Hi Illo, >I think question is more about attitude than skill. Are you gaming the game. Or do you want fly sim(represent RL situations as closely as possible) As both sides claim their version to be the more realistic one, this shouldn't be an attitude question. It should be entirely possible to arrive at a clear answer what's most realistic based on real-world facts alone. It's the "no icon" side, however, that evades a factual discussion. The "no icon" crowd has actually failed to bring up any evidence supporting the realism of the abbreviated icon ranges, and never even tried to answer the critical question for the resolution of the human eye that is the most important factor determining visual range. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
I say its realistic because in ww2 usually except west front high alt Buff battles/BoB 10km flights enemy planes were usually spotted under 3km. Many books i have read commonly describe noticing enemy planes under 1 km range. Especially when fight is low alt. Many ww2 stories also tell about confusing own and enemy plane even if pilot is knowing current plane types. Galland was almost shot down this way. Also some finnish pilots had bad feelings after they shot down bomber and they had to check nationality markings from wreck. I just told in another thread how illu juutilainen spotted i-16 hardly from 150 meters against lake surface. Also in real life they coudnt cound their lead to other aircraft from icon...if plane wasa under their cowling they didnt see it. We still see the icon and can aim using it as help. Spotting is much harder real life....i can hardly be without noticing a dot in WB. There is no way that i dont notice dot with bright red distance counter on it. Just no way unless im AFK, typing etc. When im suprising cons i try to hide my icon..not my plane. i go unnaturally low to their 6...almost directly under. Or come in under their wing low anyway so that one part of their cockpit graphics is over my plane. With icons i dont use terrain at all to make suprises..because it isnt useful. Now at Kursk arena i ran away from La5 low after i got in to his blind spot. He noticed it second later and started to follow me. There was little cliff ahead so i pushed my nose down on the edge and turned 90 degrees following the cliff. He flew over the cliff and i did too to the opposite direction...and i got away. Do you think i could have hidden much with that icon? with icon my plane is 10 times as tall from distance...even if my plane isnt seen my icon is.
Ho-Hun i want to make clear that i feel this setting is better to simulate REALISTIC SITUATIONS. It's not exact mimicing of real thing. Still it get closer in result. I dont even fknow how many fucking vision cells are in my eye. I dont know what is use for comparing eye resolution to computer screen resolution because they have nothing to do with eachother. Environment i see in computer screen can not be measured with these kind of things. Add waving and reflecting water, trees with moving leaves, fog, mist and full cloud cover at 300m. Add all this and much much more to our WB(make real world inside computer screen and then i can talk more about human eye resolution with you. Some things arent just comparable Ho-Hun. WB world is made much more simple than real world. Because it so much more simple spotting is anyway way too simple..even if we have icons or not.
Hi Illo, >I say its realistic because in ww2 usually except west front high alt Buff battles/BoB 10km flights enemy planes were usually spotted under 3km. 3 km = D30, which is our proven icon setting. >Many books i have read commonly describe noticing enemy planes under 1 km range. Noticing is not the same as becoming visible. I was flying a Ju 87 at low altitude yesterday, searching the sky from pilot and gunner position, trying to keep contact with the strike ahead that had outpaced my Stuka as well as with the Ju 52 that I knew was behind. Though I spotted quite a lot of dots in the vicinity, I was quite surprised when I looked to my left and found myself flying alongside Cbfasi's Ju 52 at only D5! That's how "noticing at short range" happens - failure to search the sector of the sky where the contact actually is. And there is no shortage of that with the current settings. >Galland was almost shot down this way. Galland was flying a Messerschmitt painted in a special camouflage scheme that closely resembled the RAF schemes. >I just told in another thread how illu juutilainen spotted i-16 hardly from 150 meters against lake surface. This is a worst case example, and you can't just apply it generally. Besides, isn't there a minimum altitude for icons anyway? >Also in real life they coudnt cound their lead to other aircraft from icon...if plane wasa under their cowling they didnt see it. On the other hand, forward visibility and especially the shooting view was generally better in real life than it's in Warbirds. >with icon my plane is 10 times as tall from distance...even if my plane isnt seen my icon is. I don't say the icons are the ultimate in realism, but they are a good compromise, and could even be better if they were modelled a bit smarter. In Air Warrior for example, icon range depended on aircraft size - now imagine icons accounting for aspect angle, lighting and relative altitude, scaled for distance and toned down in colour. We don't have them, all we have are static icons or blinking dots. And if you compare blinking dots to reality, static icons are the much better solution - simply for lack of resolution of the computer screen. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Illo, >Environment i see in computer screen can not be measured with these kind of things. Actually, it has to be measured with these kind of things. >Add waving and reflecting water, trees with moving leaves, fog, mist and full cloud cover at 300m. This is a range of worst case scenarios that would justify reducing icon range in the worst cases. However, there are no worst cases in Warbirds - we've always great flying weather here. And the icon range selection we currently have is well selected for good flying weather. Blinking dots still don't have water reflections, trees, fog, mist, or cloud cover. They're no progress in the simulation. They're just little blinking dots with no relation to reality. >Some things arent just comparable Ho-Hun. WB world is made much more simple than real world. Exactly. That's why you have to compare matching situations - good flying weather in the real world, and the real eye's resolution on the one hand, and perfect flying weather in Warbirds and the resolution of the computer screen. By quoting clouds, mist, fog and all the other stuff that Warbirds doesn't even have, you are confusing situations and arrive at a meaningless comparison and won't get any closer to realism either. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Yup i understand your views better now. Thanks for clarification. Seems like this is much matter of taste. Both have their own views and stick to it.
