PDA

View Full Version : Poor viewing distance, any advice?



Phobia337
04-04-2008, 10:20 AM
Hey guys,

I am in a bit of a pickel. I have had the game since day one so many years I have been playing. But I just came across something I have been unaware of this entire time.

My system is NOT seeing as far as it can. I never knew this because I always played the OFFLINE missions and when I did fly online I flew alone. Since I got my dad into the game and we been flying online. I been noticing him calling out enemy that are not even appearing on my screen. It might take another 30 secs to a min of travel before I get the grey dots. Where he is seeing them a good distance before me.

Now since it has come to my attention I have been focusing on it more and more trying to peg what my view distance is on enemy aircraft.

Example.
I was flying last night on ZEKES vs WILDCATS. I was looping around at 7000 meters. Looking off the low wing looking at the ground. I could hear gun battles going on but could see nothing. I then started a sprial decent and noticed that I was not getting the dots till around 3000 meters high.

Another example:

Me and my dad were flying in a pair around 3000 meters high and crusiing towards the objective sector. Well he then calls out "plane, right wing high." So I am looking and looking but see nothing. So I told him you lead way I see nothing. So he breaks and I break behind him. We flew for another min or more before I finially got the dot in the sky.

System setup
1440x900 res
All settings high
Water 3
Trees 3
ect

What could be causing this?

general_kalle
04-04-2008, 10:30 AM
with the newest patch: 4.09 beta you can set LandGeom=3 then the wieving distance will be increased from 36 to 72 km...i think.
but it requires quite a machine to run smooth.

Phobia337
04-04-2008, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
with the newest patch: 4.09 beta you can set LandGeom=3 then the wieving distance will be increased from 36 to 72 km...i think.
but it requires quite a machine to run smooth.
Yea but until all the servers switch over to 4.09 I am staying with 4.08. But I don't think that is the issue. Like I said 2 of us are both running 4.08 but he is getting a greater view distance. Thanks for the post though

Airmail109
04-04-2008, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Phobia337:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
with the newest patch: 4.09 beta you can set LandGeom=3 then the wieving distance will be increased from 36 to 72 km...i think.
but it requires quite a machine to run smooth.
Yea but until all the servers switch over to 4.09 I am staying with 4.08. But I don't think that is the issue. Like I said 2 of us are both running 4.08 but he is getting a greater view distance. Thanks for the post though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

take the 4.09

core dll and core4 dll, and paste them into your 4.08 game folder.

The go to config and change landgeometry to 3

BaronUnderpants
04-04-2008, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Phobia337:
Hey guys,

I am in a bit of a pickel. I have had the game since day one so many years I have been playing. But I just came across something I have been unaware of this entire time.

My system is NOT seeing as far as it can. I never knew this because I always played the OFFLINE missions and when I did fly online I flew alone. Since I got my dad into the game and we been flying online. I been noticing him calling out enemy that are not even appearing on my screen. It might take another 30 secs to a min of travel before I get the grey dots. Where he is seeing them a good distance before me.

Now since it has come to my attention I have been focusing on it more and more trying to peg what my view distance is on enemy aircraft.

Example.
I was flying last night on ZEKES vs WILDCATS. I was looping around at 7000 meters. Looking off the low wing looking at the ground. I could hear gun battles going on but could see nothing. I then started a sprial decent and noticed that I was not getting the dots till around 3000 meters high.

Another example:

Me and my dad were flying in a pair around 3000 meters high and crusiing towards the objective sector. Well he then calls out "plane, right wing high." So I am looking and looking but see nothing. So I told him you lead way I see nothing. So he breaks and I break behind him. We flew for another min or more before I finially got the dot in the sky.

System setup
1440x900 res
All settings high
Water 3
Trees 3
ect

What could be causing this?


All i can think of is the screen reselution, is your dad using the same?

Try another one, or several for that matter....bound to be one res. thats better.

