
understand now?
-
wow.. done with you deezcamp. your ignorance is simply incredible.
AKDejaVu
-
uhm.. yeah you are the Ignorant one here love muffin... I think you need to READ up to your OWN post.. and LOOK to how I replied to it.. Obviously your mind is too simplistic to understand that.
Moron...
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
The word "comprimise" is very inapropriate.
AKDejaVu
Now you're catching on. Try using the word "compromise", it's an actual word, and it is very appropriate here. :)
Generally speaking, a change in the radar settings to satisfy most people in the game could very easily be called a compromise. (whether the almighty deja(who?) approves of it or not)
This is all the arguing over that stupid word I'm going to do. Call your nurse in to roll you over and administer your geritol.
;)
-
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/022461.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/022461.html)
how one finds a fight without inflight radar from those who know.
oddly they think that inflight dar is bad and had it removed from their wb3 arena due to complaints.
I am only against Inflight radar/darbar.
tower darbar/radar can be left as is or changed... i dont care
-
Originally posted by citabria:
so how do you guys in WB find the fight without inflight radar and sector bars?
there are those in AH that feel it is impossible and unrealistic to not have inflight awacs and Jstars in a ww2 sim.
"Eh? I find that odd Cit. The fight is better w/o the AH style DarBars, imo. It is generaly easier to sneak up on your prey without a sector warning to give you away, and it makes vectoring for intercepts (with a bit of help from someone in the tower) a nice experience overall."
------------------
Silo
AVG Flying Tigers
332nd Kokutai "Tatsumaki"
-
Perhaps HT wants to keep AH dumbed down some.
So, you know.....the dumber ones can enjoy
AH as well as we few.
:D
-
Generally speaking, a change in the radar settings to satisfy most people in the game could very easily be called a compromise.
It could very easily be called anything you want h(no witty modifications)blair. That doesn't mean it would be right.
Like I said... HTC is not bargaining. They are not waiting for us to reach a consensus. They are simply watching for good ideas to impliment.
They've said in the past they are thinking about changing some aspects of the dar. Not "comprimising".. "changing". They don't maintain that theirs is the end all be all of kneeboards and any change would deter from that. They aren't here arguing to keep dar the way it is. They are just looking for suggestions that would improve things in the arena.
There is no deal working. There is no mutual give and take. There is no comprimising the product.
Done with that hblair. If you are really going to continue on.. I'd have to say it was more to be provoking than anything else.
AKDejaVu
-
Does this mean we're buddies again?
-
LOL Hblair you crack me up bud ;). Well, I may as well post in this monster of a thread just to have my own opinions down forever and ever.
I like dar the way it is, for the most part. I get bounces on folks all the time, and I get bounced to. I don't really use the map to check for people that are gonna bounce me, I use my Hat-switch neck and check my 6 every 5-6 seconds. I also run a quick circle to see if I can find someone else.
I don't think the removal of dar would make it that much easier to bounce someone, in other words. However, it would make it a helluva lot tougher to find a fight, unless you ventured to the tower and looked for a minute or so to determine where bogies are, what their heading is, etc, etc. I don't think that would be very fun to be honest, and I prefer the inflight "super awacs map" because I can do all that while I'm climbing to intercept them.
Plane icons- I think that the plane icons really are necesary, for the reasons that some folks have outlined above (i.e. it is a concession to the fact that we can't see as well on monitors as you could in real life), and some other stuff. I know it gets aggravating, and lord knows there are times when I should have lost someone with a move, only to have them spot my "tag" and come after me, but it balances out because I've done the exact same thing.
Things I would like to see changed with the Radar-
1. No dot OR dar bar for enemy planes that are below 500 feet "above ground level". I think that would be MUCH better than the system we have now, where I can look at the red bars forming up by enemy fields and know something is up. I KNOW the British could do that in the Battle of Britain, but it is just corny ;). I'm pretty much happy with the rest of it, to be honest.
2. I wouldnt mind seeing the "dot dar" refresh every 5 seconds as opposed to continously, I think that is a very good idea. Plus it will give NOE fliers a chance to "disappear" if they venture above the radar level by accident. I KNOW that it disapears now, but with the system we have now you can also track the direction they are going- and if one disappears I almost always assume he has gone below 500 feet, and stayed in the direction he was going.
-
for an ma with fields so far apart and so many of em.... I like the dar just the way it is. It IS the "comprimise" between realisticly hunting around for hours and having a good time.
no one likes to get to a field and find that there are 20 defenders there no or that there are only.... none... both are boring. even in flight dar doesn't eliminate it but it's way better to have the info in flight than to not. talk about frustrating!
But I will comprimise... get rid of dar bars for ground vehicles.... or at least make em a different shape or something. that is a step toward the allmighty "realism" gawd eh?
