PDA

View Full Version : Realistic Realism



idonno
05-26-2005, 10:38 PM
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more.

idonno
05-26-2005, 10:38 PM
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more.

BlakJakOfSpades
05-26-2005, 10:48 PM
that's cool, i like no icons, ruins the immersion, i'd rather have no icons and more immersiveness than icons that ruin the illusion

Freelancer-1
05-26-2005, 10:57 PM
Uh...

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not really sure what your saying, idonno.

Are you pro or anti icons?

Freelancer

BuzzU
05-26-2005, 11:08 PM
As a matter of fact. I am half blind.

Thanks for asking.

idonno
05-26-2005, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
As a matter of fact. I am half blind.

Thanks for asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then a no-icon arena does a good job of simulating what you would experience. Lucky you, you get more realism than the rest of us.

arcadeace
05-26-2005, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you have is less cool. You'll never be an ace in this community.

Prop_Strike
05-26-2005, 11:20 PM
Actually I am legally blind in one eye and I get on pretty well with no enemy icons on GG....maybe you should try closing one eye http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BuzzU
05-26-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
As a matter of fact. I am half blind.

Thanks for asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then a no-icon arena does a good job of simulating what you would experience. Lucky you, you get more realism than the rest of us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing out how lucky I am to be blind.

I feel so special now.

gkll
05-26-2005, 11:44 PM
You're a braver soul than I to trot this one out... although I agree. Limited icons with pit on seems about right for realism. However many demand the immersion of no icons, and aren't bothered that it is absurdly difficult compared to RL, or that it promotes flying low so you can pick up contacts, or other issues with no icon flying etc. This is fine when it is a reasoned choice... but if it is promoted as realistic then I have some irritation.

People who refer to it as 'Full Switch' can be trusted to have thought it out and consciously chosen the higher difficulty over the correct realism. Those who call it 'Full Real' or think of it as the most realistic should read old threads describing RL experience in spotting planes and consider if maybe no icons isn't the ultimate in realism. Just as an example I can count the engines and guess the type on an airliner 15k away in RL... you might all consider briefly what a B29 looks like at 15k in the game. Close range differences are similar in magnitude.

Anyway I am sensitive to tone, and would note a real shift over the last year or so to a certain nose in the air feel from many of those on the 'Full switch' bandwagon. Limited icons with pit on is my preference but nowadays that is strictly lower class, a lot of sneering at icons. I accept others choices in all cases, but respect those who have reasoned choices, irritation sets in with mindless paradigms.....

Owlsphone
05-26-2005, 11:46 PM
Don't feel too special BuzzU. I am blind in my right eye. Seems there are a ton of blind pilots among us that enjoy no icon servers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BlakJakOfSpades
05-27-2005, 12:01 AM
well if you're half blind and the game is half blind, aren't you only getting a quarter realism?

GAU-8
05-27-2005, 12:02 AM
im pretty much the same way (ALMOST legally blind in one eye) i can see colors, and shapes, but thats about it. dont get me to read anything outta "ole lefty"

arcadeace
05-27-2005, 12:13 AM
Its a well considered post gkll. I use distance icons.

It is an attitude thing with some. It can also be funny. Some have claimed if you're not full real you're disgracing WWII pilots, the real ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or you just don't know what real sex is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Most understand the bottom line is fun.

diomedes33
05-27-2005, 12:28 AM
Actually ... I can see the planes before the icons pop up on default settings. I haven't played with icons for a very long time, I think default is 5 km.

when I first started playing I didn't see how anyone could compete in closed cockpit/no icon servers. It took me about a year to shed wonder woman and realize that you can be very proficient at looking around using the micro-joystick on the throttle. No-Icons was a pretty easy transition after this.

ID'ing aircraft is a bit more difficult and takes some practice. I can ID an aircraft with 100% accuracy within 1500 m. You can use things like wing shape and radiators to help identify a plane. For example, P-51 looks a lot like a late model 109, but a P-51 has the radiator scoop under the fuselage. The 109 has two radiators in the wing roots. You can see these features pretty far away. When in doubt I always assume a bogie is an enemy.

My machine isn't anything special either. I'm running a 17in monitor w/ ATI 9800 Pro on 1024x768. All excellent and perfect settings.

It all comes down to how you want to fly. Flying full switch/real is more like competing in a sport rather than a video game. I'm not talking about arcade, but you have to develope skills for situational awareness, combat tactics, etc ... If you're not willing to put in the time you will get your rear handed to you everytime. If you are willing to learn the skills, you will see how much more rewarding a kill can be.

DarkBlueMan
05-27-2005, 01:04 AM
On a 19" TFT (1280x1024) no icons is not so bad. Identifying adds to the fun and makes a more challenging game.

Spits V 109's... ahhhhhh

vocatx
05-27-2005, 01:10 AM
I had never tried no icons until I recently went on-line. It is a difficult transition, but you can adapt to it. The hardest part is that I can only barely run in excellent mode. I think a lot of the people that have the most trouble are the ones with a low-end computer or vid card that have to run on reduced setting. The ones that run in excellent and use Track IR do have a definite advantage.

I do have to say, though, the more I'm on no icon servers, the better I like it. I does add to the immersion factor, if you have a machine that will allow the resolution necessary to I.D. aircraft at a distance. Matter of fact, when you can't I.D. the incoming contact until they're really close, it sure gets the old adrenaline pumping!

WOLFMondo
05-27-2005, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you play offline or online? I find online planes travel in very split disorganised formation at best. Spotting a couple of planes in the sky is difficult, spotting a sqaudron or more is allot easier...which would be more realistic in the sense that is how they flew.

idonno
05-27-2005, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by diomedes33:...but you have to develope skills for situational awareness, combat tactics, etc ... If you're not willing to put in the time you will get your rear handed to you everytime. If you are willing to learn the skills, you will see how much more rewarding a kill can be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quite sure that, with pratice, I can get as good as the next guy at flying with no icons, but that's not the point.

It's NOT realistic.

It's NOT realistic.

It's NOT realistic.

And did I mention that it's not realistic?

AerialTarget
05-27-2005, 01:37 AM
The topic poster is correct. Although I've never seen a camoflaged aircraft against the ground, it is six times easier, I think (I once did the mathematics, a long time ago), in real life to spot an uncamoflaged airplane from both below and above. In fact, I would say that in real life, it is actually easier to spot an aircraft against the ground than it is to spot against the sky. That is the opposite of how it is in the game.

We cannot blame the game for this, however; all simulators have this problem due to technology limitations. But those who raise their eyebrows mockingly at those who fly with icons are wrong.

Now as for myself, I have to fly without icons for the immersion, like many people in this thread. But I don't imagine that it is as difficult to spot aircraft in real life, because I know from experience that it is not.

Papa_K
05-27-2005, 01:48 AM
This brings out the "full-real" gamer responses.

Dots vs. aircraft at a distance with a pair of real (some very good, some not so good) eyeballs; an animated view of a cockpit taking up half of a limited viewing slice of the outside world vs. the ability move, focus outside, glance in/down at gauges and then back outside; no feel or at most a rumble/ffb stick vs. the feel of motion, stick forces, etc.; fake, muted, and often b-movie-gone-bad sound, to include hearing the other guys guns vs. the constant high-volume drone of a high-performance engine and wind noises along with radio static; fly-til-you-die air-Quake heroes vs. real danger/death.

Full-switch isn't easy, but it's not "Full-Real".

It's not a choice about how to "fly" -- it's a gaming choice.

Have to agree with idonno on the dots...visual acuity isn't there. The ability to spot an aircraft, tell its direction and relative motion, and VID it well before what's available in-game now, would be nice.

But, what's the solution? Big colored arrows that announce your presence to Jim-Bob, who is happily cruising along with his thumb up his crack and no clue? I suppose limited icons will have to do.


Papa_K

Slechtvalk
05-27-2005, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ain't good with icons turned off and then you complain here that icons turned off is not realistic?

The best part about no icons is that you must identify planes before engaging them which is more realistic then red and blue icons in the sky for sure.

ClnlSandersLite
05-27-2005, 02:24 AM
What the topic starter is getting at is this:

In RL, it is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier for someone with even average eyesight to id an aircraft than is possible in the game. In fact, you can also do it from ALOT further away. This is due to a few technicological limitations.

1st, your POV is shrunk due to your monitor size.

2nd, your FOV is narrower due to the small viewing window that we as gamers get.

Note that it is possible to eliminate one or the other of the above on a specific monitor size but not both. Also, if the gamer is playing on a different sized monitor than what it was developed for, it screws it up. If you "fisheye" it to increase FOV, you shrink everything. If you make everything true sized, you limit FOV dramatically. Games now tend to strike a balance between these 2 things and generally design for (I believe) a 19" monitor.

3rd, your monitors res/refresh rate/level of detail isn't NEARLY as good as your eyes (assuming average eyesight).

4th, irl, you can shift your view some left, right, up, down, forward, and maybe back. This is only recently possible in games with the new 6dof but it still isn't possible in this sim.

5th, there is NO depth perception which is a severe liability. When the aircraft is far away, you can't tell if it's moving towards you or away from you.


Now, I'm sorry to hear that some of you guys are half blind and such, nothing I can do about that. But, IRL I've got 20/10 vision. This means that my vision is roughly 50% better than the average persons. Why, would I want to limit myself to 20/40 in one eye and blind in the other?

The only valid reason I've seen here is immersion factor. If that's all it is, you can turn it off at your end and let those on the server who don't care have them on. Since, as you say you can id aircraft anyways.

As long as the game doesn't have big blue and red arrows pointing at your enemy (like in wonder woman view), who cares?

mauld
05-27-2005, 02:28 AM
I have allways played with no icons and no HUD since the original il2 game. I have concidired icons, hud, and speedbar to be too much clutter on on a highly detailed game. I prefer to read the instraments to obtain information on flight performance. The "cheat" i use is the minimap on full, this takes back into the action quickly and is a substitute for the place of ground control and frendly radio messages detailing enemy location but i do try and keep its use to a minimum. If the game was to easy we would be bored with it very quickly and i have been playing since the day it was realesed.