Monterey13
04-04-2008, 11:25 AM
You shouldn't have to do this, but there are some console commands for setting dotranges. You can try it. You would have to be the host. I don't know if it's just for setting the icon distances, or if it sets how far you actually see the dots also.

mp_dotrange [FRIENDLY|FOE] [DEFAULT] [COLOR <km>] [DOT <km>] [RANGE <km>]
[TYPE <km>] [ID <km>] [NAME <km>]

striker-85
04-04-2008, 12:08 PM
I've noticed my screen resolution affects the distance I could see dots at. I have seen best results at 1024x768 on my system.

I see you are at 1440x900 res, what res is your dad running at?


You may want to also check this setting in your conf.ini under the [Render_OpenGL] section and see how it compares to your dad's

VisibilityDistance=3

WP_Lobo
04-04-2008, 12:12 PM
I've been researching this very issue the past few days, as I seem to always be the last amongst my squadron mates to spot bogies.

mp_dotrange can help for offline play, but those parameters are controlled by servers during online play. Therefore, the difference in visibility between machines must lie somewhere else.

I asked two of my squad-mates (who seem to always spot trouble first) what resolution their displays are set for. 1280 x 1024 for one, 1280 x 900 for the other. I'll be experimenting this weekend...my 24" WS LCD has a native res of 1920 x 1200.

I've also seen conflicting reports that Anti-aliasing (AA) and Anisotropic Filtering (AF) either reduce or increase visibility. I haven't found that turning off AA and/or AF make any difference in my limited testing.

Good luck and please report back with what you find, both what works and what doesn't. I'll be sure to do the same!

GIAP.Shura
04-04-2008, 12:29 PM
As far as I am aware, the land geometry of the new patch affects just that, land, it will have no effect on dot visibility ranges. If I recall correctly, ground vehicles have a visibility range of about 5km in 3 dimensions, so if you are 7km up, you are not going to see them.

I think the most likely reason will be screen resolution. It may also just be that your Dad has better eyesight or a better method of scanning the screen.

VonTonar
04-04-2008, 12:40 PM
I would blame the res.

I have seen grand differences in my ability to spot Dots as I mess with the different settings. If you really want to see the dots, set your res down to 800 x ?

buzzsaw1939
04-04-2008, 01:38 PM
I had that same problem till I got a LCD wide sreen, I run 1680 x 1050 32, and I can see them a lot farther away now.

-HH-Quazi
04-04-2008, 02:14 PM
Does your graphics card have 512MB of memory? I think this does make a differnce or helps in viewing distances.

ytareh
04-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Set it to 1024x768!!! Thats it in a nutshell...sure it doesnt look as good (Im on a Dell 2407 24" and STILL wouldnt use any other res).You are flying blind if you use higher res .I briefly tried using 1680x1050 on a 20" flat panel I had and couldnt even see planes on a base at 1k or less alt until they were practically taking off ,wheels up directly underneath me...
The simple fact is that the bigger res looks very pretty and you can recognise (ID) and see which way planes are twisting and turning etc at short/med range .But this is useless if you are at a serious energy(speed/alt)disadvantage.Spotting the enemy first is of number 1 importance...

Phobia337
04-04-2008, 03:03 PM
I agree that it must be a resolution issue.

I am on a samsung 19" widescreen
1440x900 native'

Dad is on a Dell 21" NOT widescreen. I know for a fact it is NOT a wide screen but not 100% on size.
He runs at 1024x768

Now if it is the res then I got a problem. Because anything run NOT at the native RES causes the moniter to haev a blurry effect. Once at the native res it is extremely clear and pretty.

But I am just not convinced 100% yet that it is the res. I am at work but I am going to go back through my config. and see if something got changed or what not.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 03:22 PM
I believe the game engine was made to run at 1024x768 as the native resolution.

Whether this makes a difference to view distances and dot ranges I am not sure.

SeaFireLIV
04-04-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
Set it to 1024x768!!! Thats it in a nutshell...sure it doesnt look as good (Im on a Dell 2407 24" and STILL wouldnt use any other res).You are flying blind if you use higher res .I briefly tried using 1680x1050 on a 20" flat panel I had and couldnt even see planes on a base at 1k or less alt until they were practically taking off ,wheels up directly underneath me...
The simple fact is that the bigger res looks very pretty and you can recognise (ID) and see which way planes are twisting and turning etc at short/med range .But this is useless if you are at a serious energy(speed/alt)disadvantage.Spotting the enemy first is of number 1 importance...

