Test Questions on visual "Realism"

[AKHog]

Originally posted by Toad:
Now these are for pilots with 20/20 vision.

Opps didnt see that  .

-AKHog

[Vulcan]

Gotta be E) and E) for me.

Some of us have "sharpened" non-binocular vision  

[715]

I'm a little confused why you are focusing on tail numbers.  I don't think anyone who favors an iconless arena thinks it would work at all except in a historical configuration- i.e. all planes of a certain type are enemy, all of other types are friends.  So if you are in a Spitfire and you see an Me-109 you try to shoot it down and you know that other Spitfires you see will help you.  I don't think anyone would expect you to read tail numbers before deciding to fire on a plane.

There is no doubt that computer monitors cannot make an image as clear as real life, but one must consider the amount of departure from reality: iconless, where it is somewhat harder than real life to identify targets or icon- where all planes trail a 400 ft tall neon sign.  I think both should be available- I doubt that any of those who want an iconless arena would want that to be the sole choice.  I flew often in the icon free historical arena of Warbirds- it was an entirely different experience from an iconed arena.  The intensity level was much higher, SA was extremely important as was communication and cooperation, and it was possible to bounce targets (or get bounced) by surprise.  There was occasional confusion as to which dots were enemy- but you could often tell from their behavior and flight path.  Besides, confusion as to which planes were enemy happened in real life (unfortunately) so it's part of 'realism'.

I think the main problem with iconless arenas is that they have to be historically based- axis vs allies, and that's a tad politically incorrect.

[Toad]

715,

I think we would both agree on what constitutes the "heart" of WW2 ACM.

It has to be the visual cues, doesn't it? Without visual cues there can be no "visual only" guns solution right?

So this isn't about "focusing on tail numbers" at all.

This is about the accuracy of visual cues that any "guns only" game should afford its players. (Missiles and track/shoot radar would change the WW2 ACM equation, agreed?)

In short, these two questions give us a chance to see if we, the players, even have a clue of what we SHOULD be able to see at what range.

Apparently, most of us don't know because not many players have the confidence to go ahead and post an answer. There's no penalty here; you don't lose playing privileges if you're wrong.    

There is an idea out there among some players that, no matter what, more difficulty means more "realism". Making something harder is making it more realistic.

This area of visual cues and detail is one of those areas and those people are unfortunately incorrect.

Given the limitations of PC hardware, for the most part the visual cues given by the aircraft themselves in these games are ALREADY significantly less informative and thus "harder" than real life.

I have never said there wasn't room to experiment with other types, sizes, colors, ranges, etc. of icons.

I have repeatedly said that the aircraft alone do not provide realistic visual cues.

In a game, assume you see a planform of an aircraft at range "X" and at this range the monitor cannot provide the detail to tell you if he is belly-up to you or canopy-up to you.

Yet in RL this exact same aircraft at this exact same range would provide more than sufficient visual detail and cues to provide that information.

So then the game programmer adds some type of artificial visual cue (call it an icon) to tell you the plane is, say, canopy up.

Which is more real, more correct? To program the game w/o such an icon or with it?

Which would result in a more true to life opportunity to solve the ACM equation?

As I said, the whole point of this thread is to give you an honest opportunity to see if you really know what you should be seeing.

It's not the numbers we're focusing on... it's the detail of the visual cues the aircraft alone provides. What should you be able to see and at what range?

So go ahead, take a shot at it.    

[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[715]

OK.  Sorry, I understand now.  It's just a point of reference.

Again, however, I agree there is no doubt the computer cannot give as good visual cues as real life: I can easily distinguish the difference between F18s and Harriers that fly over my lab at distances way beyond a mile or two.  In AH at 1 mile the target is essentially a single pixel.  Nevertheless, I still enjoyed the HA in WB way more than the MA.  With the neon sign it is impossible for anyone to bounce anyone else without being detected.  It's a matter of taste and it would be nice if both sides had an arena to choose from (iconed and iconless).

[Toad]

Originally posted by 715:
Again, however, I agree there is no doubt the computer cannot give as good visual cues as real life....

