PDA

View Full Version : Visual size of aircraft



veltro6238
08-18-2006, 12:21 PM
First, I just got IL2; it is superb.

I have a question.
The size rendering of aircraft viewed through my cockpit does not seem realistic. For example,my house is 12m long. When viewed from two hundred meters I require one or two fingers of my outstreched hand to cover it, and details are readily visible. In the game, planes with a wingspan about equal to my house length appear as little more than dots, with no details visible.
Can you enlighten a novice about this?
Thank you.

veltro6238

stanford-ukded
08-18-2006, 12:43 PM
This has always been the case in game. If you "zoom in" to gunsight view, then perspective is much better. There was a reason it was designed like this, I can't remember but I'm sure someone more informed than me will be able to tell you.

Welcome to a new addiction, btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
08-18-2006, 12:54 PM
The size of objects on screen is a function of field of view (FOV). Being forced to view the world through a tiny computer screen, you have a choice, a wider field of view, with everything looking small, or a more natural FOV with no peripheral vision. The game gives you the ability to change the FOV as needed. Fly around and maintain SA with the wide field view where planes are small dots, and zoom in to gunsight view when you need to. There is no other way with a single monitor, it'll always be a trade off.

tater

Kuna_
08-18-2006, 02:27 PM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/fb/ac_vis200m_maxfov1.gif
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/fb/ac_vis200m_midfov1.gif
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/fb/ac_vis200m_maxfov2.gif
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/fb/ac_vis200m_midfov2.gif
200m; fighter sized target and bomber sized targets in order max FoV then mid FoV
I don't have a problem when I track/shoot at target, but spotting them is not that easy for me on certain maps.

veltro6238
08-18-2006, 03:49 PM
Thanks for the replies. Problem solved.

veltro6238

carguy_
08-18-2006, 05:03 PM
Bad idea for LOD modelling and engine limitations.You have to get used to it.

Hashmark13
08-18-2006, 08:33 PM
The lack of FOV change is something that plagues a potentially great game, Red Orchestra. Thanks for this thread and wonderful explaination.

Kaedius-VW
08-20-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Hashmark13:
The lack of FOV change is something that plagues a potentially great game, Red Orchestra. Thanks for this thread and wonderful explaination.

Except that a FOV change is not realistic. When I put my eye next to my gun, my eyes don't "zoom". Same deal in a cockpit, all you're doing is leaning forward a few feet, it shouldn't make everything drastically larger...

The-Pizza-Man
08-20-2006, 05:56 AM
A computer monitor doesn't have the near 180 degree FoV that your eyes have. Changing the FoV is the only way to give even a partially realistic field of vision in game.

WWMaxGunz
08-21-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Kaedius-VW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hashmark13:
The lack of FOV change is something that plagues a potentially great game, Red Orchestra. Thanks for this thread and wonderful explaination.

Except that a FOV change is not realistic. When I put my eye next to my gun, my eyes don't "zoom". Same deal in a cockpit, all you're doing is leaning forward a few feet, it shouldn't make everything drastically larger... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sim changes FOV. Try zooming view when looking out the side.
It is a way to deal with hardware limits your eyes don't have.
And tell me you don't squint when sighting a rifle?

FritzGryphon
08-21-2006, 03:33 AM
The FOV and resolution of a video game will always be unrealistic.

At a wide FOV, objects are unrealistically small, and too pixelated to make out clearly.

At a narrow fov, the objects are more clear, but you can't see anything around you.

The best thing a game can do is make the view controls intuitive and easy to use, to quickly switch to the FOV that works best given the situation. Until displays get much wider and higher resolution, you will not be able to simulate anything like real vision.

Pentallion
08-21-2006, 05:47 PM
This is why Full Real isn't. The wide FOV is necessary to scan the skies, but then planes are much smaller and harder to see than in real life with fighter pilots who have 20/20 vision or better. Planes should be easier to see. One way is to enable icons, but this is annoying and some servers have the even more annoying habit of only using icons on friendlies, making enemies more 'stealthy' than they should be. The other option is enabling padlock. This is the prefereable solution IMO as then you have to visually ID planes (with no icons, padlock locks friend and foe alike) and you can still find the enemy if you are looking right at him and he's within 3km of you. This is more realistic as then you don't have stealth fighters in WW2. The padlock occasionally locks on a target that's off the edge of your screen but this is not only rare, it usually causes the padlocker more problems than it gains him. And padlock only gets rid of the icons which blow immersion IMO.

sudoku1941
08-22-2006, 09:16 PM
I'll have to actually... gulp... defend Oleg's decision on this!

