Some of you missed a nuance of coder speak in the last post and clearly its picking up quite a few comments so I don’t want this to get missed in the noise.
The visuals I posted yesterday aren’t a mockup – that means that in no-way do they attempt to reflect the presentation you might see in game. I’m not going to be working on that, I merely borrowed a suggestion in an earlier comment and decided to “draw that” – using data taken from the live game.
My intent is to show you the spread of data. If all you did was click on the small animation, you probably missed the point entirely. Try the large animation (link here) and sit and watch it for 3 minutes. This is assuming that the system, when designed, covered the entire map. Don’t ask me if the system will cover the entire map, because I’m not designing the system and I haven’t yet seen the design for the system.
But, if it did, I think that a 20x20km grid system would provide such a density of information (over the entire map, but quite dense at regular map viewing scales) that complicating it with rules to let people hide from radar is just going to hurt you guys who want to sit on the airfield for 40 minutes forming up and preparing waypoints etc.
Look at the imaginary visual again and really look at it. Don’t just glance at it and try to integrate the squares and colors with the underlying map. I didn’t just randomly color some squares over a map, I took data from the game, so the colors actually mean something. Orange = light enemy presence, Red = Heavy. Now, look again and this time, place yourself on either Wiltz (upper right) or Etain (bottom right) airfields… And remember – color = enemy aircraft. Starting to see something?
As Zheriz accurately observed, the information is spatially dense (2 bits per 3200km3) and yet it is remarkably sparse taken across any significant viewing area. Additionally, it is also spread out over time – 30 or 60 seconds per update? At 400mph you cover 1/4 of a grid in 30 seconds, 1/2 in 60, so you traverse an entire grid every 2 updates.
Some of you are positing the concern that limiting “Radar” to enemy factories/airspace will be more realistic and fairer, that opening it to the whole map will put you at a disadvantage.
I’m going to posit that you’ve listened to just a little too much forum whining and gotten suckered into some real bad math/logic.
If we model “Radar” and do it realisticly, only the enemy sees it. You see “Radar” for your airspace, but right now you are a buff formation heading to the enemy “Radar” zone. You see nothing until you get shot down by the enemy who is being guided by the game to your position.
How is that easier on you than a system that both sides see?
With “Radar” the enemy will see some representation of this
while you and your escorts are looking at this:
instead of this:
(I leave it as an exercise to Allied pilots to translate the pictures to the Axis factories because I’m too lazy to do two versions)
/report enemy bombers cheating, no way their escorts could have found us unless they are spying with a second account.