PDA

View Full Version : *Concerning "dots" argument, please read as you may be unaware.*



Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 10:44 PM
Please listen guys this is not a matter of "keep the dots" or "bring back the old dots." The reason for the change in the first place was for people like me who run higher resolutions. The difference since FB 1.0 in running 1600x1200 and 1024x768 in aircraft visibility is HUGE. This is why you see so many high res guys supporting new dots and lower res guys against them. They are both right IMO.

The new dots are unfair to low res users, the old dots are unfair to high res users (and have been for a long time). The answer is a compromise, maybe something dependent on in-game resolution.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 10:44 PM
Please listen guys this is not a matter of "keep the dots" or "bring back the old dots." The reason for the change in the first place was for people like me who run higher resolutions. The difference since FB 1.0 in running 1600x1200 and 1024x768 in aircraft visibility is HUGE. This is why you see so many high res guys supporting new dots and lower res guys against them. They are both right IMO.

The new dots are unfair to low res users, the old dots are unfair to high res users (and have been for a long time). The answer is a compromise, maybe something dependent on in-game resolution.

ucanfly
11-19-2004, 11:27 PM
Sorry Hunde but I don't think this is a low res high res issue for me as I couldn't see the old dots too well at 1024X768. I think it is more hardware dependent.

BTW - I am not blind , nor do I want to be in the future.

thompet03
11-19-2004, 11:39 PM
the new dots are killing every effort of realistic flying. Everyone with one open eye can see ya from distances of about 15 km.... thats what i called nonsence. First thought was that somene had made a map with very much balloons.... than they moved..
Than i thought: Oh yes the hindenburg... than i saw what it was.. an 109.... aaaahhhhhhhhh

Im for an server based Option to select or like Hunde said: connect the dots to the resolution... i wil try it on 640 now.. i think they will be about 5mm high and thick..

ucanfly
11-19-2004, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
the new dots are killing every effort of realistic flying. Everyone with one open eye can see ya from distances of about 15 km.... thats what i called nonsence. First thought was that somene had made a map with very much balloons.... than they moved..
Than i thought: Oh yes the hindenburg... than i saw what it was.. an 109.... aaaahhhhhhhhh

Im for an server based Option to select or like Hunde said: connect the dots to the resolution... i wil try it on 640 now.. i think they will be about 5mm high and thick.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry - but that is a bunch of hooey. IRL pilots were able to identify targets out to ten miles or more (more like 20 km). Just cus we couldn't do that before in IL2 doesn't mean it is now less realistic. Far from it. This complaining about the black dots is like the tail wagging the dog and is reminiscent of the complaints that the P-39 is too easy to fly because it doesn't spin at the drop of a hat like in IL2. ALthough the real P-39 did have a tendency to spin the model in IL2 was ridiculous.

Yes the dots are much more visible than before and no it is not less realistic. Visibility is more like it should be. Disappearing dots while you staring right at them at less than 1 km is silly! The new dots rule.

You are aware that you can disable the dots at any range you wish with the dot range command are you not?

thompet03
11-19-2004, 11:54 PM
Did you ever sat in an private aircraft?
You can spend much time searching for other aircrafts in 10-15km distance.. were not talking about seeing a objekt of 20*20 meters... the silhouette of an aircraft is extremly small, you realy believe that you can see an aircraft from its 12 or 6 o´clock in a distance of 5km?

Yes you are right, aircrafts are much easier to see from above than in 3.0, but not if they are on the same hight.

Like it is now its even almost impossible to say if they are 4km or 14km away.

If you ask me this new feature kills all efforts of making this sim better...

ucanfly
11-20-2004, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
Did you ever sat in an private aircraft?
You can spend much time searching for other aircrafts in 10-15km distance.. were not talking about seeing a objekt of 20*20 meters... the silhouette of an aircraft is extremly small, you realy believe that you can see an aircraft from its 12 or 6 o´clock in a distance of 5km?

Yes you are right, aircrafts are much easier to see from above than in 3.0, but not if they are on the same hight.

Like it is now its even almost impossible to say if they are 4km or 14km away.

If you ask me this new feature kills all efforts of making this sim better... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI: About 9 years ago I took private lessons, but suspended for financial and health reasons. I have been flying with my uncle since I was 8 years old (I'm 44 now) and my brother in law flew mustangs in WWII and told me many stories.

If you can't tell whether an oject is 10 or 14 km away trying using zoom. ALthough I must admit the new dots are not perfect , it is a **** sight better than what we had, where the AI planes at 500m would shoot you while you were still trying to figure out where they were while staring straight at them!

On a clear day, I have no problem spotting planes IRL from miles away against the ground albeit these planes are quite a bit smaller than the WWII birds in this sim.

S.taibanzai
11-20-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:



FYI: About 9 years ago I took private lessons, but suspended for financial and health reasons. I have been flying with my uncle since I was 8 years old (I'm 44 now) and my brother in law flew mustangs in WWII and told me many stories.

If you can't tell whether an oject is 10 or 14 km away trying using zoom. ALthough I must admit the new dots are not perfect , it is a **** sight better than what we had, where the AI planes at 500m would shoot you while you were still trying to figure out where they were while staring straight at them!

On a clear day, I have no problem spotting planes IRL from miles away against the ground albeit these planes are quite a bit smaller than the WWII birds in this sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


RUBISH,RUBISH,RUBISH

ucanfly
11-20-2004, 12:27 AM
What is RUBISH? I think you meant to say RUBBISH, RUBBISH RUBBISH? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
11-20-2004, 12:35 AM
Guys, please don't turn this into an argument about reality vs. in-game.

ucanfly, regardless of your experience the fact that spotting planes was MUCH easier in lower resolutions in versions 1.0 to 3.0 compared to higher resolutions absolutely makes this a resolution issue. This is known fact. The difference is/was huge and always punished those who used higher res.

My point is that many people don't realize that resolution is a factor.

WUAF_Toad
11-20-2004, 01:30 AM
The new dot is a great compromise of seeing other planes clearly without having to restrict your vision to zoom mode of 30 degree FOV. I usually find the dot is still smaller then the size of the plane in full zoom anyway.

swingman
11-20-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Sorry - but that is a bunch of hooey. IRL pilots were able to identify targets out to ten miles or more (more like 20 km).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must be talking about night flying.