IAFS_Painter
05-27-2005, 02:48 AM
Personally, I prefer "full switch"

With no icons, you try to learn what a plane looks like at a distance (for example all 109s have square wing tips, not just the 109 E's). It isn't realistic, but - it's there.

On gunnery - I'm just as bad, with, or without icons.


I now find WW confusing, as soon as I look away from my 12, I have no sense of orientation. There are no clues as to where your plane is in relation to what's out there. No cockpit sill, no canopy frame (frames are a mixed blessing), no wing or tail plane to judge where you are, or what the plane's doing.

diomedes33
05-27-2005, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
It's NOT realistic.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never once said it was more realistic than using icons. Its all a balance between what technology can produce and what you are willing to give up. The fact is that no matter how you play, it will never be "realistic." If you feel that icons is more realistic to you, by all means fly that way.

I enjoy flying with no icons because I enjoy the challenge. I have also noticed, the more switches that are flipped the more mature the crowd. (Naturally there are exceptions)

I added my personal anecdotes in case you were discouraged. All it takes is time to become comfortable with no icons.

Fly how you want. I doubt the degree of realism you are after will be available anytime soon. The technology doesn't exist.

SeaFireLIV
05-27-2005, 03:13 AM
I haven`t read the whole kaboodle, but I get the gist of this.

I started IL2 with limited icons, but the sim was so good and `realistic` to me that I found it harder to live with icons. I decided to make the leap into no icons and what a difference!

Everything I read in recollections of fighter pilots started to happen. I`d keep my head on a swivel, I had to identify targets first before shooting. Sometimes i`d miss a target or get confused with a swift 109 and a P40 in the middle of a furball. I`d get boomed and zoomed and not see it if I wasn`t really looking!

I mean it was just like everything I`ve read. Do you guys get that with icons on? No, you see the target, you can`t possible misidentify or lose the target. How many of you have actually read pilot real life experiences and compared.

One other point:

Little red and blue markers surrounding enemy planes blows the visual enjoyment of the sim. Pilots didn`t see that in R/L and no one`s gonna convince me that looking at a 109 with blue markings hovering in mid air around it is more `realistic`.

JG54_Arnie
05-27-2005, 03:23 AM
Most annoying thing about no icons is that the planes simply dissapear so very often. Its so silly to have a bandit in full view and than to see it dissapear the moment its at a certain distance where its camo shows up or something. If there's one thing killing immersion, the dissapearing planes is. On winter maps, no icons is fine and enjoyable, on summer maps its simply frustrating..

Thats, just my opinion ofcourse..

WTE_Ibis
05-27-2005, 03:24 AM
Icons imho are not the problem,no one REALLY wants icons. What we all want is to be able to see and follow an aircraft as well as we would in real life.
I see no argument here, no icons BUT better able to see,full stop.

ps.I'm half blind by the end of the night and that doesn't help.

Lucius_Esox
05-27-2005, 03:31 AM
I sort of did things in reverse. I played the original for first time, thought the icons were to "arcadish" and turned em off! I played like that for three years.

Even my occasional online playing before I got b/band was done with icons off (I honestly had a blind spot they were there and kept em turned off lol), even on servers where icons were turned on,, DOH!

For sure I got shot down more than I should have,, but not as much as you would think.


I still don't like the way icons detract from the beautifull visuals in this game but I prefer em now (limited)

I would like to see another method used to make planes easier to identify, i.e. numbers and letters cluttering up my view.

Maybe the contrast between the model and the background becoming more "distinct" the closer you get. But having tried various methods(adjusting monitor, digital vibrance etc) none seem to help too much.

I think that in the upcoming BOB this is the one area where I would like to see most work done!

Grue_
05-27-2005, 04:08 AM
I like flying full difficulty co-op so I tend to choose a full difficulty co-op server to fly on.

SOLO_Bones
05-27-2005, 04:20 AM
I too would prefer to play against cockpit always on and no icons. But to get true to real life let's not forget that you in real life you should fly for the next four years and have five kills. That would make you an ace! In real life, 99% of us sim pilots would not even be able to hit an enemy aircraft with even one bullet. Even if we are accurate, most of the hits would probably be against friendly aircraft. Real life doesn't sound all that much fun.

gkll
05-27-2005, 05:00 AM
"Its a well considered post gkll" - thanks arcadeace. I don't play enough to really be considered one of the boys, low to middling skill, low hours, addicted to the best aircraft, limited skill set etc etc, however I do have a brain and sometimes my opinions can be worth listening to.

Diomedes33 said "when I first started playing I didn't see how anyone could compete in closed cockpit/no icon servers. It took me about a year to shed wonder woman...." I would trot out another favorite beef of mine - why all the servers which are either wonder woman OR full switch? I end up on the wonder woman servers playing 'in pit'... used to be a better range of options on the servers, now it is to the point where people automatically put icons together with wonder woman, even in their heads as the above quote shows...

And of course there is, unfortunately, more sneering at padlock, as if TIR were bolted on everyone's head from birth, or showed up in the game pack or something... mostly padlock is useful in the final stages of a kill when making continual &lt;manual&gt; view adjustments is just not 'real', that is in RL your head swings around pretty much without thought, have you all noticed? Instead we get more mindless sneering against padlock... whereas if you observed carefully I think people would see that padlock users tend to fly bad tactics and are easy meat - take advantage!

pit on, padlock, and limited no color icons seems as if it would be about right. However when a buddy of mine hosts same we get no takers... go figure. Bandwagons.... bah!


Looking forward to 4.0 and the unrealistically difficult fully real FM.... ha ha. Maybe I should start this thread now? I AM looking forward to it and it IS a contradiction to my above stated position on viewing....

stubby
05-27-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
that's cool, i like no icons, ruins the immersion, i'd rather have no icons and more immersiveness than icons that ruin the illusion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well said. that's basically what the entire agrument boils down to. i base the whole concept of 'icons' vs 'no-icons' on what I see on those authentic gun cam films. I never saw a big floating tag above the plane during real combact back in the day. it's about illusion or the suspension of disbelief.

achtung2004
05-27-2005, 07:31 AM
Long time listener, first time caller. Online, I alternate between icons/no icons. Question for all of you: other than Greater Green, are there other servers with cockpit on, limited icons?

BM357_TinMan
05-27-2005, 07:34 AM
I too am half blind (my right eye is glass as a matter of fact http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

However, I believe that, as usual, the word game is being played here. All too often "realism" and "immersion" get confussed.

I like to fly without Icons because I find it to be more "imersive". The little lables over the plane kind of kill the illusion a little.

x6BL_Brando
05-27-2005, 08:03 AM
This, and excuse the pun, is how I see it. I think there is one major element missing from the 'realism' point of view, and that is the abilty to see in stereo, which is one of the major factors in human vision. No offence to those with mono vision, but it's interesting to note how it doesn't faze them to fly without icons. In fact their disabilty may be an aid - they are well practiced in monocular vision already.

My eyes are good (although having no right arm holds me back a tad) and I love to ride my sidecar outfit really fast. Preferably without hitting anything. At 120 mph, staring out through a thin sheet of invariably fly-spattered plastic, my mind is awash with calculations, most of which are automatic. My brain is making constant decisions based on sensory input. My backside is telling me a lot about the road and the bike, but at least 90% of the info is coming past the vizor and into the logic circuits via my eyes. Other than an occasional glance at the rev-counter to check the engine, and the hard-wired, regular mirrors-check, all my attention is focussed (key word that) on what is happening in front of me. My stereo vision enables me to discern a squashed bug from an oncoming car at long range. But stick a small dot on your monitor screen and see how many times you mistake it for an incoming bogey! Peripheral vision plays a part too. I occasionally get overtaken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, usually by solo bikes, and yet that event will start to be noticed by me as soon as he draws level (or she, sorry girl bikers, no offence). That's despite the fact that I'm also focussed on all those trees, cars, white lines....and that p---k towing a caravan at about half my speed about a mile ahead in the outside lane (!)and I'm closing fast. All that, and I'm also aware that the bike passing me is a Honda. I've already eased my throttle, and I'm now weighing all the factors - speed, the Honda, the caravan, what they are all likely to do and what I should do next.....and a huge part of the calculation involves distance and closing speeds. This situation is more difficult for a one-eyed person - this very specialised article explains the differences in perception http://www.nora.cc/patient_area/monocular_vision.html

The point is that the game is only a simulation of the 3-dimensional reality. If all the information for the kind of snapshot I just described has to be displayed two-dimensionally on a rectangle of glass then its an even chance for each. Stereopsis is no longer the advantage that it is in real life. TrackIR helps, but it helps equally for all. It's just a hands off method of panning - even 6DOF will not turn a 2D image into a 3d one. From that it's easy to understand idonno's point. The stereoscopic element being absent means that this 'realism' is in fact heftily flawed. The clues that betray a camouflaged plane flying against a similarly coloured background are largely missing - it is a 2D image overlaid on a 2D background - and for that reason I would prefer to have a limited set of icons. The tricky part is getting the distance for the appearance of an icon equal to the range where a sharp pair of eyes would detect a plane in real life.

I don't even think it's necessary to have two colours like red or blue. A coloured dot appearing at detection range would do the trick, and recognition skills would still come into play. I'm not particularly interested in knowing what type of plane, or what it's flight number is or who is in it - I just think that a degree of relaxation about the 2D/3D difficulty would actually improve the 'realism'.

B.

lowpostcount
05-27-2005, 08:13 AM
Offline only - no trackir

Would prefer to not use icons, but it gets too frustrating to losetargets at midrange against the groundscape.

Be nice to have non-distance, non-color (side) specific icons with some basic distance code (&lt;5km distant is neon orange; &gt;5km distant neon green/ or a simple neon colored "+" for aircraft increasing in distance from your pov, and "-" for those closing in. Important that the size and placement of these would not interfere with the target identification at the closer ranges.

This seems more an issue about difficulty settings than realism.

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Occasionally, I host full switch DS on v1.22 lobby of UBI. Yes, in the heart of the "arcade zone", with unlimited ammo, cockpit off etc. rooms.

I am not blind.

Icons protruding from clouds, or mountain ridges are far less realistic, than the limited visibily without them.

