NEW ARENA SETTING: WAY TO GO

</font>

 

Hi Nicae,

&gt;"In reality it's much harder to spot other planes in the air and much easier to loose the sight of them" so lets keep laser icons short!

This ignores that you lose and re-acquire a plane each time you use the coolie hat to switch views. That's a major factor in losing icon-less dots in Warbirds, and it is as unreal as it can be.

&gt;"Stop comparing RL to what you see on your computer screen guys!" we arent comparing RL to our screens.

You're just referring to relative speeds, which I think are a minor issue. I'm referring to plain resolution, and here it's imperative to compare the real world to the Warbirds depiction of the same.

And it's absolutely clear that the Warbirds screen doesn't even approach the resolution of the human eye.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

It's also absolutely clear that warbirds detail doesnt come even close to RL detail.

ho-hun i still think these are not comparable. You compare human eye resolution to computer screen after you have absolute real life environment in there but before that it's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

Illo NOTHING in WB comes even close to RL!! Perfectly nothing! Neither are the icon settings you are defending so much - if they would simulate anything from RL it would be bunch of half blind suicidal idiots flying in dense fog. It's impossible to re-create reality in a computer game, especially in an old crap the Warbirds is. So pls stop talking about "real" and "less real" settings - they all have nothing to do with reality but some of them make this game more entertaining and "playable".
I'm fed up with this topic, this was my last post here. CU guys in other topics

 

Illo NOTHING in WB comes even close to RL!! Perfectly nothing!

exactly!!!! absolutly NOTHING is!!!including laser icons!!! lets shorten icons!!!

 

dito!
resolution only becomes a need when you have something even more complex in the background! now with that big plain blue behind, even on a 10" monitor you can notice the crazy little dots blinking!

 

first of all, i think we should stick to one single thread..

&gt;&gt;"In reality it's much harder to spot other planes in the air and much easier to loose the sight of them" so lets keep laser icons short!

&gt;This ignores that you lose and re-acquire a plane each time you use the coolie hat to switch views. That's a major factor in losing icon-less dots in Warbirds, and it is as unreal as it can be.

huh?! using a hihat you can look at dead six and then go back to 12 in a millionth of a second! im sure that if you checked 6 in RL you would lose a plane MUCH easier!! you wouldnt be able to just roll around and search of a red icon in the middle of a complex background!

&gt;&gt;"Stop comparing RL to what you see on your computer screen guys!" we arent comparing RL to our screens.

&gt;You're just referring to relative speeds, which I think are a minor issue. I'm referring to plain resolution, and here it's imperative to compare the real world to the Warbirds depiction of the same.

resolution would only be necessary if there was a plane in that resolution flying over a complex background of the same resolution. here we have bad resolution of everything. i am SEEing how real this is.

&gt;And it's absolutely clear that the Warbirds screen doesn't even approach the resolution of the human eye.

and its much more clear that icons dont allow RL situations!

 

Hi Illo,

&gt;You compare human eye resolution to computer screen after you have absolute real life environment in there but before that it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Actually, it's the opposite: Only by always going for the most realistic solution you can create a "real life environment".

It's you who's comparing apples and oranges:

1) Real life has clouds (apple).

2) Warbirds doesn't have clouds (orange).

3) Conclusion: Reduce icon range in Warbirds.

Step 3) is an apple/orange confusion. Clouds reduce visibility range, but only if there's a cloud between you and your target. The remaining (and much larger) volume of the sky that is not filled by cloud is entirely unaffected by the cloud with regard to the viewing range.

I hope you understand why I don't think that the many examples listed here justify a decrease in the icon range. I'd love to have clouds, too, but Warbirds doesn't offer them, and reducing icon range doesn't bring them into the game either. To achieve best realism, we'll have to work within the confines of the program, which means we're stuck with perfect flying weather. And for perfect flying weather, the icons as we have them are perfectly adequate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Stec,

&gt;if they would simulate anything from RL it would be bunch of half blind suicidal idiots flying in dense fog.

