PDA

View Full Version : Dots



stanford-ukded
08-16-2007, 06:00 AM
Chaps, perhaps you can help me as spotting dots on FR servers is doing my nut in.

My settings:

7800GTX
1280x960
AAx4
AFx8

Perfect mode
Everything ingame set to highest
Water 4

I'm really struggling to see dots until they fly past a cloud. In fact, I don't ever think I've been able to see a dot unless that happens. It really makes flying on FR servers difficult for me.

Are there any lower settings, or gfx tweaks to make the dots appear clearer?

stanford-ukded
08-16-2007, 06:00 AM
Chaps, perhaps you can help me as spotting dots on FR servers is doing my nut in.

My settings:

7800GTX
1280x960
AAx4
AFx8

Perfect mode
Everything ingame set to highest
Water 4

I'm really struggling to see dots until they fly past a cloud. In fact, I don't ever think I've been able to see a dot unless that happens. It really makes flying on FR servers difficult for me.

Are there any lower settings, or gfx tweaks to make the dots appear clearer?

na85
08-16-2007, 06:06 AM
I've read numerous times that dots appear best at 1024x768. Something about the game being optimized for that resolution.

Here's a thread where I ask a similar question to yours

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/536...361043155#5361043155 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/5361043155?r=5361043155#5361043155)

Of particular note are grifter2u's replies

stanford-ukded
08-16-2007, 06:42 AM
Thanks mate. Unfortunately when I select 1024 x 768 my flat panel displays an image two inches off set to the left. Auto config button does not fix this (on the monitor itself), and in the OSD controls there is no option to move the screen...

carguy_
08-16-2007, 06:47 AM
This depends on monitor you have.REally difficult to judge without knowing which one you have.Best bet would be finding a person with the same and copy his gfx settings.

Where I fly, big part of ppl fly on lower res to see the dots.That`s mainly 1024x768x32 but I don`t see till 800x600.Color palette doesn`t make that much of a difference.

Smoothing out the textures goes wrong way for the most folks.Besides avoiding AA and AF , sharpening textures is recommended.

But above this all - color proportions.

Fiddle with gamma/contrast/brightness to find the optimal spot.Test it on green maps such as Smolensk.Normandy map is by far the worst for dot visibility BTW.

so far my best setup is

gamma 1,94
contrast 125%
brighness 88%.

Doesn`t solve all the dot problems but gives far bigger B&Z possibilities.

The really bad part is that different maps prefer different colors for best vis.Some time ago AnD presented his setups for desert and for typically green maps.If anything, I can remember that there was a lot of blue color in the green map setup.Personally I don`t play with green/blue/red balance.

stanford-ukded
08-16-2007, 08:06 AM
Ilyama 435S - http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/iiama435s/e435s.htm

I'm thinking of getting a better monitor next month, a Samsung 22" BW series, I've heard great things about it. However, running at a widescreen resolution... I can't imagine it making my dot situation any better. :/

na85
08-16-2007, 05:51 PM
One solution I've found was running it at 1080i on my hitachi in the basement. 54 inches of glory.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-16-2007, 06:48 PM
Clamp negative LOD bias. I also found that turning AF to application and go into IL2 Set up and select anisotropic for texture mipmap filter helps. Also playing around with contrast ratio can help. I run digital vibrance on low, brightness and gamma at default, and contrast at 105% be sure to select all channels and not just desktop. I also run vertical sync with triple buffereing enabled. I have a 7950GT 512MB and run the game at 1680x1050 on a Samsung 20" Widescreen and see dots perfectly. Oh and I run 4xAA.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-16-2007, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
I've read numerous times that dots appear best at 1024x768. Something about the game being optimized for that resolution.

Here's a thread where I ask a similar question to yours

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/536...361043155#5361043155 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/5361043155?r=5361043155#5361043155)

Of particular note are grifter2u's replies </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard this a hundred times and for me this statement is false. I ran the game at 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x960 for years and dots appear to me the same at all resolutions. Now I run as I mentioned 1680x1050 and nothing has changed, actually if anything I see them better now. I think its in peoples head or in their settings. The game is gorgeous at high res and dots are easily visible to me and I can ID aircraft quicker then anyone I have been on comms with. I wish I could help these people out because this sim at high resolution is a real treat.

S!

MrMojok
08-16-2007, 07:29 PM
Havok, what are your system specs?

Rjel
08-16-2007, 08:08 PM
How much more taxing on the system is it running at resolutions higher than 1024x768? This is where I've run IL2 going back to the original demo. I've never really explored any other settings except for AA and ansio. I'm running an AMD4800X2 and an 8800GTX. Is it worth my time looking at higher resolutions on a 19 inch monitor?

rockgardenlove
08-16-2007, 08:17 PM
Does anybody else find the flat screen CRT monitors really nice to look at? I mean, standard thick setup, just the screen surface is flat.

They're huge, but IMO, easier to look at.

grifter2u
08-16-2007, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
Chaps, perhaps you can help me as spotting dots on FR servers is doing my nut in.

My settings:

7800GTX
1280x960
AAx4
AFx8

Perfect mode
Everything ingame set to highest
Water 4

I'm really struggling to see dots until they fly past a cloud. In fact, I don't ever think I've been able to see a dot unless that happens. It really makes flying on FR servers difficult for me.

Are there any lower settings, or gfx tweaks to make the dots appear clearer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi stanford,

for spotting distant aircraft in il2 you must understand that these distant aircraft "dots" are in fact made up of 2 pixels.
- pixel size on a monitor is determined by the resolution the monitor is set at (the higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels).
- CRT monitors are good at producing fairly sharply defined pixels at various resolutions, lcd monitors are not (lcd monitors will produces the clearest defined pixels at their native resolution).
- whatever size your pixels are on screen, the closer you sit to the monitor the more easy you will see them (note for different monitor/display technology there is usually a "correct" distance so sit from it, so you have the best quality video and detail, but dont see the individual pixels that make up the image for ex).

