PDA

View Full Version : Oleg - Aircraft Size



Recon_609IAP
03-05-2006, 08:46 PM
Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views?

I have several screenshots where I have taken the "zoom" mode and substituted that view overtop of the "normal view": it was much more realistic.

It's not very 'realistic' to be flying formation and need to 'zoom' in to see simple items like markings, etc...

Take this simple example:
Here is the normal view at .26 km - very close mind you:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationNormal.jpg

It's so small, you have to zoom in, ie.:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationZoomed.jpg

ah - very nice, you can actually see the markings and it doesn't take up too much of the screen.

Now, taking this image and showing the possibility in normal view:

http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationDoctored.jpg

excuse my inexperience with photoshop, but nevertheless - this is much more realistic and my eyes aren't watering trying to squint to see what it is.

If this isn't enough, take a headon with the enemy from 1km:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0001.jpg

(to those that can id this from 1km, more power to you - me: I see a pixel...)

ok, now zoomed:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0000.jpg

ah yes, an aircraft!

finally, with somemore crappy photoshop rendering:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/sample.jpg

Much better imo. I have quotes from a pilot in our squad that flew in the pacific (sorry to quote you without you knowing it, but still):

"I can see and make out the identifying parts (wings and tail) of an airplane from the ground on a clear day at 6 nautical miles (6.91 statute miles, 11.11 kilometers). If you look straight up (36,000 feet) and see a vapor trail on a clear day you will see the airplane pulling the trail. You will also be able to make out the wing and tail of the object.
In PF/Il-2 we see the first "Dot" at about 5.4 kilometers. The wing and tail do not become visable until about 1.2 kilometers. (Sometimes I can't ID a bf-109 from a Spitfire when I am 0.3K behind it. I continually lose my leader against a blue sky at high altitude (over 10,000 feet) while I am less than 0.5K behind him, not to mention against the ground.)
If you use the "dot" vs the high altitude "real"target , pulling vapor, Il-2 has a factor of (11.11/5.4=2.06) 2.06 times worse visability than the real world.
If you use distance to where parts are identifyable: 11.11/1.2=9.62, the PF visability is 9.62 times worse than the real world.
Now worsen those numbers by the fact that about 60% 0f the cockpit view is blocked in Il-2/ PF, you can see that we are "virtually" flying blind in Il-2/PF.
I have to make one more comment: When I fly up onto an enemy tail to about 0.3K and the plane goes behind the my cockpit structure, it seldom comes out where you anticipate it. It frequently does not appear again until you pick it up at 3 or 9 oclock at about 1.5 to 2.0 K. I think this is in the Il-2/PF program, totally unrelated to the "Real World"."

Now, granted, we have limitation on a small screen - but why continue to act as if this is 'correct' when it's not. In reality, aircraft are easier to see when they get closer - not harder. I can see dots from far away, as they get close they disapear.

I know... it's probably been discussed and this thread will sink to the bottom.

But, here's hoping you look at it and perhaps evaluate at the very least how you are doing BoB II.

Thanks for your time - great game, keep up the good work.

Salute!

Recon_609IAP
03-05-2006, 08:46 PM
Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views?

I have several screenshots where I have taken the "zoom" mode and substituted that view overtop of the "normal view": it was much more realistic.

It's not very 'realistic' to be flying formation and need to 'zoom' in to see simple items like markings, etc...

Take this simple example:
Here is the normal view at .26 km - very close mind you:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationNormal.jpg

It's so small, you have to zoom in, ie.:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationZoomed.jpg

ah - very nice, you can actually see the markings and it doesn't take up too much of the screen.

Now, taking this image and showing the possibility in normal view:

http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationDoctored.jpg

excuse my inexperience with photoshop, but nevertheless - this is much more realistic and my eyes aren't watering trying to squint to see what it is.