So our choice is:
1) to be very unrealistic (with icons),
2) to be somewhat unrealistic (without icons).

I chose option 2 for my server. The extra attention needed for ID-in aircraft gives extra time to play before getting shot down. Also, "no icon" forces communication between friendlies to a great extent, and this is also added fun with the "no icon" settings.

I hope this gives you an idea about my reasons why I switched off icons. It was not because of achieving perfect realism, but for getting a bit closer to it. Yes, you are probably right - we are not there yet anyway.

diomedes33
05-27-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Diomedes33 said "when I first started playing I didn't see how anyone could compete in closed cockpit/no icon servers. It took me about a year to shed wonder woman...." I would trot out another favorite beef of mine - why all the servers which are either wonder woman OR full switch? I end up on the wonder woman servers playing 'in pit'... used to be a better range of options on the servers, now it is to the point where people automatically put icons together with wonder woman, even in their heads as the above quote shows...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was trying to illustrate that I've played the full range of settings of IL-2 and that I have settled on full switch to be the most enjoyable for me. With icon on it takes all the excitment out of the game. It becomes another first person shooter. When you know exactly who's enemy and who's friendly, there is no need to maintain good situational awareness. You also have almost zero chance of bouncing someone, which were the majority of A2A victories. No matter how you twist my words around, you will not convince me that icons is more realistic. Nor do I mean to imply that no icons is more realistic than not. It all boils down to what you are willing to compromise.

Out of the 50+ servers on Hyperlobby there are only 4 or 5 on the more difficult settings. From this thread there are others who believe as you do and there are those that belive as I. I'm not trying to 'convert' you or do I care what settings you fly. Fly on the settings that you enjoy.

TAGERT.
05-27-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I got a question for you guys who host with no (or virtually no) icons.

Are you people half blind in real life? You would have to be to think that seeing another airplane in the sky is that dang difficult.

I am as big a realism nut as you'll find in this game and I'm here to tell you that your idea of realism ain't realistic. Unless you're trying to simulate air combat for the nearly blind, what you have is less realism, not more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks MOM.. Now is it ok if johnny stays for supper?

BSS_Goat
05-27-2005, 08:51 AM
I'm colored blind so icons mean nothing to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hey, lets start a new community. A blind or sight impaired one.

Philipscdrw
05-27-2005, 09:15 AM
I never used icons until I started flying online, and the servers (such as GreaterGreen) use limited icons. The funny thing is, offline, on the QMB, I easily lose that squadron of He-111s bootling along on a constant course and altitude - but online, you can see the aircraft from miles away, and keep track of them too.

My combat tactics (usually in the P-38) are to take off and climb to about 10000-15000ft, while heading towards the lines. I'll keep looking out, and try to spot dogfights between the single-engine jockeys, and if I see them I'll put my nose over them and fly in that direction, and keep looking out to check where they are. If I lose sight of an aircraft, I just keep flying and looking - but I can't tell if that's a graphical issue, or if he's flown into cloud, or been shot down. When I'm over the aircraft, I'll dive down, and it's not normally difficult to tell what type of aircraft it is, even if icons are off (I've only made one friendly kill online in air-to-air combat). I then sit on this guy's tail and shoot when I get the chance. It works well, I get a couple of kills an hour or so.

Saunders1953
05-27-2005, 09:20 AM
A lot of good points made here. I agree with the "it's immersion, not realism" at stake. I'm with Idonno, in that we should be able to at least see (as opposed to ID) an a/c a little better than the limits of technology allow. gkll really expressed things well, and Brando, your analogy is spot on in my humble opinion.

Like Luscious, I started in the original IL2 with no icons, and got pretty good at ID'ing the enemy--they were everything that didn't look like 109 (which over time I got real familiar with because that's all I flew then. (I don't fly online, only offline.)

But Lucious, Papa_K, any others that want the icons to assist in spotting but don't want the full immersion-busting red/blue/ID effect, etc., icons, there is a great compromise I use....change your icon color, distance settings, all that. I used Nutcase's icon tutorial, and now I have black icons only, no ID, and the distance that I first see a dot is extended beyond the default. Big difference, and must less immersion-killing.

http://www.jumpintojapan.com/custom-icon-settings.html


Don't leave base without it!

Philipscdrw
05-27-2005, 09:42 AM
Instead of black dots for distant aircraft, I had a different idea. Gradually scale the colour of the dot from being the same as the background colour to being the complete negative of the background colour, then load the low-detail model. That way, the closer you are to a distant target, the more contrast there is between him and the background.

Don't know how well this would work in the dark, though.

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Saunders1953:
I used Nutcase's icon tutorial, and now I have black icons only, no ID, and the distance that I first see a dot is extended beyond the default. Big difference, and must less immersion-killing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good information, thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

But I am afraid that 10 km dots and uncolored icons won't solve one typical problem: loosing sight of camouflaged aircraft against summer terrain.

If you can't see the aircraft (dot or silhouette) properly, you will eventually resort to reading and following the icon instead. Now, that will quickly kill your immersion, in case you expect to interpret and follow aircraft dots and silhuettes, just like in real life.

My understanding is that icons of any form are the wrong direction towards solving the visibility problem. Limited icons therefore are a smaller step in the wrong direction, so they are a better short-term compromize than the default icons.

But the main point is: if the dots and silhouettes are not as visible as in real life, the dots and silhouettes must be improved in the simulation.

Adding a completely unrealistic icon above the half-realistic dot is just not getting the view any more realistic - it does exactly the opposite... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

idonno
05-27-2005, 10:43 AM
When I host, the icons have no color, and all you get is airplane type at 3 km. In a fight with multiple friendlies and enemies you have to look right at an aircraft's icon to ID it, there's no color to provide super easy SA. And of course some will say just look at the airplane itself and ID it, but that's not possible in the game at the same range that it is possible in real life.

Also, with these icon settings I'm no longer fighting magic airplanes that vanish before my eyes when they go low.

I find that these settings provide an experience that mirrors those I've read about in the recollections of WWII fighter pilots. One minute the sky is full of airplanes and the next you're all alone, BUT if you get to within a reasonable distance, you can see aircraft against the ground and you can ID them approximately as you would be able to in real life.

It's not perfect of course. We need more control over the icons. I'd like to be able to make them smaller, control the rate at which they fade in to view, and have them fade out again as they get close enough that you can ID an airplane without them, but limited icons, such as I've described here are far more realistic than no icons, and if you disagree, then I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

The realism of the fight is more important than the realism of the look. And when you really think about it, no icons doesn't even look realistic. If you are looking at an airplane that is close enough that you should be able to ID it, but you can't, then that doesn't look realistic, and if you're looking down at an airplane that is close enough to be easily seen, but you can't see it even when looking right at it, then that does not look realistic.

Immersion is you're only viable argument, but realism is more important than immersion, because realism will provide immersion, but it doesn't work the other way around.

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Some will say just look at the airplane itself and ID it, but that's not possible in the game at the same range that it is possible in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? ID them at closer range. Are you an impatient type or something? I get closer and use the gunsight view. By the time I am in shooting distance, I can "feel" what type of plane it is, especially that I frequently use the "S" button to see what aircraft are flying around (friendly + opponent).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Also, with these icon settings I'm no longer fighting magic airplanes that vanish before my eyes when they go low.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. So you are fighting against the icons in these situations, right? INDEED, VERY REALISTIC? "Shoot the letters!"

In this case, I listen to engine noise while making a circle. High pitch = we are getting closer, low-pitch - we are going further apart.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
limited icons, such as I've described here are far more realistic than no icons, and if you disagree, then I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M8, you are completely going off track with this one. No one is right, or wrong here, we simply have a minor disagreement that we try to bridge. If you don't see it this way, and you desperately want to be right, then be sorry indeed - for yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno
The realism of the fight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MegaLOL. I suspect that you expect to shoot down far more planes per hour in online gaming, than the WWII fighters did in real life. Beware, if this is true, it is is UNREALISTIC!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno
realism is more important than immersion, because realism will provide immersion, but it doesn't work the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I disagree. Immersion has nothing to do with realism alone. It has to do with your expectations ONLY.

If I am expecting to lock my view on an aircraft and never loose it, so that I can shoot down 5 enemy airplance in 1 hour of dogfight, I can be fully immersed in an unrealistic airquake server.

If I am expecting a close simulation of the view from the real arcraft, and can appreciate a 40 minutes coop-mission where I just barely come back alive from, I will be fully immersed in the full-switch setting server.


What you tried to sell in this thread, is the idea that a limited icon settings is more realistic, because you are more immersed.

The truth is the many people are also immersed in full-swtich no-icon servers as well. How do explain THAT?

Realism is a different thing, and in real life, there were no letters attached to the dots. If you read something like this in a WW2 book, close that book forever and never open it again, LOL.

So if you pardon me, I will continue hosting no-icons server for them, because it is more realistics, I expect realistic view, and it makes the game more immersive for me.

It may not be very immersive for you, but that's another problem you can easily solve, LOL.

idonno
05-27-2005, 11:44 AM
Rnzoli, it would be pointless for me to reply other than to say you just don't get it.

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Rnzoli, it would be pointless for me to reply other than to say you just don't get it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

idonno
05-27-2005, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
In this case, I listen to engine noise while making a circle. High pitch = we are getting closer, low-pitch - we are going further apart.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And while we're on the subject of realism, what is this BS?

If you're hosting, open the chat window and type &gt;extraocclusion ON. That'll get rid of that nonsense of hearing the other planes. I'm not saying that there aren't times when you can hear another airplane from your cockpit, but certainly not the way you can with extraocclusion turned off. There's nothing impressive about hearing a guy coming up on your six. That's just wrong.

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
In this case, I listen to engine noise while making a circle. High pitch = we are getting closer, low-pitch - we are going further apart.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And while we're on the subject of realism, what is this BS?

If you're hosting, open the chat window and type &gt;extraocclusion ON. That'll get rid of that nonsense of hearing the other planes. I'm not saying that there aren't times when you can hear another airplane from your cockpit, but certainly not the way you can with extraocclusion turned off. There's nothing impressive about hearing a guy coming up on your six. That's just wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant with this "BS", is that aircraft engine sound can be an alternative help to overcome the visibility limitations without ruining the view with tiny labels above the aircraft.