you probably have several main reasons for your dot spotting problem, some of the main ones are...
- your monitor to start out with is very small at 17'
- running the monitor at its native resolution (1280 x 1024) will give the most clearly defined chunky pixels in il2, using a non native resolution will cause them to blurr because your monitor needs to scale them, which lcd monitors usually are not very good at). using a lower resolution like 1024 x 768 will make the dots much easier to spot than if that smae person would be using 2048 x 1536 (because the pixels are now larger), which is why many people with crt's used to use this trick. the degree to which that will help you with an lcd will depend on how well that monitor can scale non-native resolutions (ie, you might have bigger dots now, but because they are more fuzzy they will now also be harder to see) and the range of resolutions your hardware can run.
- your monitor is only 6 bit color (normal good lcd's are 8 bit color), so for a start it is not very good at differentiating shades of colour, so dots will be harder to see.
- if you never calibrated your monitor setup to have correct black levels, gamma, contrast, brightness etc.. so this will make things harder because it is not functioning according to its intended specifications, and seeing those 2 black/grey pixels that make up a distant aircraft dot will be much harder.

you can try fiddling with various display settings to make dots stand out more, but the heart of the problem is related to the issues i mentioned above.

grifter2u
08-17-2007, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

I heard this a hundred times and for me this statement is false. I ran the game at 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x960 for years and dots appear to me the same at all resolutions. Now I run as I mentioned 1680x1050 and nothing has changed, actually if anything I see them better now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
distant aircraft dots are represented in il2 as 2 pixels, and pixel size on monitors is dependent on resolution. the lower the resolution on a large screen, the larger the pixels. this is simply how the game is programed, and has been illustrated a number of different times by screenshots.

what is entirely possible is that for you personally with your current hardware used and software setup (in game, and gfx driver tweaks), that you can see distant aircraft dots in il2 fairly well. nobody will dispute that, since we cant come and look at your setup. this does not of course mean that il2 aircraft dots dont actually change in physical size on your monitor when you change resolutions. it is possible also that your current lcd monitor scales resolutions fairly well, and that a non native resolution on your lcd is only slightly more fuzzy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I think its in peoples head or in their settings. The game is gorgeous at high res and dots are easily visible to me and I can ID aircraft quicker then anyone I have been on comms with. I wish I could help these people out because this sim at high resolution is a real treat.
S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i fully agree. at high resolution on a good system il2 looks very good, and it is very immersive to fly in that kind of virtual world because it looks so good. however your ability to "ID aircraft" (meaning , being able to identify a model and type of aircraft as friendly or enemy) will depend on how clearly you see the LoD models, which is not the same as spotting or tracking distant aircraft as "dots". your ability to clearly see LoD models is only relevant to close or medium distance from you, and is likely improved by having a higher resolution and better quality of video being displayed (ie a decent monitor and good hardware specs).

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">distant aircraft dots are represented in il2 as 2 pixels, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you really sure about this? True, dots may start out as small as 2 pixels, but I seem to remember dots which grow in size as they become nearer (but still before the first detailed model). Also, the dot size of a fighter and bomber shouldn't be the same e.g., from 2 km distance.

So far I thought that the lower resolution screens simply benefit from the "rounding up" effect, e.g., what would be 3 screen pixels on high-res video card setting, will be 4 screen pixels with setting half the video card resolution. So relatively, the dot will indeed appear larger in its environment.

grifter2u
08-17-2007, 07:28 AM
hi rnzoli,

the most distant aircraft are all 2 pixel dots afaik, when it comes closer the dot will become more than 2 pixels. i think the transition from 2 to multiple dots is at roughly 1.4 km, but i cant exactly remember the precise distance (screenshots were posted to illustrate this, and showed the exact transition point).

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-17-2007, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Havok, what are your system specs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intel Core2Duo e6400 OC'd
2GB OCZ PC 5400 RAM
eVGA 7950GT 512MB PCIx
Creative X-FI Extreme

Make no mistake, I can see dots across the map. I can easily track KI-84s hugging the deck on the Burma map featured in the Zekes vs Wildcats server. Its important for the server your flying in to know what to set the dot range too. In a no icon server the dot range should be set to 20 for a more realistic viewing distance. I think a lot of these I can not see dots complaints are directly related to server settings.

S!

EDCF_Rama
08-17-2007, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
i think the transition from 2 to multiple dots is at roughly 1.4 km, but i cant exactly remember the precise distance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For another purpose I measured the Bf109F4 wingspan size in pixels at different distances.

For this I used the editor to place some Bf109F4 at exact distances of a P39 on a long straight flat road. Here for example the content of the .mis for the distance 5 Km

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[MAIN]
MAP Net2Summer/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
r0100
g0103
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_39N
Fuel 0
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 48000.00 10900.00 0.00 0.00 &0
NORMFLY 47999.90 10900.00 0.00 0.00 &0
[g0103]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.BF_109F4
Fuel 0
weapons default
[g0103_Way]
TAKEOFF 43000.00 10900.00 0.00 0.00 &0
NORMFLY 43000.10 10900.00 0.00 0.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy to change the distance for other exact ones.
After that, I launch the mission, go to a FOV of exact 30? (not in visor view), take a screenshot and measure on it the wingspan in pixels.

Here what I get on a 1680x1050 monitor:
100m -&gt; 313 pixels
200m -&gt; 156 pixels
300m -&gt; 104 pixels
500m -&gt; 63 pixels
750m -&gt; 43 pixels
1000m -&gt; 32 pixels
2000m -&gt; 16 pixels
3000m -&gt; 11 pixels
5000m -&gt; 6 pixels

I didn't measure farther... but other can do if they want (they also can do it for other FoV angles)

The purpose of the measure was to show that the Bf109 wingspan size was very close to 10m at all distance up to 5k with the folowing formula:

Wingspan (in m) = (size of plane in pixels/monitor width in pixels) * 2 * distance (in meters) * Tgt (FoV/2)

Of course, everybody can redo this small experience and the measurement by himself.

This just to show, that at least on a 1680x1050 monitor with a FoV of 30?, the transition to the dot visual is farther than 5km away.

rnzoli
08-18-2007, 07:12 AM
This is a very interesting test, I was also thinking along these lines. So what you are saying, Rama, that the higher the video card resolution, the farther the conversion distance from dot to detail and vice versa? That would make sense.

On the other hand, maybe I will re-do the test focusing on the dot size only - when does it start to appear till the conversion to first detailed drawing. Also would be nice to know, whether a Bf-109 and He-111 side by side shows same dot sizes...

EDCF_Rama
08-18-2007, 08:02 AM
yes

And it also depend on FOV. With a FOV of 90?, same monitor size, you can divide all values by 3. So the transition would be around 5 Km.