Every airman I know of, have more than once turned their heads over and over and over, trying to find that other aircraft in the cirquit of an uncontrolled airfield, that calls out his positions for you.

This is one of the excitements of going to an uncontrolled airfield. Is there anyone else there? Do they have a radio? Can I see them? Can they see me? It's not unusual for a dialog to occurr, with far more detailed position reports than required, in trying to locate each other. If we're at opposite ends in the cirquit (perhaps 3-5km depending on airfield,) we might even give up on trying, just knowing from our communication that the separation is good.

Also, it's not uncommong to lose track of the other aircraft when you have to have a look at the instruments. Then it's back to searching again. The new search goes much quicker, of course, since you have a better idea of where it must be.

Once I was flying with a military recognosance pilot, who obviously have very good eye-sight, and very much flying experience, and even he gave up on spotting that other plane after a while.
_
/Bjorn

NorrisMcWhirter
11-20-2004, 04:59 AM
Hi,

There is a simple solution, then...

Make the dot size a function of the display resolution at the client end.

Cheers,
Norris

RAAF_Edin
11-20-2004, 05:41 AM
I am 100% certain that this issue of aircraft visibility should be fixed by propper object lighting. After all, anything you see and anything you don't see... is determined by light reflected of the object's surface.

The distance at which you can see the same light depends on air humidity, polution etc. as in air is not NOTHING as people think... it consists of particles (no matter how small) and they stop light in small quantity untill you can't see it at all.

This is why a flash light can be seen at close range... the further away it is the less you can see, as less and less light reaches your eye.

So, instead of thinking on resolution, colour, size, level... this should be thought of on Physics level (Optics).

When PC graphics has capability to create realistic objects lighting then we can start talking realistic PC graphics.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2004, 05:52 AM
There's a big difference between spotting aircraft against the ground or spotting them against the sky.
I don't have problems with distinguishing an A340 from a B747 when they're flying at an altitude of more than 8 miles above my head.
So, you still can see the differences beteen those birds at this distance.
In order to compare: a 747's engine has the lenth of about 6 meters. All WW2 fighters had a lenth of at least about 8 meters.
Try to spot the engine of an airplane at cruising altitude. Contrails might help you to spot the a/c itself, but there were also contrails with piston engined fighters.

A different thing is spotting a/c flying at your or below your altitude. Cloud formations or colours of the ground play important roles here - just like the other a/c's camo scheme.

Some months ago, I tried out, whow far the ID-range for WW2-fighter-sized a/c is.
I spotted (and identifyed) a Piper Pa-28 from a distance of about 5-6km.


In my opinion, the spotting range of the "dots" is correct now - BUT make sure that one can't spot another a/c when it's flying through a clod which was a problem during those IL-2 days.

My 2 cent.

IIJG51_Gerfaut
11-20-2004, 06:08 AM
Well guys, since it is now a high-res vs low-res war developing, I think that the most suitable solution would be to let each guy the possibility to ACTIVATE or not this item in its own preferences when setting-up the game: so that nobody could complain, thus enabling every kind of conf to be satisfied.

Rather wise, huh ?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Mc_Wolf
11-20-2004, 06:21 AM
RAAF_Edin
I am 100% certain that this issue of aircraft visibility should be fixed by propper object lighting. After all, anything you see and anything you don't see... is determined by light reflected of the object's surface.


That's 100% correct! but the question is how to mod it in PC on a pix. and I also note that the small aircraft is also no reflect or not obviously. How to mod the highlight on these? I wish dev team can find a way.

Re Dot, If we can not 100% copy the real, we can try to near it by other ways. It it's possible, the different size dot for different screen resolution should be fine for everyone.

Monty_Thrud
11-20-2004, 07:23 AM
Yep...option in Conf...then everyone is catered for

However if this option is not possible, well i could just about live with it the way it was

Or, how about everyone elses plane has a big black dot except my plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Da_Godfatha
11-20-2004, 07:56 AM
I think what is going to happen is the Wannabe Heroes will cry and moan untill the dots are removed. The hobby pilot's like myself will have to suffer because of the so-called "Realism". It is a Sim, if you want realism, go join the Air Force.

Did you every think that the reason why Flight Sims are a dying breed is because of the jacked-up realism. Not that I want it arcade. New users have a hard time with this game and stop playing after a short time. Do not under estimate "word-of-mouth" propaganda. A whole heck of alot of games have gone the way of the Dodo for that.

CAF_FN_IDIOT
11-20-2004, 09:01 AM
I believe I read in the voting it could be put in as an option in difficulty settings.

There is no argument if it is the option of the Host.

Imo.

Tater-SW-
11-20-2004, 10:54 AM
I can see planes below my alt 19km away right now looking out my window (1200ft AGL of airport http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Not easy with the haze today, and they are much bigger than ww2 fighters (737s mostly).

The dots need to be visible at realistic ranges, but not automatically visible at realistic ranges. Old dots were frequently automatically NOT visible at realistic ranges. There must be a middle ground where we won't see some planes we would in RL, and will see others we might not see in RL. What we don;t want is to never see a lot of planes we could in real life, or always see planes we could not see in RL. It's gonna be a trade off.

The "BnZ is dead" crowd forgets that you can't be the BnZer if you can't see a target below you to bounce. At least with my card/res, it was near impossible, or actually impossible to see planes that were dots on some machines below me.

tater

ucanfly
11-20-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I can see planes below my alt 19km away right now looking out my window (1200ft AGL of airport http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Not easy with the haze today, and they are much bigger than ww2 fighters (737s mostly).

The dots need to be visible at realistic ranges, but not _automatically_ visible at realistic ranges. Old dots were frequently automatically NOT visible at realistic ranges. There must be a middle ground where we won't see some planes we would in RL, and will see others we might not see in RL. What we don;t want is to never see a lot of planes we could in real life, or always see planes we could not see in RL. It's gonna be a trade off.

