Hardcore Arena

[jimson]

Give it up Karnak. These fools are the AvA hijackers that were brainwashed by nrraven and the IL2 converts that have a never-failing pretentious belief that no-icons is the only thing that is realisitc, despite facts, details, historic accounts modern accounts, etc. These are the people that repeatedly turn to insults. The ONLY defense they have is to say "you are less of a person if you don't advocate no-icons" -- and they use this backhanded insult 100% of the time. Even when we've tried to explain the logical fallacy they are using and how this is an insult (even when it's a direct insult) they are so blind they cannot -- literally cannot -- understand they are simply insulting every person that doesn't agree with them. Time and time again many folks on this forum have tried and time and time again they simply ignore it and insult everyone.

And I was NOT exaggerating about IDing plane codes. Many's the time a downed pilot was recognized from a split-second glimpse of his plane, and seeing the codes on it. In a furball, a wild furball with planes zipping around and engaged all around, I've read many accounts where pilots recounted "so and so was up on my right, and I could see what's-his-name on my lower left engaging 2 more, and ahead of me I saw X and Y still in formation, and that's when I saw Z go down without so much as a word" -- this is quite common.

I can see the colors and livery of an airliner flying overhead at 50,000+, but in this game all you can see is a black blob that might vaguely be something with wings. I'm in a residential area that's quite a few miles from a local airport, and under the final approach leg. It's residential, though, so they have to stay a certain altitude up. I can still make out fine details, including oil stains, every detail on landing gears, engines, control surfaces, flaps, the windows, I can see inside the plane if it banks..... All while they're thousands of feet away.

Puma, you're just wrong. Dead flat absurdly wrong. As is Oldman. I'm not talking radar operators that don't know what a plane looks like. I'm talking people that stand in the tower looking out the windows. I'm not making sh** up like you and oldman are. There is actual science at work. The angle of light that hits the eye, the distance of the object, and what details can be distinguished from such things vs pixels on a screen. Somebody even took time to spell out the physics of it on these forums and you AvA hijackers simply ignored it, along with all the first-hand testimonials telling you you're all full of crap. At this point you, Puma, and Oldman, are the equivelant of Gaston and his made-up theories about how flight physics work... booed out of every forum because he religiously believes in things which defy physics, but he proclaims to be correct.

Also, you have absolutely NO right to call Karnak an elitist nor claim he's throwing out insults. EVERY time this conversation comes up the ONLY response from the "AvA vocalists" is to back-handedly insult people by saying you are better than everyone else because you play with no icons. You use key words and catch phrases to cloak your meanings but every time, without fail, you elitists (and that's not an insult, it is the definition of what you are doing) insult every other person no matter how inaccurate your stance or how wrong you are. You jump out of your chair to RALLY to oldman's side because oldman makes an absurd comment: "How do you know? All those guys are dead!" -- without stopping to consider the simply obvious response: Not the guys that shot them down. Not their wingmen. Not everybody else in the battle.

Ink, you're clouding the issues. Simply because you don't think it happened doesn't negate the fact that it happened. Many of Hartman's kills weren't aware he was right behind them. He would often go into a fight right behind an enemy plane, and he recounted "You had to get close, then closer, and closer still, until you thought you might hit" and he was known for firing off just 1 or 2 cannon rounds directly into an occupied P-51's radiator, because he knew that was a sure critical hit for the P-51. That plane would not make it back to base. In 5 minutes it would go down, regardless.

You're also totally clouding historic facts with your own game experiences. No way somebody looking for the enemy isn't going to be looking around? What? Do you even know anything how WW2 combat worked? Squadrons would form up, climb out, have to stay in formation, follow course changes, meet target destinations on a map, all the while spending hours in the air. They didn't know where the enemy was. The enemy could (and often was) already up and looking for them. Through sheer luck one of them will spot the the other first. The vast majority of engagements in WW2 air combat were one group attacking the other unsuspectingly. After that attack (usually after some are shot down) then they know the enemy are there... Usually they would dive away and return home afterwards, and that was the end of their "combat" for the day.

