PDA

View Full Version : New "dot" impression.



Hunde_3.JG51
11-26-2004, 01:40 PM
Keep in mind this is at 1600x1200.

Dots at longer distances seem the same as 3.0, but with better visibility at medium to close range. I would guess that lower res users will still be able to spot planes from farther out (current dot being visible starts at about 5,100m), but at least us high res users can see planes we are following at close range now when they go below the horizon. Overall the best so far, at least for me at least. The old dots since FB release were a nightmare, and the 3.01 dots were probably too much.

From my initial impression:

Well done Oleg and crew, thanks for listening and for all of the hard work.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-26-2004, 01:40 PM
Keep in mind this is at 1600x1200.

Dots at longer distances seem the same as 3.0, but with better visibility at medium to close range. I would guess that lower res users will still be able to spot planes from farther out (current dot being visible starts at about 5,100m), but at least us high res users can see planes we are following at close range now when they go below the horizon. Overall the best so far, at least for me at least. The old dots since FB release were a nightmare, and the 3.01 dots were probably too much.

From my initial impression:

Well done Oleg and crew, thanks for listening and for all of the hard work.

Willey
11-26-2004, 01:55 PM
Yeah, I also like them. They keep me camoflaged while I'm moving mud so other's can't see me from 3000m at 45? angle and at closer ranges they're very well visible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

609IAP_Recon
11-26-2004, 03:09 PM
so far I like - seems to be more realistic looking without compromising visibility

rookie66
11-26-2004, 03:21 PM
I think is a good compromise now. I can live with that.

WWMaxGunz
11-27-2004, 12:49 AM
Hunde/Kyrule.....

Since the new dots are supposed to be affected by resolution, how about taking a look
at 1024x768 and leave the guesswork out? You did lobby for resolution controlling dot
sizes so why not see what changed? I will by tomorrow.

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 01:12 AM
I can still use perfect on 1152*864 and see the stuff without needing to go down to excellent - no complaints from me.

LEXX_Luthor
11-27-2004, 01:24 AM
Possibly a good compromise. Much Better than 3.0 dots. I found the 3.01 dots more realistic, but to get there I had to reduce the Default dotrange down to 8km--for me at 1024x768.

We shall see if the no-icon servers will increase in usability and number over the internet.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-27-2004, 02:20 AM
Neal, just did a bunch of QMB where I flew straight at my opponent several times. The absolute earliest I could pick up enemy plane at 1600x1200 was around 5.6km. Running at 1024 x 768 I would guess that I picked him up around 6.1+km. At 16x12 I would pick him up just as icon appeared, maybe a second or two before, but at 10x7 I would pick him up a few seconds earlier before the icon appeared. Wings on aircraft became visible on both at about 2.5+km.

So at longer ranges I think the new dots are easier to spot. I thought that planes were easier to see in close as well until I tried Smolensk map. I still had very hard time seeing aircraft against the ground.

If you test tomorrow, please let me know what you find.

luke97
11-27-2004, 03:14 AM
Call me ******ed, but I still dont understand what is that mp_dotrange" thing. It changes the size of the dots or the distance which the labels appear in servers(or offline)with labels on??
I´ve readed all the related threads, and still cant understand it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Can you clear it to me very concisely?
Tnx guys, and sorry for the maybe too obvious question.

HQ1
11-27-2004, 04:46 AM
Oleg,in new beta patch fighter can only be spoted at about 8KM if it higher than you or at horizon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gifat 1024*768 but in 3.00 it can be seen at 12km in the same conditon .I dont like this change.why you reduce this range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif?

Ugly_Kid
11-27-2004, 04:57 AM
I have to take my comment back after playing it now for awhile. It is still a bit better than originally but I am now again at the point of asking myself should I play with excellent or perfect, with perfect I am in a slight disadvantage in spotting...

VK_Dim
11-27-2004, 05:15 AM
I am not satisfied with new dots.
Visibility is good when lookin towards skies but if you fly high and try to spot a plane below you to bnz him it's almost impossible. Locating of dot is possible only if they fire guns or if you see them smokin.. No way to track a plane without a padlock, which imo sux big time.
hopefully it will be changed in a full version of this patch.
Cheers.