The "BnZ is dead" crowd forgets that you can't be the BnZer if you can't see a target below you to bounce. At least with my card/res, it was near impossible, or actually impossible to see planes that were dots on some machines below me.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a BnZmer and heartily agree with you. I love these dots just for that reason. Before, I would frequently lose tally after just one pass which is simply ridiculous. Nobody is saying that what we have now is perfect , but I find it hard to believe that disappearing planes at less than 1 km is more realistic than what we have now. RUBBISH! If Oleg wants to make it more realistic at distant ranges - fine. But I am afraid that we may be playing like Mr. Magoo again if he pays heed to all of the invisidot elitist whining, by people, some of whom admit they use icons!

WUAF_Badsight
11-20-2004, 12:48 PM
.

THE NEW DOTS ARE WHAT WAS NEEDED SINCE FB v1.0

essential change thats been long overdue

Hunde_3.JG51
11-20-2004, 01:22 PM
Exactly Norris.

Exactly Badsight (coming from a 1600x1200 user).

CAF_FAN_IDIOT, server side option will not work, this is not a difficulty issue. Depending on what resolution you run, you see two totally different things. So keeping the old dots would be unfair to high res users, keeping the new dots would be unfair to low res users. The answer is to tie dot visibility to resolution.

crazyivan1970
11-20-2004, 01:25 PM
No name callings or else... i`m at work on Saturday and very cranky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
11-20-2004, 01:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, his name is CF_FAN_IDIOT. I suppose you were joking, just wanted to make sure. I'll make adjustments though and not shorten it.

crazyivan1970
11-20-2004, 01:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

OldMan____
11-20-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
I am 100% certain that this issue of aircraft visibility should be fixed by propper object lighting. After all, anything you see and anything you don't see... is determined by light reflected of the object's surface.

The distance at which you can see the same light depends on air humidity, polution etc. as in air is not NOTHING as people think... it consists of particles (no matter how small) and they stop light in small quantity untill you can't see it at all.

This is why a flash light can be seen at close range... the further away it is the less you can see, as less and less light reaches your eye.

So, instead of thinking on resolution, colour, size, level... this should be thought of on Physics level (Optics).

When PC graphics has capability to create realistic objects lighting then we can start talking realistic PC graphics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No is not that simple, modern PC graphics can make dammit reallistic effect calculated at pixel level, but when the object get so small as 1 or 2 pixels.. NO ILLUMINATION will solve it! Is not a matter of illumination, but about our monitor being a discrete view mechanism while our eyes are continuous view mechanisms.

When we have 17 inch monitors running with 12000x12000 resolution and 1000 dots per inch, then you can have something near what would be required to match your eyes.

effte
11-20-2004, 04:01 PM
We have two different issues here, which must not be confused: Long range and mid range visibility.

The issue at long range was that some people insist on running resolutions at which their monitors are not able to display a single pixel. As the dots were one pixel large, this meant they could not be seen.

You could argue that they only have themselves to blame. (1)

OTOH, I used to be stuck with a 15€ monitor with .28 or so in dot pitch. This meant running at 1024 made the dots hard to see. The options were to run 1024 and have a hard time spotting dots, or go down to 800 (which made seeing just about everything else hard). You could argue that Il-2 should cater to people with similar setups. (2)

If you go with option (1), the dots should remain one pixel at large distances, or perhaps a few when the size of the object it represents suggests it.

If you go with option (2), larger dots covering a similar fraction of the screen independent of resolution is the way to go.

The issue at mid range was, and might still be as I haven€t verified it, that the visibility of the actual objects frequently is worse than the visibility of the dots, and very poor to add to that. This means that you can stare an aircraft down and it disappears right in front of your eyes. This does not happen in real life. Yes, spotting aircraft can be tricky, but if you stare at them they don€t vanish into clear air.

The problem is aggravated by the fact that in real life, our eyes pick out a moving feature against a static backdrop with ease. That€s how our cognitive ability evolved, us being hunters. In the simulator, the static backdrop isn€t, as the changing pixels of the background are often interpreted as just as much movement as the changing pixels of the object we are trying to follow.

This mid-range disappearance of objects should be rectified and I hope it is rectified€¦ although a first look shows that it might not be.

Regards,
Fred

effte
11-20-2004, 04:12 PM
As for the ability to spot aircraft...

One of the perks in my line of work is that I sometimes get paid to listen to people talking about very interesting subjects. About a month ago, part of one subject was the ability of combat pilots to spot aircraft.

The setup was two aircraft (F-16) meeting. The pilots were aware of the fact that another F-16 was going to show up in their forward sector. That is, they knew what to look for and where to look for it. It turned out that the average spotting distance was 1.7 nm, or rougly 3150 m!

Now, even if you ignore the fact that you have to scan the entire sky, and even if you compensate for the different profiles and lower speeds of WWII aircraft, the typical distance for spotting another aircraft will not go up by a factor of ten.

/Fred

ucanfly
11-20-2004, 04:14 PM
Very well put effte.

effte
11-20-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
The distance at which you can see the same light depends on air humidity, polution etc. as in air is not NOTHING as people think... it consists of particles (no matter how small) and they stop light in small quantity untill you can't see it at all.

This is why a flash light can be seen at close range... the further away it is the less you can see, as less and less light reaches your eye.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only true in hazy conditions. Most of the time, it is due to the intensity of the light being inversly proportional to the square of the distance to the light source. If you take the power emitted and divide it by the square of the distance to the source, you will typically approach the lower threshold of the sensitivity of the eye rather soon.

If the light leve of the object is not significantly different from the background, you will probably run into the resolution limit of the eye first. Just as poor screen resolutio will hide small details, small details get lost in the eye. You can't read the text on a roadsign some distance away, right? It all turns into a blur. That's resolution for you.

Interestingly, the sensitivity to light levels is higher outside of the center of our vision. If you look just to the side of a weak star, you can sometimes see it even if you can't see it when you look straight at it.

IIRC, the resolution on the light sensitive sensing elements of the retina is higher than the resolution of the colour sensitive elements. In other words, you can see sharper in the dark when you are looking with the light sensitive elements - i e when all cats are grey... which they are for this very reason, there's simply not enough light in the dark for our colour sensing elements to pick it up.

