OK so Im curious about the claims that people can spot dots with super high resolutions .Would you mind trying this(and post your res?) ?In the quick mission generator pick the 109G2 and as enemy 4xI16type 24s ....map Crimea and height 5000m...Now (on heading of about 86 degrees and keeping nose up a bit ) how many seconds before you spot the four enemy dots?

depends on your and the enemy speed.
and how good your eyes are.
and if you keep perfect course and altitude or if you deviate a little bit.

Max throttle ...dont have to be too particular just a rough test...

Does the LandGeom setting have anything to do with dot rendering range?

good idea to do the comparison, its something that has been bothering me for years.

i think you need a more standardized way to compare what different il2 gamers can see, or report they can see. for ex have a few video clips people can load to make it easy for them to use, and then be sure you are comparing apples with apples when they report their observations.

why not make a track file for this purpose ?

Eight seconds.

This is dependant on the "Dot range" settings.
Ever been in a server where you won't see the dots until they are right on top of you, That's because the host tried to save on computing power too much and you end up with icons showing before the dot. Anything shorter then 15km is wrong.
When i was playing in Historia server i didn't know why it was so nice and easy to identify and pick dots from confortable ranges. The 20Km setting for the "Dot" Was just perfect.

Thanks for the time Jaws now what res is that at ?Im at 6-7 seconds .I dont think the standardisation of test variables is too critical but then again maybe its only gonna take the slowest guy 9 or 10 seconds anyway in which case the whole test is not that reliable . .

quote:

now what res is that at

On 22" monitor, @1680x1050 with everything i could find maxed out. The mp_dotrange was set at 14Km.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jaws2002,

Hmm..lots of things depend on this..Time of day. Are the bogey's above or below the horizon. Weather, cloud cover, Desert or winter maps....It's hard to see planes when they are low over a forrest and your high above. I guess it boils down to how good your eyesight is..Because if you wear glasses i dont think they let you fly at all in the RW...Dont think many pilots could change their screen reso in their cockpits,,,hehe ...Tho i can spot them out pretty good on my 19" LCD @ 1152 by 864 @32bit. I would say i can spot them 5 miles or more away. But down low forget it. Like i say it depends on the weather, time of day and even what skin a particular plane is sporting to see it.

I changed the mp_dotrange to 25 km and i see the dots right from the start.

This is very hard to test in QMB as Jaws described - you cannot adjust mp_dotrange (as far as I know, and I've tried about everything over the years) in QMB.

At 1152 X 864, I can spot to whatever mp_dotrange is set at - as long as dots are co-alt and background is simple (sky or Russian maps). When significant altitude differences occur, a slant range component should be considered. If you are at 10 km altitude and the target your looking for is at 20 meters off the ground, then you are not going to see the dot at 20 km of horizontal range (assuming that mp_dotrange is set to 20 km). In this case your visibility distance is the slant range (hypontenuse) of a right triangle where A = altitude, B = horizontal distance from a fixed point, and C = slant range or mp_dotrange. Solve for B, if you are defending a fixed point for example and wish to know where to position yourself to maximize coverage - from the object you are defending.

In the entire equation of vis distance in Il2 - many other significant variables come into play (many already mentioned in this thread) - such as:

1) Target size (B-29 vs P-51)
2) Background clutter
(Clouds vs Blue sky vs Crimea map vs Normandy vs "Little Italy" with it's notorious "cabbage patches")
3) Motion (already mentioned)
4) Resolution (more resolution means smaller dots - and more dots as a whole to scan)
5) Degree of anti-aliasing applied (smoothes out dot edges)
6) Sharpness or contrast scaling applied to video card

For me, the very best way to ascertain dot range, equipment settings and develop skill in dot detection are to record tracks (which capture the servers mp_dotrange permanently) on various servers under differing conditions, AFTER recording the mp_dotrange setting of the server.

Hope this is helpful and not too far off-topic..

S~

Gunny

+1

I would also add that the quality and size of your monitor is one of the biggest things. I have a 24 inch monitor so dots will appear way larger on it than a 17 inch monitor at the same resolution... I can pretty much afford to run my res at 1920x1200 and still see dots.. Simply because my monitor is big enough to still see individual pixels at this res, my monitor is high enough quality to seperate the pixels from each other at this res, and I sit relativley close to my monitor. All these kinds of things do alot more than computer settings.

It's actually dependent on resolution as well as your particular monitor's dot pitch. For instance the dot pitch of the Dell 2707WFP is larger than that for either the 2407 (24" model) or 3007 (30" model) thus allowing the 27" the ability to "see" those little gnats from a slightly farther distance under the same circumstances.

quote:

you cannot adjust mp_dotrange in QMB.

Yes you can but it resets to default every time you start a new sortie.