Triple_AA
11-27-2004, 05:47 AM
Yes! This is more important to me than seeing the dot's against the sky. We need to be able to see them just as well against the background of the ground.

While the last patch solved this, (too well, the dots were "to dark"), the beta seems to have put us back to where we were before in respect to the difficulty in spotting targets against the back drop of the ground.

CHDT
11-27-2004, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Visibility is good when lookin towards skies but if you fly high and try to spot a plane below you to bnz him it's almost impossible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, online whining and background lobbying of turn and burners succeeded http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hopefully it will be changed in a full version of this patch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't count on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

609IAP_Recon
11-27-2004, 08:40 AM
I will add though, but please realize I am not complaining - I finally could see ground targets in the 3.01m, now it's back to not seeing things.

Few things I have noticed (note, I am just talking ground targets here):

* those with nvidia cards I fly with, seem to have no problem seeing objects, whereas I cannot see them until I get much closer (I have 9800 Pro with full settings on).

* a few now that are in the squad - our ground pounders, could fly with 3.01m with better settings: one guy is now using 16 bit, etc.. because with this new patch he can't see as well, and sees better with crappier graphics (ground objects)

* the planes visibility seems more real now, that is better.


My suggestion and view: keep the aircraft vis how it is now in beta patch. Bring back the ground visibility - however, I do realize that in 3.01m you could see the ground from way too far away. So, return white dot back, just make it from less distance. (actually, white dot might be too much, could there be perhaps a grey type dot? I realize there is camo on the tanks, etc.. .but I do know from my real life flights, I could see cars moving, parked vehicles, etc... from way above in jet)

My 2 cents, regardless of direction, I love the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
11-27-2004, 02:08 PM
I had a look but need to go back again as I had default dots at 3km.
10x7, against the sky I can find em at dot range which with default at 3 ain't far.
Against the ground, I need to be close or they need to be white planes.
BnZ from 500m may be possible, but I'd prefer more distance to line up as with a
large delta on target I am starting to trigger at about 400m to have any time at
all to correct aim.
Well the LODs may be better, I'm not sure yet. At around 300m-400m (got to set the
icons ranges out to know) I see em good enough to aim for parts, sorta, at the mid
zoom. It's finding the enemy at realistic ranges anywhere below the horizon... or
even at fraction of what I've read as realistic that's the impossible part.

I had no idea that being just below the horizon was a rock solid guarantee of being
unspottable to within about 500-800m IRL. How was it possible for the LW to formulate
a strategy to attack B-17's from the front in dives from above when once they got to
alt the bombers and escorts were effectively invisible? I am mystified but it must
be true since now we have the realistic view.


Neal

CHDT
11-27-2004, 03:10 PM
So, bye-bye boom and zoom. And back to furballs!

Beckh_3.JG51
11-27-2004, 04:53 PM
I think its a reasonable compromise, no complaines here.

Zentaurus
11-27-2004, 04:53 PM
3.02, Nvidia GT6800, perfect setting, 1152x864,no way to see planes from high...
the new dots look better but they are very impractical for anything like B&Z, its overdone now in the other direction as with 3.01

II/JG54_Zent

Beckh_3.JG51
11-27-2004, 04:55 PM
...and yes I still can boom and zoom with no problem.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2004, 04:58 PM
First impressions are, the new dot system is not too bad at all.

A good compromise.

PB0_Roll
11-27-2004, 05:18 PM
i've tried 1024 and 1280, with both settings i have the same visibility, and can boom n zoom without problems (mostly energy fighters flyer lately).


keep it !

musickna
11-27-2004, 05:36 PM
Looks very good to me. I like the aircraft dots, and the ground dots are now do not look like they are running with headlamps on full - in fact, they look much as before. Which is a good thing.

Good job. Thank you.

carguy_
11-27-2004, 06:37 PM
I liked 3.01 dots better.Newest dots almost like the old ones.Cannot see ****.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

HQ1
11-27-2004, 08:56 PM
Frankly I think the 3.02 dot is even too obivious back to the ground .and its maximum spotable range is also reduced too much compare with AEp or 3.00 .I can spot enemy plane about 12Km far from me in 3.00 or aep no matter it higher than me or below me back to the ground.
I only fly luftwaffe AC run at 1024*768

LEXX_Luthor
11-27-2004, 09:11 PM
Yes, Default 3.02 dotrange is either very low, or they changed the behavior of dotrange.