FOV is the only way to approximate our vision on a small monitor, and it actually works well, and believably, IMO.

As for your eyes not zooming, I don't really agree with that. When you concentrate on an object, your impression is that you get "tunnel vision" and you lose the sense of detail around the object you're fixated on. Like when you drive a car, you quickly focus on the road and the traffic, and stop noticing the frame of the car windows, even the hood sometimes.

The only one problem with the IL-2 visuals in this regard is the backwards way it deals with "dots" and "specks". If you are in 'zoomed OUT' 90 degree FOV and then zoom in to "concentrate on it", the dot will likely disapear, when it should still be visible to you. If anything, you should see more "specks" zoomed all the way in, and 'lose them' as you zoom out.

But, the basic principle is a good compromise.

NonWonderDog
08-22-2006, 10:45 PM
That's mostly due to the dots being more visible than the far LODs. That's a problem, yes, but not one that's easily solvable.

sudoku1941
08-23-2006, 09:29 PM
Well, making the "dots" light gray pencil specks (which blend into over half the terrain types likely to be below), instead of black, 4-pixel dot arrays couldn't have helped. Of course, it was chosen because it "looked cooler" than an actual visual black square dot... but it was a total simulation killer.

NonWonderDog
08-24-2006, 01:58 AM
Err... have you looked at the dots lately? They're four pixels big -- two black ones on the bottom and two grey ones on top. They seem to fade in depending on distance and object size, though, so some objects have darker dots than others.

I can't tell any difference between dots of different sized planes, but you can see observation balloons for MILES. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Really, though, I don't think the dots are a problem at all -- at least not any more. It's just the far LODs of a few aircraft that are very hard to see.

sudoku1941
08-24-2006, 09:43 PM
Did this change for the Peshka add-on? I haven't seen 4-pixel dots since waaaaay back when.

NonWonderDog
08-25-2006, 01:47 AM
It's been that way since 4.01 at least... but the two light grey pixels are VERY faint against the sky. They really only show up against water.

...except for observation balloons, for some reason. There, the two light pixels are stark white, and the two dark pixels are completely black. They show up REALLY well, from any distance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif It almost makes the Russian lone wolf balloon-hunter missions DGEN spits out in 1941 too easy.

carguy_
08-25-2006, 06:22 AM
The light/black dot concept is the worst yet.IL2 old dots are more visible.

Dot-LOD transition is also bad.That it is not the problem of camouflage,the Me109G6late,F2/FW190A4,5,6 show it well as they`re nicely visible from either angle.

sudoku1941
08-25-2006, 09:23 AM
Well, if it hasn't changed recently, then it's still awful. The dots are simply invisible a vast majority of the time. You cannot track, certainly, and most of the time, you cannot find any cons below you, even with a determined search.

Sometimes you can see what I call "globules"; they seem to be tiny dew drops... but not consistently.

Most times, you get the little gray pencil specks, mostly like the kind of mark you'd make with a very sharp pencil that you knew you'd erase later, and were only using for reference on a sketch. Totally unworkable, and invisible against almost any terrain, water or foliage.

My Radeon 8500LE is far from top of the line, but it's not a slouch either. I keep the drivers relatively up to date (but not on the bleeding edge; I use the versions that tend to have universal acceptance on various systems without problems) and as ATI is one of the very top companies, you'd think their products would be supported.