If this isn't enough, take a headon with the enemy from 1km:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0001.jpg

(to those that can id this from 1km, more power to you - me: I see a pixel...)

ok, now zoomed:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0000.jpg

ah yes, an aircraft!

finally, with somemore crappy photoshop rendering:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/sample.jpg

Much better imo. I have quotes from a pilot in our squad that flew in the pacific (sorry to quote you without you knowing it, but still):

"I can see and make out the identifying parts (wings and tail) of an airplane from the ground on a clear day at 6 nautical miles (6.91 statute miles, 11.11 kilometers). If you look straight up (36,000 feet) and see a vapor trail on a clear day you will see the airplane pulling the trail. You will also be able to make out the wing and tail of the object.
In PF/Il-2 we see the first "Dot" at about 5.4 kilometers. The wing and tail do not become visable until about 1.2 kilometers. (Sometimes I can't ID a bf-109 from a Spitfire when I am 0.3K behind it. I continually lose my leader against a blue sky at high altitude (over 10,000 feet) while I am less than 0.5K behind him, not to mention against the ground.)
If you use the "dot" vs the high altitude "real"target , pulling vapor, Il-2 has a factor of (11.11/5.4=2.06) 2.06 times worse visability than the real world.
If you use distance to where parts are identifyable: 11.11/1.2=9.62, the PF visability is 9.62 times worse than the real world.
Now worsen those numbers by the fact that about 60% 0f the cockpit view is blocked in Il-2/ PF, you can see that we are "virtually" flying blind in Il-2/PF.
I have to make one more comment: When I fly up onto an enemy tail to about 0.3K and the plane goes behind the my cockpit structure, it seldom comes out where you anticipate it. It frequently does not appear again until you pick it up at 3 or 9 oclock at about 1.5 to 2.0 K. I think this is in the Il-2/PF program, totally unrelated to the "Real World"."

Now, granted, we have limitation on a small screen - but why continue to act as if this is 'correct' when it's not. In reality, aircraft are easier to see when they get closer - not harder. I can see dots from far away, as they get close they disapear.

I know... it's probably been discussed and this thread will sink to the bottom.

But, here's hoping you look at it and perhaps evaluate at the very least how you are doing BoB II.

Thanks for your time - great game, keep up the good work.

Salute!

II_JG1_Falke
03-05-2006, 08:50 PM
I'm 100% with you on this one. Been asking for such a change since the demo days.

~S!~

Jetbuff
03-05-2006, 08:59 PM
While more visibility is welcome, your second group of examples shows exactly why this is not possible. Going by the gunsight reticle, that plane at 1km away looks like it's at least 1/3 the reticle size, i.e. only 300m away. Solve one problem introduce a whole slew of others.

FritzGryphon
03-05-2006, 09:32 PM
The problem is easily solved by a giant monitor with 4096x3072 resolution.

It's worth noting though, that the original IL-2 did actually have super-sized planes in the far LODs. For example, the furtherst LOD for the Ju-88 is roughly 50% bigger than the nearest LOD. Same with the Ju-87, Bf-109, IL-2, and others. This was done to prevent parts of the plane from disappearing at long distances, with low resolution settings. For example, wings being less than 1 pixel thick.

The more recent planes in FB and PF do not get bigger at range. Perhaps because higher resolutions have become standard since IL-2.

jermin122
03-06-2006, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's worth noting though, that the original IL-2 did actually have super-sized planes in the far LODs. For example, the furtherst LOD for the Ju-88 is roughly 50% bigger than the nearest LOD. Same with the Ju-87, Bf-109, IL-2, and others. This was done to prevent parts of the plane from disappearing at long distances, with low resolution settings. For example, wings being less than 1 pixel thick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree! And some planse are even 50% smaller, e.g. spit.

Viper2005_
03-06-2006, 10:21 AM
Ok let's do some sums.

For the sake of argument:
I have a 17" screen.
I sit about 34" away from it.
It therefore subtends about 28º in my FOV (pretty simple trig).

So for a realistic view of the world I should configure IL2 accordingly. I'll probably have to take a nice round number like 30º, but heck, what's 2º between friends?

I can now actually take a ruler to my screen and measure the size of distant objects with some degree of accuracy, allowing me to test the game world against reality.

Let's say I'm looking at an aeroplane with a 15 m wingspan 150 m ahead of me.

If I assume that the distance is measured from the screen, it's pretty simple to calculate from similar triangles that the wingspan on the screen should be about 8.6 cm.

