PDA

View Full Version : in gunsight view at what distance you must look a 21" monitor to see real size planes



raaaid
08-02-2006, 05:14 AM
and what will happen with 6dof when this distance varies?

then you wont be able to see planes at real size anymore

clax82
08-02-2006, 05:25 AM
i have a 24" lcd and the planes are still tiny to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

raaaid
08-02-2006, 05:54 AM
i use gunsight view for non deflection shots and wide view for big deflection

in gunsight view is the most realistic you see the moon real size

HotelBushranger
08-02-2006, 06:05 AM
Wow, I just realised raaaid has been around since 2002!

How old are you mate, if you don't mind me asking?

raaaid
08-02-2006, 06:35 AM
32 phisically

6 mentally

HotelBushranger
08-02-2006, 06:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif How I envy you.

HotelBushranger
08-02-2006, 06:49 AM
Strewth, I just got some dejavue!

knightflyte
08-02-2006, 07:09 AM
I really don't think the monitor size matters one bit, raaid.

6DOF works in the 3rd plane (front to back) in the software NOT the monitor. You move head forward and your perception/ relation of the plane and gunsight changes (though rather small amounts).

If I understand you right, from what you're asking, the whole monitor would have to move, and even then that won't affect the size relation of the gunsight and the plane you're trying to shoot.

I hope that makes sense.

sudoku1941
08-02-2006, 09:00 AM
This question brings up the big reason why ICONS, in some shape or form, are always neccessary to simulate (not recreate) pilots' visual acuity.

To see aircraft in their "real life" size and scale, you need a big monitor AND to have the simulated view all the way zoomed in.

Problem with that is, obviously, this is designed to simulate the "tunnel vision" fixated view for firing. You lose all peripheral vision, which we don't always do when looking at our normal field of vision.

However, if you take advantage of the other two FOVs, your plane object size shrinks dramatically. It's very problematic to see any markings, sometimes even the "dot" itself. It's also a well known foible of the IL-2 visual system that a dot that is visible in the fully zoomed OUT view disappears when you zoom into the middle FOV. Which is backward: anything you can see at zoomed out view should be clearer and easier to see the more you zoom in.

So, that's why icons are necessary to provide the ability to quickly (re)acquire cons and "dots" and to track them while using the game views that are most conducive to situational awareness (that is, the 90 degree and the 66 degree views).

Proponents of no-icon often say, "zoom in and you can see the dots" but this just doesn't work in the heat of combat. If you're alone in the sky and want to look down over an airfield, sure, you can tip over a wing, zoom way in and make out all kinds of detail. You have a large airfield for reference. But in any combat situation, you don't have that much in the way of visual or orientation cues and the zoomed in view quickly leads to disorientation. Then, when you zoom out to get your bearings, you can't see the invisidots.

And, many of us do know that seeing dots against the terrain from altitude is very problematic, and that one must usually shed his alt advantage just to notice that there are 5 or 6 "gnats" buzzing around in the weeds down there. Especially, it seems, with ATI video cards.

Icons are necessary for the proper simulation of pilots' vision. They don't need to be out to 10km, nor do they need to contain all the plane's information up to and including his social security number: it is up to a server designer to arrive at an equitable distance design and friend/foe icon setup that provides the best results. I find that foe icons with TYPE ONLY out to 3km, and friend icons with name and type and perhaps distance out to 5km (the extra distance simulating some form of IFF, training and organization) works best to create the proper engagements that are supported by historical reports and pilot accounts.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-02-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
This question brings up the big reason why ICONS, in some shape or form, are always neccessary to simulate (not recreate) pilots' visual acuity.

To see aircraft in their "real life" size and scale, you need a big monitor AND to have the simulated view all the way zoomed in.

Problem with that is, obviously, this is designed to simulate the "tunnel vision" fixated view for firing. You lose all peripheral vision, which we don't always do when looking at our normal field of vision.

However, if you take advantage of the other two FOVs, your plane object size shrinks dramatically. It's very problematic to see any markings, sometimes even the "dot" itself. It's also a well known foible of the IL-2 visual system that a dot that is visible in the fully zoomed OUT view disappears when you zoom into the middle FOV. Which is backward: anything you can see at zoomed out view should be clearer and easier to see the more you zoom in.

So, that's why icons are necessary to provide the ability to quickly (re)acquire cons and "dots" and to track them while using the game views that are most conducive to situational awareness (that is, the 90 degree and the 66 degree views).

Proponents of no-icon often say, "zoom in and you can see the dots" but this just doesn't work in the heat of combat. If you're alone in the sky and want to look down over an airfield, sure, you can tip over a wing, zoom way in and make out all kinds of detail. You have a large airfield for reference. But in any combat situation, you don't have that much in the way of visual or orientation cues and the zoomed in view quickly leads to disorientation. Then, when you zoom out to get your bearings, you can't see the invisidots.

And, many of us do know that seeing dots against the terrain from altitude is very problematic, and that one must usually shed his alt advantage just to notice that there are 5 or 6 "gnats" buzzing around in the weeds down there. Especially, it seems, with ATI video cards.