Agreed. This resolution has always been best when flying online for me. Whenever I changed resolution for something higher (for better looks), I found that everyone in my Squad saw aircraft earlier than me and I was still `searching` while they were engaged in the dogfight. Very frustrating when your squad m8s think you`ve gone blind when they need you.

I also suspect that too much AA and AF may exacerbate this too.

Different Moniter types may give slightly better results, but I had his problem from a 17inch CRT to a 22inch CRT. 1024X768 is the only way when online against Humans. Silly really, as you`d expect a higher Res to give you an advantageous view, but it don`t.

Stiletto-
04-04-2008, 04:52 PM
You mean **** x 768, as I widescreen at 1280x768 will have the same visual aspects of a 4:3 monitor. Since getting a new video card, I have tried playing at 1920x1200, and while I can see the dots when they come into view, I have to actively be looking for them, such as in a QMB Mission, where I know 4 bogeys will fade in at 12 o'clock in 15 seconds.. I also noticed that if they are farther out and underneath you, they are alot easier to blend in with the trees and ground textures. I haven't experimented much online with this, I do think at this res my visuals aren't as bad as others, but I still think that **** x 768 offers the best dot visuals. Cranking up FSAA has minimal effects on the dots at this resolution, where I'm thinking cranking up the FSAA at a higher resolution will effectively blend a dot, half blue and half plane color or worse, completley wash it out into the sky almost invisible even when not at extreme ranges

Lurch1962
04-04-2008, 06:11 PM
The so-called "dots" which are drawn for planes at a distance are actually 2x2 pixel boxes, having a lighter tone for the top pair and a darker tone for the bottom pair.

(What I hate most about this system, at 1600 x 1200, is that a big bird like a B-17 will instantaneously transition from the 2x2 "dot" to a correct 9-pixel wide plane shape as soon as it crosses the 5.95km line-of-sight range. It should be bigger than a 2x2 box to as far as about 15km. GRRRR!)

The reason why they're harder to spot when running at high resolutions is that they are both relatively and absolutely smaller (the latter being the more important).

To overcome this to a certain extent, you need to get closer to the screen so that the "dots" can be seen as being absolutely larger (while still being relatively smaller in the now expanded apparent field of view.)

I run at 1600 x 1200, but sit about 1 foot from the screen while wearing 3.5 diopter reading glasses. I have absolutely no problem spotting those pesky "dots"!

buzzsaw1939
04-04-2008, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
Does your graphics card have 512MB of memory? I think this does make a differnce or helps in viewing distances.

Thats interesting Quazi,...I went from 256 to a 512 card right after getting the monitor!

Lurch1962
04-04-2008, 07:31 PM
My ATI 9800 has 256 MB RAM. And before that I had a GeForce clone with 64 MB. And no problems with "dot" visibility distance in either case.

SeaFireLIV
04-04-2008, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Lurch1962:


I run at 1600 x 1200, but sit about 1 foot from the screen while wearing 3.5 diopter reading glasses. I have absolutely no problem spotting those pesky "dots"!

Are you saying that everyone needs to don a pair of 3.5 dioptre prescription reading glasses to play IL2 and see the dots easily, while sitting 1 foot away from the screen?

This will be fine for those needing that prescription, but ruinous for anyone else who doesn`t need glasses or have much lighter prescription.

I don`t see this as a solution at all. But maybe you`re not saying it as a solution for everyone, just you.

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Lurch1962:
The so-called "dots" which are drawn for planes at a distance are actually 2x2 pixel boxes, having a lighter tone for the top pair and a darker tone for the bottom pair.

(What I hate most about this system, at 1600 x 1200, is that a big bird like a B-17 will instantaneously transition from the 2x2 "dot" to a correct 9-pixel wide plane shape as soon as it crosses the 5.95km line-of-sight range. It should be bigger than a 2x2 box to as far as about 15km. GRRRR!)

The reason why they're harder to spot when running at high resolutions is that they are both relatively and absolutely smaller (the latter being the more important).

To overcome this to a certain extent, you need to get closer to the screen so that the "dots" can be seen as being absolutely larger (while still being relatively smaller in the now expanded apparent field of view.)