IMO the impressive thing is to turn towards the opponent, and locate him again, before he can get on my six. But maybe I am wrong?

idonno
05-27-2005, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
What I meant with this "BS", is that aircraft engine sound can be an alternative help to overcome the visibility limitations without ruining the view with tiny labels above the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about engine sounds as they relate to the icon issue. I'm just saying that hearing someone coming up on your six is not right, so extraocclusion should be turned on.

StellarRat
05-27-2005, 12:53 PM
I could live without realistic FOV, but the no icons ability to see vs. RL is a problem. Until we get monitors and video cards that can display 10000 x 9000 this will continue to be a problem. I do think we'll get there though.

In RL I can pick out planes at seven miles plus and often tell what type they are at 3 or 4. That's about 12 KM.

Dr2GunzOD
05-27-2005, 01:50 PM
OT a little but since Im on the clock:

As an eye doctor, I hate to hear of/see people with limited visual functions. I would encourage everyone to have an annual eye health exam. It is much easier to keep your eyes healthy being proactive vs reactive (ie "Doc, I havent been able to see out of this eye for 3 weeks")

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 02:23 PM
Okay, if there is nothing new coming up, let's just hug each other http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif and agree that

- visual tracking and ID's aircraft are more difficult in IL2 than in real life (many reasons)

- having limited icons is one great alternative to help everyone to do better at it in the game, and this option is liked by many good fellows

- putting up with and adapting to this limitation is another great alternative, also liked by a couple of good fellows, who - contrary to the initial post - are not all half blind

- icons are more realisic when considering the actual results of tracking and ID-ing aircraft

- "no icons" are more realistic when considering the actual appearance of the aircraft

- we are all free to host games with whatever options we want, and we are all free to go in or stay out of any server

- we are forever indebted to Oleg Maddox for providing us with that indispensable icons on/off feature changeability in IL2.

taiterbud
05-27-2005, 02:56 PM
Ummm nicely put rnzoli. Not that my 2 cents is gonna make a difference here but I cant help myself. Anyone who has flown with a TCAS system will soon understand that it is in fact more difficult than you think to see other planes in the air in RL, especially on a super clear day. True the sim cannot portray distance and tracking to equal that of RL but having no cons adds another aspect of air combat not found with cons, that of Identification. Anybody who has read any biographies of any fighter pilot (even during the Korean War) will find numerous stories of the pilot stalking a contact all the way down to almost firing before he realizes its a friendly (sometimes not realizing. . .ouch). No the sim is not RL but that aspect of air combat is added without cons. For that reason I prefer nocons. All you people saying how EASY it is to see traffic in the air in RL make me laugh, you have obviously not spent anytime flying.

Cheers.

BuzzU
05-27-2005, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr2GunzOD:
OT a little but since Im on the clock:

As an eye doctor, I hate to hear of/see people with limited visual functions. I would encourage everyone to have an annual eye health exam. It is much easier to keep your eyes healthy being proactive vs reactive (ie "Doc, I havent been able to see out of this eye for 3 weeks") </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys have taken a lot of my money.

Philipscdrw
05-27-2005, 03:45 PM
Someone stated earlier that depth perception allows you to determine if a distant aircraft is approaching or flying away... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

rnzoli
05-27-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by taiterbud:
All you people saying how EASY it is to see traffic in the air in RL make me laugh, you have obviously not spent anytime flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also add that spotting commercial air traffic could be definitely easier than spotting camouoflaged warplanes.

mynameisroland
05-27-2005, 05:22 PM
if you play on a 15 inch tft, with no track IR , no TS and only a twist rudder joystick with rudder tab all in one you are at a handicap in Full Switch.

If I play on a server that has full switch except for icons does that make me a noob for wanting to find an enemy and not fly around for 45 min chasing friendlies who dont use chat bar until I get kicked because the server dumps its lag on me.

I dont find that realistic or immersive, I can kill, navigate and land in a Full Switch server. I am also read up on tactics, aircraft histories, performance in game tactics in game depending on FM...

In a server which has Icons you fly the same aircraft , same restrictions, same ammo, same performance same rules of combat ect what Icons do is help remove the limitations of technology on our situational awareness in game. I have often likened Full Switch to be like flying and fighting blinkered.

I dont use padlock, i dont rely on icons, some servers have icon distance for enemies of 500m or less. What I do find very useful is cockpit off, it gives a greater impression of peripheral vision I am not hampered as much with my hardware restrictions.

If anything fighting in a server that has all the restrictions except for icons and cockpit off option you are in a tougher environment to survive, once engaged you cannot escape easily unless you are in control of the situation, you learn to rely on controlling E knowledge of manuevers, knowledge of your enemies and your own plane statistics.

Also recently on server wars a well known full switch team lost to a 'icon on ' server fighting on a map with full real restrictions. This helps show that not all pilots on servers other than those on Full switch are noob furball fighters.

SeaFireLIV
05-27-2005, 05:37 PM
I`m with rnzoli.

I`m not against people using icons if they wish, I just take issue with being told that having ICONS is more REALISTIC.

It reminds me of the Aesops Fable where one wolf gets its tail bitten off so goes back to its m8s and says, "Hey, guys, I cut my tail off and it looks cool. I think you all should do like me and cut your tails off too!"

This is one wolf who`s KEEPING his tail!

HellToupee
05-27-2005, 05:47 PM
immersion dissapears as soon as u use that hatswitch to look at something see a dot let go of the joystick just so u can fumble with the mouse and zoom in on the dot just to see a few more pixels of it.

I like icons and also externals for a few reasons
- icons espically full icons because it lessens the individualism and brings out teamwork, ur teammates are no longer just dots in the sky you know who they are and if they need help, no icons i feel totally alone friendies im with dissapear as soon as i do any sort of manover be it hidden behind the cogpit bars of doom or donned invisabilty cloaks against the ground. close Formation flying is also quite suicidal with those blind spots from ur fixed pov.

- externals you can watch whats going on spectate, see the game in its full glory not just from a cogpit with 90% of the screen covered by massive bars that can block out an entire airforce coming at you, i spend most of the time watching my plane in flybys admiring my skin, cant even see my own skin without externals.

- Also injoy the extra challange, a fight is not won by how well u work the hat switch or how good your computer is but by how you fly, you cant just dive and engage the invisability. Or fly low knowing those above cant see you.

My immersion comes from flying and working with others, Externals and icons while maybee not realistic remove the lone wolf feeling i get on full switch servers. Having some aids is good in games because well in real life people were not random there was a chain of command and organisation.

ALso this maybe a simulation but its still a game.

Jumoschwanz
05-27-2005, 05:54 PM
YOur system makes a big difference also. I upgraded my monitor and video card a few weeks ago, and it made a dramatic improvement in how well I could see other planes against different backgrounds.

If you have the system to make you comfortable with it and you enjoy it then you will fly full-difficulty.

The full-dfficulty guys use coms and radio talk like they did in WWII and have great teamwork.

And a good system helps you ID planes easily. I am very good now with the hat-switch to look around, I don't use a mouse at all. It was not always that way, I had to want to learn and I had to practice to get where I am. And now I would not trade ir for anything. I am just an average pilot in my opinion, but if you are not used to flying full-difficulty and don't have the skills to do it, I will kick your a$$ all over the F&*cing place!

If I go on a wonder-woman server it is a piece of cake for me, because everything is done for me, I don't have to look around, use the sun or my compass or a lot of other things real pilots have to do. Full-difficulty is called that because you have to have more skills and it is more difficult.
I don't know why that should bother anyone else unless it also bothers them when their next door nieghbor enjoys driving a different make car than them and thinks their brand is better. So what? You are the one with the problem, not the nieghbor who is having fun. get a life maybe?

S!

Jumoschwanz

SeaFireLIV
05-27-2005, 05:58 PM
My acid test for idonno is simple.

Read a few actual pilot accounts on dogfighting in WWII choose your theatre, BOB, Pacific, Eastern Front whatever. Read from the pilot`s first few engagements as a new recruit : The confusion, identification, how some had to be trained to see. Read how he was once he became accustomed to the dogfight.

Then go to FB/PF and switch icons off, take on the enemy offline in QMB or on a `full switch` or iconless server. Fly for a bit.

Then come back and tell me which matched closest with the written accounts of fighter pilots in WWII in real life. Your `realistic` icons or NO icons.

Somehow though, I doubt you will. You`ll just say what you want to say, without really knowing.

idonno
05-27-2005, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
My acid test for idonno is simple.

Read a few actual pilot accounts on dogfighting in WWII choose your theatre, BOB, Pacific, Eastern Front whatever. Read from the pilot`s first few engagements as a new recruit : The confusion, identification, how some had to be trained to see. Read how he was once he became accustomed to the dogfight.

Then go to FB/PF and switch icons off, take on the enemy offline in QMB or on a `full switch` or iconless server. Fly for a bit.

Then come back and tell me which matched closest with the written accounts of fighter pilots in WWII in real life. Your `realistic` icons or NO icons.

Somehow though, I doubt you will. You`ll just say what you want to say, without really knowing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have no clue. You talk about me and don't know the first thing about me.

I have been reading pilot accounts for the past 30 years. Over the last 6 years I have flown plenty on servers both with and without icons in Warbirds, Dawn of Aces, and IL2. I'm not some clueless noob talking out of his ***.

There certainly are things about icons as we have them now that detract from the realism, but still overall, limited icons, without question, provide a more realistic experience. There is absolutely nothing realistic about having an airplane vanish before your eyes.

carguy_
05-27-2005, 07:04 PM
Since 3.04 dots and LODs have been my second whine crusade after MG151/20.

I don`t like`em,my eyes hurt everytime,I lose planes as soon as they enter background,I have serious difficulty of rendez-vous ing with bomber formation,I have difficulty of tracing enemy maneuvers in background from distances larger than 300m.

But I will never switch to labeled plane view.Once I was in a server with icons.Saw a furball from 3km.Dots were blurred and all I relly saw was numbers flying around!