I added this line:
@a i mp_dotrange TYPE 5 ID 5 RANGE 5 COLOR 5 DOT 25
in the RCU file (you'll find it in the il2 folder) and I don't have to write the whole sentence the every time. All I have to do is click Shift+Tab, type i in the console and hit enter. With this you'll make the dot apear at 25 kilometers instead of the default 14km during the mission.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jaws2002,

Thanks tons Jaws! I stand corrected.

Hi TB - That would be my monitor too. 2707. And I agree, I can see a little better than on the 2407.

I do think however, that the other things I mentioned, have greater effect - with the exception of AA, perhaps.

As you know, I'm not terribly blind

S~

Gunny

quote:

Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
It's actually dependent on resolution as well as your particular monitor's dot pitch. For instance the dot pitch of the Dell 2707WFP is larger than that for either the 2407 (24" model) or 3007 (30" model) thus allowing the 27" the ability to "see" those little gnats from a slightly farther distance under the same circumstances.

what you said about the pixel size in those 3 monitors is true. but a person with the larger pixels (say the 27' dell) on their monitor does not automatically see dot's in il2 better then a person with somewhat smaller pixels (like the 30' or 24' monitors you mentioned), because there are some other variables involved to.

there is a small group, and a very vocal one at that, of people in il2 who consistently claim they have no problems seeing distant dots against a ground textured background (forest, russian grassland, french countryside etc). the only variable i ever identified with them to be different, is that most of them were using 22' monitors. this is the largest of the lower resolution (1680 x 1050) widescreen monitors, so the pixel size is reasonably large already (at 0.282 mm it is about 15% larger then the 0.25 mm pixels in a 24' or 30' lcd screen). but there is another variable that matters to with that monitor range.

what is different about those 22' lcd monitors is that they are all 6 bit color, rather than the 8 bit colour hardware used in the larger more expensive widescreens (and all crt's from yrs ago were also 8 bit color of course). people with the early lcd screens in the 17 and 19' ranges (5 x 4 ratio size) were also usually 8 bit colour. there are some other monitor sizes in lcd pc monitors that are 6 bit to now (like many 19 and 20' widescreens), but i think all the 22' are because it is the only panel technology (TN) used in that size range. this made them cheaper to manufacture, and many gamers bought them when they transitioned from crt to lcd (usually because they wanted a "big" monitor at a low price).

the reason the 6 bit issue matters, is that those monitors have a much more limited range of grey scales (ie they cant display the shades of grey/black very well). and the dots we look for in il2 are dark-grey/black ! which on a 6 bit screen blend in much less into the background because they will be a little lighter or darker then the surrounding background colours (and since they are moving objects rather then static, the pc display constantly has to try and redraw the slight variations in grey/black).

if you want to get more technical about it, additionally when those monitors try and reproduce shades of grey the hardware display cant cope with, it uses "dithering" to approximate the color shade of grey, and this dithering makes those grey dots stand out even more because they "glitter". basically the dithering is used to approximate a grey shade its display technology cant cope with, and because of it use those grey/black dots will stand out even more. some examples ...

"temporal dithering" example



and "simple temporal dithering"


so on a 22' lcd in il2 you will currently much more easily see the "big chunky glittering dots" moving against the background !


right now in il2 if you have a large good quality monitor, which is correctly callibrated, then you are at a very significant disadvantage compared to the 22' 6 bit system i just described above. additionally, if you use high AA and AF settings (to make the environment we fly in more "realistic"), you will be at a further disadvantage, because the square pixels on an lcd monitor will be much less "blocky"

the bottom line in il2 currently is that if you have a high end system that is correctly setup, your dot spotting visibility is significantly below what you could see those same distant aircraft at in real life, and you probably see them at 50% less distance then the 22' lcd owners i just described.

the best way to compare what people can actually see, and to quantify how variable visibility really is in this game, is to have a standardized scene displayed (like in an il2 track file). if you have distant aircraft dots flying at known distance from the viewers (with the distant aircraft at a known altitude), you could have a string of them at 500 meter intervals up to about 10 km distance for ex (so 20 aircraft of the exact same size spaced out at fixed intervals).

it would be very simple for various viewers to then report back their visibility distance, and we'd get to the bottom of this issue once and for all

Compress the color ranges (at the video card) - add sharpening - reduce AA to 0.

I think this produces a similar result, as far as dot range detection.

Perhaps it would be useful to specify test conditions other than co-alt air, to test the "any background" theory.

I would be surprised (not saying your wrong - just that I would be surprised) if the 6 bit quantization beats the major factors I've described. As I replied to TB, the monitor configuration is minor compared to the other factors I've listed.

In summary what I'm suggesting is to move from the Crimea map to a more challenging background, because I can spot these dots on the Crimea map at whatever dot range is set in the mission.

If these monitors can produce maximum dot range detection on the Italy map (say 25km) with target flying at low altitude over the cabbage (flat tree textures), then your theory is completely correct.