MERCENARIOS point of view is mostly like illo's. We enjoyed the little time we could spend on kursk scenario and found it more interesting than usual arena, more realistic and rewarding. With respect to those "lesser pilots" referred to above and amongst which I count myself, they have an easier way of disengaging when they need it. Greetings. [ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: Queequeg ]
IMHO, now it's more unrealistic because you must be very close to planes to identify them and in reality you can identify the plane silhouets much better as on an monitor, where the dot is really only 1-4 pixels wide. My sugesstion: lets take a icon range @ 25-30 and without plane-id's.
>>I say its realistic because in ww2 usually except west front high alt Buff battles/BoB 10km flights enemy planes were usually spotted under 3km. >3 km = D30, which is our proven icon setting. they were spotted at d30. they didnt capture their attention with big red blinking laser LCD hot contrasting icons! (yes i know i exagerated ) >>Many books i have read commonly describe noticing enemy planes under 1 km range. >Noticing is not the same as becoming visible. I was flying a Ju 87 at low altitude yesterday, searching the sky from pilot and gunner position, trying to keep contact with the strike ahead that had outpaced my Stuka as well as with the Ju 52 that I knew was behind. Though I spotted quite a lot of dots in the vicinity, I was quite surprised when I looked to my left and found myself flying alongside Cbfasi's Ju 52 at only D5! yes, planes become visible at d99! you spot them easily with SA. if you didnt spot a big fat juicy ju52 coalt at d5, it is certain you didnt look left with the right attention. BUT.. illo said he read that RL pilots noticed them under 1km. that means professional pilots, trained for war, didnt notice them. (that argument was used against shot icons) >That's how "noticing at short range" happens - failure to search the sector of the sky where the contact actually is. And there is no shortage of that with the current settings. well actually, with icons you just have to roll your hihat around at flash speed untill you see a red flashy thing. in RL it was necessary to look at least >>I just told in another thread how illu juutilainen spotted i-16 hardly from 150 meters against lake surface. >This is a worst case example, and you can't just apply it generally. Besides, isn't there a minimum altitude for icons anyway? what can be worse than not letting that happen at all? >>Also in real life they coudnt cound their lead to other aircraft from icon...if plane wasa under their cowling they didnt see it. >On the other hand, forward visibility and especially the shooting view was generally better in real life than it's in Warbirds. i still cant believe that its so hard to notice such stuff on the PC. besides, it doesnt "ruin" reality as much as low icons "help" it. the problem isnt the resolution the game creates. its all those thrilling RL situations that can at last be seen in the arena. but i agree with illo.. it must be a matter of taste. my taste says short icons are best. your opinion? i respect completly! (no, honeslty!! ) so maybe you can just see my arguments as a point of view.