Regards,
Fred

Tater-SW-
11-20-2004, 05:04 PM
An F-16 head on is hard to spot on the apron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We're also stuck with the same dot regardless of aspect.

tater

stathem
11-20-2004, 05:17 PM
Speaking as a relative newcomer who is attempting(with varying degrees of success) to make the step up to full real settings, surely the (moderate) improvement to visibilty would act to encourage more newcomers to fly suicide settings? It takes a very special mindset to overcome the depression of continually having your wings removed by unseen assailants, especially if they already have an ego from flying 'arcade' settings. The good guys will still get their BnZ kills, but if there is no new blood coming in, surely the community will stagnate? Even with the new dots it's still not exactly "radar lock" to someone with only 6 months experience instead of 3 years (or more).

IMO it can only be a good thing if it can encourge fresh blood to come through, by giving them a chance to believe there is actually somebody else in the server...

rookie66
11-20-2004, 05:47 PM
Dots? I cannot see any dots. All I see are many giant black baloons hanging around. Some balloons were above a carrier and they look bigger than the ship. Nice game anyway, perhaps we should go back to Packman?
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/traurig/c030.gif

Tater-SW-
11-20-2004, 06:38 PM
These are giant, black balloons, huh?

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/dots.jpg

Look like dots to me, wtf was I thinking.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
11-20-2004, 08:57 PM
Oleg, as long time aircraft spotter, I thank you for the realistic dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

thompet03:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the new dots are killing every effort of realistic flying. Everyone with one open eye can see ya from distances of about 15 km.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can set dots to vanish at any range depending on your "rcu" file dotrange setting. Dot sizes now depend on range too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif -- a first for FB series flight sims. The range at which the new large Dots turn into Classic FB micro~dots depends on your "rcu" dotrange settings.


stathem:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Speaking as a relative newcomer ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wellcome to Forgotten Board. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Good to see independent thinking here. Thanks for coming.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2004, 09:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
These are giant, black balloons, huh?

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/dots.jpg

Look like dots to me, wtf was I thinking.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In regards to the above screenie....
What is the point of of camouflage?
With this shot camouflage might as well not be on the targets and they should be brightly coloured. what's the point?

Camouflage is used as a means of defense. If you can't find the bl**dy things on the ground from a fair distance off, the camouflage is working. Ground targets are not meant to be easy to find from distance.

Gee whizz, you might as well have flashing neon arrows, pointing out the ground targets.

To the eye, the further away an object that is viewed gets, the greyer it gets and the more, when of similar colour to (camouflaged) the background it is, the more it blends into that background.

Tater-SW-
11-20-2004, 11:43 PM
Camoflauge isn't camoflauge at ranges where the object in question is NOT RESOLVED. A point is a point is a point. Or are you suggesting that a splinter camo pattern is visible at ranges where you cannot even make out wings?

It's exactly analogous to claiming that sunspots should be visible on a star that is a point source (unresolved). Camo ONLY functions when the camo is discernable.

Your last statement is wrong. The color of the object has little to do with the visible dot, at large ranges it's about reflection/absorption. The apparent color will also be affected by absorbtion and scattering in the atmosphere. Mostly, you see value (greyscale). An OD C-130 here in town, and a gray one look pretty much the same at extreme range.

tater

effte
11-21-2004, 03:03 AM
Tater,
which is of course why you make sure that it should blend into the backdrop regarding light reflection as well.

Of course the people who do signature adaption (even the paint bucket and broom kind in the field) make sure that whatever they're trying to hide won't reflect light and stand out like a sore thumb in the surrounding!

Are you suggesting that you can see every branch of a tree at a far distance? Are you suggesting that even if you can't, a sheet of fabric with a tree painted on it should stand out as you can't resolve the camo pattern (the painted tree)?

Not specifically directed at anyone, but those who feel hit by it should take a step back and rethink their posting:
It once again amazed me how common sense will depart from a large portion of the members in these forums when they are trying to make a point.

rgb500
11-21-2004, 03:35 AM
At 1024 on my 21" monitor, the new dots look perfect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Old IL2 1.0 dots were too harsh, but their replacements we had to live with untill this patch, have in my opinion been just rediculous.

Now at last I can turn off the "force 16 bit Z buffer + no stencil buffer" cheat, get the better graphics and still be able to see AC's at 5k+.

haegri
11-21-2004, 04:00 AM
Is there any good programming reason why the dots should not be switchable, as the icons are? Maybe you could cycle through a few dot options - black, grey, thin, even red and blue for the different teams! If this could be easily implemented, it should please everybody. There could be an override for server administrators.

Cheers,

Haegri

anarchy52
11-21-2004, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:

Sorry - but that is a bunch of hooey. IRL pilots were able to identify targets out to ten miles or more (more like 20 km). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I've got a test for You: take a look at a car only 10 km away and identify it. Can't see a car at 10k distance?
Too much comic books and trash action movies I guess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

robindeeyk
11-21-2004, 04:43 AM
wel its very simple put the dots in the settings were you can put them on ore off .

if that not happens i go back to the old 3.0 settings .

the suprise elements is gone now they see you from a very big distance .

lots of noobs were complaining that they didnt saw plane,s good inought ....not they got wat they want .

a few patches later and we have a arcade game
:-(

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2004, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Camoflauge isn't camoflauge at ranges where the object in question is NOT RESOLVED. A point is a point is a point. Or are you suggesting that a splinter camo pattern is visible at ranges where you cannot even make out wings?

It's exactly analogous to claiming that sunspots should be visible on a star that is a point source (unresolved). Camo ONLY functions when the camo is discernable.

Your last statement is wrong. The color of the object has little to do with the visible dot, at large ranges it's about reflection/absorption. The apparent color will also be affected by absorbtion and scattering in the atmosphere. Mostly, you see value (greyscale). An OD C-130 here in town, and a gray one look pretty much the same at extreme range.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Aw Tater.....come on m8, think about this for a bit.
Camouflage was used to break up the wings and fuselage, so to speak, so that they would disappear against the backdrop, so that they would lose definition.
Basically so the enemy couldn't see/ had extreme difficulty seeing them.
Yes a reflection off cockpit would give the postion away but they still had to be tracked from there.