LOL! Good description I really felt visually impaired, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Nicae,

&gt;exactly!!!! absolutly NOTHING is!!!including laser icons!!! lets shorten icons!!!

So you abandon your claims that "no icons" is more realistic than the current icon setting?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Nicae,

&gt;resolution only becomes a need when you have something even more complex in the background!

You need resolution to:

- recognize the range to the contact by its size

- recognize the country of the contact by its insignia or type

- recognize the type of the contact by its shape

A realistic display requires a resolution of something like 5400 x 4000 pixels for a 90 degree field of view. I have 640 x 480.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Nicae,

&gt;huh?! using a hihat you can look at dead six and then go back to 12 in a millionth of a second! im sure that if you checked 6 in RL you would lose a plane MUCH easier!!

I'm talking about losing the contact I'm staring at when I'm switching from the 09:00 to the 10:30 view, or from the 10:30 to the 12:00 view. Each jump in the displayed view has a good chance of making the player lose the dot. Clearly, this was not a factor in real life.

&gt;here we have bad resolution of everything.

Exactly. That's why we need icons. I couldn't have said it better!

&gt;and its much more clear that icons dont allow RL situations!

Try the analytical approach: Great weather, clear sky, high up in the blue. What view ranges do you think are realistic there?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

This discussion of Kursk game-settings showed quite a lot about players' habit and intelligence.
If nothing else, but it is an instructive experience to me.

------------------------

Kutya

 

the reason, why i don't play chess is: it has nothing to do with reality! as long as the rules are only for bloody dweebs and quakers, i cannot accept it as a simulation... you can win with less than 20 moves! i demand 64x64 squares for higher resolution, and don't always show the icons on the whiteboard, so that the enemy will know, which move has been made!
...

i don't want to force this topic (hmm, why do i post?), but to me it's like cold flame: goes on and on and since it has been started by a minor change in arena settings (which has been followed by a need for major change of tactical manoeuvres), it has lost the storyline like an odd sit-com. as i see it!

what are you talking about?
screen-resolution and human eye? can't definitely be compared (i will give answer, if anybody wants to discuss)!
angles of view here or "outside", in degrees related to resolution, as indices for recognition-ability? whoever tries this doesn't know about visual perception and allocated synaptic densities as a result of sensoric input, or about redundancy of visual information and what it means for watching, realizing, interpreting and remembering!
coolie-hats make it easier to control 16x640x480x16-bit-information, switched in milliseconds, than continuously-slow-moving-necks of "real-pilots" can do with myriads more datas?

so far (is there any word-limit for a posting?)...

i haven't quoted, because i really don't want offend somebody: when i read, what x says, i think "yes!", when i read y, i say "not wrong!" but this debate about "the 2 days of kursk" seems to become self-evolutionary in its subject.
if warbirds is loved as a simulation or arcade-shooter, it is so far from real-life-flying as it is far from being optimized and redefined via scientific pixel-angle-analysis.

i like it because of may reasons, i don't know. and i like it here, because fh-crew tries intermezzos like "kursk".
and i like it, because you pilots make it more than any other game (or have you ever heard "quakers" talk about their last mission, or real pilots about the true-color sunrise which looks like possible 90fps-sortie?)


[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: ledada ]

 

Hi Ledada,

&gt;it is so far from real-life-flying as it is far from being optimized and redefined via scientific pixel-angle-analysis.

Since you specificially mention my line of reasoning: You should note that I accept that Warbirds is far from real life, but want to get the premises right.

The "no icon" people want Warbirds to be like real life and are willing to manipulate the premises for that.