Hi Nicae, >they were spotted at d30. they didnt capture their attention with big red blinking laser LCD hot contrasting icons! Again, you're going to an extreme to justify your views. D30 is the extreme distance, and for the sake of the argument, it might be too far for small fighters. However, it might be too close for large bombers! Have you ever seen a B-17 flying formation with a P-51? At a range where the P-51 is only a tiny (non-blinking) dot, the B-17 is one hell of a large aircraft with a clearly distinguishable vertical tail surface. >yes, planes become visible at d99! you spot them easily with SA. That's not realistic, but what's your point? This doesn't change with "no icons". >if you didnt spot a big fat juicy ju52 coalt at d5, it is certain you didnt look left with the right attention. BUT.. illo said he read that RL pilots noticed them under 1km. that means professional pilots, trained for war, didnt notice them. (that argument was used against shot icons) Again, the use of the word "notice" is telling: Of course the professional pilot could have spotted the dots at a longer range! They just weren't looking in the right sector of the sky, just as it happens in Warbirds. >what can be worse than not letting that happen at all? "Worst case" means just that, finding an extreme example that gives the shortest possible viewing range. If you then apply this range to the game, which has a "best case" environment with perfect weather and sunshine, you'll end up "always wrong". >i still cant believe that its so hard to notice such stuff on the PC. If you've trouble believing it, just imagine playing Warbirds on a 76 x 56 resolution screen - "Micro Warbirds" would compare to 640 x 480 Warbirds like the game does compare to real life. >its all those thrilling RL situations that can at last be seen in the arena. Thrilling? The name of the game should be "tailchaser" now. See a dot? Chase him, he might be enemy. See two dots chasing each other? Chase them both, one of them must be enemy. See three dots chasing each other? Join the tailchase, there might be an enemy in it. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Nicae, >it must be a matter of taste. my taste says short icons are best. I think it's a question of strategy: You have an idea of what WW2 air combat was like, and try to change the icons to make the game fit your idea. You're ready to ignore hard facts for that purpose. I have data on the realistic capabilities of a pilot's eye and try to make the game match these capabilities. I'm ready to ignore that the resulting game will not look like WW2 air combat. The first approach has a higher level of abstraction and is well suited for boardgames. The second approach has a higher level of authenticity and is well suited for simulation games. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi hohun >>they were spotted at d30. they didnt capture their attention with big red blinking laser LCD hot contrasting icons! >Again, you're going to an extreme to justify your views. D30 is the extreme distance, and for the sake of the argument, it might be too far for small fighters. However, it might be too close for large bombers! Have you ever seen a B-17 flying formation with a P-51? At a range where the P-51 is only a tiny (non-blinking) dot, the B-17 is one hell of a large aircraft with a clearly distinguishable vertical tail surface. clearly distinguishable vertical tail surface?! and then you complain about the resolution?! you can spot more than me, and i am saying that my resolution is clearly enough! no, it doesnt MATCH RL eye resolution, but it is enough to identify vertical tail surfaces! >>yes, planes become visible at d99! you spot them easily with SA. >That's not realistic, but what's your point? This doesn't change with "no icons". icons cant be justified by lack of SA. you have time to spot them from 9.9km! >if you didnt spot a big fat juicy ju52 coalt at d5, it is certain you didnt look left with the right attention. BUT.. illo said he read that RL pilots noticed them under 1km. that means professional pilots, trained for war, didnt notice them. (that argument was used against shot icons) Again, the use of the word "notice" is telling: Of course the professional pilot could have spotted the dots at a longer range! They just weren't looking in the right sector of the sky, just as it happens in Warbirds. oh, not with laser icons! >what can be worse than not letting that happen at all? "Worst case" means just that, finding an extreme example that gives the shortest possible viewing range. If you then apply this range to the game, which has a "best case" environment with perfect weather and sunshine, you'll end up "always wrong". if the game has best weather there is no need for icons at all >>i still cant believe that its so hard to notice such stuff on the PC. >If you've trouble believing it, just imagine playing Warbirds on a 76 x 56 resolution screen - "Micro Warbirds" would compare to 640 x 480 Warbirds like the game does compare to real life. oh wait wait wait! now you are comparing RL resolution to 76x56 resolution! in 76x56 it is clear that it wouldnt be enough, since each pixel will be the size of a brick. but 640x480 is enough. hey, you can notice the vertical tail surface of a b17 at the distance where a p51 is a tiny non-blinking dot! it is much less than 5390x4115, but is enough! >>its all those thrilling RL situations that can at last be seen in the arena. >Thrilling? The name of the game should be "tailchaser" now. See a dot? Chase him, he might be enemy. See two dots chasing each other? Chase them both, one of them must be enemy. See three dots chasing each other? Join the tailchase, there might be an enemy in it. no, i mean fighting with a con, then suddenly you lose track of him and have to search, wondering if he is near your gunsight or on your dead six! fighting with 2 enemies and not noticing a third come in. flying after a buff and having to spot his white camo in the middle of the light blue sky. finding out you are being chased by the tracers that fly by. noticing your loss of rudder, and still having hope to run away unnoticed. rtbing at treetop level trying not to be seen. hoping your ju52 can get past that con up high without being spotted.. etc.