Now put the grey C-130 and the camouflaged C-130 up against the backdrop the camouflage was designed for and see what happens

OldMan____
11-21-2004, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:

Sorry - but that is a bunch of hooey. IRL pilots were able to identify targets out to ten miles or more (more like 20 km). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I've got a test for You: take a look at a car only 10 km away and identify it. Can't see a car at 10k distance?
Too much comic books and trash action movies I guess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is moving.. for sure you can see it.I live at top of a large hill facing a bay of about 8 km wide.. I can see cars in the other side of the bay pretty easily, also a ww2 fighter is MUCh bigger than an average car. More like a bus.

Tater-SW-
11-21-2004, 09:41 AM
Aw, nothing. That REQUIRES that you can resolve the target. Ok, "resolving the target" means seeing it as more than a point. At the point you can no longer separate 2 point sources, that is "unresolved." A good experiment for you is to look at what range you can tell an oncoming car has 2 headlights as separate dots. I don't recall off the top of my head, but we are typically talking about 20-30 arc seconds for the human eye if I remember correctly. (for small angle S=r*theta where S is the distance between points, and theta is the resolution angle (the 20-30 arc seconds). "r" is the distance. That gives about 10-17km for 1.5m headlight spacing. Seems reasonable to me.

If the source (plane in this case) is unresolved, there is NO splinter effect of the camo, none. Your eye lacks the resolution to distinguish between one side of the plane and the other, much less the difference between 2 camo colored areas. The target is a POINT, a point has no camo, no variation, it becomes an average. Look at the above calc, that means at 10km, you can only tell between 2 things 1.5m apart, a plane becomes a handfull of pixels.

As for the C-130, I do put one of them against the background they are camoed for---the sky. The air superiority gray is for sky, and you need to have them closer before you can tell. In the summer I get to ID ww2 bombers, too, since they are used as slurry bombers for forest fires (they fly past my house at eye level (1500ft AGL) on the way north)

Oh, 10km is ~6 miles. I can see cars 6 miles away right now (I-25 is about 6 miles) looking left. Cars at 6 miles are unresolved moving dots. Stationary I'd not see them. At 3-4 miles (Paseo del Norte), I can tell vans/SUVs from cars, no color, but light vs dark. they are fully resolved objects, I even get shape.

tater
tater

stathem
11-21-2004, 12:17 PM
C.f.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rgb500:
At 1024 on my 21" monitor, the new dots look perfect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...

Now at last I can turn off the "force 16 bit Z buffer + no stencil buffer" cheat, get the better graphics and still be able to see AC's at 5k+. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

with

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

lots of noobs were complaining that they didnt saw plane,s good inought ....not they got wat they want .

a few patches later and we have a arcade game
:-( <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

is it just me or can anyone else see a dichotomy here? It's still hardly an arcade game at those settings, even with the new dots. Again people with a high degree of flying skill, ability to use cover(cloud, sun), good SA, will still be very successful. Surely better that than throwing a lot of money/technical knowledge at gaining an advantage? I was flying in greatergreen for 4 weeks before I even found out what a TrackIR was.

WWMaxGunz
11-21-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:

Sorry - but that is a bunch of hooey. IRL pilots were able to identify targets out to ten miles or more (more like 20 km). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I've got a test for You: take a look at a car only 10 km away and identify it. Can't see a car at 10k distance?
Too much comic books and trash action movies I guess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horizon for groundhogs is what, 3km? Now groundhog vision is for flight sim. Lucky
to see anything over 1 mile away..... not like movie!

Test for you. Go up in the mountains 2km alt or so and see how far away you can spot
cars.

Or maybe get up in a plane same alt and look down below. Not just can you see the car
but hey, nice color paint job. No, the one over there off to the side.

Can't do those? Then get a few miles from an airport and see how far away you can spot
planes at all, the ones up in the clear air as even small dots.

That's from real life outside. Where you been?

Bearcat99
11-21-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
the new dots are killing every effort of realistic flying. Everyone with one open eye can see ya from distances of about 15 km.... thats what i called nonsence. First thought was that somene had made a map with very much balloons.... than they moved..
Than i thought: Oh yes the hindenburg... than i saw what it was.. an 109.... aaaahhhhhhhhh

Im for an server based Option to select or like Hunde said: connect the dots to the resolution... i wil try it on 640 now.. i think they will be about 5mm high and thick.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually..... bouncing is still very possible as long as there are no icons. Most guys who got bounced got bounced from the rear... and just because a guys head is on a swivel doesnt men he wont get bounced. There are blind spots in all these planes... Now all those FR guys will have to step up their stealth tactics a notch because they may be seen unless they are IN the blind spot. I would like them a little smaller but since 1)They are adjustable in the rcyu file and 2)As long as there are ni icons there it is still a big plus to the immersion factor I dont care.

ucanfly
11-21-2004, 01:02 PM
I agree heartily with Bearcat. The alternative to the new dots is icons - which I can't stand. With these new dots and the correct dot range it is far easier to bounce an enemy than a huge blooming label over a plane that kills immersion!

Not to mention the fact that offline play is tremendously enhanced. I hate waiting to see where the enemies tracers are before I can figure out where he is even though I have been staring at him the whole time! These dots (with adjustments) give us the nearly the same visibility as the AI.
KEEEEEEEP THE DOTSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and learn to adjust the dotrange.

WWMaxGunz
11-21-2004, 01:04 PM
Very simple.

If you don't like the dots then ignore the title and read this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=6391087342

Begins with:

Dynamic Dots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif The new dots get smaller with range. With "rcu" file dotrange settings,
the player can change how fast the dots grow small and turn into the old single pixel dots
and then go away. Work with dotrange setting to get realistic dot behavior.

That is first post from Lexx.

Farther down is a link to links from Tully including how to automate dotrange, how to
adjust dotrange. The automate dotrange post at SimHQ also tells how to make speedbar
units imperial or nautical instead of metric.