Icons remind me of playing Super Mario.When 3.04 dots started functioning I tried few qmb with icons.Couldn`t take the look.

arcadeace
05-27-2005, 07:12 PM
I have no problem where you're coming from idonno. I have read varying pilots' accounts over time in this forum, and, they vary. I remember some saying the differences with no icons compared to real SA are considerable, just too much. There's no question icons on is not realistic, its an unrealistic compensation for the unrealistic limitations due to the nature of simming.

I don't have TrackIR which I do believe it makes a significant difference from video I've watched, and my hat switch is unpredictable, as is my thumb and miserable coordination. My system is not very powerful, for smooth frame rates I compensate a lot on video quality. I have played with no icons for months and with the obvious limitations I went back to distance icons. Both to me are unrealistic in their own ways. Personally, I'm inclined to think no icons is closer to real, but there is a lot to compensate for and with certain disadvantages becomes too unreal as in blind uncoordinated awkwardness. Maybe its so intertwined with plain 'ole fun I'm unable to distinguish for a clear definition. But its funny when I read some of this, its like "icons is still arcade. No icons takes you to a real sim." That's way too much of a stretch.

AerialTarget
05-27-2005, 08:09 PM
I have permanent bilateral thumb injuries, so I have a very good excuse for not using the dumb hat! Therefore, I use external padlocks to keep track of my target, and try to avoid using them when I wouldn't have seen the plane in real life (as when part of my aircraft, such as the floor of the cockpit, is between it and me). With such an arangement, I need no icons.

The bottom line is that no side - icons, no icons, or external padlockers - has the right to say that their way is more realistic. I will confess, however, that external padlockers (like myself) do have a huge advantage. Some say that it more than makes up for the disadvantages of not being able to move your head (aside from turning it) and body, and of not being able to turn your head without thinking about it, and of not have peripherial vision, and of the virtual pilot slouching so badly in his seat that you can't even see the cowling.

bolillo_loco
05-27-2005, 09:16 PM
I have not seen a game with the emersion factor that eaw had. I could put 120 aircraft in the air and my computer ran it as well as it did when only one a/c was in the game. 60 b-17s escorted by 30 P-38js and attacked by 20 fw 190a8s and 30 bf 109g6s really added to the imersion factor. eaw had a pretty good campain feature to it. it is the only game I have played offline for hours and hours. I have often though of putting my old PII 450 together with old video drivers and dx7 or 8 just to play eaw off line.

my point is, all you graphics junkies demand more more more, which makes the game less less less playable with many a/c in the game.

heywooood
05-27-2005, 11:15 PM
If we were looking through real canopies and gunsights at real adversaries, we would not have icons - at least, not in WWII...todays jets with all that HUD stuff etc pretty much have icons...
But I'll bet those guys back in the day would have used them if they had 'em...more than one friendly plane was shot down by a pilot who mis-identified a friend as a foe.

HellToupee
05-27-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I have not seen a game with the emersion factor that eaw had. I could put 120 aircraft in the air and my computer ran it as well as it did when only one a/c was in the game. 60 b-17s escorted by 30 P-38js and attacked by 20 fw 190a8s and 30 bf 109g6s really added to the imersion factor. eaw had a pretty good campain feature to it. it is the only game I have played offline for hours and hours. I have often though of putting my old PII 450 together with old video drivers and dx7 or 8 just to play eaw off line.

my point is, all you graphics junkies demand more more more, which makes the game less less less playable with many a/c in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats because eaw is old, when il2 is eaw old u to will be able to throw in 1000s of planes into the air. When eaw came out my pc couldnt even run it.

rnzoli
05-28-2005, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
This helps show that not all pilots on servers other than those on Full switch are noob furball fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me remind you about the context that this thread started out with the accusation that no-icon hosts must be half-blind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

rnzoli
05-28-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
I like icons and also externals for a few reasons
- icons espically full icons because it lessens the individualism and brings out teamwork, ur teammates are no longer just dots in the sky you know who they are and if they need help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only true if you have no other means to communicate with friendlies. The icons will never announce their owners' intentions. Pilots can do this over TS, or over the built-in radio in IL2 for that matter, and that is REAL teamwork, more closely simluating that of WW2, than icons.

rnzoli
05-28-2005, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Having some aids is good in games because well in real life people were not random there was a chain of command and organisation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agree. Depending on setup, experience etc., some people need more aid than others, to get full immersion. No problem with that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But trying to explain that these aids are making the game more realistic is not going to work. Along those lines I could argue that I have no joystick, therefore my immersion requires that stalls and turbulence are also switched off. Would that make the game more realistic? LOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
05-28-2005, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
I like icons and also externals for a few reasons
- icons espically full icons because it lessens the individualism and brings out teamwork, ur teammates are no longer just dots in the sky you know who they are and if they need help </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only true if you have no other means to communicate with friendlies. The icons will never announce their owners' intentions. Pilots can do this over TS, or over the built-in radio in IL2 for that matter, and that is REAL teamwork, more closely simluating that of WW2, than icons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well first of all ts is a hassle, the built in radio well it sucks and also how does one react to commands on ts if one cannot work out wich of the dots is of the person speaking, one dot is much like other dots. Full real is about individualism if this teamwork is soo hard to acheive only a select few can manage it. Only cooperative can come even close to simulating ww2 teamwork, dogfight servers never have never will.

gkll
05-28-2005, 01:52 AM
These threads need to come up and be debated every so often... this will not be the last, nor should it be.

Another neat intersection of the concepts of Immersion, Realism, and Difficulty. Over and over simmers drag these out, confuse them, post repeatedly, come to an understanding, and go away better informed.

To understand my point of view, you need to see that for activities in the game that I find boring and do not feel like learning (viewing, the button interface, turning my head ha ha... etc) I consider most realistic to be that option which is correct for difficulty. So when I look at icons no icons, or padlock no padlock, I interpret the realism as correct when it is about right for difficulty compared to RL. So this leads to the choices:

1. limited icons (could a real pilot see plane so and so at such and such a distance? When could such a plane be recognized? So that would be such and such an icon option... or dots that look so and so, I don't care - present dots are no good however)

2. padlock (Do I have to think about moving my head in RL? No? Can I follow a fast moving object without thought? Yes? Then why should it be difficult in the game....)

3. Pit on. (Can I see through the floorboards in a real plane? No? Then I think it is pit on gentlemen.... no brainer)

However when it comes to the aspects of the sim most important to me, I want Full Real. THis is no longer that which is most correct for difficulty, it is that which is as close as possible to the RL physics... so I discard the &lt;difficulty correct=correct realism&gt; formula. And what is most important to me is the machine, and the control of it, and the arena we compete in. It is rather like car racing, a RL pursuit.

So even though I can't feel the plane, or the g force, or the side slip, or any of the million sensory inputs that pilots fly with, and even though without this feedback flying the plane is going to be harder than RL, I still want the raw unadorned plane model. I want that FM correct to RL, I don't care at all if it is incorrect for difficulty, I'll sort it out thank you. But grind my way through sorting out how to move my head? And look at things? Not this lad.

Edit&lt; and there's my version of 'Full Real, which for a hard-core simmer is where the Immersive part comes from. And some of the heat in these threads is because all simmers instinctively bristle if there is a suggestion they are less than Full Real, and will lash out when they are labelled 'arcade' that dirty insult.....&gt;

S! all - good discussion

SeaFireLIV
05-28-2005, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
(blah, etc...)
There is absolutely nothing realistic about having an airplane vanish before your eyes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there`s absolutely nothing realistic about having little numbers and letters following dots that are supposed to be WWII aircraft, not modern day jets with you using modern day HUDS.

But all I`m trying to do is explain it as simply as possible. Even if dots vanish to you (though I rarely see this, perhaps I make up for it by logicallly working out where the bogey will most likely be, very much in the same way I can tell a load of bomber dots from fighter dots. I can often tell a LW plane from an Allied plane from maximum distance simply by the way the dots are moving).

Anyway, like I said before, I take issue with being told that Icons are more realistic than no icons and all us `no icon` chaps must be half blind too.

Fly how you want, just don`t tell us it`s better than everyone else`s way of flying.

AerialTarget
05-28-2005, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
I want that FM correct to RL, I don't care at all if it is incorrect for difficulty, I'll sort it out thank you. But grind my way through sorting out how to move my head? And look at things? Not this lad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said, sir! I'll join your server any day.

BuzzU
05-28-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
These threads need to come up and be debated every so often... this will not be the last, nor should it be.

Another neat intersection of the concepts of Immersion, Realism, and Difficulty. Over and over simmers drag these out, confuse them, post repeatedly, come to an understanding, and go away better informed.

To understand my point of view, you need to see that for activities in the game that I find boring and do not feel like learning (viewing, the button interface, turning my head ha ha... etc) I consider most realistic to be that option which is correct for difficulty. So when I look at icons no icons, or padlock no padlock, I interpret the realism as correct when it is about right for difficulty compared to RL. So this leads to the choices:

1. limited icons (could a real pilot see plane so and so at such and such a distance? When could such a plane be recognized? So that would be such and such an icon option... or dots that look so and so, I don't care - present dots are no good however)

2. padlock (Do I have to think about moving my head in RL? No? Can I follow a fast moving object without thought? Yes? Then why should it be difficult in the game....)

3. Pit on. (Can I see through the floorboards in a real plane? No? Then I think it is pit on gentlemen.... no brainer)

However when it comes to the aspects of the sim most important to me, I want Full Real. THis is no longer that which is most correct for difficulty, it is that which is as close as possible to the RL physics... so I discard the &lt;difficulty correct=correct realism&gt; formula. And what is most important to me is the machine, and the control of it, and the arena we compete in. It is rather like car racing, a RL pursuit.

So even though I can't feel the plane, or the g force, or the side slip, or any of the million sensory inputs that pilots fly with, and even though without this feedback flying the plane is going to be harder than RL, I still want the raw unadorned plane model. I want that FM correct to RL, I don't care at all if it is incorrect for difficulty, I'll sort it out thank you. But grind my way through sorting out how to move my head? And look at things? Not this lad.