They didn't up a plane, start spraying ammo as soon as they were wheels up, fly for 5 minutes with a death wish, instantly know where the enemy furball was because they had already died in it and knew where it was, and they didn't have 15-20 years of flight experience like Aces High pilots often do. Further, you saying "there's no way they did that, because I don't do that" isn't even a valid argument. You are not them. You want to know how much flight training on-type the Soviet pilots got on the LaGG and Yak-1? 2 hours if they were lucky. 2 hours of flight training and then thrown into combat. They didn't even have combat schools. What they were teaching was how to do the math and how to navigate, and how to operate a high-tech engine system, and what lift is, to people that barely knew what an automobile was. Any combat training they got was sink or swim, or if they happened to get into 1 or 2 units that might already have a smart ace there who takes it upon himself on his own time to teach his fellow pilots. US training was better, but still not good. They trained pilots in the art of flying. They learned how to control their aircraft in all situations... But they didn't know how to teach combat tactics -- not like you might in the DA. You are totally framing the entire debate on your in-game experience. That's just now how it was in WW2.

As for you "They would SEE" -- well no matter how much you wish they would, they didn't. Even later on during Vietnam there's a famous incident where a flight of F-4s were heading home after a sortie and literally passed head-on through a formation of F-4s flying the other way. One one pilot saw it, it was in the blink of an eye. What with radar and all, it shouldn't have happened according to you.

P.S. WW1 pilots scarves were to wipe their goggles, because the engines used castor oil lubricant and it threw oil all over the pilot's face through the normal course of operating. I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to aviation history man. Your constant fanaticism againt AH icons further reinforces that notion.

Also, Saxman is quite correct. Icons do not mean you do any less work. Camo does not mean a plane in real life goes unspotted. Camo was stationary to protect a plane from attacks while it was parked. A moving target is vastly easier to see, especially aircraft. The human eye instinctively reacts to motion -- even the slightest of motion. Camo is shattered if the object moves. The belief that "oh, that's why camo was on planes in WW2, because they had no icons!" is absurd. Yet, it is a repeating theme from the AvA hijackers. It's all based on ingnorance of how things work in the real world.



Let me put this in a way that you AvA vocalists would put it.... Maybe YOU are all so obsessed with icons because YOU can't fly by looking at the plane. Maybe you see a neon sign and that grabs your attention like a mag-pie so you can't focus on the target itself? I know *I* don't look at the icon outside of the plane type. I know *I* don't use it for maneuvering and killing. I use it to ID the plane and get rough distance, then once I track the plane I'm barely looking at the icon. In fact I don't even notice it, since I'm looking too closely at the plane itself. So maybe you all just suck because I'm so much better at focusing my attention than you?


Yes... that's about how the AvA lot would phrase it.

You are judging a lot of people by the actions of one and that one was appealing to a sense of challenge to players. It may have rubbed people the wrong way, but that's what it was.

Why do you constantly demean players by suggested the worst possible motive?

Can't you just accept that some people like different things than you do?

Here are the facts.

Yes, no icons isn't realistic but some people like the way it looks and feels. They think it has a more realistic look to it and that big bright icons is an immersion killer. No, they aren't looking for an advantage, otherwise they would only want everyone else to not see icons, not the same thing for all.

I've been up in planes, most recently with Puma. I saw another plane in the air. I don't know exactly what distance but it wasn't all that far. I could tell it was a white one. That's all.

Puma is a retired air force and a current commercial pilot. Oldman has a ton of hours as a private pilot, and you think you are qualified to tell them they are dead wrong?

At least qualify it as different opinions, instead of speaking authoritively.

[kvuo75]

listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.

[bustr]

At some point in the future we will play games in a 3D format rather than 2D fooling our eyes into seeing 3D. At that point distant objects will be rendered as 3D with 3D light response standing them out as independent elements. This is how we are able to see aircraft at 5miles in real life and some of us even tell the difference between a 150 or 172 at that distance. When I was young and had good eyes, I could. But, back then I looked at a lot of them every weekend and had that advantage.

Until then, AH is not optimized for showing distant objects or anything very clearly moving 100mph+ past about 400 yards. That's why it's so easy to turn down the ambient lighting in the AvA and most visitors can never see anyone below the horizon. And in some cases even against the weather\sky setup for that evening. Past 400 you are tracking some shade of grey to black at distance while loosing them into the ground dots and low lighting that seems to be the AvA hallmark.

I don't visit the AvA because the lighting is always turned down making seeing the grey and black images and dots past 400 unrealistic. Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots. WW2 was not fought on only poor weather days or exclusively at dawn and dusk. The lighting and terrain choices are someone choosing to make a graphics engine not optimized for no Icon worse than it has to be. Rather than work with it to provide an enjoyable experience for more than themselves.

I'm not the only MA player who has mentioned in casual conversation this as a primary turn off and why they won't attend future offerings in the AvA.