Changing dotrange with mp_dotrange in "rcu" file helps some, but at the cost of dots not fading much over longer ranges.

What would satisfy all simmers would be 3.01 dots but with lower Default dotrange (Default is what most use, but only because they don't know about mp_dotrange).

Shot2Pieces
11-27-2004, 09:54 PM
Yes mp_dotrange is very different in 3.02, you now have to double the value to see dots at same range as before, ie mp_dotrange DOT 24 lets you see them at 12km approx...

Glen44
11-28-2004, 01:00 AM
It's very good indeed!

Yes,it's hard to find A/C from above ,that's realism.

Do u remember those have lost in forest often burn a fire or wave their red clothes to attract the helicopter which is quite low?

I know many German soldiers often lay out the Nazi flag avioding to be attacked by stuka.

I am a Simmer,however I think 3.01 goes too far.
Don't forget that those A/C in WWII are much smaller than Boering 747.........

MR.Reah
11-28-2004, 01:00 AM
It is late, I'm tired but I must make a comment about 3.02bm dots. I have gone from 17' monitor (it fried) to a 15' on loan...and have been using 640x480 on line- 800x600 off- line

What I seem to be missing in the thread is how well the current solutions address the original concern: that lower/min resolution (and by this I mean 800x600/480x640 ) was allowing one to see objects at greater distances- thus giving an unfair advantage at those settings. Anyone try comparing them 'accross the board' ? i.e. what are your impressions now of visibilty from absolute lowest to highest resolution? Is the playing field more or less equal now?

LEXX_Luthor
11-28-2004, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>have been using 640x480 on line- 800x600 off- line <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
mmm, will try 640x480. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Low resolution for online use? Does lowering resolution help internet performance?

Offline only here, but I use old ATI~9200 at 1024x768, 1152x864, and now 1200x960 seems possible, and using Default CD drivers that came with the card.

At least with 3.01 dots, ALL SIMMERS could use dots without text icon labels at ALL RESOLUTIONS. Only the Default 3.01 dotrange needs to be lowered to make all happy. The very few who tried the mp_dotrange experiment to control 3.01 dots were impressed with what they found.

TangmerePhilipp
11-28-2004, 05:25 AM
May I ask a simple question?

When and why did "dots" first appear? i.e. Is it obviously a better alternative for performance than lower LOD models? Or have the devs extended the range of aircraft visibility by placing the dots where the low LOD end.

(Where we would previously see nothing)

WWMaxGunz
11-28-2004, 11:36 AM
Dots were in the IL2 demo and original IL2.

TangmerePhilipp
11-28-2004, 12:46 PM
And did they get substituted by lower LOD models, or where the planes at the distances where dots opreviously where, now simply invisible?

LEXX_Luthor
11-28-2004, 05:13 PM
My guess, and it may be wrong --&gt; Dots are used for distant aircraft because the grafix engine has difficulty rendering the tiny aircraft grafic with only a few pixels while still remaining consistantly visible to the simmer.. Note that sometimes medium range distant aircraft grafics totally "vanish" because grafix engine cannot correctly display the tiny grafic in a consistent manner. The problem gets worse the smaller the aircraft grafic. At longer ranges, you have to use dots. If you don't know what "pixel" is, ask us...many here do not know and just say 3.01 dots are "too big." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh...higher resolutions help fix the problem of small aircraft grafic vanishing....there are more pixels the grafix engine can use to draw the image.

I never had original IL~2. From what's been posted, they were big dots much like our 3.01 dots, although the Fix for 3.01 dots is mp_dotrange in "rcu" file (in Manual).