I run at 1600 x 1200, but sit about 1 foot from the screen while wearing 3.5 diopter reading glasses. I have absolutely no problem spotting those pesky "dots"!

Try changing "dotrange"?

Lurch1962
04-06-2008, 05:52 PM
Changing dotrange doesn't change the size of the dots, only the maximum visibility distance.

================

As to the reading glasses, it's not prescription related. Anyone can use whatever reading glasses they wish. It all depends on how close you want to be to the object you're looking at. The glasses are there simply to allow *comfortable* focus, and hence *relieve* eye strain.

Contrary to popular belief, using a strong eyeglass is not injurious to vision. If you are a stamp collector, you'll often use a magnifier, which is a stronger version of (one half of) a reading glass. You could look through a magnifier all day with no ill effects. Same with reading glasses.

The diopter rating is an old method of specifying the focal length. The inverse of the diopter is the focal length in meters. So my 3.5 diopter glasses have a focal length of 1/3.5 = 0.286m = 11.4 inches.

If I sit so that the glasses-to-screen distance is 11.4 inches, the glasses allow my eyes to relax so that I have sharp focus, but as though looking at an object at a very great distance. In other words, the glasses are collimating the image-forming light for me.

If I sit a bit closer still, the light is not quite collimated and my eyes will have to do a little of the focusing work. If I sit farther back, I will have to really relax my eyes, as though focusing "beyond infinity". Yeah, that sounds strange, but some folks suffer from this--it's called presbyopia, or far-sightedness. The glasses they wear make their eyes look bigger (think of specs worn by Dr. Tyrell (as played by Joe Turkel) in the movie Bladerunner.)

Phobia337
04-06-2008, 05:59 PM
Ok guys after some research. Indeed 1024x768 is the best resolution to play the game online vs humans.

I have tested all different res this weekend and by far the best is 1024 x 768. I can now see the enemy at the same time as my dad lol. He now knows that i am not just blind like a bat

Thanks for the info guys
PHOBIA

SeaFireLIV
04-06-2008, 06:08 PM
Can`t agree.

Using a magnifier to look at stamps is a different story than wearing a pair of 3.5 dioptre spectacles in a continuous gaming session for someone who is not a 3.5 dioptre wearer.

`Ready readers` that some people buy off the shelf are also not advised since they actually make a person`s eyesight worse over time. It always happens that in the end such people end up in the opticians having to buy prescription spectacles for eyes made even worse by wearing wrong prescription `ready readers`.

It`s always better to have the correct prescription made for the user. Or none at all if you don`t need them.

Your information is inaccurate (although the explanation of the lenses and what presbyopia is, is correct)and I recommend that no one wears reading spectacles (if they do not need it) just so they can see dots better in IL2 on a monitor. It will very likely make your eyes worse over time, especially if sustained. If you don`t actually need glasses I advised you remove them or get a proper prescription measured to your moniter distance.

Change graphics settings, moniter, write letters to oleg so he makes the dots clearer...

But don`t risk your health I say to anyone considering this who doesn`t need glsses.

Dr2GunzOD
04-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Seafire,

As an optometrist, let me correct some of your misinformation.

1. Most people can wear OTC readers even if they are not presbyopic or over 40. I can use a lower power over my contacts for extended periods of near work and Im not to my 40's.

2. Wearing readers doesnt make your eyes weaker or make you need a different Rx later in life. Most people who use readers are early 40's, which is also one of the periods of life where the eyes are more dynamic and change Rx every 12-24 months on average.

Lurch1962
04-06-2008, 07:43 PM
With reading glasses, perhaps the most important aspect for extended comfort is that they be properly aligned in the vertical. That is, one lens must not sit higher or lower than the other. And this is even more of a concern with stronger lenses. The slight magnification amplifies any vertical displacement of the image pair your brain is fusing. The eye muscles are very tolerant of lateral misalignment (especially when "crossing" of the eyes as is required during close-up work), but much less so for vertical misalignment. Folks suffering headaches or general eye strain are quite possibly using badly aligned glasses.

