Hobo posted 01-30-99 07:14 PM ET (US)        

I've been wondering what you guys that fly hi res see as the advantages and disadvantages to it. By the same token what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages to 2d vs 3d?

Here's my very unqualified opinion:

Advantages hi res...

Hi res you can (I think) physically see the enemy's position better (roll, inverted, etc.) in a close (d3 or less) dogfight.

Disadvantages Hi Res...

The plane icons are so small that it's nearly impossible to read. Makes it tough to call 6 for a country mate and hard to id the plane type of the enemy. For me, this disadvantage outweighs the advantage so I fly lo res.

Is there a way to overcome this? We finally got adjustable buffer font size, is imol going to do the same for icon size?

What about 2d vs 3d? Share your opinions please. :-)

Hobo

Disco Fever posted 01-30-99 07:23 PM ET (US)         

Hobo : you are partly correct on the Hi - Lo res. It isn't up close that you are able to tell the difference though it's at a distance. In 640 a F6F is just a blue blob to me at say D12 or so. I can't tell if he's inverted or which way he's facing. In 1024 I can make his orientation out very clearly. His Icon may be a bit smaller but the detail is higher. 1024 also allows me to ID planes from WAY out. I can successfully ID 75% of the planes at D50 or so most of the time. Some planes are easier than others. A 51D for example you can't miss. I can see that little spot of red on the tail as soon as he is close enough to generate a distance couter. In summary Hi res helps me prepare from farterh out by telling plane type and also setting up a pass due to being able to judge the plane's orientation better. As to 3D, my poor 200 just can't handle it.

hitz posted 01-30-99 08:07 PM ET (US)            

In Mac 2d you cannot see the ground.

Its pretty painful at times.

Not to mention, the whole game is ugly and ancient looking compaired to other games that are in 3d.

Idiamn Stab JG27 Afrika posted 01-30-99 08:31 PM ET (US)         

Well hobo, you are right on the money concerning hi res 3d. The clarity of the aircraft is excellent up close, but you pay the man when it is outside of d5. The only advantage I see in flying hi res on a small monitor (ie...under 21 inches) is eye candy.

Pro's 2d: none except for frame rate, but my machine has no probs in that regard.

Pro's 2d hi res: None I can think of, again monitor size is the issue for me.

Pro's 3d lo res: The "saturation effect" IE it looks and feels more real than 2d. Better able to use the terrain to your advantage to make people auger. It also provides me with better resolution so I can ID aircraft at LOOOONGGGG ranges in historical match ups. When I upgraded my machine and started flying in 3d I was literally awestruck at the difference between 2d and 3d, its very nice.

Pro's 3d hi res: None, looks GREAT!! But, planes are too damn small for my monitor, and it makes gunnery and plane ID a nightmare. EXCELLENT for buffin though.

C U above,

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

Hey....Nice cannons!

Idiamn

funked posted 01-30-99 08:52 PM ET (US)            

Pro's 3d lo res: ...provides me with better resolution so I can ID aircraft at LOOOONGGGG ranges...

Pro's 3d hi res: None, looks GREAT!! But, planes are too damn small for my monitor, and it makes gunnery and plane ID a nightmare...

You mixed these up right? By definition the 1024x768 gives better resolution and ID capabilities. Also, if you have your monitor adjusted properly, plane size is identical in both resolutions.

Funked Up

=925 CABS=

Mors Ab Alto!

Daff posted 01-30-99 09:33 PM ET (US)            

Recently changed from lo-res on a mac to high res 3D and I noticed the following things:

Tracers are way easier to see in 3D making it easier to adjust your aim. (Also makes you spray more because it looks cool :P)

pings (flashes) are also a lot more visible)

Cons are harder to spot in the HA in 3D, especially against the ground (unless it's P51/47D's)

Some cons have become easier to spot, though

Planes like the P39 are -exactly- the same shade as some of the ground in 2D, making them a) impossible to see what direction their pointing b) impossible to see above icon distance against the ground. (SL's, HA, WW's).

After having flown 3D for a bit over a month now, I'm never going back to 2D .

Daff

Hobo posted 01-31-99 12:23 AM ET (US)            

"Also, if you have your monitor adjusted properly, plane size is identical in both resolutions."

Funked can you explain what you mean by this? I'm using the mfg's drivers for my MAG Monitor, what does a person do to "adjust" their monitor so plane size is the same? Do these adjustments also make the icon the same size?

Thanks!

Hobo

funked posted 01-31-99 02:11 AM ET (US)            

HOBO:

You just need to use the Horiz. and Vert. Size adjustments to make the display fill up the entire monitor screen.

WB presents a 90-degree field of view on the screen. The same projection technique is used in both resolutions, and the 3D models for the planes are the same in both resolutions. Therefore if you have your monitor putting the display into the same amount of square inches on your monitor, planes will be the same size in either resolution. If you put a ruler on the screen and measure for instance the wingspan of a Bf 109 at d2, you will get the same dimension.

It is of course a different number of pixels, but that is not what you mean by size I hope.

The icons won't be the same size, because TCFKAICI strangely chose to use a different font for hi-res!

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

Funked Up

=925 CABS=

Mors Ab Alto!

Kieren posted 01-31-99 09:53 AM ET (US)            

The "saturation effect" IE it looks and feels more real than 2d. Better able to use the terrain to your advantage to make people auger.

Not if my side is 2D, and it is!

Better framerate, clearer visuals, smoother gameplay. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and strong arguments can be made either way. For me, game speed and smoothness of play are the most important issues.

I also perceive a small, but very noticeable difference in the time it takes both versions to send packets. How? We all know the annoying delay we perceive between seeing the enemy fire and us actually hearing the hits? It's not too bad in 2D, but in 3D (for me) it is worsened by the fact the enemy can be making those shots from impossible angles, and of course scoring hits on me. I know it's the difference in our FE's sending/receiving packets but it has the most jarring effect on my suspension of disbelief.

Kieren

332nd Fighter Group

The Black Aces

Bombom posted 01-31-99 11:27 AM ET (US)            

It's a LOT easier to move mud in 2D IMHO. Being colourblind and all, I have to squint real hard to make out the weenies in 3D (in jabo). Other than that, 3D is clearly superior.

-bmbm-, CO Royal Swedish Air Force