Edit&lt; and there's my version of 'Full Real, which for a hard-core simmer is where the Immersive part comes from. And some of the heat in these threads is because all simmers instinctively bristle if there is a suggestion they are less than Full Real, and will lash out when they are labelled 'arcade' that dirty insult.....&gt;

S! all - good discussion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you use TrackIR and not padlock. If you were in a modern jet with a computer, then padlock would be realistic. In a WW2 plane it's not. The game computer is following the plane for you. Not real. In real life if you want to follow a plane you have to turn your haed to see it. Nothing more natural than TrackIR.

Also, just like in real life you can lose a plane with TrackIR. Not so with padlock.

-HH-Quazi
05-28-2005, 09:35 AM
Hey, I have fix for this. Don't play on servers with icons the way you don't like. Play on servers that have the icons set to where you like it. Simple.

BYW, interesting read. Great discussion and no one is getting out of hand. Myself, I have issues identifying ac until they are so close that it doesn't really matter. By the time I figure out if it is an enemy or not, I am getting shot at. But this is do to my own lack of knowledge of what to look for, identifying things such as the radiator, or wing shape. So, do to my own lack of knowledge, I like the icons on. But only at closer distances, maybe 1km. Gives me the immersion factor of trying to position my ac to attack and still not knowing if this is an enemy ac or not. Of course that immersion factor is trown out the window when I get within the 1km set icon distance, but at least up until then I can experience some realistic immersion of trying to position myself against the enemy.

But botomline is that this is a game and to have fun flying it. At least it is for me.

CUJO_1970
05-28-2005, 09:37 AM
It's strange but online I definitely prefer pit on and limited icons.

Offline I can't stand icons.

rnzoli
05-28-2005, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
I interpret the realism as correct when it is about right for difficulty compared to RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regretfully, many people leave such threads with a sour taste in their mouth, scratching their heads in disbelief "why the other guys did not get what was obvious for me?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Here I can catch the culprit red-handed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To bring the dicussion forward, we need a common platform of definitions ,in the first place, otherwise everything is up in the thin air.

So I suggest the following:

Immersion - feeling just about right in the game, not too easy, not too difficult. We can immerse ourselves at various difficulty settings, considering our gear setup, experience, expectations etc.

Difficulty - the challenges associated with each difficulty switch in the game. We are pretty clear on what sort of challenges the switches pose in game, regardless of the labels on the switches.

Realism - the closeness of the gaming experience to our imagined reality. We don't know reality - we pervceive our reality, and imagine other's reality. Several people can have different perception about the very same reality now, and also, imagine different reality in the past.

Reality - a concept that you can only get from reviewing broad documentary evidence (photographs, gun cams, performance charts, design documents), eyewitness accounts (balanced ones - not just aces, but those pilots also, who never every shot down anything), and maybe some of your own real flying experience.

The confusion is even more increased by the button naming in the difficulty settings. I suggest calling them:

Easy -&gt; Low difficulty
Normal -&gt; Medium difficulty
Real -&gt; High difficulty

Now the way I understand your saying is that you like a specific medium-level difficulty setting, that makes you immersed in the game. You also think this is closest to reality, based on your gaming perception and the way you imagine WW2 aerial fights.

The no-icon guys like me say, that we have a more conservative imagination about WW2 reality (not everyone can be an ace), and from our gaming experience, we think that the hard setting gives a closer match to that.

The no-icon guys want to get the icon guys to admit the obvious, i.e., there is no documentary evidence for numbers and letters above aircraft in WW2 aerial dogfigths, so icons are deeply unreal from a visual point of view.

What I happily admit in exchange, that without a full-blown flightgear (TIR, hotas, pedals, broadband connection), the game is so difficult to play at the hardest settings, that it is giving us an experience miles away from what we imagine about WW2 dogfights. Compared to that frustrating situation, going to medium difficulty on the icons give an experience that is much closer to our imagined reality in WW2.

The bottom line is that no-icon and icon are two different leagues, different playgrounds - with different rules of engagement, different requirements on your flight gear. Therefore we should not label each other mindlessly, and should not force each other to host different difficulty settings than what we really like to play against - with every soul in that room.

gkll
05-28-2005, 12:50 PM
"I assume you use TrackIR and not padlock. If you were in a modern jet with a computer, then padlock would be realistic. In a WW2 plane it's not. The game computer is following the plane for you. Not real. In real life if you want to follow a plane you have to turn your haed to see it. Nothing more natural than TrackIR.

Also, just like in real life you can lose a plane with TrackIR. Not so with padlock."

Actually I use mouse view and find it, and always have, very natural. However I like padlock because when I snap in to gunsight view the mouse view sensitivity that works well in wide view is not so good for gunsight view. So follow the bandit around until I am deep in six (if I can... ha ha) and then snap on padlock and zoom in. The general point being that gunsight is not really zoom at all, it is merely normal view as it would be in RL, with the little patch that is our monitor to peep through. It seems little enough to have this view locked on target, I am pretty sure I could do it in RL without much thought.....

or tracking a bogey in limited icons, is it a bandit? Snap on and zoom in (remember it is not a zoom, it is what you would see unassisted in RL, just a very narrow FOV) to have look... should there be a 3 second delay imposed as I locate the bogey through the 'cardboard tube' stuck on my eye? Not in RL... so I'll let the computer take care of this thanks. It just seems there is no need to make the process of glancing out of the cockpit to the left or whatever, and having a look at a bogey, a big deal, subject to technology... TIR.

If people think the padlock tracks for a half sec too long when the plane is out of sight, well that could be fixed.... as it is it is still IMO more realistic than the wobbling cardboard tube that I peep through in non padlocked gunsight view...

BuzzU
05-28-2005, 12:54 PM
I think you're in denial.

SeaFireLIV
05-28-2005, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Here I can catch the culprit red-handed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To bring the dicussion forward, we need a common platform of definitions ,in the first place, otherwise everything is up in the thin air.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, but then in that same regard perhaps we all need to paste our exact Computer specifications. Everyone`s rig`s different, this is a PC sim afterall, so what one sees regarding aircraft dots are different to another.

Using a Radeon card as opposed to Nvidia and depending on drivers probably makes a world of difference to each sim player`s personal visual acuity.

I guess we should all place a specifications list in every post we make so we all know where we stand eg:

Monitor/ Type size.
Graphic card specs/ driver.
General PC specs.
Utilites used ie TIR, 3D specs, etc.
Distance sat from moniter.
Lighting conditions/ gamma.
IL2 game settings, etc.
Seriousness of gamer.

blah, blah, blah.

I guess noone`s willing to go this far, but for us all to truly understand the problem with why some love no icons and others don`t this would be the only way to solve it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

gkll
05-28-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you're in denial.

Buzz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well thats real good Buzz -adds a lot to the discussion

SeaFireLIV
05-28-2005, 01:15 PM
The moral of the story is:

Everyone should fly IL2 in what they`re comfortable in and not dictate to anyone else.

BuzzU
05-28-2005, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think you're in denial.

Buzz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well thats real good Buzz -adds a lot to the discussion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much to add that I didn't already. You think using a mose is realistic. You think the zoom view is realistic. You think padlock is realistic.

I don't agree with any of it.

AerialTarget
05-28-2005, 02:49 PM
What isn't personal opinion, however, is the fact that you can see uncamoflaged aircraft much better in real life than in the game, from both above and below. I hear people disputing this, which is crazy. Someone already pointed out that in real life you can identify large aircraft at twenty thousand feet, whereas in the game they aren't even rendered as a pixel at that altitude.

Think of cars. You can easily pick out individual cars at five thousand feet. In the game, they are once more not even rendered.

marcocomparato
05-28-2005, 03:19 PM
go to an airshow and watch at what distance you are able to make out those small fighters at. i think you will find it really much more like IL2 than you think. (and im talking in the clear dry air of california)

planes do fade to grey at a distance as the sky is reflected off of them and the light that would carry our color information is disipated.

at anything farther than maybe 1000ft. (300m) it was impossible to even discerne some very stark differences in aircraft like zeros vs wildcats (which we watched at chino air show with a group of pilots and enthusiasts all agreeing on distances besides my own perfect vision)

really, check it out for yourself.

BuzzU
05-28-2005, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marcocomparato:
go to an airshow and watch at what distance you are able to make out those small fighters at. i think you will find it really much more like IL2 than you think. (and im talking in the clear dry air of california)

planes do fade to grey at a distance as the sky is reflected off of them and the light that would carry our color information is disipated.

at anything farther than maybe 1000ft. (300m) it was impossible to even discerne some very stark differences in aircraft like zeros vs wildcats (which we watched at chino air show with a group of pilots and enthusiasts all agreeing on distances besides my own perfect vision)

really, check it out for yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but you see a plane. In PF you see nothing.

Platypus_1.JaVA
05-28-2005, 04:37 PM
To Icon or not to icon, that is the question. And that has been the question for the past three and a half year, since Il-2 1.0. In all those three and a half years, it always amazes me that 95% of the people on this forum claims to fly "Full real" (or whatever passes for that on you 15" screen) and yet, 95% of the servers on HL have some kind of difficulty turned off. It is only incidentally that a no-icon server is active on HL.

Makes you wonder where all the so called full real junkies stay?

gkll
05-28-2005, 05:50 PM
"Not much to add that I didn't already. You think using a mose is realistic. You think the zoom view is realistic."

I think using a mouse is &lt;cheap&gt;. Did I say it was realistic? My complaint is instead of using my head I have to train small muscle groups in my hand and forearm to 'simulate' moving my head... you have TIR I assume? Good for you....

It isn't zoom. It is the real view you would see for a distance, given an average distance of your head from a 17 monitor. If you don't believe me take some measurements.... if you think it is zoom you are mistaken. It is just a narrow FOV. This is old stuff, with your number of posts I'd have thought you would know that... ancient history from the old days...

gkll
05-28-2005, 06:31 PM
Buzz I was a bit over the top apologies

gkll
05-28-2005, 07:58 PM
gkll said "Buzz I was a bit over the top apologies"

ha bit like apologizing after hiroshima still the smell of crisping flesh....

BuzzU
05-28-2005, 09:32 PM
You have me confused now.