Icons are necessary for the proper simulation of pilots' vision. They don't need to be out to 10km, nor do they need to contain all the plane's information up to and including his social security number: it is up to a server designer to arrive at an equitable distance design and friend/foe icon setup that provides the best results. I find that foe icons with TYPE ONLY out to 3km, and friend icons with name and type and perhaps distance out to 5km (the extra distance simulating some form of IFF, training and organization) works best to create the proper engagements that are supported by historical reports and pilot accounts.

I was thinking about this subject last night. I'll fly both (icons/no icons) and i can see the merits of both situations. What you see on a monitor is not a good representation of how the human eye works. It's not nearly sensitive enough

russ.nl
08-02-2006, 09:49 AM
Just get 6dof and a game that works with it and then start building an oppinion or comments.

antifreeze
08-02-2006, 11:06 AM
Interesting thoughts Raaaid, but I think what you're talking about won't really matter until we have virtual 360º 3D headsets. In that virtual 3D environment moving your head 25-50cm should not make any noticable difference to the size an aircraft 100m away, as in real life, but should make the instrument panel 'grow' quite a bit. They would need to get the perspective correction right for that environment.

In our current environment (looking at a monitor) if you moved your head forward 25cm and the aircraft in front decreased size to maintain its angular size, I'm sure the brain would just register this as a 'decrease in size' rather than anything to do with perspective correction. The reason I think this is because the periphery vision can still see the the monitor, the wall, the joysticks, the table, your hands, etc, all of which provide a reference telling your brain exactly where you are and what's going on. Infact, I think altering the aircraft size when changing your screen distance would just look freaky against the frame of the monitor.

> in gunsight view at what distance you must look a 21" monitor to see real size planes

Hmmm... this is fairly easy using trig:

In real life:
a 9.8m wingspan (La7) will have an angular size of 5.6º at 100m.
[So that is what we are trying to match on our screen]

In the game (on my 17" monitor at 1024 x 768 resolution):
a 9.8m wingspan (La7)
has a size of 5.2cm in gunsight view (measured with a ruler against the screen)
at 100m (approx measured by the icon distance).

If angular size must be 5.6º to match real life at 100m,
and size on my screen is 5.2cm at 100m,
then the distance I should sit from my monitor is 53cm.


Note: The monitor and resolution changes the size of the aircraft on the screen.
You'll have to measure the wingspan of your own La7 at 100m in gunsight view.
Once you've got your wingspan, input 5.6º angle and your wingspan 'size' into
this calculator, and solve for 'distance': Angular Size Trig Calc (http://www.1728.com/angsize.htm)


As this is the usual distance I am away from my monitor, I would suggest that on
my equipment the size of the aircraft in game is fairly accurate! I wonder how
much this distance changes when you're using a huge monitor and/or resolution?
Perhaps this is why some people have long complained that they can't see the
aircraft properly? They are viewing a smaller angular size than in real life
due to their equipment?

Interestingly, this also links back to your first question. In the 2D flat-screen
environment, how much should the aircraft shrink or grow with the movement of your
head to maintain apparent size? For the La7 at 100m, on my monitor at my resolution:

If head distance is 25cm, and angular distance 5.6º, the wingspan should be 2.5cm
If head distance is 75cm, and angular distance 5.6º, the wingspan should be 7.3cm

That seems like a large change for such a modest movement, but you can test it easily:
-Tape a ruler to your monitor screen.
-Grab a pencil and measure 5cm from the tip of the pencil to your thumbnail.
-Hold the pencil at arms length against the ruler; 5cm from the tip to your thumb right?
-Lean back to about 75cm away from the monitor keeping the pencil at arms length.
-In that position, measure the (apparent) distance between pencil-tip and thumbnail.

Your thumb is still actually 5cm away from the tip of the pencil, but the measurement
against the ruler markings on the screen now reads over 7cm. In other words, the image
on the screen should grow by about two centimetres when you lean back to maintain
the same anglular size of 5.6º (and the apparent wingspan of 5cm), remembering that in
real-life an La7 at 100m would not noticably change anglular size or apparent size when
you moved your head backwards like that.

That is a large amount of growing a shrinking for the aircraft to do on-screen, and again,
I feel that it would not look like perspective correction at all, due to the frame of the
monitor. It would just look like they were growing and shrinking on screen.

[Edited for typos]

Billy_BigBoy
08-02-2006, 04:41 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Billy_BigBoy/fascinating.jpg

antifreeze
08-02-2006, 08:09 PM
Very funny. Sorry if it bores you. I bet you still did the pencil thing anyway!

Doesn't excite you to find out that if you are half a metre away from your monitor in gunsight view, you are actually seeing what a real-life La7, spit or HE111 would look like from that distance? Doesn't that add something to the simulator for you? That's why I bothered to work it out. Did Oleg do it right, or is it 'just a game'? Well, on my system it seems he did it right, and it's great that it can be proven mathematically (logically, this doesn't include external views, for which we know there is a huge 'fish eye' distortion).

Your response is illogical!

[Edited for typos]