I could, if I felt that way inclined, take a ruler to my screen and carry out measurements.

Having said all that, my maths could of course be off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But the logic ought to work.

The thing I find strangest about IL2 is flying with the cockpit on and seeing this tiny toy prop in the windscreen, when analysis of the external view shows that my pilot should see it filling the armoured glass and indeed extending beyond the cockpit frame; I was hoping that this thread was going to relate to that issue. Oh well...

italianofalco
03-06-2006, 11:56 AM
MS in his CFS series Has solved this odd limitation (of IL2-FB-PF) till first CFS1 with the fish-eye cockpit visual. I think this tecnology wan't impossible to use in IL2 series .. but we still have to live with Mr. Oleg limitations.. for the moment.. _Falco

DuxCorvan
03-06-2006, 12:07 PM
In fact, the most similar to RL view in FB is totally zoomed in. I mean, also for the cockpit parts. Thas's how'd you see them. Normal view, with its superangle FOV, makes cramped cockpits look like a cathedral.

But... zoom vision reduces drastically the portion to be seen on screen, making it too hard to follow anything.

We'll have to live with that until full 360º VR technology is available and normal at home.

Genie-
03-07-2006, 01:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

That is true. Airplanes are too small and also all the ground objects are too invisible.

Few days ago I was flying in Airbus and when we were at least some 6-7 KM high I could see everything on the ground .. from houses, yards, nice roads, factories were nice biggy things.. I was thinking.. eh.. if such nice visibility would be in sturmovik http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

F19_Ob
03-07-2006, 01:34 AM
It would be sad to change the scale since it really works.
However since most of us have 17' and 19' monitors the cockpit, and therefore the planes, ofcourse are too small compared to the real world. So thats why we need good lods that are visible at realistic distance.The 109 lods are visible longest but many other planes disappear at much shorter distance and therefore seems to just dissappear infront of ones eyes.

Lordbutter4
03-07-2006, 09:36 AM
When you fly do you sit in Normal view or Wide view?

Sturm_Williger
03-07-2006, 12:58 PM
Takeoff and cruise in Wide mode, occasionally Zoom to Gunsight to try to ID a/c in the distance, zoom to Normal and/or Gunsight when engaged.

Gunsight for firing except Normal view when trying to achieve crossing shots / high deflection. Also Normal for landing ( with change to Wide once down, to make side of runway more visible - cuts down on my groundloops... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif )

( probably get 200 different answers though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Unltd
03-07-2006, 01:28 PM
Aleast two sims have had options in the setup to allow you to change the scale of ground objects and planes. Falcon 4 had it. Air Warrior actually changed from real distances/size to double scale. 2x object scale was found to be much more fun to play.

I would love to see an option for this in the realism settings. We've got just about everything else...

Go J. Boyd

FritzGryphon
03-07-2006, 07:04 PM
Problem with making stuff bigger, is that it's too easy to shoot.

For visibility, good, but it's unsatisfying to be able to kill things so easily. Especially if it were a multiplayer game.

Mc_Wolf
03-08-2006, 05:18 AM
I agree to it and don't think the size is correct.see below pictures
http://www.eucmh.com/center-spasiba-center/russian-images-mixed/(Khaldei)raid.jpg http://www.eucmh.com/center-spasiba-center/russian-images-mixed/Russia1941-1FashPlanes.jpg
http://www.eucmh.com/center-photos-center/german-forces/luftwaffe-troops/luft00077.jpg

plumps_
03-08-2006, 11:36 AM
I'm still wondering whether this was a fishing attempt...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:

Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason is geometry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have several screenshots where I have taken the "zoom" mode and substituted that view overtop of the "normal view": it was much more realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it's not realistic to have planes look that large when a 70? field of view is compressed into a small screen that fills only 30? of your real field of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not very 'realistic' to be flying formation and need to 'zoom' in to see simple items like markings, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's why we have icons.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can see and make out the identifying parts (wings and tail) of an airplane from the ground on a clear day at 6 nautical miles (6.91 statute miles, 11.11 kilometers). If you look straight up (36,000 feet) and see a vapor trail on a clear day you will see the airplane pulling the trail. You will also be able to make out the wing and tail of the object. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're comparing a 747 (70 x 60 m) to a BF-109 (9 x 10 m)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In PF/Il-2 we see the first "Dot" at about 5.4 kilometers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
??? I just tried that in clear weather conditions on the Smolensk map. With default mp_dotrange settings, dots of small fighters like the 109 become visible at ~8 km. The largest plane we have in game, the Me-323 (still smaller than a 747), is even visible from more than 24 km!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have to make one more comment: When I fly up onto an enemy tail to about 0.3K and the plane goes behind the my cockpit structure, it seldom comes out where you anticipate it. It frequently does not appear again until you pick it up at 3 or 9 oclock at about 1.5 to 2.0 K. I think this is in the Il-2/PF program, totally unrelated to the "Real World"." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are two problems:
- IL-2 doesn't allow to move your head so you can look around cockpit bars.
- Your anticipation doesn't match (in-game) reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, granted, we have limitation on a small screen - but why continue to act as if this is 'correct' when it's not. In reality, aircraft are easier to see when they get closer - not harder. I can see dots from far away, as they get close they disapear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, why play with icons totally disabled when it's not realistic?

plumps_
03-08-2006, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mc_Wolf:
I agree to it and don't think the size is correct.see below pictures
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what you're trying to show with these pictures. Do you know how far the aircraft were spaced out (compared to the spacing of most formations in FB)? Do you know the focal length of the cameras that were used? What do you know at all about the effect of focal length on the way an image looks?

You can easily recreate the pictures in the FMB of Forgotten Battles:

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/9840/xxxyako7ws.jpg

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/892/xxxyak8zx.jpg


http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7210/xxxheo6pl.jpg

http://img327.imageshack.us/img327/9320/xxxhe8xn.jpg


http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8126/xxxbfo6bj.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7904/xxxbf9xf.jpg

Mc_Wolf
03-08-2006, 07:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifYes Your picture already prove what the poster said, don't you agree? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

plumps_
03-08-2006, 07:34 PM
Could you please be more specific?


BTW here's an improved version of the third pair, with an even tighter formation of BF-109s and the view more zoomed in. That way the screenshot is almost identical to the photograph:

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8126/xxxbfo6bj.jpg

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1338/xxxbf44bw.jpg

DaimonSyrius
03-08-2006, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, there is not only one reason for that, but more than one, and at least two of them have been pointed out in the replies, plumps's posts addressed both very well:

-Geometry/Optics. What we see on screen when setting a 70º or a 90º Field of View (FOV) is quite similar to what we would see if we looked at the real world through an optical lens system that would provide a 70º or 90º FOV viewed through a frame taking up 30º of our (single) eye real FOV: a 'fish-eye' view.

-"Normality" of views. What you call "normal" view is not a normal (in the physiological or optical sense) view, although it may be the view we use the more often (because we like to have some peripheral visual field simulated in what we see on screen). Still, the frequency of its use doesn't make the geometry of the 70º FOV viewed through a 30º frame "normal". What you call "zoomed" view would be actually close to normal, physiological view, considering that it represents a 30º FOV viewed through a 30º frame.

We like to be able to see the proper proportions of objects that the 30º FOV allows (in the incorrectly called "zoomed" views); but we also like to be able to use the peripheral visual field that the 70º FOV allows (the incorrectly called "normal" view). Your proposal of mixing both (having 70º FOV for the 'world' and simultaneously seeing the 'objects' with a 30º FOV) looks to me as the less 'realistic' option, even if it might appear convenient, or comfortable, at first sight. But then, what size should aircraft look when strafing at them while parked on the ground? or when in a very low altitude chase between buildings in a city?

More sensible solutions have been also pointed out:
-Keep switching FOV's while flying. That's the idea of having several available in a sim, in IL2 particularly, the way I see it. The programming software that goes with some joystick brands, or other third party tools, allow to set up macros for easy FOV transitions.

-Use the provided icons in order to be able to identify aircraft when you're using the not-normal 70º FOV projected in your 30º FOV screen frame. Icons may look 'unrealistic', but the fish-eye optics we "normally" use in order to have some peripheral view isn't realistic either.