So there it is. DOTS FULLY CONTROLLABLE. To not adjust dotrange and post outrage when
it is easily possible .... is whining pure and simple. Sorry it is not automatic. Too
much to ask people to make a text file with a few lines and then edit another file. If
you have to read instructions then what will they want next? (gasp!) Maybe expect you
to program a VCR! Computers are worse, if you can't just click an icon then it's too
much but daaaaayum let's have realism! Okay, really... is it all that hard??

HeinzBar
11-21-2004, 01:49 PM
S!,
I can only reply that I dislike the current dots. I had no problem seeing dots against the sky or against the ground while using a 1280x960x32 2x Fssa. For me, the dots are just downright ugly and spoil the otherwise great feel that dots once had.

As to someone having an advantage due to resolution, I don't quite agree. Sure, someone running at 800x600 'might' see a target before someone using 1600x1200, but what is that lower resolution losing? That individual also has to put up w/ less than stellar graphics. For me, I did fine w/ the old dots. I do fine w/ the new dots. However, the new dots are just ugly, plain and simple.

If we're talking about scalable dots, that's fine. However an individual wants to have his/her dots is fine, but there must be a client side option that locks the scalability to avoid abuse.

Just my humble opinion.

HB

Tater-SW-
11-21-2004, 04:38 PM
BTW, i think most people who like elements of the new dots (myself included) would like to see them toned down slightly for a better visual look. It isn't new vs old, it's something in between we seek since some of us couldn't see the old dots against the forest at all, ever.

tater

Jazz-Man
11-21-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
the new dots are killing every effort of realistic flying. Everyone with one open eye can see ya from distances of about 15 km.... thats what i called nonsence. First thought was that somene had made a map with very much balloons.... than they moved..
Than i thought: Oh yes the hindenburg... than i saw what it was.. an 109.... aaaahhhhhhhhh

Im for an server based Option to select or like Hunde said: connect the dots to the resolution... i wil try it on 640 now.. i think they will be about 5mm high and thick.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it IS a resolution issue, because only people running at the lower resolutions are seeing dots like this.

Acrobatic aircraft for airshows are grounded unless visability for the day is going to be in excess of 8km (5mi). The dot range is completly customizable.

Further, RAF74 has been flying bomber ops on Warclouds all weekend, and we've never been intercepted from long range, medium altitude, high altitude or low. We took 5 B-25s to the target and didn't pick up enemy fighters until we got very close to the base and were pretty much set to drop the bombs anyway.

The VAST majority of times when someone was snuck up on in WW2 was during a dogfight in which they lost their SA. Not flying level on a patrol and getting jumped. Bounces came out of the sun, this is still quite possible, or up from behind and below, and this is still quite possible. Bombers didn't 'sneak by' enemy air defenses unless there was bad weather, and then they weren't likely to even take off. If it was a jump vs a group of pilots flying straight and level it's because the pilots weren't looking around for them. Not because they were staring at a poorly drawn LoD which wasn't rendering on their cockpit correctly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jump on TS with your squadron or a group of friends and all setup different resolutions. Then fly a coop against a flight of bombers. Lower resolution (all other things being equal, like monitor size) will create larger icons, and thereby, be easier to see.

The dots we had before became nearly impossible to see at resolutions 1280x960 or higher, compared to 1024x768. They were also very near impossible on smaller monitors or people with LCD screens. With this new dot setting, which is again TOTALLY customizable, hardware no longer makes the game.

Jazz-Man
11-21-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
I can only reply that I dislike the current dots. I had no problem seeing dots against the sky or against the ground while using a 1280x960x32 2x Fssa. For me, the dots are just downright ugly and spoil the otherwise great feel that dots once had.

As to someone having an advantage due to resolution, I don't quite agree. Sure, someone running at 800x600 'might' see a target before someone using 1600x1200, but what is that lower resolution losing? That individual also has to put up w/ less than stellar graphics. For me, I did fine w/ the old dots. I do fine w/ the new dots. However, the new dots are just ugly, plain and simple.

If we're talking about scalable dots, that's fine. However an individual wants to have his/her dots is fine, but there must be a client side option that locks the scalability to avoid abuse.

Just my humble opinion.

HB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Find servers with people who know how to set their RCU files up correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's not like you can log in to some server and adjust the icon settings to your likings. The server does that.

And if you've ever played any other types of games, you should realize how many people out there will force their PCs to run at lower resolutions and lower detail in order to make things easier. For example, people turning off grass in NovaLogic's Joint Operations so they can see people who cannot see them because their system has grass turned on...

It's no different than all the people on HL and here suggesting Medium clouds because they know that Medium clouds render less clouds and less detailed clouds, which is why you can get shot down while you're in a cloud. Your opponent, with the slower PC, or forcing them selves to run at a lower detail, can see you just fine.

PB0_Roll
11-21-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually..... bouncing is still very possible as long as there are no icons. Most guys who got bounced got bounced from the rear... and just because a guys head is on a swivel doesnt men he wont get bounced. There are blind spots in all these planes... Now all those FR guys will have to step up their stealth tactics a notch because they may be seen unless they are IN the blind spot. I would like them a little smaller but since 1)They are adjustable in the rcyu file and 2)As long as there are ni icons there it is still a big plus to the immersion factor I dont care.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sadly noone has ever bounced me without warning.

if i didn't see the dot, there was the infamous SONAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

well, that doesn't mean not being shot down, in a crowded environment evesive action can be inappropriate, but still, where is realism ?

really hopeful next week's patch will go to a "dot compromise" and SONAR will be towned down.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PB0_Roll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually..... bouncing is still very possible as long as there are no icons. Most guys who got bounced got bounced from the rear... and just because a guys head is on a swivel doesnt men he wont get bounced. There are blind spots in all these planes... Now all those FR guys will have to step up their stealth tactics a notch because they may be seen unless they are IN the blind spot. I would like them a little smaller but since 1)They are adjustable in the rcyu file and 2)As long as there are ni icons there it is still a big plus to the immersion factor I dont care.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sadly noone has ever bounced me without warning.

if i didn't see the dot, there was the infamous SONAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

well, that doesn't mean not being shot down, in a crowded environment evesive action can be inappropriate, but still, where is realism ?

really hopeful next week's patch will go to a "dot compromise" and SONAR will be towned down.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually cannot hear this sound effect you guys say.