The test with different plane size could be interesting also. Even if I suspect the dot would be the same size, just the transition would be farther.
The only differences I found between dots is color. Usually, when very far away, I can identify a bomber formation only by the formation (only bombers forms in box of 4)

Quenaelin
08-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Spotting dots is easy with my setup, but when playing online I don't notice players sneaking behind me, how to help to prevent 'tunnel vision' in this game? It is quite hard to look around with POV-buttons and mouse, I loose orientation very quickly and begin spinning, maybe it is easier to those who have TrackIR?

grifter2u
08-18-2007, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Havok, what are your system specs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intel Core2Duo e6400 OC'd
2GB OCZ PC 5400 RAM
eVGA 7950GT 512MB PCIx
Creative X-FI Extreme

Make no mistake, I can see dots across the map. I can easily track KI-84s hugging the deck on the Burma map featured in the Zekes vs Wildcats server. Its important for the server your flying in to know what to set the dot range too. In a no icon server the dot range should be set to 20 for a more realistic viewing distance. I think a lot of these I can not see dots complaints are directly related to server settings.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is the exact model of samsung monitor you are using ? i think in a recent post you said it was a 20' widescreen samsung, but there are many different types and models in that range. if you are seeing dots and LoD models that well, something is obviously working well for you.

grifter2u
08-18-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:

For another purpose I measured the Bf109F4 wingspan size in pixels at different distances......

..... I launch the mission, go to a FOV of exact 30? (not in visor view), take a screenshot and measure on it the wingspan in pixels.

Here what I get on a 1680x1050 monitor:
100m -&gt; 313 pixels
200m -&gt; 156 pixels
300m -&gt; 104 pixels
500m -&gt; 63 pixels
750m -&gt; 43 pixels
1000m -&gt; 32 pixels
2000m -&gt; 16 pixels
3000m -&gt; 11 pixels
5000m -&gt; 6 pixels

......... The purpose of the measure was to show that the Bf109 wingspan size was very close to 10m at all distance up to 5k with the folowing formula:

Wingspan (in m) = (size of plane in pixels/monitor width in pixels) * 2 * distance (in meters) * Tgt (FoV/2)

..........This just to show, that at least on a 1680x1050 monitor with a FoV of 30?, the transition to the dot visual is farther than 5km away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there are several problems with what you say, and i dont think your argument is valid because...

first, you are using a 30' FoV on your monitor to make those measurements which is misleading. namely:

a) - in another thread in this forum some months ago when people discussed problems with dot visibility, you stated you fly il2 in "normal view" on your 22' flatscreen lcd monitor, and you argued that what you see on your monitor "simulated" correct aircraft sizes at various distances and that the problems those other people had in spotting dots or distant objects in il2 didnt really exist. lets presume for the sake of simplicity right now that this is true for you (not for the other people obviously, because they are still complaining), then you cant have it both ways because this means that when you now set il2 to a 35' FoV this then roughly doubles the size of all those distant objects you are looking at (like aircrafts/trucks LoD models, or distant aircraft dots), and "pulls them in" much closer. so for you to right now use anything less than a 70 degree FoV acts like a zoom, and this therefore does not give you a correct size representation.

b) - your choice of the 30 FoV further complicates this, because the 30 FoV setting is not a regular FoV like the other FoV options in il2, since not only is it a more narrow FoV that works (like the other FoV's) acting like a focal length change on a photo camera (which i illustrated with screenshots in previous threads), and therefore not only "enlarges your visual window" you look into the il2 world with, but also pulls distant objects in closer to the viewer and thereby increasing their on screen size significantly, the 30 FoV also has an additional magnification factor built into it as stated in the il2 manual (olegs argument is that it represents the pilot with full concentration leaning forward over his gun sight to take a shot)

those 2 factors mean that you have zoomed into the dots you are looking at by 3x roughly, which very significantly magnifies them. so to give a valid pixel measurement for size of the object you'd need to make those exact same measurements you already did, but this time with your FoV set to 70, and the results will be very different.


second, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ! no matter what number of pixels you count, if you cant see them, you simply cant see them ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

below are 3 screenshots of 4 me-109's taken with different FoV's, the 2 closer me-109's are 1800 meters away, and the 2 other more distant 109's are nearly 4000 meters away. the screenshots were taken full screen as tga files, and then a small section was cut out of each to just show the section of the sky with the aircraft in it. the tga's were then converted to pnf files. i included the 30 degree FoV so it illustrates how severely it magnifies distant objects.

the way il2 is programmed you see very distant aircraft represented as a single dot that is made up of 2 pixels. as you get closer to that object the dot will change into a a small miniature aircraft (the smallest Level of detail model, or "LoD" model) which is made up of a few pixels for the wings, and a few pixels for the fuselage etc.. the transition point for the "dot" to "LoD" model will change depending on your FoV setting (the narrow FoV's act like a zoom factor so it will pull objects in closer to you, and you might well see a LoD model at 40 FoV for a given distance but see a 2 pixel dot when looking at the same object from the same distance at 70 or 90 FoV etc..)

i previously looked at what the specific dot to lod transition distances where for various FoV's on my different monitors, but i cant really remember the exact numbers, i think from memory that for me with my main monitor set at the "normal" 70 FoV it is somewhere under 2000 meters. with the screenshots i just posted i dont really care whether this is a dot or lod model, but i can tell you if you fly in the correct FoV setting for your whatever monitor size you might have on your desk that it it is not the ideal 20 pixels size you suggested for an object 1800 meters away.

with FoV 30 (ie the max zoom in il2)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800m-fov30.png

with FoV 70 (the normal FoV that for me should give a 1:1 correct size for all objects ingame)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800m-fov70.png

and 90 FoV (the wide view people use for added peripheral vision)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800mfov90.png

as you can see in the 70 FoV the multi pixel dot representing the 109 aircraft at 1800 meter is much to small, even in the max zoom 30 FoV (with double magnification) it is barely visible as a multi pixel dot.and in the 70 FoV the 109 on the lower left (which is the 2e 109 at 1800 meters) is BARELY visible as a couple of grey pixels ! (this is because the game engine cant always constantly at all angles correctly give several black pixels for the aircraft it is trying to represent, since the wing or fuselage might actually be narrower than a single pixel, it will represent it in grey instead of black)

and those dots are seen against a clear open sky, just imagine hunting for those same very poorly visible dots 1800 meters below you against a forest background, while you overfly that sector at 2000 meters.[/QUOTE]

EDCF_Rama
08-18-2007, 12:00 PM
Grifter2u, you don't understand... I'm not giving any argument nor arguing anything.
I'm giving an information, based on clear and exact in-game measurements.
Peoples use or don't use this informations, as they wish.