-Use larger screens, or multi-monitor systems. For instance, VisionStation by Elumens (http://www.elumens.com/products/visionstation.html):

http://www.elumens.com/products/images/vs-image-geek-full-001.jpg

Should work better than our conventional 17"/30º screens, but it's rather expensive, of course.

For more discussion of FOVs and improper use of "zoomed" and "normal" terms, see this post (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/6411096363/r/9121067363#9121067363) on a thread from several months ago.

Cheers,
S.

jermin122
03-09-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
It would be sad to change the scale since it really works.
However since most of us have 17' and 19' monitors the cockpit, and therefore the planes, ofcourse are too small compared to the real world. So thats why we need good lods that are visible at realistic distance.The 109 lods are visible longest but many other planes disappear at much shorter distance and therefore seems to just dissappear infront of ones eyes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. This is the excact reason why the dots in the game look too small. But the proportion in the game is OK. What is annoying is that smaller planes dont have smaller dots(109), Big planes actually have much samller dots(spit).

Mc_Wolf
03-09-2006, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by plumps_:
Could you please be more specific?


BTW here's an improved version of the third pair, with an even tighter formation of BF-109s and the view more zoomed in. That way the screenshot is almost identical to the photograph:

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8126/xxxbfo6bj.jpg

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1338/xxxbf44bw.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi plumps_, thanks for your detailed comparation. I mean the size of zoom-in view looks fine, but not easy to track an aircraft. wide view is more comfortable but not easy to identify a enemy. how can we get a balance in a PC sim game? DaimonSyrius point a link, that post already discussed something about it. Yes we must use normal view for instrutment, wide view for identidy yourself position,and zoom view for identidy an aircraft.
I wish we can have a larger aircraft size in wild view too, the three view only change your position in a cockpit, and should not change the size of the aircraft.

Jetbuff
03-09-2006, 04:05 AM
McWolf, how can you have larger aircraft size in wide view without disturbing the geometric relationships? Aircraft are bigger in zoom view because you have "zoomed" in to that piece of sky. (actually you are in 1:1 view because monitor is 30?) There is no way to change the aircraft size without changing the size of the sky around it. If you did, things would come unglued, from relative positions to range estimation would all go out the window.

What we need is larger monitors with higher res so that we can just use a "zoomed" view that covers 90?+ of viewable area just like wide view.

Mc_Wolf
03-09-2006, 08:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gifYes, I know what you mean, that's why I wish to get a balance on the monitor size and the real one. In fact,wide view, normal view and zoom view, the only difference is the pilot's eyes position, isn't it?! so I wish to have a solution on the relative positions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

plumps_
03-09-2006, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mc_Wolf:
In fact,wide view, normal view and zoom view, the only difference is the pilot's eyes position, isn't it?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No. The difference is the angle of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view), seen from the same eye position.

The horizontal angle is 30? in the "zoomed in" view, 70? in normal and 90? in wide view. I. e. if you pan around the camera in wide view it takes four screens to scan the complete horizon (90? x 4 = 360?). In "zoomed in" view you'll notice that it takes three screens to scan the same section of the horizon which you see in a single wide view screen. (30? x 3 = 90?)

Here's a PDF diagram I found that demonstrates different angles of view. (http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/educational/wide_angle/pine_tree_diagram.pdf)

italianofalco
03-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Fish-Eye technology is THE solution-and it is YET used by MS Flight simulation series CFS1,CFS2,CFS3- I'don't repeat anymore- this tread is nonsense if you folks don't read carefully. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif s! -Falco

Mc_Wolf
03-10-2006, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mc_Wolf:
In fact,wide view, normal view and zoom view, the only difference is the pilot's eyes position, isn't it?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No. The difference is the angle of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view), seen from the same eye position.

The horizontal angle is 30? in the "zoomed in" view, 70? in normal and 90? in wide view. I. e. if you pan around the camera in wide view it takes four screens to scan the complete horizon (90? x 4 = 360?). In "zoomed in" view you'll notice that it takes three screens to scan the same section of the horizon which you see in a single wide view screen. (30? x 3 = 90?)

