quote:

Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

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).

i hadnt realised you were using il2 at such a low resolution, the lower the viewers resolution for any given monitor size, the larger their pixels will be onscreen, and the easier it is of course to spot dots in il2 (because the dots are drawn in the game engine as multi-pixel dots)

looking for aircraft dots on a russian winter map with a 30' lcd at native 2560 x 1600 resolution:


and looking at the exact same scenery but now the same 30' monitor set at 1/2 its native resolution (1280 x 800):


notice how much easier it is to now see the aircraft dot below you !

for the purpose of our comparison we are trying to make here with people on different types of displays, resolution is much less important then the actual pixel size. simply put, a person with a 30' screen might have a native 2560 x 1600 resolution, but the person with a 15' screen whom has a 1280 x 800 native resolution will have the same pixel size, and pixel size is what matters for the dot display in il2. so resolution matters, but its relevance is dependent on the size of the display being used

Quote:
(some very distant ones now become suddenly visible, and some already visible ones now become much larger)


It must be good eyesight because there's no way I would see that FW at 10 ks.


.

.

I don't need to see them, I can smell their fear.

Great points all Grifter. You've covered all salient points - including my biggest struggle with the sim.

That struggle being the balance between beauty and visual acquisition and situational awareness.

S~

Gunny

gunny,

i had a look at the 2 tracks you posted

i think they are a good example of a pc config that is setup to maximize dot visibility, but at great cost to scenery quality

the inside of your own plane, and what you can see of its exterior (like wings), all look fine. but the scenery you are flying in looks pretty bad. in particular the water looks almost cartoonish, and edges of rivers and forests look very blocky.

what did you do to your settings to still let the interior of your plane look fairly good, yet sacrifice so much of the scenery beauty ? from what you said you run the game at a low resolution setting, but what size monitor do you use and what are your in game il2 settings (visibility), and what is your gfx card set to ?

the dot visibility is very good, and close up planes stand out very well to.

Grifter,

As you may be aware, an Il2 track file will always render relative the the graphic settings of the individual computer that the playback occurs on, not the recording platform.

And yes, your exactly correct, my setup is maximized for detection - not beauty. There are some compromises, because even I have a tolerence level Particularly, I can't tolerate 800 X 600 which makes dots stand out like boulders. Sometimes I'll use 1280 X 1024.

Those files were recorded on the non-modded Prokhorovka map (an early map in the series). The appearance is a characteristic of the map. On both test tracks mp_dotrange for the mission was set to 22km.

You can change the rendering settings on your graphics card, desktop control panel and monitor to scale up or down at your leisure.

If you playback the tracks with manual view off (to observe the cons/bogeys as I saw them), you'll be able to tell when I was able to view these targets by my view and zoom. I use TrackIR, so detection usually follows my point of view, followed immediately by a zoom (then return for to wide POV for SA), unless I've a clear idea of the cons direction of track.

In the track file 000-DoubleBounce, the sequence is as follows:

0:04 Target dot @ 2'oclock, across the river. Take a line perpindicular to my starboard wing tip, and follow it out in the direction of the river. Hopefully you'll see it right off. I did not zoom on this con - I could see him drawing gradually to the right, knowing he was coming to me. Before I could prosecute him, I had to make sure that I was clear on the other side of the airplane.
0:15 While checking to the portside, observed contact dot @ 8'oclock, approx co-alt tracking north, initially observed in front of a cloud background, tracking to sky background. I assumed he was friendly based on his direction of track and altitude. For the purpose of this discussion - it's a good exemplar for detection against sky and cloud, i.e. if you cannot see this dot - you have big problems with your setup. This exemplar is a good test for dots against simple ground background (specific to this map and all non-mod Russian maps).

0:25 - initial CON dot reaquired at next LOD @ 2 o'clock low just about to cross the river. I dive to obtain VID and in the process choose not to bleed 'E', but return to the "perch" to set up a better attack. I also am aware that because I've focused on this CON, I have no SA in the area behind him.
1:09 - as I'm climbing back up, scanning the area behind the con, I observe a second CON which appears as a grey (Russian gray) aircraft just above my right cockpit bar, trailing the first con (whom I'm mentally, not visually tracking)

In the second track - BandZ-breaking-target. I'm patrolling over friendly ground targets, expecting ingressing enemy attacks from SW.

0:02 contact dot sighted a significant distance across the river, just a hair forward of 9'oclock tracking right. I'm attempting to manuver to keep him down sun... and to not lose the dot.
0:20 contact dot tracks beneath large cloud.
0:30 checking to starboard - clear six is known due to turn - I'm aware that I have some time before that dot emerges from beneath the cloud.
0:49 spot of gunfire while scanning for target in vic of the cloud
0:56 above the right upper corner of the cockpit frame aircraft shadow is clearly visible - this is why it's important to use the sun.

My settings at the time:

Monitor: Dell 2407 or 2707 native 1920 X 1280
Scaling: Fixed aspect ratio (black side bands on montitor)
Resolution: 1152 X 864
AA: None
AF: None

Nvidea control panel Adjust Desktop Color Settings
Color channel Red:
Brightness = + 57%
Contrast = + 45%
Color channel Green:
Brightness = + 45%
Contrast = + 50%
Color channel Blue:
Brightness = + 55%
Contrast = + 60%

Sharpening (all channels) = 60%

Gunslinger's eyeball data

At the time the track was recorded I was 49 years old, with bifocals - strong nearsighted, moderate farsightedness, average color perception.

All other parameters are at default

I hope this helps. Pardon the long winded post, but I believe that the operational, tactical context is extremely important in it's relationship to the "human" portion of the equation.

S~

Gunny

What are "AA" and "AF" settings?

quote:

Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
What are "AA" and "AF" settings?

anti-aliasing and anistropic-filtering



By the way this discussion entirely misses the main reason older players have trouble seeing dots ... failing eyesight :P

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

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.

Using IL-2 Shturmovik Stab you can easily adjust dot and icon range. They will be set to the new values automatically within seconds from mission start, no need for manual input.

Thanks dirkpit - I'll have to get a copy of Stab - had no idea it had this capability....

S~

Gunny

Wow, sacrificing the beauty of this sim just to get kills online.

I had no idea so many of you guys gamed the game, as it were.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this.
It just seems so wrong, like FPS kiddies jacking up the gamma for "night vision".

Oh well, carry on. I'll just crawl back under my rock here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElAurens:
Wow, sacrificing the beauty of this sim just to get kills online.

I had no idea so many of you guys gamed the game, as it were.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this.
It just seems so wrong, like FPS kiddies jacking up the gamma for "night vision".
QUOTE]

It seems you can't post here anymore without someone accusing you of something.


How should I set my graphics up to conform to your standards?

Low resolution has always meant better dots - where's the news?

Gunny

Gunslinger, it's not meant to be personal, but your sig mentions "full real" settings.

What's real about jacking the settings for advantage rather than making the game look as "real" as possible?

To each his own I guess.

As it turns out, I used to fly and see in the dark reasonably well on my calibrated CRT, while my squad mates and friends with LCD monitors were complaining about it being hard to see. I figured they were actually seeing a similar thing to me – but perhaps just a bit more sensitive to flying in the dark than I was.

When I saw the sim in person on one of their computers, he really was nearly blind at night - I wasn't cheating, it was just how the sim looked to me - and it looked pretty similar to what I see in the real world at night. . .so I had no inclination to change anything.

I was a bit taken aback at seeing my friend's game though - he really was at a disadvantage vs my settings. So who had settings closer to accurate? I'm pretty comfortable in saying that I did. LCD monitors (especially TN panel based screens) have a hard time displaying blacks, and detail is lost. CRTs have no such issues.

If other people were at a disadvantage because they were hardware or settings limited, that would be unfortunate, but certainly not my fault or theirs, and certainly not a reason to change my settings. . .though perhaps reason for them to change theirs. At least in the case of night time rendering effects.

Spotting dots is perhaps a less obvious difference, but I think the same thing may come into play.

Additionally, many of us have very powerful computers compared to what people used when IL-2 was designed.

On my 26 inch monitor at 1920x1200 resolution with antialiasing and anisotropic filtering up at 16X I can hardly see a dot that I was in formation with a moment ago. How many users out there with a powerful computer are at a disadvantage as a result? If you bounce them and they didn't see you – and you aren't on a brand new machine with settings maxed out are you a cheater?

In the absence of some word from Oleg, or better yet, dots that scale correctly with resolution changes, people will run what looks right on their setup. Guess what though - Oleg has in fact posted (many years ago) that the dots in this sim were designed to be viewed at 1024x768 resolution. . .any higher resolution will necessarily reduce the the ability to spot dots. So that would suggest that Gunslinger is running at a resolution which puts him at a disadvantage. I remember a beta in which Oleg had incorporated different dot settings that were intended to be more visible at higher resolutions - and where things ended up I don't recal.

If Gunny takes the time to set up his system so that he can see dots, at a range in which they are drawn, I see no issue with that - if he tweaks things so that every edge looks like a neon sign, well clearly that would be a shady thing to do.

I for one do not tweak any sharpening or any other such thing, but I do limit my antialiasing to 2-4X at most, and up untila bout two weeks ago when I finally retired my 21"CRT, I ran 1280*960 or 1600*1200 resolutions. . .we don't fly with icons on, and I often wing with Gunny, and can attest to the fact that even at my settings, he has never spotted a dot that I couldn't see when we were winging together. . .and it would be my contention that if anything, at my settings with high AF medium AA, and higher resolutions than any obvious advantage he has as a result of having a lower resolution might be apparent. . .I'm quite certain there is a difference, I'm just saying that in my own settings changes, I don't think the difference is big enough to be much more than personal preference of how the sim looks – at least in Gunny's case.

I have to assume, having seen it first hand, that a one size fits all approach to in game settings just won't work in this sim – especially in this sim which is apparently optimized for 1024x768 resolutions.

That said, I've often found the dots just below the horizon at long range to be easier to see than my experience in real world flying (I'll pretend it's the fact that I fly in the modern era – with more smog!). As I've said before, I've certainly had uncomfortable moments where ATC notifies me of traffic, and I simply can't find the aircraft they are calling. On the flip side, as a pilot who has done a bit real world mock dogfighting, and formation flying, I can also say that tracking an aircraft fairly close to me is quite a bit easier than in the sim.

I guess my own conclusion is that the system isn't perfect – both within the sim code itself, and with respect to hardware and driver settings. If I set it up to look right with respect to near dots, it would be inaccurate with respect to distant dots – if I get a big 27 inch LCD monitor it's going to be different than a CRT, if I crank up my AA I'm going to be blind as a bat unless I'm at 800x600. In teh end I guess it does come down to the honor system - that's a scary thought I suppose - but I can at least vouch for Gunslinger. . .which might not mean much to anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:

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.

Very interesting info Jaws - I've been trying to decide on if I can get away with running my new LCD at its native resolution of 1920*1200. . .being able to make quick changes in the QMB is ideal! If only we had a rep function here. . .

The only problem that remains is most maps aren't in the QMB, like the worst offender, the Italy_Online map. That map is just terrible with respect to dot acquisition - I can't track a dot beneath me, to save my virtual life. I have to swoop down to the deck, and look up. . .and attack in much the same manner as that portrayed in your sig pic!

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:
. . .
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.

Ahhh yes. . the good ole days eh? You know we don't have to give up hope that we'll ever see servers of the quality of HISTORIA, and of course the TX-OC3!

I like to think they are merely hibernating!

quote:

Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

quote:

Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
What are "AA" and "AF" settings?

anti-aliasing and anistropic-filtering



By the way this discussion entirely misses the main reason older players have trouble seeing dots ... failing eyesight :P

OH OH the secrets out!

Here is how I "see" the sim, just for the sake of full disclosure on my part...

Viewsonic G90f 19 inch CRT monitor.

Nvidia/BFG 9800GT OC+

Core 2 Duo E8500, 4 Gigs of installed ram.

Anistropic Filtering 16x

Antialiasing 8x

I run the sim at 1024 x 768 x 32 as that is what is supposedly "native resolution", per Oleg.

All in game settings maxed out. Water = 4, etc...

Seeing the dots against a blue clear sky does not seem too difficult, but I regularly loose aircraft that are flying over forests, summer or winter, Which seems realistic to me for camouflaged aircraft.

To be honest this is my first rig that would allow running higher resolutions with acceptable frame rates, but I've never tried it as I'm used to flying like this for almost 7 years now.

quote:

Originally posted by ElAurens:
Gunslinger, it's not meant to be personal, but your sig mentions "full real" settings.

What's real about jacking the settings for advantage rather than making the game look as "real" as possible?

To each his own I guess.

Thanks El, sorry I did sort of assume otherwise. It would be helpful, if F.I.S.C had a standard for this sort of thing, that way I'd know if I were violating a standard.

The use of the term "full real" has certainly caused enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from just about every special interest in this sim for a long time.

I will say that I do think the limit of graphics tweeks is the point at which the game looks ugly, you cannot read your cockpit dials and it does not seem real to you.

BTW I took the color correction values from a thread here a few years ago, which was devoted to color correction for more "realistic" color in game.

My sig is very old, and the "full real" monikor was created to advertise the fact that OC3 had changed from icons to no-icons/locked pit.

Thanks for the note...

Respectfully

Gunny

Gunny, I don't think it's so much a thing of violating a "standard". The only way that would work is if we were all on consoles, heaven forbid.

It's just a personal decision, or "bias" if you will. As you can see by my specs I have compromised some for "visibility" issues, but I still like the eye candy. Mostly because I like aeroplanes so much I guess.

It's all good.

S!

I run my resolution up as high as I can for overall visuals. I don't get upset if there is some chance that I might not see certain distant aircraft. After all, if I can't see them, I don't know they are there. If I don't know they are there, how could I possibly get upset about not seeing them? Because as far as I know, they are not even there....