I leave to you the oppinions, argumentations, polemics and nother kind of philosophy.

BTW, I redid other measurements with same plane, 90? FOV and another monitor (1024x760).
It gives:

100m -&gt; 63 pixels
200m -&gt; 31 pixels
300m -&gt; 21 pixels
500m -&gt; 13 pixels
750m -&gt; 8 pixels
1000m -&gt; 6 pixels
2000m -&gt; 3 pixels
3000m -&gt; dot
5000m -&gt; dot

Now you have the other extreme with the wider FOV and low-res monitor

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-18-2007, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:

For another purpose I measured the Bf109F4 wingspan size in pixels at different distances......

..... I launch the mission, go to a FOV of exact 30? (not in visor view), take a screenshot and measure on it the wingspan in pixels.

Here what I get on a 1680x1050 monitor:
100m -&gt; 313 pixels
200m -&gt; 156 pixels
300m -&gt; 104 pixels
500m -&gt; 63 pixels
750m -&gt; 43 pixels
1000m -&gt; 32 pixels
2000m -&gt; 16 pixels
3000m -&gt; 11 pixels
5000m -&gt; 6 pixels

......... The purpose of the measure was to show that the Bf109 wingspan size was very close to 10m at all distance up to 5k with the folowing formula:

Wingspan (in m) = (size of plane in pixels/monitor width in pixels) * 2 * distance (in meters) * Tgt (FoV/2)

..........This just to show, that at least on a 1680x1050 monitor with a FoV of 30?, the transition to the dot visual is farther than 5km away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there are several problems with what you say, and i dont think your argument is valid because...

first, you are using a 30' FoV on your monitor to make those measurements which is misleading. namely:

a) - in another thread in this forum some months ago when people discussed problems with dot visibility, you stated you fly il2 in "normal view" on your 22' flatscreen lcd monitor, and you argued that what you see on your monitor "simulated" correct aircraft sizes at various distances and that the problems those other people had in spotting dots or distant objects in il2 didnt really exist. lets presume for the sake of simplicity right now that this is true for you (not for the other people obviously, because they are still complaining), then you cant have it both ways because this means that when you now set il2 to a 35' FoV this then roughly doubles the size of all those distant objects you are looking at (like aircrafts/trucks LoD models, or distant aircraft dots), and "pulls them in" much closer. so for you to right now use anything less than a 70 degree FoV acts like a zoom, and this therefore does not give you a correct size representation.

b) - your choice of the 30 FoV further complicates this, because the 30 FoV setting is not a regular FoV like the other FoV options in il2, since not only is it a more narrow FoV that works (like the other FoV's) acting like a focal length change on a photo camera (which i illustrated with screenshots in previous threads), and therefore not only "enlarges your visual window" you look into the il2 world with, but also pulls distant objects in closer to the viewer and thereby increasing their on screen size significantly, the 30 FoV also has an additional magnification factor built into it as stated in the il2 manual (olegs argument is that it represents the pilot with full concentration leaning forward over his gun sight to take a shot)

those 2 factors mean that you have zoomed into the dots you are looking at by 3x roughly, which very significantly magnifies them. so to give a valid pixel measurement for size of the object you'd need to make those exact same measurements you already did, but this time with your FoV set to 70, and the results will be very different.


second, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ! no matter what number of pixels you count, if you cant see them, you simply cant see them ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

below are 3 screenshots of 4 me-109's taken with different FoV's, the 2 closer me-109's are 1800 meters away, and the 2 other more distant 109's are nearly 4000 meters away. the screenshots were taken full screen as tga files, and then a small section was cut out of each to just show the section of the sky with the aircraft in it. the tga's were then converted to pnf files. i included the 30 degree FoV so it illustrates how severely it magnifies distant objects.

the way il2 is programmed you see very distant aircraft represented as a single dot that is made up of 2 pixels. as you get closer to that object the dot will change into a a small miniature aircraft (the smallest Level of detail model, or "LoD" model) which is made up of a few pixels for the wings, and a few pixels for the fuselage etc.. the transition point for the "dot" to "LoD" model will change depending on your FoV setting (the narrow FoV's act like a zoom factor so it will pull objects in closer to you, and you might well see a LoD model at 40 FoV for a given distance but see a 2 pixel dot when looking at the same object from the same distance at 70 or 90 FoV etc..)

i previously looked at what the specific dot to lod transition distances where for various FoV's on my different monitors, but i cant really remember the exact numbers, i think from memory that for me with my main monitor set at the "normal" 70 FoV it is somewhere under 2000 meters. with the screenshots i just posted i dont really care whether this is a dot or lod model, but i can tell you if you fly in the correct FoV setting for your whatever monitor size you might have on your desk that it it is not the ideal 20 pixels size you suggested for an object 1800 meters away.

with FoV 30 (ie the max zoom in il2)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800m-fov30.png

with FoV 70 (the normal FoV that for me should give a 1:1 correct size for all objects ingame)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800m-fov70.png

and 90 FoV (the wide view people use for added peripheral vision)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/clip-1800mfov90.png

as you can see in the 70 FoV the multi pixel dot representing the 109 aircraft at 1800 meter is much to small, even in the max zoom 30 FoV (with double magnification) it is barely visible as a multi pixel dot.and in the 70 FoV the 109 on the lower left (which is the 2e 109 at 1800 meters) is BARELY visible as a couple of grey pixels ! (this is because the game engine cant always constantly at all angles correctly give several black pixels for the aircraft it is trying to represent, since the wing or fuselage might actually be narrower than a single pixel, it will represent it in grey instead of black)

and those dots are seen against a clear open sky, just imagine hunting for those same very poorly visible dots 1800 meters below you against a forest background, while you overfly that sector at 2000 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your pc specs and what settings you running? No offense, but those screens look like poop. Im going to have to post some.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-18-2007, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Havok, what are your system specs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intel Core2Duo e6400 OC'd
2GB OCZ PC 5400 RAM
eVGA 7950GT 512MB PCIx
Creative X-FI Extreme

Make no mistake, I can see dots across the map. I can easily track KI-84s hugging the deck on the Burma map featured in the Zekes vs Wildcats server. Its important for the server your flying in to know what to set the dot range too. In a no icon server the dot range should be set to 20 for a more realistic viewing distance. I think a lot of these I can not see dots complaints are directly related to server settings.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is the exact model of samsung monitor you are using ? i think in a recent post you said it was a 20' widescreen samsung, but there are many different types and models in that range. if you are seeing dots and LoD models that well, something is obviously working well for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

204BW.