So if you give your own line of reasoning a bit more thought, you'll find that the scientific analysis is actually the rational approach, while the "no icon" people have a romantic ideal of WW2 air combat they want to pattern the game after.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

I would like to add no PC game ever will be able to reproduce the field of view of the human eye, can you really understand how the field of view is built up? I don't mean this to offend in any way, but what I mean is pretty evident, you look through the same pair of eyes every day, and you've gotten so used to them that you probably won't really be able to describe how the field of view is constructed. I personally find it very hard, is the side of your point of view unclear? I don't think so, it's just not under your direct attention etc etc... but it certainly isn't a square form that we look upon the world through, therefore no computer SCREEN can ever reproduce the real life vision of human kind. But virtual glasses or goggles might just do that, I'm not sure, I don't have that much money to spend that I can buy virtual glasses...

greetz, Zembla

 

hi hohun,

i can give it as many kbits more thought as my multiplayer-soul has got bandwidth:
i feel that scientific analysis and rational approach are not adequate contribution to a discussion about the ids of dots, separating them from dust on my screen! but the more it looks like "science = fact = best-argument" to my suspicious mind.
and as a result, may be, the "no icon people" can hardly do anything else than insisting in radical demands for more "reality" (romantical or not) in this game.

first: i think, the sense of a game is to be not real (not really), and the quality of a simulation is not measured in highly adaptation, but abstraction of reality! a good simulation is therefore not a bad picture of reality at all, but evokes destined fantasies.
second: i know, that every scientific fact gives more new questions than it can answer olds! science disclaims itself as the firstborn child of ratio, which is the main error in human evolution...or the result!

so what!?

imagine noone can stop me and i go on and on posting this way... even now i hardly can remember if i participated in "kursk"?
that doesn't mean, that i think the icon-topics should be stopped (except my posts)-
it means, that it brings a laugh on my face, when i see, where i've started :"wb-forum", and where i am now :"moons of saturn" (btw, we take the moons of saturn for real because we've seen them on a low-res tv-screen...or have the old greeks proved them to be?)
do you (not specifically hohun) know what i mean?

forgive me, if i drag to "off-topic", i never wanted, but i lost control. and i honestly don't want to speak pro or contra any icon-settings.

[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: ledada ]

 

Hi Zembla,

&gt;but it certainly isn't a square form that we look upon the world through, therefore no computer SCREEN can ever reproduce the real life vision of human kind. But virtual glasses or goggles might just do that, I'm not sure, I don't have that much money to spend that I can buy virtual glasses...

A vital point in air combat is identification of visual contacts. Identification has to rely on visual information. To arrive at realistic identification ranges, you'll have to provide the player with realistic amounts of information.

Pixels are information.

In real life, a 12 m wingspan target at 600 m distance provides about 70 picture elements spanwise. In 640 x 480, you'd get just 8 pixels at that distance (assuming a 90 degree field of vision).

That's too little information.

To give you an impression, here's a picture I took of a heavy bomber accompanied by a single-seat fighter. I've scaled the resolution down to represent 640 x 480, 90 degree field of view, range 500 m:



Do you recognize the two aircraft types in the picture?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Ledada,

&gt;the "no icon people" can hardly do anything else than insisting in radical demands for more "reality" (romantical or not) in this game.

As you've probably noticed, I'm advocating realism myself. However, the line of reasoning of the no icon people recently seems to have changed from "no icons are real" to "Warbirds is unreal anyway, so get rid of the icons". How would you interpret such a sudden change?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

hi hohun,

in discussions about different topics i contributed often like this (tactical details not mentioned):

i answered every question, calm and always quoting parts of the others arguments, never isolated from common subject, but with slightly different pronounce...i always used physical terms or examples, that easily could be reproduced and/or proved and/or have been used before by honorables.
i have mostly known about "my" game, sometimes forgotten during word-wars, but i always realized, that nearly everybody played it, but without knowing.
the point is the two levels: they instinctively play, but due to overcover-brain-activity thinking, that they go the street of logic.
the fun is the trap: lead them in a one-way, no-return-to-linear-arguments.
the result is victory, not truth: i get contradictionary answers, they lose sense-flow, i win and nobody knows whats all about. among buddies we all laugh and say: "we have the same in mind, dear friend", among others i laugh and say: "we mean the same, sir"



[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: ledada ]