Monty_Thrud
08-26-2006, 05:20 AM
I think he might be wibbing you all.

italianofalco
09-10-2006, 06:51 PM
get CFS 1-2-..or 3... planes are bigger at same distance and pheriferical visual is better.. reason? Ms has used FISH EYE tecnologly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Mr. Oleg and its team simply no.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ..and I guess WHY not as I think today this is an "easy" technology (as CFS 1 is out since 7 year or more..)..wake up !!.. -Falco

p1ngu666
09-10-2006, 10:13 PM
the limited fow in RO does make the rifles short range weapons, plus my awfulness with them doesnt help.

u do have a wider fov irl than u realise, i spotted 2 spiders on my bed from there movement, while i was lookin at my screen. thats some 90degrees or so right of my focus.

planes in the air do seem small to me ingame now, but it could just be me.

dot distance/visability is subjective matter. stuff stands out against a plain background, like a cloud, or sky (there are exceptions...) more, than over say forest or field patchwork.

when i had a flight in a DH rapide a couple of weeks ago, i couldnt see the powerline cables, on the bigish powerline towers, whereas from the ground, there reasonably easy to see.

id been reading of 2 group accounts, aparently the trick was to lookout for the row of poles. quite a few pilots never saw them and crashed as a result...

joeap
09-11-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by italianofalco:
get CFS 1-2-..or 3... planes are bigger at same distance and pheriferical visual is better.. reason? Ms has used FISH EYE tecnologly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Mr. Oleg and its team simply no.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ..and I guess WHY not as I think today this is an "easy" technology (as CFS 1 is out since 7 year or more..)..wake up !!.. -Falco

You think that was realistic? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Plus it looked awful.

italianofalco
09-11-2006, 04:22 PM
.. everyone has his opininon and taste about game visual feeling.. I like much more CFS one and only I invite you to check put after one our of gaming FB the CD of CFS and tell me really how you feel chasing its planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -Falco

VW-IceFire
09-11-2006, 04:47 PM
I wish that they'd continue to draw the dots until the closer LOD's started to take over. There's currently a nastly little stop over where a dot becomes invisible before the plane does. Needs more tweaking...but the 4 pixel dot does work best I think. Given the different monitors, resolutions, and graphics cards that everyone has. Its the best possible solution given that (some of you seem to have forgotten that we don't all play on your 30in wide screen).

OldMan___
09-11-2006, 05:14 PM
They should simply drawy both the low lod and dots toghether (dota later and with depth test off). This would solve lots of problems.

Anothr possibility would be witha deferred render to select and tune the color of the dot by the color of the surrounding pixels to improve contrast.

OldMan___
09-11-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Well, if it hasn't changed recently, then it's still awful. The dots are simply invisible a vast majority of the time. You cannot track, certainly, and most of the time, you cannot find any cons below you, even with a determined search.

Sometimes you can see what I call "globules"; they seem to be tiny dew drops... but not consistently.

Most times, you get the little gray pencil specks, mostly like the kind of mark you'd make with a very sharp pencil that you knew you'd erase later, and were only using for reference on a sketch. Totally unworkable, and invisible against almost any terrain, water or foliage.

My Radeon 8500LE is far from top of the line, but it's not a slouch either. I keep the drivers relatively up to date (but not on the bleeding edge; I use the versions that tend to have universal acceptance on various systems without problems) and as ATI is one of the very top companies, you'd think their products would be supported.

Not Olegs team fault. ATI has some nasty "optimizations"on OpenGL. Its performance on GL is horrible. So it optimizes GL code as if all GL games are Doom3 engine. VEry small artifacts are droped out of the render on several ocasions. That include dots and anyh poligons whose projection results in only a single pixel.

Its a very well know ATI driver bug. We have same issues on Jet Thunder (at least last time I tryied an ATI card)

joeap
09-12-2006, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by italianofalco:
.. everyone has his opininon and taste about game visual feeling.. I like much more CFS one and only I invite you to check put after one our of gaming FB the CD of CFS and tell me really how you feel chasing its planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -Falco

I had both CFS1 and CFS2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I got the original IL2 shortly after CFS2 and then dumped CFS soon after. Anyway, you are right each can have their likes or dislikes, but I still don't think it is very realistic. Oh well.

carguy_
09-13-2006, 03:18 PM
It seems you ppl forgot that 3.01 dots were FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE unlike now.

joeap
09-14-2006, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
It seems you ppl forgot that 3.01 dots were FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE unlike now.

I agree they were the best!

FritzGryphon
09-14-2006, 02:00 AM
tune the color of the dot by the color of the surrounding pixels to improve contrast.

On that topic, the Nvidia control panel has a Image Sharpening setting that I find very useful for spotting dots. I don't know if ATI has something similar.