S.taibanzai
11-22-2004, 09:29 AM
Dots must go FINAL

Gato__Loco
11-22-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Dots must go FINAL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are... how should I say it... WRONG!!!

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
BTW, i think most people who like elements of the new dots (myself included) would like to see them toned down slightly for a better visual look. It isn't new vs old, it's something in between we seek since some of us couldn't see the old dots against the forest at all, ever.

-That's cool mate and how it is supposed to be
In RL, that would be camouflage is working.

Oh, 10km is ~6 miles. I can see cars 6 miles away right now (I-25 is about 6 miles) looking left. Cars at 6 miles are unresolved moving dots. Stationary I'd not see them. At 3-4 miles (Paseo del Norte), I can tell vans/SUVs from cars, no color, but light vs dark. they are fully resolved objects, I even get shape.

tater
tater


tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must love also the huge ground target dots
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ucanfly
11-22-2004, 02:57 PM
How many of you voting for old dots play without icons on hyperlobby? Not many around me since I could only find 1 server the other night that used no icons. But now there are servers switching to no icons because of the new dots!!! Hooraay!! New dots = better reality and more no icon servers. Old dots means icons. That's the reality.

If some of you guys still want the old dots maybe Oleg should just add to conf.ini:

MR_MAGOO = 1

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
11-22-2004, 03:41 PM
Vagueout,

I actually hate the ground dots, aside from ships. The ground terrain isn't vegitated enough as it is, particularly for the PTO/SWPA/CBI. You should need to be right on top of ground units to see them. The ground dots serve no purpose since in real life, ground units were as hard, or harder to spot than in PF now, or before. Planes are a different story since there are places where we should see them, and we don't. If anything we see ground units too well---except ships which need grossly larger/longer ranged dots than now. Ships should be visible for 10s of miles, probably a chance of spotting them out past 40 miles depending on alt and weather.

I could actually understand an argument for old dots that suggests that in RL it was easier to escape since there were really big clouds you could duck into that we lack. THAT is a good simulation argument for old dots. That's part of the reason I want something a little better for my system than the old dots, and a little less than the new ones. The new ones only look gooft to me against sky, they are a good match with the terrain since you still have to seek them out to see them, unlike in clear blue sky.

tater

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2004, 10:43 PM
Good to see that is some level headedness in the areas I mentioned, except, with these new aircraft dots at 1024 X 768, you don't have to seek them out, they stand out like the proverbial dogb*lls and render any camouflage useless.

I too, think a middle ground gradated form and resolution based setting is the way to go but at the moment these test dots for aircraft and ground targets as they are, are not the way to go.

just my 2c

LEXX_Luthor
11-23-2004, 02:58 AM
Granted I experimented successfully with my mp_dotrange command in "rcu" file, and my 1024x768 "new dots" are more realistic than the old light grey single-pixel invisible dots, and anything is more realistic than text icon labels that most simmers were forced to use previously. I have spent a long time spotting aircraft in real life. Granted the new dots might could become smaller/fade faster or slower, and the transition from aircraft grafic to dot is not the best, but that's a problem with small aircraft grafix at medium range. it would be ~sweet~ indeed to have a "conf" file Option to select what dot methods you prefer. When my "FB" computer gets back up, I will test more and solve this issue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DarthBane_
11-23-2004, 03:07 AM
Many of us dont have track ir. So the situation awerness and tracking someones position wasnt the same for everyone. Now with new dots it is easier to spot plane. That is ok. Aside that before some planes had tendency to disapear on 1km. How realistic was that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-23-2004, 03:18 AM
DarthBane:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now with new dots it is easier to spot plane. That is ok. Aside that before some planes had tendency to disapear on 1km. How realistic was that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly! Even my "low res" 1024x768 the aircraft suddenly VANISH against the landscape when they turned into the old invisible light grey single-pixel dots. Finally something is done about it (and thanks Bogun for giving early notice this would happen). In real life, aircraft were not hard to see provided pilots looked around...many did not and paid the price.

As Oleg said, the new dots get smaller with increasing distance, and players have control over rate of "smallness" with distance in the "rcu" file, but that does not seem "popular" to talk about at this time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Have you tried looking down on the new dots on aircraft targets over FP ocean? Very immersive and totally realistic without text icon labels following the planes.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-23-2004, 04:15 AM
Hey Heinz.

I agree that an alternative to the current situation should be found, but I still say it should be resoulution dependent. With all due respect, 1600x1200 is alot different than 1280x960. I also did fine with old dots, but it was a disadvantage (I don't consider putting up with less than stellar graphics a disadvantage) at 1600x1200 as planes simply vanish. Maybe their are some hardware issues as well but from my experience (which I tested alot), is that resolution is the biggest factor.

Like I said I don't like the old dots in 1600x1200, and I don't like the new dots at lower res, so I'm hoping an alternative can be found. Still, I do hope they change the new dots as they are a bit ugly, I just hope the solution is fair to 1600x1200 users. And I definitely agree that whatever the solution is it shouldn't be subject to abuse, which is another reason making it resolution dependent makes sense.

WWMaxGunz
11-23-2004, 06:55 AM
Resolution must not be everything as for me at 1024x768 the old dots are hard to spot
up in the sky and once a target goes below the horizon .... flip a coin unless it's a
dot then don't bother.

Is it monitor, contrast, something like those? Res is not the whole thing. So if it
gets tied to resolution, thanks, I'm back screwed as my hardware is pushed at 1024x768
maybe if I run down in 800x600 or worse -- or would that get choked down too?

LEXX_Luthor
11-23-2004, 07:38 AM
Ya, it should be resolution dependent as the single light grey pixels are smaller for larger res, and the old dots are always one tiny light grey pixel no matter the aircraft size or range. I fly in either 1024x768 or 1152x864, and in both cases I get totally invisible light grey single-pixel dots against the landcsape.