Here's a PDF diagram I found that demonstrates different angles of view. (http://www.kevinwilley.com/images/educational/wide_angle/pine_tree_diagram.pdf) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifbut what we discussed is the SIZE of aircraft, isn't it? That's why the size of aircraft in wild view, normal view and zoom view should be not much different.

DaimonSyrius
03-10-2006, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mc_Wolf:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifbut what we discussed is the SIZE of aircraft, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it isn't. What's being discussed here is the APPARENT size of aircraft (or any other object) when using different Field of View angles. Of course the actual, true size won't change.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mc_Wolf:
That's why the size of aircraft in wild view, normal view and zoom view should be not much different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wild views might be peculiar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
However if we consider the views so-called wide, normal (which isn't optically equivalent to human normal FOV) and zoomed (which isn't really a zoomed-in view), that's precisely why aircraft must have quite different apparent sizes in the different views.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Platypus_1.JaVA
03-11-2006, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views?

I have several screenshots where I have taken the "zoom" mode and substituted that view overtop of the "normal view": it was much more realistic.

Blabla

Salute! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason is: Realism.

Helloooooo. Ever tried to Identify, let's say, a car by brand (example: Toyota, Mercedes, Ford) at .26 distance? That is 260 metres. A pretty long distance. Seeing an aircraft at all wich has its nose pointed towards you at 1km distance is a considered by me as quite good. Some early war aircraft like the Fokker D.XXI where equiped with a telescope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The problem is easily solved by a giant monitor with 4096x3072 resolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. PF renders aircraft on your screen when they they are away at a given distance. Let's say 5km. Bigger resolution gives PF more dots to render the aircraft nicely in the background. The best is to have indeed a giant monitor and playing at 800X600 or something. Makes giant black dots. But that doesn't look very pretty. It looks quite ugly and so people play on big resolutions but that makes the dots less visible. Use wide view to find "contacts" on DF servers also. When you've found a dot, zoom in to Identify.

Life is not fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bartolomeo_ita
03-11-2006, 06:46 AM
the problem, isn't the distance, but the speed. is more realistic to play emile vs hurry cause of the speed isn't really good modelled!

OldMan____
03-11-2006, 01:44 PM
Planes have perfeclty corect sizes, this projection is AUTOMATICALLY doen by OpenGL and D3D. The issue is that we have SMALL monitors and we want to use much more open field of view than we have in our monitor.


If you want wide view in real size, buy a monitor of 2 meters wide.

Bartolomeo_ita
03-11-2006, 01:53 PM
15" lcd :|

OldMan____
03-11-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by italianofalco:
Fish-Eye technology is THE solution-and it is YET used by MS Flight simulation series CFS1,CFS2,CFS3- I'don't repeat anymore- this tread is nonsense if you folks don't read carefully. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif s! -Falco </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is a HORRIBle solution. It expoils copletely the sense of positioning and capability of judging correclty enemy movment and positioning.


The ONLY solution are big monitors AND more advanced track IR capable of handling focus, maybe based on our iris (this technology exist but is not "for sale")

blindpugh
03-12-2006, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Is there a reason we need to continue to have such small looking aircraft in the normal views?

I have several screenshots where I have taken the "zoom" mode and substituted that view overtop of the "normal view": it was much more realistic.

It's not very 'realistic' to be flying formation and need to 'zoom' in to see simple items like markings, etc...

Take this simple example:
Here is the normal view at .26 km - very close mind you:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationNormal.jpg

It's so small, you have to zoom in, ie.:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationZoomed.jpg

ah - very nice, you can actually see the markings and it doesn't take up too much of the screen.

Now, taking this image and showing the possibility in normal view:

http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/formationDoctored.jpg

excuse my inexperience with photoshop, but nevertheless - this is much more realistic and my eyes aren't watering trying to squint to see what it is.