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 10:29 PM
No icons may not be realistic but you're not going to convince me that icons are realistic either.

I agree it's easier to spot stuff in real-life and have argued as much. The fact is our monitor screens lack the resolution, depth and colour variations required to render accurately what we see in the rear world. They are approximations. Granted, IL-2's no-icon environment tends towards the harder side in the compromise but icons just blow 90% of realistic tactics out of the water. Wonder-woman view takes care of the other 10%. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Like Seafire said, I had heard of pilots saying they were fighting in a furball with tonnes of aircraft all around them and then the next minute they were all gone. My immediate thoughts were that it was an exaggeration or the effects of passage of time on old memories. However, you can experience EXACTLY the same thing now and again in icons off servers but I very much doubt you would with icons on.

rnzoli
05-29-2005, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by marcocomparato:
go to an airshow and watch at what distance you are able to make out those small fighters at. i think you will find it really much more like IL2 than you think. (and im talking in the clear dry air of california)

planes do fade to grey at a distance as the sky is reflected off of them and the light that would carry our color information is disipated.

at anything farther than maybe 1000ft. (300m) it was impossible to even discerne some very stark differences in aircraft like zeros vs wildcats (which we watched at chino air show with a group of pilots and enthusiasts all agreeing on distances besides my own perfect vision)

really, check it out for yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but you see a plane. In PF you see nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Has this been reported to the dev team? With what result?

rnzoli
05-29-2005, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Makes you wonder where all the so called full real junkies stay? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are there any at all??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or, maybe driven underground by the so called arcade aces! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But you can also ask this question from the FISC (http://www.gofisc.com/) members.

But, you should first define the exact meaning of your label "full real junkie".

(Based on my posts into this topic, I really wonder: am I supposed to be one? If so, how can I explain the red icon in my sig!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif)

rnzoli
05-29-2005, 02:54 AM
Simple developers' solution to the problem...

http://web.axelero.hu/rnzoli/difficulty.JPG

NorrisMcWhirter
05-29-2005, 04:13 AM
Perhaps this thread should be called (and it sounds better as an alliteration) 'Relative Realistic Realism'?

Unforuntately, people hark on about 'real' settings but it's all relative. Until we can move our virtual heads to see around cockpit obstructions, see light reflecting off cockpit glass from a couple of miles away etc then we're never going to recreate real conditions.

Also, it's been said that plane identification IRL isn't so difficult. If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't have had pilots forming up with the enemy following a battle or shooting down their own side (as happened throughout the war).

I prefer cockpit on & no externals because I think it permits the use of tactics that are more consistent with history (i.e. 80% of pilots not seeing their attacker) & it not just benefitting the turnfighter who can assess how he's doing by yanking back on the stick after pressing F6.

That said, as Roland suggests, I think WW view gets around the limirations that we have in the game in providing the peripheral 'SA' that is so badly lacking.

This is why I suggested optional arrows with cockpit on view some time ago. The arrows don't even need to be red or blue; they could be just black (optional) to reestablish the peripheral vision problem. Of course, the arrows would need to 'disappear' if the enemy was in a blind spot (e.g. behind the pilot armour/fuselage) but this would be a useful compromise.

Ta,
Norris

ClnlSandersLite
05-29-2005, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No icons may not be realistic but you're not going to convince me that icons are realistic either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the crux of the issue. Neither one is realistic.

jacko40
05-29-2005, 06:05 AM
Boy, I just love this subject. One of my favorites. Really.

Having once been one the most out-spoken "OPPONENTS" of "full real" and now being a huge "PROPONENT" I can fully understand both sides of the fence. However, having been there and done that I know the difference. Open cockpits are no different than a sony play station game.

As an Open cockpit flyers you appreciate the eye candy. The fly-by views. The skins are nice and even the landscape. Of course those are just nice little toys.

When you fly competitvely the advantage of distant "radar" tracking, coloured arrows and of course outside snap views can turn an out-of-box no -name into an ace in no time at all!

The help you get in flying open cockpit makes it into an arcade game. Do you really need a wingman? No not really. You have arrows to help you. Do you really need to navigate? No you have external views to help find your way to the enemy and back home again.

You can always tell a avid arcade player when he begins playing a full real server. He can never find the fight. He gets killed without seeing the enemy. He complains about it, then leaves.

When you fly in full real you have just about the same or perhaps even less advantages as the real world war II pilots had. No icons. No map icons. Limited fuel. Limited ammo. Engine management. Fuel management. Tactics and most importantly: Wingmen and communications.

You learn to find the enemy before he finds you. You learn to manage your fuel efficiently. You learn when to fire and when not to fire your cannons and machine guns. You know when it's time to attack or when it's time to go home. Did you ever consider how important your camoflage really is? In full real it may save your life. In certain servers you only get "3" lives then your out of the game..lol. Do you have anthing like that in arcade setting? I don't think so.


Ok. Enough critisim. I can only say this about "making the transition" into Full real. Turn your screen resolution down and when you get into a full real game don't ever stop moving your head left to right, up and down. From take off until you land and respawn. Its a lot more fun than arcade settings. More competitive. Better pilots. Better tactics. Better game. That's a fact.

Jetbuff
05-29-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jacko40:
When you fly in full real you have just about the same or perhaps even less advantages as the real world war II pilots had. No icons. No map icons. Limited fuel. Limited ammo. Engine management. Fuel management. Tactics and most importantly: Wingmen and communications.

You learn to find the enemy before he finds you. You learn to manage your fuel efficiently. You learn when to fire and when not to fire your cannons and machine guns. You know when it's time to attack or when it's time to go home. Did you ever consider how important your camoflage really is? In full real it may save your life. In certain servers you only get "3" lives then your out of the game..lol. Do you have anthing like that in arcade setting? I don't think so.

Ok. Enough critisim. I can only say this about "making the transition" into Full real. Turn your screen resolution down and when you get into a full real game don't ever stop moving your head left to right, up and down. From take off until you land and respawn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So far so good. Spot on.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its a lot more fun than arcade settings. More competitive. Better pilots. Better tactics. Better game. That's a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's where you go wrong. It's more fun/competitive/better to you and me but there are people out there who prefer to "just get on with it." i.e. they want icons and map icons to find each other pronto and just go at it. (mind you they are not always limited to more relaxed setting servers) There are almost zero pre-engagement tactics because they find those boring. There are also zero post-engagement tactics because you can't hide. For them, full realism/difficulty hinders their appreciation of the game.

Now, the trick is, to accept that it is their right to enjoy their game however they wish. (even if it is downright repulsive to you) However, there should be no claim whatsoever about it being more realistic. It is just as unrealistic (more so imo) to fly around with neon signs over aircraft or a transparent pit than it is to have to strain harder than in real life to pick up planes or see around overly obtrusive canopy struts.

I encourage anyone who has not done so to give "full real" a try. I recommend they do so not because it is more realistic, (and don't kid yourself, it is when compared to full difficulty levels) but because there are numerous aspects of the game (mainly immersion-relate) that can only be experienced in that manner. If that isn't your kind of fun go ahead, enjoy the sim however you please. All I ask though, is that you return the favour and don't spew nonsense about the lower difficulty settings being more realistic.

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Also, it's been said that plane identification IRL isn't so difficult. If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't have had pilots forming up with the enemy following a battle...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, you mentioned that. This is exactly what happened to me when I went on one of my first sorties with my online squad. I flew right up to 3 other aircraft in a coop and was talking to the other guys. They kept saying, "Where are you? We don`t see you!"

"I`m right behind you guy!" I`d reply you must see me.

Then I realised I`d formned up with a Squad of 109s flying together, no doubt looking for my squad. I remember I was so shocked that I didn`t open fier I just kept flying with the enemy hoping they wouldn`t noticed, nervously calling the others for help. I`ll never forget it, but this is why I fly `realistically` when online (and offline too).

Jetbuff said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All I ask though, is that you return the favour and don't spew nonsense about the lower difficulty settings being more realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear,hear.

WH_Phist
05-29-2005, 07:29 AM
The fact that you can nitpick is in and of itself a miracle. Every time flight sims take a step forward, I'm gratefull, bugs and all. Here's where I learned to fly.
http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/images/fs1-apple-anim1.gif

Puts the whining in perspective dont it?

BM357_Hitcher
05-29-2005, 07:55 AM
I click on this little button that Oleg Maddox, the creator of the game, put in for difficulty settings. The button says, "REALISM". It is the most difficult setting and, according to Oleg Maddox, it is the most REALISTIC setting available in this game. The little dot at the end of the previous sentence is a period. Get it?

BuzzU
05-29-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
I click on this little button that Oleg Maddox, the creator of the game, put in for difficulty settings. The button says, "REALISM". It is the most difficult setting and, according to Oleg Maddox, it is the most REALISTIC setting available in this game. The little dot at the end of the previous sentence is a period. Get it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Oleg is always right eh?

rnzoli
05-29-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
That said, as Roland suggests, I think WW view gets around the limirations that we have in the game in providing the peripheral 'SA' that is so badly lacking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so true. Lack of peripheral vision hinders not only chasing the other aircrafts, but also, formation flying, and low-level flights above uneven terrain.

There is an open-source flight sim called FlightGear (http://www.flightgear.org), and it provides the ability for multiple displays with different FOVs. According to them, it is much greater fun to fly in valleys with this setup:

http://www.flightgear.org/Gallery/Large/3panelFlightgear.jpg

It would be great, if IL2 could provide this, but I already foresee the further deepening split in the community, as with any improvement that requires paying more money for the best rig.

However, 3 monitors might not necessarily mean 3 darn expensive PCs. The FM executes only on 1 PC, the others just generate the view. Moreoever, our peripheral vision does not pick up details, so the monitors on the sides can be driven by medium graphics cards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BM357_Hitcher
05-29-2005, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Of course Oleg is always right eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly! He created the game and he is God. Quibble all you want about SA, peripheral vision, graphic cards, blah, blah, blah, Realism = Full Switch according to Oleg.

BuzzU
05-29-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Of course Oleg is always right eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly! He created the game and he is God. Quibble all you want about SA, peripheral vision, graphic cards, blah, blah, blah, Realism = Full Switch according to Oleg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good job of leg humping.