May I suggest you find in the MA an average player with the worst possible computer and video card. Then adjust the AvA no-Icon conditions until that player can happily chase around with in reason. Once you have that, then ask MA players to come back and give you an opportunity to see how they like it. If your goal is being part of the general player community friendly offerings that we pay $14.95 to support?

Other wise, is Krusty that far off in his observations about what motivates the AvA current staff? Your "foot traffic" would tend to speak louder than most of your responses since taking over the "AvA Bar and Grill". One might say the AvA is the largest personal custom arena in the game that seems to have wandered out of the custom arena sub menu and lost it's password protection.

[earl1937]

How could you possibly know this?  Those guys are dead.




Well I beg to differ with them.  Spotting other planes is not easy, PARTICULARLY if you don't have the traffic devices that airlines and military aircraft now have to clue you into where you should look to see the target.  Heck, we have passive TCAS on the Saratoga and I still have trouble picking planes out of the sky, even when I know where to look.  Was talking to one of Philadelphia's ATC people, a very nice and pretty lady who was also a pilot.  She said that when the ATC people took rides in real aeroplanes, the thing that most surprised them was how difficult it was to see other planes.  They're used to seeing the radar, of course, and we are not far removed in this game.  No-icons in AH is pretty close to real life, so far as I'm concerned.

- oldman

I agreed whole heartly with your statement! The one statement that I have not seen so far is this: When an aircraft is on your same altitude, that is the hardest aircraft to get a visual handle on. They blend in with the horizon and it is very, very difficult to see them, especially if they are showing their head on view to you.

[Puma44]

I don't visit the AvA because the lighting is always turned down making seeing the grey and black images and dots past 400 unrealistic. Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots. WW2 was not fought on only poor weather days or exclusively at dawn and dusk. The lighting and terrain choices are someone choosing to make a graphics engine not optimized for no Icon worse than it has to be. Rather than work with it to provide an enjoyable experience for more than themselves.

Actually, the lighting is not "always turned down".  That is a generalization based on what I'm guessing is a very infrequent visit to the AvA, and now used as an inaccurate and unfair "always" to berate the arena.  On occasion there is a setup, that is based on poor weather conditions like those sometimes experienced in WWII.  Using your logic and lack of facts, one could say that FSOs, SEAs, etc aren't worth participating in because of the clouds and poor weather that is "always" present.

[Arlo]

A 'hardcore' arena should at least have sound files that tell a player something like "Oh baby, I love the way your big cannon penetrates my tail section."

[Puma44]

listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.

Absolutely correct, you are, sir.  Quite often the visual is picked up at much greater distances, and sometimes at much shorter distances, for instance at the merge with a mere 1,000 feet of assigned altitude separation.  All is of course dependent on weather, light magnitude/angles, visual acuity of individual pilots, bugs and dirt on the windshield/windows, etc, etc.  So, with all of theses factors affecting the environment, pilots just plain deal with it in the most safe and efficient manner possible vs its "always" hazy around the D.C. area so, I'm not going to go in there.   

[bustr]

Come to think of it. The old man was always yelling at me for not seeing the one at distance in the horizon. I could always see them as a child through teen age at 5miles either a bit higher or a bit lower. They just looked like something that didn't belong there. Then all of a sudden my brain registered the type. I got an arse chewing for calling them bandits instead of type. Watched too much 12 O'clock High.

He always said the horizon acted as a blind spot. But, I always found all white dominant paint scheme planes stood out better against the horizon then heavily colored aircraft. Blue ones were a nightmare to spot on low light days. Also it was easier to see them if they were parallel or offline to your line of travel. I knew a lot of kids who's fathers took them along besides hoping they would want to get a ticket some day, their eyesight.

Kids tended to see those tiny specs sooner once you got them involved with the idea they were part of the flying process by finding every single one of them. At least that's what we kids talked about when our dads were taking pit stop leaks at their favorite airfields on weekends. BWI or Ft. Mead to Lancaster got your dad really curt talking to you by the time you were walking towards the nearest facility. When he was younger Kelley to Ft. Worth was easier.

Texas seemed hazier than Maryland and tended to swallow up distant dots in that haze. On the other hand on clear days from Hokkaido you could see Sakhalin 26 miles away and the occasional patrol planes that worked the area past 5mils out to sea. On clear days here near San Francisco from a view spot half the way up Mt. Tamalpais. You can see 50ft whale watching boats 10 - 12 miles out heading for the Farallon islands 23 miles off shore Or 25ft sport boats.