Hi again >>it must be a matter of taste. my taste says short icons are best. >I think it's a question of strategy: >You have an idea of what WW2 air combat was like, and try to change the icons to make the game fit your idea. You're ready to ignore hard facts for that purpose. no, im not being ignorant. i can see that the resolution we have is enough to enjoy a greater game. greater IMO of course. if you are to worry about resolution all the time, you wouldnt ever enjoy a PC game. >I have data on the realistic capabilities of a pilot's eye and try to make the game match these capabilities. I'm ready to ignore that the resulting game will not look like WW2 air combat. only lack of SA can cause harm. you play like a RL fighter pilot, and you can fight without icons, since every object in the game has the low complexity compared to RL, not needing the extreme resolution of the eye. >The first approach has a higher level of abstraction and is well suited for boardgames. The second approach has a higher level of authenticity and is well suited for simulation games. the first approach has a higher level of feel of WW2 aircombat. the second approach has a higher level of arcade video game. cya nic
Hi Nicae, >>You're ready to ignore hard facts for that purpose. >no, im not being ignorant. i can see that the resolution we have is enough to enjoy a greater game. You're ignoring facts. (I never suggested you were ignorant.) Here are the facts: 640 x 480 resolution, 500 m distance, 90 degree field of view: Human eye, 500 m distance: From a simulation of WW2 air combat, I expect realistic identification ranges. Realistic identification is necessary for a realistic game. "No icons" will make the game LESS realistic. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi! >You're ignoring facts. (I never suggested you were ignorant.) he who ignores is an ignorant no offence taken >Realistic identification is necessary for a realistic game. "No icons" will make the game LESS realistic. no, realistic identification is necessary for a realistic life. in WB, the resolution is very much enough to identify. hey, you were the one who said you could clearly see the vertical tail surface of a buff at the distance a p51 is a tiny non-blinking dot. and in WB, the number of possibilities of aircraft is much smaller. no need for a real eye resolution to spot the differences.
Nao adianta Nick, o ho-hum nao quer crescer como piloto dentro do Warbirds, ele prefere fica no joguinho de crianca... nao tem nivel tecnico para subir um degrau de evolucao dentro do WB.. Mesmo em 2d e baixa resolucao e possivel ver os Dots claramente, sei disto porque usei 2D por mais de 2 anos, hoje voou 3d e alta resolucao, claro e muito melhor, mas no final da quase na mesma... Ele e teimoso e chorao... ele deve preferir um voo de 5 kil na sortie e morrer no final, do quem um voo com nenhum kill, mas com o coracao na boca, a procura dos cons... como disse antes preferem brincar num simulador mais proximo do arcade mode, pois e mais facil matar o oponente, nao querem ter obstaculos ao kill facil. LAMENTAVEL... As I ja had said, he follows my opnion on this subject... Hi all, Friend ILLO said : First impressions on kursk arena. 1. More team flying I didnt fly single sortie alone. At start i paired with ikramps and soon we had schwarm of 190s flying together. Also many other golds joined our formation in air (mb beacause they didnt want to mix us with cons). Icon range is perfect for formation flying. 2. More communication between players Radio was full of reports of flight positions and altitudes. Also cons seemed to be reported much better than in main arena. 3. Disengaging I used dive to deck when in blind spot of enemy and he didnt find me. Huh...this works like RL. Now its good to fly between mountains and low if one wants to avoid contact. 4. Attacking Diving from high above is little harder but suprising is easier. Though only 1 of my 6 kills was suprise. Maybe because i didnt get good line-ups for first attack. 5. Fights Shortly, feel more realistic. 6. Terrain I love it. Thanks for this awesome suprise FH team!!! I CC it all !!!! is very fun fly in this is situation... The VF-1 squad flys in this is arena yesterday, end occurred diverse facts that much called me the attention... 1 - The VF1 ( 5 pilots in arena only in this is night ) take-off in F19 for CAP in F17 ,we effect a flight in closed formation until the target, we go down we reach the target assigned for each pilot and effect the CAP per 5 minutes, and all the 5 pilots had come back to F19! 2 - in attack of f27, the VF1 take-off in f2 ( first attack ) 5 109?s in taxi in runaway, one La5NF pass in low level & fast, but no get anyone 109 in runaway... 5 109s take-off end pursuit La-5NF, but acks is more fast get con... 4 109s landing in f2 one force landing out field, is have damege engine... fire friedly of ack 12mm DAMMM. 