I absolutely agree with you, that if I wanted to really test the detection range performance, I would provide a track which can be run on anyone's computer to provide consistent test data over "noisy" ground textures. The current, stock QMB maps contain very "quiet" textures.

The track could be posted, and folks who wanted to particpate in the test could log their setup - and provide feedback.

S~

Gunny

Edit: If you want a basic start - here are some tracks (caveat:they are on a Russian map) with long range targets, several at low alt traveling over ground clutter, described in this thread and available for D/L:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/832...051043155#5051043155

I'd had reports of some folks not being able to see the aircraft I was tracking at the time....

If your interested I can provide more detailed information on on the target ranges in the tracks...

I agree, a standard track is the only way to truly compare.

hiya gunny,

i think we mostly agree on the concepts involved.

to keep some of the issues involved separate, so we can identify their significance more clearly ...

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Compress the color ranges (at the video card) - add sharpening - reduce AA to 0.

I think this produces a similar result, as far as dot range detection.

i think the starting premise for any comparison has to be that each system, and their display, is correctly callibrated to the best of its ability. i am not talking about a professional grade calibration procedure with a hardware colorimetric device, but at least a correct software callibration has to be done so brightness, contrast, colour range etc is within normal limits for the display used. this can be done in 10 min on most pc's with free programs.

some competitive online players deliberatly set their displays to artificial levels to make enemy planes stand out more, and to see dots more clearly. the result is that the scenery looks totally unrealistic, or even has a fluorecent radioactive look.

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Perhaps it would be useful to specify test conditions other than co-alt air, to test the "any background" theory.....In summary what I'm suggesting is to move from the Crimea map to a more challenging background, because I can spot these dots on the Crimea map at whatever dot range is set in the mission.

i agree with you, the scenery background textures need to be standardized, and this is a significant variable. the russian grassland is very even textures, so would a forest background.i havnt used the italian maps much, so cant comment on them. it is also likely that, as you point out, one type of scenery will make it easier to spot dots then another type of scenery. but at the start, whatever scenery is chosen, it has to be the same ground cover in the whole scenery so people will be comparing apples with apples. the aircraft we look at in the distance also need to be a uniform size, and need to be seen from the same angle (hence a a track file where everybody sees the same scene is ideal)

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
If these monitors can produce maximum dot range detection on the Italy map (say 25km) with target flying at low altitude over the cabbage (flat tree textures), then your theory is completely correct.

i think you'd be surprised at how bad the visibility is for some people. for some, they have problems locating/tracking an il2 dot at 2km or 3km, and for some il2 users visibility is so bad they have trouble seeing an aircraft at 300 or 500 meters under certain conditions. but lets keep this current discussion focused on the dot visibility issue in il2, or it will get to jumbled to be productive.

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:.... if I wanted to really test the detection range performance, I would provide a track which can be run on anyone's computer to provide consistent test data over "noisy" ground textures. The current, stock QMB maps contain very "quiet" textures.

i think it might be possible with the mission builder to have a series of identical aircraft flying in the same direction, each interspaced at a fixed interval (say 500 meters), you can also set the altitude for the aircraft, and the terrain background. we'd have to use an altitude somewhere between 500 and 1500 meters probably, to low and it makes it much harder under all conditions, and to high and it makes it to easy.

quote:

The track could be posted, and folks who wanted to particpate in the test could log their setup - and provide feedback.

all we need is for somebody with enough knowledge of the mission builder to make one, i have played around with that program a bit but dont know enough about it to create one.

another variable that has to be "controlled", is that each viewer has to have their FoV correctly set for the monitor size they are using, and the distance their eyes are from it. having a wider FoV setting then correct for them has the effect of "zooming out" on what they look at and all objects shrink in size, or having a smaller FoV setting creates a zoom effect that enlarges everything and makes it easier to see dots.

if you have the correct FoV setting for your setup, then the "LoD to Dot" transition point is somewhere around 1500 meters distance, and it will similarly affect the dot visibility when you look at dots several km away because the "dot size" will change depending on the artificial zoom in/out setting you have created with altering your FoV setting. so again the presumption is that all viewers will know how to calculate that for their respective monitor sizes. some ballpark figures i gave in another recent post(presuming the viewer is sitting at approximately an arms length from their monitor)...

for a 30' widescreen 70 FoV (the "normal" default view in il2)
for a 27' widescreen: 55 FoV
for a 24' widescreen 40 FoV
for a 22' widescreen 35 FoV (the max zoomed in view)

simply put, for whatever monitor size you have, and whatever distance you sit from that monitor, only ONE FoV setting will be correct for you (to see all objects in the il2 virtual world in their "correct" sizes). some examples of how important this effect is in il2 .....

as an example, what you would see with a 70 FoV setting (against open blue sky to make it easier to see the effect)


same scenery but now a 35 FoV creating the artificial zoom effect, and drawing distant dots in closer and magnifying them (some very distant ones now become suddenly visible, and some already visible ones now become much larger)