Max, I run ATI~9200 with Default CD driver and get great 30fps performance at 1152x864 with all settings maxed out except Perfect Mode. Why are you limited to 1024x768?

ucanfly
11-23-2004, 09:43 AM
Hunde , what alot of us are trying to say is that for us it is not resolution dependent. That is in our setups at 1024X768 the old dots completely disappear against the landscape at less than 1 km. COMPLETELY!!!

Making the old/new dots resolution dependent maybe would be good for you , but not for the rest of us that have decent vision , but apparently a less than optimum setup (for IL2 dots anyway).

There is a software issue in here as well, since I have experienced bizarre behaviour with the old dots where 109s would appear huge at far distances , but other planes like Me262s, B17s, and SBDs would virtually disappear at the same distances!!! I gave Oleg a bug report on something similar a while back.

Scen
11-23-2004, 10:36 AM
I'm actually with Hunde 100% on this one. I too play in 16X12 and the old dots are an unfair advantage for guys that run in lower resolutions.

I frequently play online with squadmates and it's clear they aquire targets at a much greater distance at much quicker than I can. I have perfect vision and I have a very high quality monitor. I'm also a real pilot so please spare me the reality stuff I know how hard it is to spot aircraft.

Just as a test I ran the game in 10X7 and the old dots are much easier to spot and I'm sure with the new dots is a little too much. I think the best solution is for it to be an option.

In terms of online flying the those servers that are dedicated to realism should turn off the icons with the new dots and or keep limited icons for the old. Just my opinion.

The dots are very much a resolution issue.

For the realism guys... There is such thing as playability. Since when are my eyes restricted to a 22 inch view with a limited resolution of 16X12? There has to be some sort of compromise period.

Scendore

ucanfly
11-23-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
I'm actually with Hunde 100% on this one. I too play in 16X12 and the old dots are an unfair advantage for guys that run in lower resolutions.

I frequently play online with squadmates and it's clear they aquire targets at a much greater distance at much quicker than I can. I have perfect vision and I have a very high quality monitor. I'm also a real pilot so please spare me the reality stuff I know how hard it is to spot aircraft.

Just as a test I ran the game in 10X7 and the old dots are much easier to spot and I'm sure with the new dots is a little too much. I think the best solution is for it to be an option.

In terms of online flying the those servers that are dedicated to realism should turn off the icons with the new dots and or keep limited icons for the old. Just my opinion.

The dots are very much a resolution issue.

For the realism guys... There is such thing as playability. Since when are my eyes restricted to a 22 inch view with a limited resolution of 16X12? There has to be some sort of compromise period.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK - there are a fair number of people that can't find the old dots at higher resolution, but can at lower resolution. I belive you. Then there are a number of people including Lexx , myself, and many others that can't see the old dots at 1024X768, but we have decent vision (and can see real planes miles away while looking down), and there are some people that have no trouble seeing the dots at any resolution.

It seems to me that the new dots level the playing field for all without having to resort to the agregious icons. Otherwise:

1. If we make it a resolution issue, some will be happy, others will be blind (and verrry unhappy).

2. If we make it a server selectable dots, some might be happy while others are blind.

If we keep the new dots (with mp_dotrange adjustment), we all have the same visibility. It seems to me that it would be fair to all and avoid resolution cheats that addresses the problems stated by others.

Of course I am not saying that we should all switch to no icons. It is just that with the old dots there was only 1 or 2 servers on hyperlobby that would have no icon gameplay (the other day there was none!).

I believe Hunde and others when they say that it is resolution dependent in their rigs, but please also believe us that say it is NOT resolution dependent in ours, and at 1024X768 the visibility of the old dots is not acceptable.

Scen
11-23-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
I'm actually with Hunde 100% on this one. I too play in 16X12 and the old dots are an unfair advantage for guys that run in lower resolutions.

I frequently play online with squadmates and it's clear they aquire targets at a much greater distance at much quicker than I can. I have perfect vision and I have a very high quality monitor. I'm also a real pilot so please spare me the reality stuff I know how hard it is to spot aircraft.

Just as a test I ran the game in 10X7 and the old dots are much easier to spot and I'm sure with the new dots is a little too much. I think the best solution is for it to be an option.

In terms of online flying the those servers that are dedicated to realism should turn off the icons with the new dots and or keep limited icons for the old. Just my opinion.

The dots are very much a resolution issue.

For the realism guys... There is such thing as playability. Since when are my eyes restricted to a 22 inch view with a limited resolution of 16X12? There has to be some sort of compromise period.

Scendore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK - there are a fair number of people that can't find the old dots at higher resolution, but can at lower resolution. I belive you. Then there are a number of people including Lexx , myself, and many others that can't see the old dots at 1024X768, but we have decent vision (and can see real planes miles away while looking down), and there are some people that have no trouble seeing the dots at any resolution.

It seems to me that the new dots level the playing field for all without having to resort to the agregious icons. Otherwise:

1. If we make it a resolution issue, some will be happy, others will be blind (and verrry unhappy).

2. If we make it a server selectable dots, some might be happy while others are blind.

If we keep the new dots (with mp_dotrange adjustment), we all have the same visibility. It seems to me that it would be fair to all and avoid resolution cheats that addresses the problems stated by others.

Of course I am not saying that we should all switch to no icons. It is just that with the old dots there was only 1 or 2 servers on hyperlobby that would have no icon gameplay (the other day there was none!).

I believe Hunde and others when they say that it is resolution dependent in their rigs, but please also believe us that say it is NOT resolution dependent in ours, and at 1024X768 the visibility of the old dots is not acceptable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay it sounds resonable to me. I agree the best solution would be for the dedicated servers to go with the adjusted new dots to make it fair for everyone regardless of resolution.

I've been reading serveral posts by people that talk about realism as their basis for their argument about the new dots. It's more of an issue regarding playability not realism.

Scendore

WWMaxGunz
11-23-2004, 04:24 PM
The difference of postcard realism and functional realism.

Lots of things not visible in the postcard that are when you are there.

Mc_Wolf
11-23-2004, 04:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifThe new dot is better to find target, but not good to see so big one. wish it improved in future. Thanks