Lots of factors affect being able to see aircraft at distance. Including your age, geographic region, weather, time of day and eyesight. Aces High with it's haze reminds me of flying in Texas when my father was stationed at Kelley in 65. Wish our haze was a lot more like Hokkaido.

In this game somebody is choosing what we see. And I think no matter where in the AH world you are. It's hazy Texas. 

[jimson]

Along with terrain tiles chosen to kill any ability to see the motion of a single grey or black dot against a sea of grey and black dots.

Here is another perfect example of unfair misinformation. You ascribing some nefarious motive to the choice of terrain tiles. Ranger started using custom tiles because they look nice and it never had anything to do with icons.

The arena does not always have turned down lighting. I know, because I often run a CAVU sky, I have also heard from more than one person that black dots stick out better against gray than bright blue, but that's more matter of opinion I don't care to get into

You keep bringing up foot traffic as though we would have a full arena if we only listened to you.

How many times do you have to be told that running full icons doesn't work either? The arena died out long before anyone ever touched the icon settings and you refuse to acknowledge that.

We have tried nearly every combination that can be thought of, including turning full icons back on, to increase the population.

My latest focus is the staged missions. We can be really creative with that and then when people come to play, there will always be something to do in there. By the way, during the tests I ran Tuesday, I saw several unfamiliar players and heard not one negative comment about the no enemy icons.

Another thing I can say is that during the building of staged missions when testing for timing of events etc, I often have to turn off ALL icons because with formations, they block out the sky and prevent me from seeing when opposing fighters first come into view.

One more thing I will add is if we get the ability to load a series of staged missions to automatically launch every hour or every 30 minutes and it includes the ability to alternate icon settings I will sure use it.

That way, there will be something for everyone.

Finally, We do work with groups.

If you just can't stand the fact that we have enemy icons off in the AvA arena, then pick a night per week (other than Tuesday, that's going to be staged mission night) and bring us a bunch of players. We just might be willing to set the arena up per your specifications. In the past year or so, we have done just that for 2 different groups on Thursday night, but those nights died out too.

[Charge]

Friendly icons only, works like a charm.

-C+

[Oldman731]

listen to an approach frequency at a good sized airport for any amount of time during decent weather, and hear atc point out traffic ~5 miles, pilots spotting that traffic and getting cleared for visual approach following the traffic. its not some impossibility, it's done constantly.

Kvuo, your illustration reinforces our point:  ATC guidance is often required for the pilots to spot the plane they're supposed to follow.  Controllers tell us where to look, and if we look long enough we can pick out the plane.  The WWII Online's system Colmbo mentioned mimics this.  Also, from the tower's position most aircraft are above the horizon, and even in a no-icons arena, planes above you are usually easy to spot.  From a pilot's viewpoint, though, much of the traffic is either co-alt or below the horizon, and those planes are much harder to pick out - just as in a no-icons arena. 

One other matter:  Bustr's and Zoney's complaints about an AvA "elitist" attitude refer to an earlier time, an earlier AvA "generation," if you will, typified by yours truly.  That generation has largely departed, and certainly we're no longer in control of the arena in any way.  The new folks, Jimson, Puma, USRanger, Jaeger1 and the rest, work very hard to be non-judgmental (and have really been busting their humps for a few months on this staged mission business).  I don't mind taking the heat for the past, but you shouldn't be blaming current staff and participants for the sins of others.

- oldman

[Karnak]

Friendly icons only, works like a charm.

-C+

If only it were that simple.  It isn't thought.

One other matter:  Bustr's and Zoney's complaints about an AvA "elitist" attitude refer to an earlier time, an earlier AvA "generation," if you will, typified by yours truly.  That generation has largely departed, and certainly we're no longer in control of the arena in any way.  The new folks, Jimson, Puma, USRanger, Jaeger1 and the rest, work very hard to be non-judgmental (and have really been busting their humps for a few months on this staged mission business).  I don't mind taking the heat for the past, but you shouldn't be blaming current staff and participants for the sins of others.

Is that why I was attacked the other week when I made a non-confrontational post in there the other week?  Sorry, but this is pure wishful thinking on your part.  I was there at the start and it was different back then, it was better.  Then others took over and it became elitist and hostile to the rest of the players and anybody who didn't agree with them was chased off.  I don't know how many times management of the AvA has been changed since, but the elitist, hostile attitude and sheer disdain for the rest of AH's players is still powerfully present in the AvA.