Of course, there can be poor alignment in the horizontal as well. A pair meant for small eye separations but used by someone with a large interocular separation could result in the requirement for the eyes to go a bit "walleyed" (think Marty Feldman), which can cause discomfort. But for this to occur there would have to be a very obvious mis-match, and one would hardly be able to wear such.

I almost forgot. Mounting a fresnel lens in front of a monitor is basically the same as wearing reading specs (but the latter are sooo much sharper and clearer). A common fresnel focal length is about 12 inches, practically the same as my 11.4 inch f.l. readers. But the fresnel is a single lens through which two eyes are looking, which is less desirable than separate lenses for each eye.

SeaFireLIV
04-07-2008, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Dr2GunzOD:
Seafire,

As an optometrist, let me correct some of your misinformation.

1. Most people can wear OTC readers even if they are not presbyopic or over 40. I can use a lower power over my contacts for extended periods of near work and Im not to my 40's.

2. Wearing readers doesnt make your eyes weaker or make you need a different Rx later in life. Most people who use readers are early 40's, which is also one of the periods of life where the eyes are more dynamic and change Rx every 12-24 months on average.

I`ll take that under advisement, but it certainly wasn`t what I was taught. Still, it has been 6 years since I last worked in this practise. Still seems highly inadvised to me.

Phobia337
04-07-2008, 08:25 AM
Did I walk into the eye doctor by mistake

::Runs out to look at sign::

Monterey13
04-07-2008, 09:18 AM
There has to be more to it than resolution. I guess there is probably a certain mixture of settings to get the optimum view. I have very good eyesight, and have never needed glasses. I use a 22" Acer Widescreen, and my resolution is set at 1680 x 1050 x 32. I also have a 256mb graphics card. I have no problems seeing the dots from long distances. In fact, I am usually one of the first to call out the enemy contacts to my flight. I think the size of the monitor is directly proportional to the resolution that you use. Before, I was using a 17" CRT and was flying at 1024 x 768 x 32. I had a little trouble seeing the dots, but I think it was because of the smaller monitor. The best thing I did to help me with this game/sim is buy that widescreen 22" monitor. Seems like I can see everything now. With a 19", I would say 1024 x 768 is your best bet. I would strongly recommend a bigger monitor for the optimum experience.

Phobia337
04-07-2008, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
There has to be more to it than resolution. I guess there is probably a certain mixture of settings to get the optimum view. I have very good eyesight, and have never needed glasses. I use a 22" Acer Widescreen, and my resolution is set at 1680 x 1050 x 32. I also have a 256mb graphics card. I have no problems seeing the dots from long distances. In fact, I am usually one of the first to call out the enemy contacts to my flight. I think the size of the monitor is directly proportional to the resolution that you use. Before, I was using a 17" CRT and was flying at 1024 x 768 x 32. I had a little trouble seeing the dots, but I think it was because of the smaller monitor. The best thing I did to help me with this game/sim is buy that widescreen 22" monitor. Seems like I can see everything now. With a 19", I would say 1024 x 768 is your best bet. I would strongly recommend a bigger monitor for the optimum experience.

LOL I was playing on a 32" widescreen samsung for years but when I got my track IR. The web cam mounted to much above my head and caused all kinds of werid relations due to the angle. So I went back to my 19" widescreen Samsung.

So in regard, nothing has really changed from me going to a different size monitor. But the 1024 x 768 res fixed my issues

Lurch1962
04-07-2008, 05:15 PM
LOL I was playing on a 32" widescreen samsung for years but when I got my track IR. The web cam mounted to much above my head and caused all kinds of werid relations due to the angle. So I went back to my 19" widescreen Samsung.

Other than the problem with TrackIR, did you like the BIG monitor? If so, how about thinking outside the box, as it were? Do you have the space to set the TrackIR module *behind* you? If so, I highly recommend trying it. The IR filtering will not allow any light from the screen to be visible, and your head will keep any reflections from occurring due to the the tracker's IR light source pointing toward the screen. (To further minimize a chance of reflections being seen by the tracker, set it up just a tad below neck height. In this way your shoulders will provide a larger blocking "screen" if your head moves too far laterally. And the height differential will still be not too large as to cause the weird angular problems you experienced before.) It only then requires that you wear the track clip (or whatever it's called) in reverse.