In my personal view, Air Realistic Battles (ARB) for second-generation jets and above (BR 10.3–14.0) should take inspiration from Ground Realistic Battles (GRB) by removing aircraft and missile markers during engagements.
For top-tier jets, most of which are equipped with modern avionics, players can rely on onboard radar for target acquisition. This would allow Beyond Visual Range (BVR) engagements to become the primary form of air combat, rather than the current meta of exploiting multipath clutter by flying close to the ground. Removing visual indicators for aircraft and missiles would also allow infrared missiles to be more effective, forcing pilots to be more vigilant against IR sneak attacks and extending the duration of matches.
For near-top-tier jets (BR 11.7–12.7), which generally feature some level of avionics, removing markers would highlight differences in radar and sensor capabilities between nations (e.g., the U.S. vs. the USSR). This would encourage a more holistic comparison of aircraft rather than purely focusing on missile performance. It would also support more balanced BR assignments and provide greater research value to players using these jets.
For mid-tier jets (BR 10.3–11.3), the change may pose some challenges due to the prevalence of basic pulse radar or even radar-less designs. However, this would further reward players who exploit altitude and energy advantages, especially in diving attacks from above. It also reflects real-world logic: altitude and energy should confer greater tactical benefits than risks.
Markers shouldn’t exist at all in ARB imho. It may not be sim but having an arcade aspect like markers makes it pretty hard to catch some people slacking, and it makes it extremely hard for strike fighters and bombers to get anything done with any sort of surprise or stealth.
Completely removing markers might be too drastic a change to the ARB formula, but the current system gives way too much information, especially from mid–Cold War onward.
Proposal:
Beyond 3 mi (5 km): Markers show only a simple circle dot for each enemy target. No aircraft-type icon (diamond/squashed diamond), no player ID, no airframe designation (F-8, A-7, etc.).
From 3 mi (5 km) down to 1.5 mi (2.5 km): Markers reveal only the aircraft category (fighter, strike, etc.).
Within 1.5 mi (2.5 km): Markers display full airframe details and player name (if it’s not an AI unit).
Rationale:
At merge-range, some jets/players become “easy kills” because they’re flagged by poor countermeasures, sub-par performance, or as dedicated strike platforms. This change makes all engagements more “blind,” forcing players to rely on visual ID and tactics rather than on-screen cues.
I agree with your proposal—it makes sense to vary the amount of information shown based on distance. While players may not be fully ready to lose all markers in ARB, it’s definitely time for a shift away from the current system.
I agree that limiting marker distance and scaling the amount of information based on range is the right direction. Fully removing the marker system might be too drastic for ARB, especially since players aren’t quite ready for a GRB experience with zero on-screen cues—but the current system certainly gives away far too much.
Multipath clutter is also an important part of this conversation. I don’t think it should be removed entirely, as it’s a real phenomenon in radar behavior, but gameplay shouldn’t revolve around abusing it. A more balanced solution could involve differentiating how various missile seekers (e.g. radar-guided) handle multipath effects, depending on their generation or technology level.
In short, I support a gradual rework—reducing marker reliance, scaling info by distance, and making radar behavior and missile performance more authentic and varied.
The markers as we have them now are more historical and fitting for modern day jets compared to early jets and props
HUD, Datalink and what have you will display friendlies and enemies as well as missiles and mostly anything else
In fact sim is less accurate compared to ARB in this regard as most planes don’t have their MFDs modelled and so don’t have these functions implemented yet
From a gameplay perspective I see the appeal but it would not be the most popular mode and likely have longer queue times if it is separate
There is however an issue of clutter which can be resolved by having larger and varied maps as even though we are given encounter maps, most people are in the centre and its essentially the same as a normal match except you need more fuel due to how long it takes to get there
A reduction in players per game would also work and was favoured a while ago by the player base but amounted to nothing
ARB means more arcade like than realistic battle, your mistake…
And no, enemy markings in aviation must disappear in all BRs. But you can get around that – I now fly almost exclusively in GRB. It takes longer to spade the aircraft, but it’s also much more fun.