[jimson]

If only it were that simple.  It isn't thought.
Is that why I was attacked the other week when I made a non-confrontational post in there the other week?  Sorry, but this is pure wishful thinking on your part.  I was there at the start and it was different back then, it was better.  Then others took over and it became elitist and hostile to the rest of the players and anybody who didn't agree with them was chased off.  I don't know how many times management of the AvA has been changed since, but the elitist, hostile attitude and sheer disdain for the rest of AH's players is still powerfully present in the AvA.

Well, there have been times when your posts were confrontational. Accusing us of a bias because we thought certain Spitfires or the Brewster would be too dominate in a particular setup.

Just as we have apparently been assigned an elitist reputation, there are some players that have a reputation for being quite hostile to us.

There have been times that you made constructive suggestions to improve historical accuracy that we felt would retain a balance and those suggestions were implemented.

I'm sorry you were subjected to a comment that was to the effect of "why does it matter to someone who never plays in the arena anyway?"

There is some lasting bitterness over being insulted and raked over the coals over the icon issue, then turning them back on for 8 months and seeing that the ones who were the loudest and most nasty about it still never entered the arena.

but... I'd rather light a candle then curse the darkness, so all of you who hate what we are doing, get together and bring us a bunch of players on a particular night and we will set the arena up just for you so that you can enjoy it too.

[Karnak]

Well, there have been times when your posts were confrontational. Accusing us of a bias because we thought certain Spitfires or the Brewster would be too dominate in a particular setup.

The people running the AvA have had, for years, a demonstrated contempt for the RAF, Spitfires in particular, while being detail oriented about German and American units.  It seems as though balance is not so often sought as a predetermined outcome that is acceptable to the Luftwaffe fans that dominate the AvA and when this is challenged we're told it is for "balance".  Sometimes it is, but there are other times when it is blatantly not.

Just as we have apparently been assigned an elitist reputation, there are some players that have a reputation for being quite hostile to us.

You guys started the hostility.  I was there at the start when it was called CT and there was no hostility.

There have been times that you made constructive suggestions to improve historical accuracy that we felt would retain a balance and those suggestions were implemented.

I acknowledge those times, such as the recent Dieppe setting.  I, however, greatly dispute that the 1942 Spitfire Mk IX is balanced against the Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9, against which you guys have repeatably set it in 1945 scenarios in the apparently uneducated (remember, Spitfire knowledge is verboten/dirty) idea that a Spitfire Mk IX is a Spitfire Mk IX and since you see many Spitfire Mk IXs in the RAF order of battle for 1944 and 1945 it is appropriate.  The apparently persistent refusal to understand that saying "Spitfire Mk IX" is similar to saying "Bf109G" in terms of how precisely that identifies the expected performance is irritating to any RAF fan who would like to fly against their historical opponents rather than the all vs all of the MA.  The RAF fans don't want to be functionally saddled with a war weary cast off from 1942 while their Luftwaffe opponents come at them in kites that are 50mph faster with a climb rate 1000fpm higher.  It isn't fun because it isn't the historical match up we want when we think about RAF vs Luftwaffe.  Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-5?  Bring it on.  Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9? I'll pass, thanks.

I'm sorry you were subjected to a comment that was to the effect of "why does it matter to someone who never plays in the arena anyway?"

Every time I go to play in the AvA it has literally 0 players in it.  You can hardly blame me for not jumping in to play by myself.

There is some lasting bitterness over being insulted and raked over the coals over the icon issue, then turning them back on for 8 months and seeing that the ones who were the loudest and most nasty about it still never entered the arena.

Sorry.  You guys damaged your "brand" and we're at fault?

but... I'd rather light a candle then curse the darkness, so all of you who hate what we are doing, get together and bring us a bunch of players on a particular night and we will set the arena up just for you so that you can enjoy it too.

I don't have that option.  Sorry.  I can bring myself though, if you can suggest a time when there are players in the AvA.

[Vinkman]

I'd like to keep pointing out that again most are arguing the wrong point.  The issue is not whether the eye sees better than the game. It's who much visual acuity is required for best/realistic game play.

What's realistic? The answer should include the statistical probability that you would miss a camo airplane when looking down from 18K ft above the bandit. Without Icon that probability is 70% if I'm looking at a camo 109. But probably only 30% if I'm looking at a shiny P-38L.  

With ICON the answer is ZERO % In real life was the probability ZERO? If not then Icon are over kill that affect game play by making to too easy to spot aircraft. That affects strategy and tactics and makes for less realistic attack scenarios.

In Real life was it 70% for the 109? Maybe that's too high.  This discussion needs to drop the snobbery and hidden-agenda-conspiracies and focus on how to improve the visual system to allow a little more "realism" in terms of game play.