S!

Rjel
08-18-2007, 05:37 PM
These are the only dots I've been able to follow no matter where they are. These are from the original IL-2 v1.0

https://home.comcast.net/~rjelmiles/Original_IL2.jpg

grifter2u
08-18-2007, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
Grifter2u, you don't understand... I'm not giving any argument nor arguing anything.
I'm giving an information, based on clear and exact in-game measurements.
Peoples use or don't use this informations, as they wish.

I leave to you the oppinions, argumentations, polemics and nother kind of philosophy.

BTW, I redid other measurements with same plane, 90? FOV and another monitor (1024x760).
It gives:

100m -&gt; 63 pixels
200m -&gt; 31 pixels
300m -&gt; 21 pixels
500m -&gt; 13 pixels
750m -&gt; 8 pixels
1000m -&gt; 6 pixels
2000m -&gt; 3 pixels
3000m -&gt; dot
5000m -&gt; dot

Now you have the other extreme with the wider FOV and low-res monitor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
hi rama,

i am not arguing with you to be difficult, i made an argument ("arguing" my different point of view, by giving fact based reasons why i disagreed with you, rather than just giving an "opinion") to show that what you said in your first post here was an oversimplification. if other forum readers here didnt understand that what you said was only applicable in certain special "artificial" situations they might have drawn the incorrect conclusions from it (as one already did), because i dont believe the information you initially gave represented the way the sim displays distant aircraft during normal online/offline use for most people here.

and as you see from the 2e set of pixel numbers you gave for the 90 FoV the results are then very different, because this has now "zoomed out" on what we see, and the dot to LoD transition point is now MUCH closer (somewhere around 2000 meters now, as i originally stated). btw, the fact you now also used a lower resolution of course makes the pixels larger at the same time, which helps their "dot" identification and makes the il2 dot's larger. if you had used a high resolution with that large FoV setting, then you would have illustrated the worst combination of variables (the LoD model might have had an extra pixel or 2 for the same distance, but the much smaler pixels would have still made it much harder to see).

we must note however that using this 90 FoV on smaller or medium sized monitors is also an artificial situation, since those people should really be flying with a more narrow FoV setting depending on how big their monitor is and how far away from it they sit (but the 90 FoV is a setting many people often use when flying in il2, because so many people try and increase their peripheral vision to represent a bit better the SA real ww2 pilots had during flight).


the bottom line is that in il2 using a high resolution with a wide field of view makes it MUCH harder to spot aircraft around you or maintain normal SA because most people have small or medium sized monitors, and this can be made even worse by using certain gfx driver settings that improve the quality of the scenery (like high AA, correct gamma and brightness/contrast etc..). as some of the productive previous discussions on several forums showed, whatever size monitor you use, that size will determine what your "correct" viewing FoV setting should be for you. at that setting you will see (theoretically) all objects correctly displayed in size (distant dots and closer multipixel lod models). using a narrower FoV works like a zoom-in, and using a larger FoV works like a zoom-out, and this significantly distorts object size and distance.

lastly, pixel size on retail domestic/office lcd monitors varies significantly, and can be almost 20% different in size from one monitor to the other (10% difference is very common). for people that use an lcd or plasma tv screen as monitor, the pixel size can be 100% larger than for a pc monitor. and the people that buy huge expensive pc monitors (27 or 30' for ex) to use for il2, have the worst experience (they have a high resolution, which means relatively small pixels), and you sit further away from the monitor because it is so large, which is why many of them end up setting their resolution to half its native size, which then doubles their pixel size for spotting dots (which is important for them since they have the luxury to be able to use the widest FoV setting for most of the time).

grifter2u
08-18-2007, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

What is your pc specs and what settings you running? No offense, but those screens look like poop. Im going to have to post some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what makes it look that bad is that it is only a small section cut out of a normal screenshot, and that small cut-out is then further magnified to show the dot's/lod's better (which is why you see so much pixelation). after being cut out the original tga file format is converted to png to minimize quality loss (instead of using jpeg's etc..)

i can post some glorious screenshots of beautiful scenery later if you want, the sim scenery can look very good on my system. i run il2 in openGL on perfect, with maximum scenery details (trees etc), water on 2, driver settings AA = 4, AF = 8x, nvidea setting to "high quality" etc.., frames are usually perfectly smooth (unless over pearl harbor, or berlin for ex)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
204BW.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
oks, thx for posting that. i think that will turn out to be one of the main reasons some people have less problems in identifying il2 dots (presuming all other things are equal, like they are using the correct FoV, similar resolution, and a properly calibrated grafix setup etc..). the monitor you stated is based on TN panel technology. there are 3 main lcd panel technologies used to make these flat lcd screens, and the degree to which individual pixels stand out (rather than all blend together into a smooth image) and grafix quality for scenery display can vary a great deal in them.

some years ago people chose gaming lcd monitors mainly on speed, because the slower ones had problems with ghosting etc on fast moving objects. in the last year or 18 months most monitors (TN,MVA/PVA,IPS) can cope with fast moving objects, but the technology used can still make a big difference in retail price. the accuracy in correctly displaying video can vary a great deal in those different monitors (for ex some are 6 bit color, others are 8 bit color, some have much greater levels of contrast and grey scale etc). from what some people have said previously, it is starting to look like the people with high quality gfx displays are actually at a significant disadvantage in il2 (ie their il2 scenery might look better, but spotting individual 2 pixel dots amongst that background is now much more difficult)

grifter2u
08-18-2007, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
This depends on monitor you have.REally difficult to judge without knowing which one you have.Best bet would be finding a person with the same and copy his gfx settings.

Where I fly, big part of ppl fly on lower res to see the dots.That`s mainly 1024x768x32 but I don`t see till 800x600.Color palette doesn`t make that much of a difference.

Smoothing out the textures goes wrong way for the most folks.Besides avoiding AA and AF , sharpening textures is recommended.

But above this all - color proportions.

Fiddle with gamma/contrast/brightness to find the optimal spot.Test it on green maps such as Smolensk.Normandy map is by far the worst for dot visibility BTW.

so far my best setup is

gamma 1,94
contrast 125%
brighness 88%.

Doesn`t solve all the dot problems but gives far bigger B&Z possibilities.

The really bad part is that different maps prefer different colors for best vis.Some time ago AnD presented his setups for desert and for typically green maps.If anything, I can remember that there was a lot of blue color in the green map setup.Personally I don`t play with green/blue/red balance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no offence intended carguy, but i think that is a really good example of somebody whom has altered his normal video display settings very significantly to make il2 dots and Lod models stand out more. the result however is that the scenery will look very non-natural and artificial. everything many of us do to make the video quality displayed in il2 look better (to improve our sense of immersion in flying in a virtual 3 dimensional world that looks as beautiful and realistic as possible) is the exact opposite of what carguy did.

there are many good programs available for basic monitor calibration, and presuming the color temperature of the monitor is set to 6500K, gamma in windows OS should be about 2.2 (but you need to callibrate this), and contrast and brightnes will be somewhere around 55-60 % (depends on how bright the room is, and presuming the monitor is set in a normal viewing environment). the settings carguy uses are waaaaay outside the normal, it is probably even damaging the monitor and shortening its life.

but those settings he uses work for him to be able to more clearly see distant dots and small lod models, i dont doubt that at all. i have a friend who also significantly alters his display settings to fly online, and he used to describe his scenery as flying through a nuclear wasteland of bright and almost fluorescent scenery, and he could spot dots very well to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

to me this is just a sign of bad il2 programming, we should be able to have a well calibrated system with good quality hardware that is correctly setup to display video as good as is possible to achieve on that system ( in movies, desktop publishing, office document editing etc..), AND it should be able to display the il2 virtual world in all its beauty and glory while we can still correctly spot distant aircraft dots and lod models of planes correctly, just as if we were looking out of a real plane cockpit in ww2. those two performances should not be mutually exclusive like they are now.

currently il2, based on a more than 5 year old game engine, it can still look extremely good on a good high end hardware system using a good quality monitor display, BUT as many threads have proven this means those same people usually pay a major penalty in now not being able to spot and track distant aircraft dots or lod models (from what has been illustrated in previous discussions i suspect their visibility range is reduced by around 50 %). for the mid level il2 user whom might have for ex a 24' good quality monitor on a well setup system, their aircraft spotting and tracking ability is probably reduced by around 30%. i think the test systems oleg and Co use are based on older and cheaper hardware, and they dont use the large high quality LCD displays some of us are now using (like a 27' or 30' high resolution pc monitor based on MVA/PVA or S-IPS technology) combined with high end gfx card hardware that allows it to run with AA and AF maxed out. since the effectiveness in using il2 as a SIMULATOR is based on what a ww2 pilot could see from his aircraft, this is a major problem.

grifter2u
08-19-2007, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
These are the only dots I've been able to follow no matter where they are. These are from the original IL-2 v1.0

https://home.comcast.net/~rjelmiles/Original_IL2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi rjel,

the initial il2 dots were very visible, probably a bit to visible. some months ago i reinstalled the original il2 and i think the default dot-popup distance was about 10 km, and the dot was quiete large and made up of about 9 black pixels in a square dot.

have a look sometime at how dots looked in 3.02 version of il2, that visibility was probably the most realistic. sadly a small but very vocal minority made so much noise at the time of that patch release, that they nutered visibility in the next patch, and we have the problems you see now. i suspect most of the people that complained at the time, did so for the same reasons discussed in this thread (bad FoV setup, use of a zoom for B&Z tactics, artificially distorted display setup to make dots more visible, TN monitors with big chunky pixels that glitter and stand out more, no AA setting, 6 bit color monitors instead of the normal 8 bit, etc..).

oleg put a lot of effort into making the flight physics as good as possible (which is why most of us here like the sim so much), and the scenery looks extremely good on a high end suystem with a quality display, but visibility of aircraft on those systems has been reduced by around 50% from what it would be in real life and this is a major problem.

Von_Rat
08-19-2007, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> AND it should be able to display the il2 virtual world in all its beauty and glory while we can still correctly spot distant aircraft dots and lod models of planes correctly, just as if we were looking out of a real plane cockpit in ww2. those two performances should not be mutually exclusive like they are now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



agreed, ive been ranting about this for a couple of years now.

i could play the game in 1600x1200 res with my system, and with realistic calibrated colors the game looks great. but because of the crappy dots/lod system i gotta play at 1024x768 res and change the colors/ contrast to unrealistic levels just to see the dots/lods.

EDCF_Rama
08-19-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
i made an argument ("arguing" my different point of view, by giving fact based reasons why i disagreed with you, rather than just giving an "opinion") to show that what you said in your first post here was an oversimplification. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you don't understand. Neither the first post nor the second had no other purpose than to give information (the measure).
So there's nothing you can disagree on (and in fact you didn't) and your "argumentation" wasn't an answer to the information, but an exploitation of it in order to illustrate and proove your strong opinion about Il2 display.
No problems with me.... information is there to be used by anybody for any purpose. Just don't expect me to discuss about it.

grifter2u
08-21-2007, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama: your "argumentation" wasn't an answer to *my* information, but an exploitation of it in order to illustrate and proove your strong opinion about Il2 display. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your confused, these threads are for people to exchange information on a specific topic (determined by the OP), if you want to just talk to yourself you should step into a closet in your own home, do all your talking, and step out again. that way nobody will bother you by responding to what you say.

grifter2u
08-21-2007, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
agreed, ive been ranting about this for a couple of years now.

i could play the game in 1600x1200 res with my system, and with realistic calibrated colors the game looks great. but because of the crappy dots/lod system i gotta play at 1024x768 res and change the colors/ contrast to unrealistic levels just to see the dots/lods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

many experienced il2 users have BIG problems correctly seeing dots and lod models at realistic distances, yet some other users are adamant they can see dots and lod models very well (like havok, he isnt posting to want an argument, he just cant believe this is such a big issue for some people because he can see them so well himself).

in addition to the resolution setting being important to determine the dot size, from this and previous discussions it seems the main missing variable to explain the great difference is visibility could well be the type of lcd monitor they use (not just brand or size), because even if they are all flat panel monitors, the technology used for the display pannel itself can vary a great deal, and in professional usage it is well recognized that this can significantly varry the display of fonts, grafix, video and CAD drawings etc.. it is entirely feasible this could then also create significant visibility changes in distant dot and lod models in il2 for the same reasons. sadly right now it seems that the better your lcd monitor is, the worse it is for il2 distant aircraft location/identification (because the glitter effect on TN technology monitors makes individual pixels stand out more, so small dots or multi pixel lod models in il2 stand out much more against the background). this same problem did not exist when we were all using crt's.

this is a good summary on the different technologies used in lcd pannels:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> TN, IPS, VA, who that? ?