Anyone who doesn't fly finger fours on assigned missions in the MA has NO frigging business telling me what is or isn't realistic or "historical" about anything other than FM's or damage or gunnery in the ma.
the topper is tho that festabria plays a certain way... his way of flying is very unrealistic for WWII air combat and VERY few people would enjoy flying that way. He is trying to make the arena more compatible with his "style" of flying and beating the "realism" drum so that he can continue to fly unrealisticly in a more efficient manner.
lazs
-
If you want it like WB, go play WB.
-SW
-
I didn't read any of the posts in this thread.....I just wanted to add that I like donuts!
Cobra
-
So you think everybody who wants tower only dar oughta get lost?
Who'll be your CO then?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by hblair:
So you think everybody who wants tower only dar oughta get lost?
Why copy what another game already does? Doesn't make sense to have two games that are identical... now does it?
Originally posted by hblair:
Who'll be your CO then?
F U! Curly has been my CO for 3 years. Our squadron isn't so fickle that radar will tear us apart.
-SW
-
My 2 cents:
I come from WB, and although I liked the lack of radar information there (it was fun to act as GC from time to time...especially when they went flat rate), I have to admit that inflight radar doesn't spoil the game too much for me.
I just want to point out some things:
1) Inflight radar rarely helps to find a fight: if you take off without checking your map while in tower, chances are that the way to the action will be a looooooong one.
2) Most fights happen near fields, and aren't difficult to find 'visually' unless you've taken off from far away. Besides, squad/country mates can give you updates (they have interest in this if they want to see reinforcements arrive on the scene quickly). If the fight is finished before you arrive (field capture), in most case you'll have to land to go to the next big fight (maybe on the other side of the map). Again you may ask on country channel.
3) Inflight radar will help when arena has a low attendance.
If you ask me, HTC can let it the way it is. I'm used to it now.
IF I had any decision role in the radar settings, I would suggest this:
- Tower: BAR deep into nme territory (3-4 sectors), relative to alt. DOT info available at 1/2 BAR range. No BAR/DOT info if low (< 300 ft), until close to the field. Same for VH (it's useless to have BAR info on nme GV beyond the spawning point anyway...)
- Inflight: BAR info in your sector and in the 8 adjacent sector IF you are into friendly radar coverage/conditions. Same for DOT, with low refresh rate (min 10 sec). No DOT info for planes inside a 3K bubble around you (the GC has a hard time discerning you from foes/buddies).
Thanks for your time,
de Selys
Airman
332nd Flying Mongrels
PS: (For AKDejaVu's eyes only) I also want KILLSHOOTER turned off :p
Honestly, I was just training to shoot at you as you're switching country soon...
<S>
-
people have mentioned how inflight radar helps the newbie find the enemy and get kills.
it may speed up their finding the enemy but they wont be getting kills from it.
9 times out of 10 if you have a newbie vectoring in on you they will most likely be killed trying to kill you because you saw them on inflight radar too.
like it or not the new players first kills in any mmp sim are from targets that did not see them in time to evade their fire.
yep the bounce.
inflight radar is a crutch that only helps the people who have played for a while find the fight and get kills.
it helps the newbie find the bad guys but it hurts his chances of killing them
-
hiya all:
I did not read this whole thread, but some of it.
as for visable range been 6K, yeah you can see another plane from 6K. when I was skydiving, we could see danm far from way up there, and a plane that was 6K away, we could see. Now we could not make out the plane as it is here. but you could still see a plane out there. hell on one jump I made when I was down in Florida, I was able to see the Alantic ocean one way, turn 180 degrees and see the Gulf of Mexico. Now I know that a body of water is much, much, much bigger then a plane, but it does give you ian idea.
Imean if you really want it to be as real as possable, it is the wheather that will make a diferance in the distance of visablty. on a grey cloudy day, you might not see that other plane till it is only 1K away. but on a perfect day, you can see that dot 10K or maybe a father away.
But all that aside, I think the crew at HTC's have done a great job to make it good for all that play. remember, if the newbies can'nt find the fighting, they will not stay and the game will slowly die off. and the only way I can think of making as real as it was. Is to wait till we have vertual reallity helments of some kind. so that when you turn your head, you see what is over that way as well as the helments shield like screen is only two or three inch's from your nose, so it can be made to look as real as possable for a flight sim. I think.
But the icons are needed to help the new people out or they wont stay. and if the new people dont stay, the game will die. the icons are needed if the game is to grow.
well that is what I think on the topic of icons.
-
Good point fester... it leads them to the slaughter...
Maybe thats what their after though.. :( :D
-
Fester,
You kill us experienced folks 9+ out of 10 times. I think you are too far removed to have a clue what newbies are thinkin.
Last night I saw a bish 109, that was 125 miles from the nearest bish base, circle an empty base for 5 minutes, then dive into the ack and compress straight into the ground.
I assumed, he was a newbie. Even with Dar he couldn't find the enemy.
I bet we would see this from all newbies quite often with less dar info.
Newbie or old time junkie, most folks want to get into a scrap - now!
Live or die,
Ho or fight,
All's well as long as the sweat on my palms doesn't dry.
eskimo