...It's a matter of taste and it would be nice if both sides had an arena to choose from (iconed and iconless).

That is the point. If you truly want "realism" (the word that launched a thosand ships   ) then some sort of icon system is mandatory at this stage of PC technology.

As to the second comment, yes, it IS a matter of choice.

However, the choice is not between "levels of realism". The choice is between artificially imposed levels of difficulty. Because, again, at this stage of PC technology, no icons is a level of difficulty, not a level of realism.

[Nifty]

I wanna know the answers!    I'm not patient enough to wait on everyone else to answer!  Email 'em to me, please!    nifty23@home.com

[Minotaur]

TOAD;

I have thought along the same lines as you since forever.  IMO will just not happen under current technology.

We need technology that corrects two essential things:

1) Disengage the mechanics of our fingers pressing buttons to simulate the movement of our heads and eyes.  Skill at "Head Movement" and obtaining the correct view becomes almost the most important skill in the game.

2) Force feedback controls that paralell the operation of those in a real aircraft.  The "Spring Return to Center" technology is a quantum leap for the controls of the era.

[StSanta]

C'mon give us the answers. I'll check this thread one more time, getting sick of no results.  

So, you'll miss making yer point if ya do not give me the answers  

[Toad]

Come on Santa.

Show some ...er... brass.

I think a lot of you guys want the answers without making a guess.

With all the "realism" talk  I really had expected some of the more vocal "no icon" and "too easy" types to rise to the challenge.

I'm coming to the realization that apparently NOBODY has a clue here.

So all this talk really HAS been unsupported speculation on the part of people who have read a few books and now know just how it is supposed to be?

Please, please... prove me wrong.

Where are the brave lads who've "told us how it REALLY was"?  TAC, a big-time no icons guy has critqued me but he won't take a guess. What's up with that?   Where are DeeZ and B52Charlie? They've both been posting for less "gameplay concessions" and more "realism". Do they know what to ask FOR?  

I expected more particpation than this!

What are you guys afraid of?

Take a guess!

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Toad]

Here's another way of asking.

I've got my AH video set to 1280x1024 32 Bit.

I went offline and flew off the wing of Superfly's orbiting P-51.

The P-51 has a real big "P" on the vert stab and standard serial numbers under that on the tail.

Around 240 feet I could see the serial numbers well enough to tell they were numbers. (Default view, no zoom)

Is this correct, that is, is it realistic? Does it correlate to the T-38 (the numbers would be about the same size).

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[DmdNexus]

Every plane I've ever seen has had numbers on it.

Why have numbers on airplanes if they were not ment to be read?

They are painted large for a reason - to see them from a far distance.

What are the FAA traffic rules: 1000 feet lateral and 500 feet vertical separation between planes?

So I would guess those numbers should be readible from at least 1000 feet.

Time's up Toad - give us an answer - I too am getting tired wanting for this answer.

Nexus

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]

[Toad]

OK, here you go:

The answer to BOTH questions is 1000 Feet. These two references are simply used to keep the wingman in "trail". Just stay in a 60 degree cone aft and within a 1000' using them.

My point here is NOT AH specific; this technology/programming situation occurs in all the online ACM games. AH at least gives you a useful variable "zoom" to compensate, one way to attempt to balance the ACM equation.

There are a few ways to check this out in AH. It's probably easiest to do it offline. In general, I think you'll find that you have to get within about 275-300 feet of an aircraft in AH to see the visual cues that you'd see at 1000 feet in RL. (Again, not a complaint about AH; it's typical for these games.)

Think that doesn't change the ACM equation from real life?

I waited a week to see who amongst our famous "harder is real-er" posters would even venture to guess.

The answer to that question is NONE of them.

I'm forced to assume they have absolutely no idea about what they should see in terms of visual cues.

Which doesn't surprise me in the least.  

[AKDejaVu]

Well supported/defended point Toad <S>.

Now.. how big do those numbers look at night?  

AKDejaVu

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]

[DmdNexus]

Thanks Toad...  


DejaVu,

They glow in the dark - everyone knows that  
 
Nexus

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]