Even if you regularly follow the LCD events and our tests, it is always a good idea to remind you of all the uses of some of the LCD bases.

There are hundreds of monitor manufacturers but only a few of them build the essential component: the panel. This element gathers electronic components and liquid crystals. This is the panel that will determine the monitor's quality. Four manufacturers clearly dominate the market: Samsung, LG-Philips (in this area, these two are united), AU Optronics and CMO. Monitor manufacturers just buy a panel, design and build a bezel and combine the two of them. Now the most important part is the choice of the panel. Hundreds of products are available and are split in three families, three technologies with up and downsides.

TN panels: these are the fastest and cheapest ones. These panels are the most gifted for games but have a twinkling effect in videos and reduced viewing angles. All panel manufacturers have a TN products.

IPS: developed by Hitachi, IPS panels are ardently supported y LG-Philips and Nec. They are half-way between the TN and VA: good color quality, more or less good reaction time, very wide viewing angles...The only problem is: IPS tends to stagnate when other rival technologies progress quickly.

VA panels: launched by Fujitsu and available under the MVA denomination for AU Optronics, Sharp and CMO, PVA for Samsung, VA monitors have considerably improved LCD color quality. Until last March, however, these monitors were so slow that it was impossible to imagine them in a "gamer's" home. Then, in April, came the release of AU Optronics the Premium MVA 8 ms in the VP191b... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from: http://www.behardware.com/articles/572-1/19-lcd-monitor...-8-ms-tn-ips-va.html (http://www.behardware.com/articles/572-1/19-lcd-monitor-survey-4-8-ms-tn-ips-va.html)

the problems/strengths of various types of lcd panel technology has been extensively discussed since they first came on the market, and those types of differences are well recognized. gamers right now just buy the biggest monitor they can afford, but because these are nearly 1/2 the cost of the other lcd technologies they will always end up with the same TN based monitors. unless they have ever seen how good lcd monitors and other video displays can look, they simply will never know what they are missing and think that what they see on their desktop is what everybody else sees, which is simply untrue.

i cant really think of many other games where you are looking to locate, identify and track 2 pixels (or a small multipixel clusters) against a 3D modeled terrain in the same way as we have to with combat flight simulators. some games, like LOMAC have specifically adjust their simulation for this and their grafix engine is much better at making 2D/3D plane models standout against the background terrain.

the 6 year old il2 game engine hasnt taken this into account, and because a small very noisy minority has been so vocal in claiming they can see dots and lod's very well, this issue has never been corrected in il2. right now you seem to have the odd result that the artifacts and problems that make TN based monitors bad for many other uses, make it particularly good for spotting/tracking dots and distant lod models.

the only way to prove this issue is for somebody to compare the exact same il2 track or screenshot (showing for ex a string of 109's placed at 300 meters apart up to a distance of 3 or 4 km), on 2 pc's that have the same sized monitor (set to the same resolution, and same FoV) and using the same gfx card, but using the 2 different technologies (TN versus MVA/PVA) monitors. you then can take a photograph of the image displayed on the screen with a digital camera and compare the result. both monitors would have to be calibrated (takes 5 min and the software programs are free).

it would then be clear that one person can see the 109's up to maybe 1200 meters, and the other person could see them up to 2500 meters for ex. right now for people with good quality higher end systems (good monitors that are correctly calibrated, running il2 at high resolution etc..) have a significant disadvantage, and dot/lod model visibility is very unrealistic. it should only take one hrs time for oleg or the il2 people to do that side by side comparison and realize how severe this problem is.

EDCF_Rama
08-22-2007, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama: your "argumentation" wasn't an answer to *my* information, but an exploitation of it in order to illustrate and proove your strong opinion about Il2 display. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your confused, these threads are for people to exchange information on a specific topic (determined by the OP), if you want to just talk to yourself you should step into a closet in your own home, do all your talking, and step out again. that way nobody will bother you by responding to what you say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your confused.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The information I gave, isn't "my" information, but information everybody can verify with the simple method explained in the first post.
Your answer is *your* oppinion (that you're confusing with... *information*).

In any case, you don't bother me... you're just giving yourself too much importance with your oppinions.... but that's something that everybody allready knows.

stanford-ukded
08-22-2007, 04:17 AM
Grifter, what free calibration tools do you refer to? Got a link?

So what you're basically saying is that I'm screwed! Ha, it's what I suspected all along. Thanks for taking the time out to go in to detail chaps.

grifter2u
08-22-2007, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:

So what you're basically saying is that I'm screwed! Ha, it's what I suspected all along. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your single biggest problem is that your lcd monitor is small by current standard (being only 17'), and i suspect that most of the time you fly with a fairly large FoV (like 70 or 90) to increase your peripheral vision. when you do that in il2 it shrinks all the objects you are looking at in size (like distant planes become smaller), and dots will stay small dots for longer rather than changing to a LoD model which would be easier to see as you come closer to them (the dot to lod model transition point changes with your FoV setting in il2).

if you would fly with a FoV setting that is more appropriate for your monitor size (probably about 35 or 40 FoV)you would then see objects (aircraft, tanks etc) at their correct size (larger than what you see now when using the 70 or 90 FoV).

a separate issue your monitor resolution of 1280 x 1024 makes it harder to spot the distant il2 aircraft dots, compared to you using 1024 x 768 on the same monitor. correctly calibrating your monitor will make the il2 scenery look much better, but will probably not help you spot dots any better (going by what some other posters said). is you monitor connected by its digital video connection ? in the specs it says it has both digital and analogue video in, and using the analogue setting will not be as clear and sharp as using the digital connection.

for calibrating your monitor, quickgamma is very good (http://quickgamma.de/infoen.html) but you need to read the instructions, its not that simple to use initially. the only main things you really should have to alter is the contrast, brightness and gamma settings, and make sure your lcd is set to the correct color "warmth" (6500 k). be aware that you normally leave your gfx driver settings in windows set at their default values, and you use a program like quickgamma to set your monitor hardware settings. dont let to many programs interfere with display settings, or they will work against each other.

grifter2u
08-22-2007, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:

The information I gave, isn't "my" information, but information everybody can verify with the simple method explained in the first post.
Your answer is *your* oppinion (that you're confusing with... *information*). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
your still confused rama. only a small part of what i said was specifically directed at you, did you think that because there were more paragraphs and other posts that it was always directed at you ?

the conclusion i came to about the importance of different lcd monitor technologies being relevant in explaining differences in dot visibility between different il2 users is entirely valid, and each part of my reasoning is based on facts (even if you dont actually understand those facts and their importance, so you think it is just "opinion"). the only way to prove or disprove it is to make an objective comparison, similar to what i suggested.

EDCF_Rama
08-22-2007, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
the only way to prove or disprove it is to make an objective comparison, similar to what i suggested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual...Allways chewing the same old vaporous bone...

good appetite

grifter2u
08-27-2007, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
the only way to prove or disprove it is to make an objective comparison, similar to what i suggested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual...Allways chewing the same old vaporous bone...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
poor rama, you dont really understand what is being discussed, do you ? but as usual you just keep blabbering on anyway as if your "opinion" on it somehow matters. there is 1000's of other people that use il2 and they dont all see dots the same way rama does in his bedroom at his home, but you still cant accept that, can you ? you seem to think that because it rains over your house that it therefore rains everywhere in the universe, and seem to think that because you dont understand something that it doesnt exist eh.

amongst the issues il2 users here have identified so far for the significant variability in dot visibility (resolution, screen size, FoV, video calibration, etc..) we can now also add lcd pannel technology, and this seems to be a significant factor. that doesnt need your approval, or your lack of understanding, or opinion, for it to be true or false for other users. the next time try and inform yourself a little more first if you dont understand the issues being discussed, if you want to participate constructively in a discussion on something that depends on technical matters and objective observation, because you are making a fool of yourself.

Swivet
08-27-2007, 01:11 PM
clean your monitors, i've mistaken dirt for bogey's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DKoor
08-27-2007, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Swivet:
clean your monitors, i've mistaken dirt for bogey's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL that reminded me of what evasive actions I had taken to avoid my own monitor spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

No more drinking and ... flying.

Hm.

Buk_Nekkid
08-27-2007, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
LOL that reminded me of what evasive actions I had taken to avoid my own monitor spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

No more drinking and ... flying.

Hm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hehe, been there done that lol....

Cheers, Neil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tator_Totts
08-28-2007, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Clamp negative LOD bias. I also found that turning AF to application and go into IL2 Set up and select anisotropic for texture mipmap filter helps. Also playing around with contrast ratio can help. I run digital vibrance on low, brightness and gamma at default, and contrast at 105% be sure to select all channels and not just desktop. I also run vertical sync with triple buffereing enabled. I have a 7950GT 512MB and run the game at 1680x1050 on a Samsung 20" Widescreen and see dots perfectly. Oh and I run 4xAA.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have tried this and it works. I run now 1600x1200. Thanks Havok

stanford-ukded
08-28-2007, 07:22 AM
Many thanks for your help, Grifter. I'm just going to resign myself to these issues for now. I'm going to buy a Samsung 22" BW206 (it's called something like that). Do you know if that monitor is any good?

grifter2u
09-03-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
Many thanks for your help, Grifter. I'm just going to resign myself to these issues for now. I'm going to buy a Samsung 22" BW206 (it's called something like that). Do you know if that monitor is any good? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi stanford,

i looked for that monitor model you mentioned on the samsung website to have a look at the specs, but cant locate it. there is a 206bw listed however, but since it is 20' i dont think it is the one you mean. looking at the specs of that 206bw 20' model however illustrates how difficult it has become for end users to select a monitor correctly, because many retailers deliberately muddy the waters.

for ex on that webpage http://www.samsung.com/au/products/monitors/tft/tvmonit...?page=Specifications (http://www.samsung.com/au/products/monitors/tft/tvmonitor/206bw.asp?page=Specifications)
with its specs samsung is pretending it is a 8 bit monitor, ie they state it is 16.7 million colors ( instead of being honest and calling it 16.2 million colors, being 6 bit color with additional dithering). what gives it away is the "Viewing Angle" of 160/160, that is typical of a 6 bit TN based monitor (8 bit color monitors usually have a better viewing angle, like 178/178). the monitor speed ( 2 or 3 ms gray to gray) is also to fast for an 8 bit monitor, many of which barely get to 8 or 12 ms.

if you'r after a 22' monitor i think they will all be 6 bit color, its one of the quirks of the current lcd panel manufacturing process, i dont think any widescreen 22' 8 bit colors are being made.

be aware that most of the cheaper gaming lcd monitors being made are 6 bit TN technology because they are the fastest, and to get the same sized 8 bit panel which is still fast enough for gaming you will probably pay nearly double the price. amongst the 6 bit models, some will also be better than others. personally i found i couldnt do regular office type work on a TN gaming lcd on a daily basis, the poor quality in display irritated me to much, and i found it strained my eyes. if you are just purely after a gaming monitor, and you dont want to spend much money, a TN monitor might be fine. but realize its limitations, and make an informed choice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

note that when reviews refer to a monitor that is "good for gaming", this specifically refers to the speed of the display panel, not the quality of the image being displayed. current good quality lcd display panels (usually MVA or PVA technology) have significantly improved in speed (compared to 2 years ago for ex), so many of those are now as well able to to be used for gaming (ie they have no ghosting problems, or motion blur etc..). so with a better panel like that you can have the best of both worlds, good quality for general grafix use (foto and video editing), and a good display for general office and web use, yet fast enough for gaming with good colors and contrasts able to create a nice textured 3D environment for good good game immersion (presuming the game is well coded).

these are some good review websites, maybe look at some of the reviews that cover the size you are after, or look for some articles that discuss lcd monitor technology so you start to see the variation that exists.

www.behardware.com (http://www.behardware.com)
www.xbitlabs.com/ (http://www.xbitlabs.com/)
www.tomshardware.com/ (http://www.tomshardware.com/)
www.anandtech.com (http://www.anandtech.com)
www.monitorsrc.com (http://www.monitorsrc.com)
www.tftcentral.co.uk (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk)

this page probably has one of the most reliable buyers guide recommendations for various lcd monitors for different purposes (gaming, grafix etc..). its a german page but has most of the info is in english as well http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/buyers-guide/start.html