Anyway, resolution higher than 1024x768 with my ATI~9200 does wonders for aircraft identification. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BPO6_PANP
11-28-2004, 07:19 PM
The dots still seam to hard to spot from up high over land
they blend in to well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
I do like the fact that the ai will stay on the parking ramps after a mission now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Glen44
11-28-2004, 08:05 PM
I CAN distinguish A/C (in default skin) type from 2KM above ,with 1280*1024 and gunsightview.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

robindeeyk
11-28-2004, 08:18 PM
not bad not bad at all .. i like this dots . works fine fore me .

Jumoschwanz
11-28-2004, 10:36 PM
I run 1200x1600 for a long time now.

3.01 was too easy to spot, 3.02beta is too hard. I am sure with the next patch they will find a happy medium. If things stay the same in the future as they are in 3.02b that will be fine if Oleg and company think it is the most realistic as they have many hours in real aircraft. But the air objects visibility in 3.02b for me with 1200x1600 is a bit worse than from the original Il2 through 3.0., and that makes it impossible to see and attack anything that is below me when over ground.

I flew online over an island and could not see targets below me no matter if it was earth or water. Planes camoflauge can't work for both can it? If Pilots tell me that is how it is in reality I will learn to live with it. But I hope the reality of this "simulator" will not be compromised to sell volume to gamers. They have microsoft to buy krap from right? S!

Jumoschwanz

269GA-Veltro
11-29-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Keep in mind this is at 1600x1200.

Dots at longer distances seem the same as 3.0, but with better visibility at medium to close range. I would guess that lower res users will still be able to spot planes from farther out (current dot being visible starts at about 5,100m), but at least us high res users can see planes we are following at close range now when they go below the horizon. Overall the best so far, at least for me at least. The old dots since FB release were a nightmare, and the 3.01 dots were probably too much.

From my initial impression:

Well done Oleg and crew, thanks for listening and for all of the hard work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree Hunde.

For my opinion now they are perfect! Great work Oleg....in a few time!

Thank.

LEXX_Luthor
11-29-2004, 04:00 AM
Jumoschwanz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I run 1200x1600 for a long time now.

3.01 was too easy to spot, 3.02beta is too hard. I am sure with the next patch they will find a happy medium. If things stay the same in the future as they are in 3.02b that will be fine if Oleg and company think it is the most realistic as they have many hours in real aircraft. But the air objects visibility in 3.02b for me with 1200x1600 is a bit worse than from the original Il2 through 3.0., and that makes it impossible to see and attack anything that is below me when over ground.

I flew online over an island and could not see targets below me no matter if it was earth or water. Planes camoflauge can't work for both can it? If Pilots tell me that is how it is in reality I will learn to live with it. But I hope the reality of this "simulator" will not be compromised to sell volume to gamers. They have microsoft to buy krap from right? S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are the Future http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Patch 3.02b is so smooth I can now bump my ATI~9200 up to 1200x960. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The human eye has equivalent resolution of about 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 pixels. 1600x1200 is a step to simming with realistic human vision.

With my ATI~9200 dropped to 1024x768 the 3.02b dots seem good to me over water, but at 1200x960 not so good. You may be right about losing them completely over water at 1600x1200. At 1024x768 I can just be able to spot fighter aircraft against the ground about 4km away...when I am looking hard for them of course. At higher resolutions they are impossible against ground (contradicting pilot accounts of Bounce). For me anyway, spotting distant dots below against green Pacific jungle FP maps seem somewhat easier than against green Russian forest FB maps. Interesting.

3.01 dots too easy to spot at long ranges because Default 3.01 dotrange was too large (14km according to Tully). So, this made 3.01 dots not grow smaller realistically with range, causing range judging problems (of course dot range judging only works if we know the target size first--B~29 or Wildcat).

czech out 3.01 dot fix
~~&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542

The sad thing is higher resolutions make aircraft identification and seeing target attitude much easier, but most seem to be using expensive UltraProXG to drop to 1024x768 for internet dogfight to get Perfect Mode or something slow that doesn't help situational awareness or reading cockpit guages in full detail in full Zoom out view. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The key to understanding is that the Extreme low resolution dogfighters can *see* the 3.01 dots, just like all simmers at all resolutions. All simmers can *see*

LEXX_Luthor
11-29-2004, 05:34 PM
bump for 3.01 dot fix so all simmers can use dots without text icon labels
~~&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542