If this isn't enough, take a headon with the enemy from 1km:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0001.jpg

(to those that can id this from 1km, more power to you - me: I see a pixel...)

ok, now zoomed:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/grab0000.jpg

ah yes, an aircraft!

finally, with somemore crappy photoshop rendering:
http://www.forgottenskies.com/icons/sample.jpg

Much better imo. I have quotes from a pilot in our squad that flew in the pacific (sorry to quote you without you knowing it, but still):

"I can see and make out the identifying parts (wings and tail) of an airplane from the ground on a clear day at 6 nautical miles (6.91 statute miles, 11.11 kilometers). If you look straight up (36,000 feet) and see a vapor trail on a clear day you will see the airplane pulling the trail. You will also be able to make out the wing and tail of the object.
In PF/Il-2 we see the first "Dot" at about 5.4 kilometers. The wing and tail do not become visable until about 1.2 kilometers. (Sometimes I can't ID a bf-109 from a Spitfire when I am 0.3K behind it. I continually lose my leader against a blue sky at high altitude (over 10,000 feet) while I am less than 0.5K behind him, not to mention against the ground.)
If you use the "dot" vs the high altitude "real"target , pulling vapor, Il-2 has a factor of (11.11/5.4=2.06) 2.06 times worse visability than the real world.
If you use distance to where parts are identifyable: 11.11/1.2=9.62, the PF visability is 9.62 times worse than the real world.
Now worsen those numbers by the fact that about 60% 0f the cockpit view is blocked in Il-2/ PF, you can see that we are "virtually" flying blind in Il-2/PF.
I have to make one more comment: When I fly up onto an enemy tail to about 0.3K and the plane goes behind the my cockpit structure, it seldom comes out where you anticipate it. It frequently does not appear again until you pick it up at 3 or 9 oclock at about 1.5 to 2.0 K. I think this is in the Il-2/PF program, totally unrelated to the "Real World"."

Now, granted, we have limitation on a small screen - but why continue to act as if this is 'correct' when it's not. In reality, aircraft are easier to see when they get closer - not harder. I can see dots from far away, as they get close they disapear.

I know... it's probably been discussed and this thread will sink to the bottom.

But, here's hoping you look at it and perhaps evaluate at the very least how you are doing BoB II.

Thanks for your time - great game, keep up the good work.

Salute! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yeah-come on Oleg how about some proper max speed for some aircraft-for e.g p40B in flight manual 582kms-362mph@1500metres max.-I defy anyone to get within 100mph of that in this game unless you dive the plane

II_JG1_Falke
03-12-2006, 09:39 AM
EAW had it right!

When an aircraft was 50m away from you, it looked like it 50m away from you. It was the same for any distance you saw an aircraft. Best of all the LOD's at any distance were near perfect.

That's an early to mid 90's developed sim I'm talking about, and something Oleg, for what ever reason, was unable to achieve or "get right" IMHO, in FB.

In FB, an aircraft at 50 meters look more like it's 150m away and so on.

Ideally, what would be nice is to leave the cockpits the same "size wise" no matter what the zoom is set at and instead, move the "canvas" (so to speak) of the outside world "closer" to the plane that you're in.

Here's a little scenario that will hopefully, describe what I'm trying to say: Picture your self in a car at a drive in theater. You're 1/2 a mile away from the screen. Now move the car, maintaining the same position, to within 1/4 mile of the screen.

The inside of the car, your "reference point" remains the same, but your view of the screen is much improved and more to scale.

I may not have made my point crystal clear, but that's the only way I can explain what I think about the "Aircraft size" in FB.

Unfortunately, such a change, while it would be nice, will never happen in FB, nor will it likely be any different in BoB. In other words, the sim€s engine is what it is, and that's that.

karost
03-12-2006, 08:17 PM
This is a very good topic S!

I/we hope in BOB project,about new graphic engine should put this problem to the top list of concern.

I/we don't like to open icon to ID who is who in 350meter.... that's bad.

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

Aeronautico
03-13-2006, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
In fact, the most similar to RL view in FB is totally zoomed in. I mean, also for the cockpit parts. Thas's how'd you see them. Normal view, with its superangle FOV, makes cramped cockpits look like a cathedral.

But... zoom vision reduces drastically the portion to be seen on screen, making it too hard to follow anything.

We'll have to live with that until full 360º VR technology is available and normal at home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif