quote:

your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes.

I take your point, and for most people upgrading to things other than playing on big plasma screens in the living room this is a good point, but increasing the size of the screen might not increase the size of objects!

If you had a 17 inch 4:3 (what I have) the vertical height is 13.5 inches. If you replaced that with a 24 inch widescreen the vertical height would be 12 inches so you'd have a slightly smaller vertical FOV, so the objects would appear slightly smaller!. However the vertical resolution of 24 inch monitors tends to be a bit better, except that would be lost in using non native resolution if your graphics card can't drive 1920x1200. 22 inch widescreens are really good value and the vertical resolution's about the same as a 17 inch 4:3 and the vertical FOV (which will translate to object size at the eye) will be less!

The big advantage of the widescreen will be in giving you more peripheral vision even if the object size is no bigger, giving you better situational awareness.

But your point of, say, replacing a 19 inch widescreen (about 9 inches vertically) with 24 inch (12 inches vertically) at the same distance from the viewer does increase the effective object size by 33%. Going from 70 degree FOV to 30 degree FOV is a much bigger factor, though.

It's not a solvable issue at the moment, though as you can't mandate everyone uses a 22 inch widescreen at 30 inches. Something that improved the subjective impression of visibility would be very good indeed, though. I don't know what might work, but it is hard to identify planes. Actually it was easier flying icons off in EAW. Given that identification colours and bands were used in WW2 clearly in the real world it wasn't always easy either!

Flying an online campaign with a squad with icons off we decided to adorn each of our MiG-3s with colours for each pilot on nose and wingtips so we could see who was who to do 6 calls, etc. Sadly we didn't think to exclude yellow, and all the 109s of course had yellow noses. Cue friendly fire!

quote:

Originally posted by grifter2u:
tully,

your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes.

When I created that image it was suitable for the circumstances, which were:

• The increase/decrease FOV commands hadn't been added to the game, we only had Wide, Normal and Zoom (now renamed to Gunsight).
  
• Only a very small number of people were using widescreen monitors, the vast majority were still using 4:3 aspect ratio CRT monitors

That image is over 4 years old and when it was created even a 21" monitor was considered to be more than anyone but the most dedicated gamer or graphic artist would require.

I take your point though, it could be useful to show how FOV setting varies with screen size. It would need to be done for a number of typical viewing distances though and currently this would take more time that I can afford to spend on it. For example, a laptop user (which currently includes me) will typically view the screen at about 20-24 inches when seated at a desk or table, maybe an inch or two closer when used on a lap. Even with the same sized screen, desktop compuer screens tend to be set up a couple of inches further away.

Add in that many large screen users (21-24") will set their screens further back, especially when using dual/triple screen setups and those using home entertainment screens (36-52") will often have them set up a couple of meters back and it's too much to deal with in a single image. It's going to need either a table (making it hard for some people to visualise) or a whole host of images.

tully,

having looked at this in detail before, i believe it is an acceptable generalization for lcd pc monitor users to take the "correct" viewing distance from most normal lcd monitors to be about 60 cm (23.6 inches). this is largely determined by the pixel size on screen, which is what determines font sizes, and conforms to the ergonomic guidelines of OHS. it does presume the person has close to normal vision, and that the monitor is correctly setup for brightness, contrast etc (calibration in general). people will also sit at slightly different distances when gaming, compared to reading webpages or text. taking all that into account you reach the approximate number of 60 cm, some individuals will have a personal preference that is a little closer or further away.

for a 60 cm viewing distance for lcd's from about 15 to 27', you can use these approximate numbers:

14' = 35 FoV
16' = 40 FoV
20' = 45 FoV
22' = 50 FoV
24' = 55 FoV
27' = 62 FoV
30' = 70 FoV
36' = 90 FoV

note: monitors above 28' will have a significantly higher resolution, and monitors/screens in the 36' range will usually be similar to 28' in resolution. smaller then 19'screens are usually laptops with higher resolution.


if you want more detail and be more exact on the numbers, you can use this table previously produced by "lurch" in this forum (he is an astronomer by profession). the table was produced as an illustration that in order to view objects in the il2 game in their "correct 1:1 sizes" (presuming they are modeled in-game correctly) you had to adjust your FoV setting to represent your screen size and the distance you sit from it (so it is looking at the same information, but from a different perspective). having a larger then "correct" FoV setting will shrink all objects on screen, and having a smaller then "correct" FoV setting in il2 will magnify all objects and function as a zoom.

to quantify the "Correct" viewing distances, for a selection of screen widths:


=====================================
size:_14"____16"____20"____24"____30"
_____________________________________
FOV
90____7______8______10_____12_____15
80____8.3____9.5____11.9___14.3___17.9
70____10_____11.4___14.3___17.1___21.4
60____12.1___13.9___17.3___20.8___26
50____15_____17.1___21.4___25.7___32.2
40____19.2___22_____27.5___33_____41.2
30____26.1___29.9___37.3___44.8___56
=====================================

note: viewing distance given in inches, and for lcd monitors the "correct" viewing distance from the screen would be about 23.6 inches

most people here will not often fly in their "correct FoV" at all, so the visibility of the dots we are discussing here are affected by the incorrect FoV in a significant way. for ex with a 22'screen person who has a "normal FoV = 50" they will nearly double or half their il2 dot sizes on screen by switching to 35 or 90 FoV (this is exactly what gunslinger does in the earlier tracks he posted, where he constantly switches from max zoom to max peripheral vision, trying to spot objects and then briefly switching to maximized peripheral vision). imo doing this is gaming-the-game, and it becomes very difficult to compare "dot spotting ability". the point of reference really should be how well you can locate, track, and then identify dots in il2 using your "correct FoV", and then compare this information to visibility in real life under normal conditions.

from my experience using this "dot spotting ability" in il2 is significantly incorrect, and with a "correctly setup" pc and monitor we are down to 50 or even 30% of visibility we should have. the only people that i found consistently keep reporting they have little problems in spotting these distant dots (viewed against ground terrain textures) is 6 bit monitors users. as a separate issue, the old CRT monitors had also less of a problem with this, but for a different reason. for ex a 21'crt was usually set to a relatively low resolution (to keep the game fluid with old gfx cards), so pixel size was MUCH bigger and dots stood out more because they we physically much bigger.

and it is those same crt users with relatively low resolution settings who complained loudly that some yrs ago the 3.01 patch which "improved dot sizes" was so bad, whereas for the lcd users they briefly had closer-to-correct dot visibility (the russian gamers were very loud at complaining and had oleg's ear, but they were a few yrs behind the rest of us westerners who had started to transition to lcd's). CRT's were also generally a better video display medium, so it was easier to differentiate an il2-dot moving over ground textures displayed in the game. lcd's are much less able to give a 3D illusion of the in-game world, and the images being displayed are much "flatter" where everything blends in into a 2D image. with those 6-bit lcd owners their screens dont succeed in displaying the full greyscale color range (and color in general), so the grey/black tend to "shimmer and glitter" and stand out more, which is why some of them keep insisting they can see distant dots that are invisible for the rest of us who use "normal" 8-bit color monitors.

we need somebody who is good at using the full mission builder, so we can create a track that displays aircraft at various distances, and we can have a poll where people vote on their visibility distances and report their observations

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

quote:

your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes.

I take your point, and for most people upgrading to things other than playing on big plasma screens in the living room this is a good point, but increasing the size of the screen might not increase the size of objects!

If you had a 17 inch 4:3 (what I have) the vertical height is 13.5 inches. If you replaced that with a 24 inch widescreen the vertical height would be 12 inches so you'd have a slightly smaller vertical FOV, so the objects would appear slightly smaller!. However the vertical resolution of 24 inch monitors tends to be a bit better, except that would be lost in using non native resolution if your graphics card can't drive 1920x1200. 22 inch widescreens are really good value and the vertical resolution's about the same as a 17 inch 4:3 and the vertical FOV (which will translate to object size at the eye) will be less!

The big advantage of the widescreen will be in giving you more peripheral vision even if the object size is no bigger, giving you better situational awareness.

i think in this thread "size" of aircraft, will usually relate to how wide they are, ie horizontal size, and this is what changes significantly with FoV settings and with monitor sizes (most new monitors are widescreen, so significantly wider then tall).

the aircraft we deal with in the sky are also significantly wider then they are tall, any % in horizontal size affects their visibility much more, which makes it so relevant for il2 and is important to be displayed correctly.

the "dots" in il2 representing distant aircraft are actually 4 pixels (2 black and 2 grey ones on top), so in fact the distant dots are squares changing your FoV however has an additional effect to simply zooming in or out (and by this making the dot larger or smaller),...
- using a smaller then "correct" FoV for yout monitor size also affects the "LoD model to dot transition point" (il2 models nearby aircraft with 3 different sized models of each aircraft, as you get further away the smaller models get modeled). so for example at 3000m distance a me109 might be drawn as a 4 pixel dot when you are set to your "normal" 70 FoV (presuming you have a big monitor), but if you set your FoV to 35 you might now suddenly see the smallest LoD model being drawn on screen and it might be 25 pixels wide (not just 8 pixels wide which would be the normal magnification facter by setting your view to 1/2 its correct FoV)

so if some people here are saying "i have no problems seeing that distant dot at 3000 meters over the Forrest", then what the person looks at can significantly change depending on how their system is setup, compared to the next person using il2. the only reason that this is important, is because you'd presume that a correctly setup pc with the right configuration in il2 (FoV setup etc..) would give you similar visibility and "dot spotting" and "nearby aircraft spotting/tracking" ability as you would have when looking from a real aircraft cockpit. this does not seem to be the case however, visibility of those objects in il2 is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced compared to real life (unless you "game the game" by using artificial zooms with wrong FoV, reduce your resolution dramatically, alter color calibration, change AA and AF to make the game look ugly, etc..)

unless you folks are happy to have the same problem again in BoB, you better start resolving this. once BoB is released, however nicer it will look, if the major issue of visibility for distant objects is still as bad as it currently is for il2, you wont have another chance to get this fixed for 8 to 10 yrs (whatever time the BoB engine will last). right now oleg's answer to this problem in il2 is "no can fix, game engine problem", yet there is no indication he takes this issue serious and plans to fix it for BoB.

quote:

It's not a solvable issue at the moment, though as you can't mandate everyone uses a 22 inch widescreen at 30 inches. Something that improved the subjective impression of visibility would be very good indeed, though. I don't know what might work, but it is hard to identify planes. Actually it was easier flying icons off in EAW. Given that identification colours and bands were used in WW2 clearly in the real world it wasn't always easy either!

what we need is a calibrated visual scene that people can look at, so we can compare what people report. right now there is a great variety in what il2 users report seeing in the game, and the distances they can spot distant aircraft at (dots, or small LoD models at 1500 m for ex). if we have a standard track, and people have their FoV's correctly set when looking at the track, then we can arrive at some reasonable conclusions of how bad this problem currently is.

we need somebody that is good with the full mission builder to spend 10 min on making us this track, its that simple.

I'm bumping this.
I'm having a hell of a time seeing enemy planes, they blend so well into the back ground.
against the sky isn't a problem, but me high, them low, I have to use F6 if available to keep track of them.
will finish reading the whole thread after lunch, might help

SUMMARY

1 Use LOW resolution -reccommend 1024x768 -game was 'optimised' for that apparently ...even lower if you are really struggling.
2 Dont use Anti Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering.
3 As a last resort monitor learn about the ('pitch') size of the pixels in your monitor .EG a 17 and 19 inch monitor both run at max 1280x1024 so if the same number of pixels are spread over a larger area in the 19 incher it must have bigger pixels (and hence dots)Similarly if you have a 20 and 22 inch monitor that both run max res 1680x1050 the smaller monitor will LOOK better with crisper image but the 22 is the one that will allow you to spot enemy dots best...

I have a Dell 30 inch monitor and the game at 2560x1600 would bring a tear to your eye its so beautiful BUT I NEVER play online at anything other then 1024x768 as you may as well be flying round with your eyes closed .(or on a commerciasl flight in FSX-at least until you are sixxed!)

Anybody who says that they can see dots fine at higher res must never get out of the weeds on the deck and always have enemy planes silhouetted against the horizon.Its simple science /technology related to the size of the pixels in your monitor and how they are used at different res.

EDIT It goes without saying that lower res doesnt look as good and this also means it will take longer to tell if the dot actually IS an enemy as plane silhouettes /outlines will take longer to become clear.This is quite significant in a fight at medium range .

I agree.When I got my 22" monitor,first thing I did was change the resolution to 1680x1050.Looks beautiful like that,but with my eyes I can't see a dot until its shooting me!
so now,I fly at 1024x768 and at least I have a chance.

i have a harder time seeing the enemy below me as well, particularly over the forest areas.
This is because the pan caked textures tend to steal frame rates making the image choppier. I've since added some ram which helped.

Normally i can see the dots, but as the plane gets closer and starts to take shape it can actually disappear, blend rather. So consequently i might dive onto a dot, only to have it disappear until i'm close enough to see the next LOD.

This is really only a problem for me when the forrest is the back ground.

hey speaking of forest,
did you see my new forest textures?


These don't really make it easier to spot planes, but i have an easier time following one if they dive below me.
Rather than not seeing the plane completely, i get a flickering which seems to simulate the glint that you might see when looking down at an aircraft.
Most planes are also better seen against a darker green back ground, except Zeros, in which case you can still see the yellow and the red from the markings if you are close enough.
I also use a lower resolution which has helped tremendously.



Bill

Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX.

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it.

I think you need to stop beating a dead horse.

No one mentioned server settings in this recently bumped thread and you already took the offense.

You shouldn't be bothered so much by what settings other people choose, or what they think of yours.

Well as Oleg optimised il2 for 1024x768 I don't see playing at that resolution as any sort on manipulation.

Still, people with higher end machines will have advantage over lower end specs (regardless on how some people do well on low end PC's).
That is a fact... playing on low res doesn't change that fact one bit.

I think large portion of Unknown Pilots posts regarding this is precisely about that.

I really don't think it makes much a difference other than the lower resolutions lead to larger dots despite the distance they are. This might make it easier to see or spot from a distance, but you really lose a lot of depth perception since the dots are pretty much the same size.

On that note, my graphics card is fine for this game, and like i say i can't play in perfect mode. I also never encounter the problems that plague people online, while I'm offline. I think i've been thrown just about every excuse for why these things occur, and i'd just rather not deal with it. I paid my ten bucks, and i've gotten much more out of this sim than other games that charge a monthly fee.
I'd rather not see the sim go downhill, so i contribute what i can, but i'm also probably less likely to pay anymore money to play this sim. I figure if it gets so far out of whack eventually people will stop playing or someone with more authority will do something to ensure a quality game.

I still think we are in the cheap seats, so what we say here really won't get too far with the people who actually pay to keep the servers going. You have them to thank for that.



Bill

I bet bunch of people play 800x600 res while online .
And no, I'm not joking.... difference is really there.
It is my and everyone else's prob if we can't stand using mid '90's res . I really can't stand it.

quote:

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX.

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it.

This? Where is the manipulation of any of that in what I wrote?

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:

quote:

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX.

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it.

This? Where is the manipulation of any of that in what I wrote?

Your sig really is appropriate for you. lol Maybe getting out and doing something else for a change would lighten your mood.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was, in fact, referring to the whole thread, taking your post as an example of the very reason Oleg (way back before PF ever came out) said that full switch is NOT "full real", and is in fact actually artificially difficult, and that PL and icons were added to compensate for the VERY things you stated (and we see in this entire thread).

Icons may not be the most realistic LOOKING thing, but when they are ranged appropriately, they bypass all the gaming the game tweaks so many of the over-the-top harcdore full switchers use, while also leveling the playing field across hardware and finances of various participants, AND also preventing the impossible things people see happen due to inherent limitations in the hardware and code.

That's all. So calm down, ok?

Oh boy

Nomex suit on...

Full real or full switch in this game...is just as real as watching a dirty movie with a "blow up doll"...It's as "real" as you want to believe

Nothing simulated is perfect or "real"..and never will be...this game has limitations that exceed it's ten year life span...mods and new hardware have made it more interesting...but more ribbons on an old pig, don't make it more beautiful....open pit or closed..

Unknown_Pilot summed it up really well

Each to their own and enjoy it....I do

Full Switch settings have really grown on me. That's all i used offline for months, and really my preference for online play. I don't pride myself on it, or think that you must suck if you aren't using full switch settings. For me, it just seems there is less bickering and more of an understanding between players.

I think playing with full switch settings you also learn to see planes at a distance, and get use to seeing the different LODs. With icons or other indicators like the different padlocks, you really aren't forced to learn those things.

The most useful tool for me is the analog zoom which lets me see everything with much more clarity. I also fly at 70 degrees FOV, rather than at full wide all the time, which can also help in getting a closer view of who is around me. There is also something more immersive about it.
I really only use full wide when i'm in a turn battle and the enemy is close enough to see well anyway.

Somethings to consider.



Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was, in fact, referring to the whole thread,

TY for making that clear. I didn't understand what wasn't stated is why I asked instead of assuming.

quote:

That's all. So calm down, ok?

Any more calm and I go to sleep. I wasn't upset, just puzzled like having a jigsaw with extra pieces there.