BM357_Hitcher
05-29-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:

Good job of leg humping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, thank you, Buzzy!

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2005, 11:02 AM
Although I fly with no icons I must add this bit for fairness.

Oleg actually expects most of us to fly with icons and he does himself! Now I read he did this a while back around when FB first came out, perhaps now he doesn`t. I am working from memory so I may be wrong...

idonno
05-29-2005, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Of course Oleg is always right eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly! He created the game and he is God. Quibble all you want about SA, peripheral vision, graphic cards, blah, blah, blah, Realism = Full Switch according to Oleg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! What the heck are you smoking?!

I would certainly agree that Oleg has done a great job, and probably made some decisions that I would have disagreed with that turned out to be the right thing to do, but he is not the all-knowing and infallible arbiter of realism.

BM357_Hitcher
05-29-2005, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

LOL! What the heck are you smoking?!

I would certainly agree that Oleg has done a great job, and probably made some decisions that I would have disagreed with that turned out to be the right thing to do, but he is not the all-knowing and infallible arbiter of realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And neither are you. Make your own game with your own idea of realism and we'll see how well it sells. Until then, the closest this game gets to full realism is full switch. Not much you can do about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

gkll
05-29-2005, 12:28 PM
You have me confused now.

Buzz


I thought I flamed you by accident and just meant apologizing later is always too late...

However the bit about your post count was pretty tame, maybe you didn't feel flamed, I always try not to even when I get irritated

BuzzU
05-29-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
You have me confused now.

Buzz


I thought I flamed you by accident and just meant apologizing later is always too late...

However the bit about your post count was pretty tame, maybe you didn't feel flamed, I always try not to even when I get irritated </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess i'm used to flames a bit hotter. Nothing to apologize for.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-29-2005, 01:13 PM
I think the whole "full realism" discussion/debate is a bit silly. The bottom line is fly what you like. I call myself a full switch flyer, or sometimes full difficulty, but never full real simply because people debate what "full real" is and I don't want to argue .

Like I said, fly what you like. Who cares what other people think. Myself, I prefer no icons, no externals, no padlock, no map icons, etc., so this is where I hang out also :

http://www.gofisc.com/

But we don't snub our noses at people who like alternative settings, different strokes for different folks. Its not a matter of right or wrong its just a matter of preference, nothing more, nothing less. For us it is about immersion, that is what we enjoy. People will have their own ideas about what is more "realistic", and people will continue to argue about it. Personally, I would rather just fly on servers with my preferred settings and let others do the debating.

Also, ClnlSandersLite (near the top of this page) is correct. So why bother arguing about it?

BM357_Hitcher
05-29-2005, 03:14 PM
Guys, please don't copy/paste in here. It hurts BuzzU's feelings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Stachl
05-29-2005, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by diomedes33:...but you have to develope skills for situational awareness, combat tactics, etc ... If you're not willing to put in the time you will get your rear handed to you everytime. If you are willing to learn the skills, you will see how much more rewarding a kill can be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quite sure that, with pratice, I can get as good as the next guy at flying with no icons, but that's not the point.

It's NOT realistic.

It's NOT realistic.

It's NOT realistic.

And did I mention that it's not realistic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, no icons . . . I suppose it isn't. Unfortunately things aren't always as black and white as you might like them to be and while your statement, or point, might be true it isn't really saying much. Many of us feel that it is closer to realistic without icons so, since it's the best we can do for now, why don't you stop preaching semantics and just fly the way you want. Idonno, but there seem to be plenty of places for you to do so.

BuzzU
05-29-2005, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
Guys, please don't copy/paste in here. It hurts BuzzU's feelings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have no clue.

AerialTarget
05-29-2005, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
Make your own game with your own idea of realism and we'll see how well it sells. Until then, the closest this game gets to full realism is full switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see a scan of your logbook, buddy. Yes, I mean the one from real life. What's that, you say? You don't have one? Then shut your chomper.

-HH-Quazi
05-29-2005, 08:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This thread makes me wish the patch will be released soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BM357_Hitcher
05-30-2005, 11:14 AM
I have several clues and don't seem to be shutting my chomper. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Ntago
05-30-2005, 11:38 AM
Real? Your comfortable chair in your basement with a third eye growing out the top of your head, your cup holder within easy reach. Your cell phone to call 911 if you crash (computer that is). Then theres the trusty bar fridge with your favorite selection of German beers close at hand. INCOMING€¦..no, that€s just the
dog barreling down the stairs looking for food. And of course theres the trusty air conditioning and central heating.

How about this, next time time you get hit in the back and you start on fire, pour lighter
fluid all over you body and light a match, hmm extra crispy.Is that real enough for You?

And lets not forget that there is a huge pile
of us who's angle of attack ahead of us is now smaller than the one behind us,so i can still
see a red triangle,but have a hard time discerning between a dot and a speck of dirt
on my windscreen..I mean monitor.

Ntago

BM357_Hitcher
05-30-2005, 12:08 PM
It's called "simulated realism". Within the limits of the PC world, we all strive for our own idea of simulated realism. The debate is over which difficulty settings offer the most realism without pouring lighter fluid all over our bodies, which is a bit kinky. There is a very interesting divide between those who fly with all or most switches on and those who fly will fewer switches on. There are valid points on both sides, but very little respect between the two groups. This debate will go on forever and never be resolved and I like that sort of thing. Perpetual conflict. The stuff of war. And plenty of stupid insults to be traded during the battle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG27_Stacko
05-30-2005, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
well if you're half blind and the game is half blind, aren't you only getting a quarter realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shhhhh!!!! Now your making too much sense....
Mods.. you should give this man one of those Avatar qoute thingies for this great reply.
S!

rnzoli
05-30-2005, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Someone already pointed out that in real life you can identify large aircraft at twenty thousand feet, whereas in the game they aren't even rendered as a pixel at that altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1024x768x32, OpenGL, full-screen, laptop LCD.

I fired up a v2.04 FMB mission, my a/c at ~700 m, a He-111 at ~8000 m. The difference is about ~20.000 feet and - contrary to your statement - it was rendered from my view.

With about 2 pixels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That's about the
average size of dirt particles on my laptop screen.

Probably, I would not have been able to locate it without seeing its contrail. But that is exactly how real life is for me: I have troubles locating commercial jetliners flying overhead at ~3-4000 m, unless I know where to look in the sky.

This plays a role in IL2 as well. If I know where to look (reported from friendlies, or remembered its location from previous sighting), I will (re-)acquire visual contact much faster. Otherwise I have the problem like in my real life: once I did endless frustrating circles to locate a TB-3 nearby, and when I caught it, it was very large and close. I simply overlooked it in at least the last 2 circles.

Let's also remember, that the visible cross-section is also very important. Unlike ground observers in real life, in IL2 we rarely see aircraft straight above ours, so the visible cross-section is smaller.

rnzoli
05-30-2005, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ntago:
Real? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact, the button is called "Realistic" for the highest difficulty settings. Not "Real".

"Full real" is just an easy abbreviation to this setting. Meaning the most realistic settings provided by the game.

But I tell you: if a "Lighter fluid" switch appears on the difficulty panel in the next patch, I swear that I will never play that settings anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blazer-glory
05-30-2005, 01:44 PM
I find that a good trick is that if they are firing at you they're the bad guys and its ok to fire back. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Henkie_
05-30-2005, 02:27 PM
If you believe "Full Real" is full real, then maybe you believe it also when you get the message: "cheating has been detected!"

Both belong in the group of **** descriptions.
Somebody had to name the animal.

Full real is when you fly a real plane. Full unreal is when you play FB. Doesn't matter what settings.

OldMan____
05-30-2005, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
Make your own game with your own idea of realism and we'll see how well it sells. Until then, the closest this game gets to full realism is full switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see a scan of your logbook, buddy. Yes, I mean the one from real life. What's that, you say? You don't have one? Then shut your chomper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooww you are a pilot in RL, so you must know alot about 50% of this issue.

Well I am a game developer and I know the other 50% including why things must be done as they are done. And I disagree with you (with almost all posts I saw from you) So don't start judging someones opinion just because I can FLY and they can't. You say you can see planes at 20k feet away.. I say.. you can't see little labels

Full real is by far the most real we can get within this game. And a better visual precision is limited by hardware.

BM357_Hitcher
05-30-2005, 06:58 PM
Thank you!

I have flown a Cessna twice and it was a blast, but I would never compare the experience to the PC simulations I play. That is not the issue.

Look at the way this post began, sneering at those of us who dare to call what we do Full Immersion, Full Switch or, the dreaded, Full Realism. I may have missed them, but I never see fans of Full Real starting a thread like this. I guess we are just too busy immersing ourselves in the game to give a #@$$ what non-full switchers are up to. It just appears to be a bunch of whining and flame throwing.

Both sides of this arguement have valid points, but we are simply not going to convince each other, so why don't we give up?

BuzzU
05-30-2005, 08:58 PM
Fighter pilots never give up.

BM357_Hitcher
05-30-2005, 09:58 PM
True enough!

rnzoli
05-30-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Fighter pilots never give up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are not (full) real fighter pilots.

VF-51-Dart
05-30-2005, 11:42 PM
For me, the use of the term Full Real goes all the way back to my AirWarrior days when I flew in the Full Real Arena. That arena was all the "realistic" settings the sim had. The term stuck and I've used it ever since to describe a particular sim's settings that most closely simulates realism vs more, shall we say, lenient settings. Call it what you want, fly what you want. If FR isn€t your cup of tea, good on ya. Fly what you like to fly and don€t worry about the others. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
05-30-2005, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Hitcher:
Both sides of this arguement have valid points, but we are simply not going to convince each other, so why don't we give up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Time and again, players of IL2 consider moving to higher difficulty settings. The point of these threads is to provide information for them on what they will loose and what else they will gain with that.

Otherwise, these threads will be started and ruled by those, who tried to go on higher difficulty settings, but failed for some reason. Their flaming frustration would discourage a lot of other guys from trying to go higher in difficultly settings, unless they hear the story from the other side, too.