3 - new sortie beggin in f2 , 5 109s take-off again , one yak-9T pass por us, but no engage, 5 109?s vs 1 yak is very bad for your luck the con running low & fast for N... in route to f27 , to be all the 109 4.500m, when vi one dot 12h below, all 109s in 475km/h , dot was possible to ones 430km/h, but anyone viz dot, only me, i speak in ch110 one dot low 12h, all pilots no viz dot !!! , in 12h low !!! , resp again no viz !!! the dot passed to ones 20m below in reverse direction, but no opem fire, I ID P-39 , but I turn to get best view of P-39, he disapier, possible dive to ground in high speed, I viz dot again, but many low end route to f27 through mountains... it was a party of laughs, anyone had seen it, the time of reaction with ID the 12D to be very short, to find I who the pilot of P-39 to take great a scare, therefore the 5 dots not to be to bomber in high level and yes 109s in CAP... now I say, when was possible to happen this with ID d34? NEVER !!!!! Many to cry to come back d34 view, but I to be very satisfied with d12, to me to be perfect, to be much more real... Salute staff of FHR this is arena ( kurk43) is very fun !!!!! [ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Mach-1 ] Salute all sorry for my linguage,but very I am disappointed with some pilots of the FHR, invйz of wanting to evolve and to learn new things of the WB inside, they prefer to hide itself in the mode that this currently... if wants to see con in the distance, ask for soon to place ID d200, thus is more easy still... [ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Mach-1 ]
Hi Nicae, >in WB, the resolution is very much enough to identify. That's your opinion, but you've provided no evidence yet. How about posting a nice screenshot of a Spitfire at D5 as it's displayed on your monitor so that we can compare it to the real life picture? Please state which resolution you're using when you post the picture for a better comparison. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Mach-1, >some pilots of the FHR, invйz of wanting to evolve and to learn new things of the WB inside, they prefer to hide itself in the mode that this currently... My target is realism. "No icons" is unrealistic. If you want to be disappointed about that, go ahead. >if wants to see con in the distance, ask for soon to place ID d200, thus is more easy still... You're making up ridiculous things that I never said. Bad style! Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Tsc tsc tsc No more comments over it Ho-hun it a suck... End I not go for you in any where... I stay here... ...
The icons just tell us what we should know if we had good eyes in real life, but this make everyone have equal vision here in WB. And its not fair. Some of us can identify dots from higher distances than others and its a part of the game! Everyone know when they say: the best pilot see and identify the enemy first. So, doenst matters if u use a 14" monitor or a 21". Independent of ur resolution u just have to get used to your monitor to know how to identify other planes and must pratice identifying and not only shooting. This goes for reality where they studied alot the enemy planes design to know how to identify them in flight. Using icons here makes everyone have the same "vision" and it ruins the simulation. This games is much more than just fun, it makes u study tactics that works here just like in real life and identifying planes is a BIG PART of it. So, if u want succes in a simulator go study. If you just want to take off and kill, please go away but dont stay here to ruin it. I will repeat once again: So, doenst matters if u use a 14" monitor or a 21". Independent of ur resolution or 2D/3D mode u just have to get used to yout monitor to know how to identify other planes. *It means that who have a big monitos and play using high resolution will have more detailed dots. OK *Who have small monitors and less resolution will see less detailed dots. BUT, both will have its owm carachteristics that a pilot used to it will be capable of knowing about the dots just like others. Get used to this game, pratice and pratice, study tactics, study planes designs and suddenly you will find urself knowing many things about war planes and MANY SECRETS will be revealed to your eyes, independent if its here in WB or real life. Maybe u can say that you dont have time to study it, but i tell you that i dont have all my day to study WB and planes too, but i do when i have time and its not hard to find time when u do what u like. Now, if you dont really like WWII history/planes and u say u not interested in evolution in what u do then go do something better for your life and dont stay here asking for stupids configs just because its easy for you. Yes, im a hardcore simmer, air combat lover, aviation enthusiast and there is many others like me and many BETTER than me and im sure thay want evolution. Actual config is old and boring. This game WB is great since more than 4 years ago and still great but needs some strategicy news. Or will be ruined anyways being free. Good pilots who want more challenge will give up from here and only dweebs furballers and ignorants (not to offend) will stay and will definitely ruin it. Who are actualy a dweeb but like it will look for evolution and will go on. Personaly im tired of just easy finding and identifying enemies and diving to kill em. I want more challenge and im sure BIG part of who plays here wants it too. Study and pratice in WB will reveal many secrets to your eyes. I did it. check mate [ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Hans Haupt ]
