PDA

View Full Version : Icons and FULL Realism



XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 11:38 PM
Hello all,

Don't post often but do a lot of reading. Sooner or later whatever problem I discover is dealt with by the posts of others.

However, one problem that is a thorn has to do with Icons which make the planes readily visible. Now these are necessary because the limitations of current hardware make it much more difficult to fly totally without Icons. Why in real life one could see the glint of cockpit glass from miles away. Also, I live in an area where there is a lot of water bomber activiy in the summer time. I could easily make out the color scheme on these aircraft (which includes body, wing tip, and rudder color) from well over 800 metres without effort. As well the numbers on their tails are visible from way over a mile away. These are very conservative numbers as I think they are really higher.

Now in FB the color scheme of aircraft just begins to be visible between 200 to 300 metres. So turning the Icons Off only makes the sitation of seeing aircraft distinctly (not mistaking them for monitor spittle as it stands now) much worse than in real life.

However, the Icons as they stand now are a cumbersome method of aircraft recogniton with the text or even the distance numbers alone spread out too far.

The outline of the plane itself should be highlighted with either red or blue (open to suggestion here) and nothing more from the current 5 kilometres down to 300 metres or so. So the plane itself only, should be highlighted and eliminate the cumbersome text or numbers we have now. From 300 metres and closer the aircraft should be left as they are now.

This should be set as REALISTIC mode and not the visually impaired (crippling) No Icon realistic mode which is really not even close to what a person can see in real life.

This is only a suggestion and a very important part of the game from a realism standpoint. I just wanted to throw out some guidelines because this has been bothering me since IL2 first came out.

I use 1024 x 760 resolution in 32 bit color, usually in OpenGL.

I think Oleg Maddox and company have done a fantastic job in producing this sim and this is the reason why I stick with it. Great Job guys!

All other aspects of FULL REALISM are just fine with me.

Thank-you
Maggum

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 11:38 PM
Hello all,

Don't post often but do a lot of reading. Sooner or later whatever problem I discover is dealt with by the posts of others.

However, one problem that is a thorn has to do with Icons which make the planes readily visible. Now these are necessary because the limitations of current hardware make it much more difficult to fly totally without Icons. Why in real life one could see the glint of cockpit glass from miles away. Also, I live in an area where there is a lot of water bomber activiy in the summer time. I could easily make out the color scheme on these aircraft (which includes body, wing tip, and rudder color) from well over 800 metres without effort. As well the numbers on their tails are visible from way over a mile away. These are very conservative numbers as I think they are really higher.

Now in FB the color scheme of aircraft just begins to be visible between 200 to 300 metres. So turning the Icons Off only makes the sitation of seeing aircraft distinctly (not mistaking them for monitor spittle as it stands now) much worse than in real life.

However, the Icons as they stand now are a cumbersome method of aircraft recogniton with the text or even the distance numbers alone spread out too far.

The outline of the plane itself should be highlighted with either red or blue (open to suggestion here) and nothing more from the current 5 kilometres down to 300 metres or so. So the plane itself only, should be highlighted and eliminate the cumbersome text or numbers we have now. From 300 metres and closer the aircraft should be left as they are now.

This should be set as REALISTIC mode and not the visually impaired (crippling) No Icon realistic mode which is really not even close to what a person can see in real life.

This is only a suggestion and a very important part of the game from a realism standpoint. I just wanted to throw out some guidelines because this has been bothering me since IL2 first came out.

I use 1024 x 760 resolution in 32 bit color, usually in OpenGL.

I think Oleg Maddox and company have done a fantastic job in producing this sim and this is the reason why I stick with it. Great Job guys!

All other aspects of FULL REALISM are just fine with me.

Thank-you
Maggum

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 12:04 AM
Our squad draws the line at limited friendly icons and that works fine as a compromise. Now if I could only get them to lose that radarpadlock.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't like the idea of a red/blue outline because it is also distracting from the visual realism but some solution like an occassional glint of sunlight or something of the sort would be kinda neat. Maybe in BoB.


<center>http://mywebpage.netscape.com/nyngje/charvel.JPG

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 12:51 AM
The misguided folly of "friendly only icons", Prik, is that you get spotting help on the cons you need the LEAST amount of help with. Which totally ignores the REAL problem: seeing *any* plane at distances you should. If I lose track of a friendly plane, it's a minor incovenience. If I lose track of, or fail to see an enemy, I might have a "black screen" moment approaching.

I don't know how the no-icon purists deal with dots that disappear while you're actively maneuvering on them even at close range (I suspect they start stabbing the padlock key, something I never allow myself the luxury of doing).

To my jaundiced eye (and I realize what a pun that is), some form of icons are a necessary evil, due to the fact that, as the thread originator noticed, our monitors just can't replicate our vision on 17", 19" or even 21" monitors. Even worse, if you zoom all the way in (which, FOV tunnel-vision notwithstanding, is the closest scale approximation to our real-life visual acuity), you find distant dots getting SMALLER or disappearing altogether, and you have to zoom back out to find them again. IL-2 visuals are actually backward in their implementation.

The key to icons that add to "full realism" yet don't make the sim arcadish, is to not use those full-length, billboard width 10km range default icons that tell you the pilots name, birth date, favorite color and service ID number. For enemy, I set icons to show TYPE only. Surely 3 characters, "MIG" or "109" or "YAK" or "P51" appearing on the screen isn't too much of an affront to realism, or too much of a distraction; especially if you consider the real affront is not seeing a plane within 3km while you're *actively* searching for it.

For friendlies, I allow name and distance to show within 5km. This greater distance and additional information simulates training, coordination, and "being used to" flying with other pilots, even if this is just some other guy who momentarily ended up on the same server as you.

The one thing that "no-icon purists" like to use as a defense for their "no visibility" setting is the mistaken notion that "icons ruin the bounce". I say that's patently false. For one, limited icons are small enough for enemy so that they're not obtrusive...and two, people who don't watch their six don't pick up (short) icons any more than they detect dots. They just don't look, so they *still* get bounced.


Also, when I played Warbirds and WWIIOL, both of which use icon systems, I still got well over half my kills from plain, garden variety stealth: use the sun, approach from unseen angles and slam people's head in the door before they even know you're there.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 03:01 AM
I wish that there was some sort of enhanced visibility in the dots, because as previously stated, they are far more obscure than real life. Maybe just making them darker would help. I hate the grey dots, especially when looking through a 109 or Yak windscreen.

I don't know how people can play full real with a 17 inch monitor at 1024X768. I cant see who is who until their actions give them away, but by then it is just about too late!

I for one am surprised there is not much of an uproar about this. It seems most if not all games visibility without icons is still better than real life, but in this game it is worse!

Harder does not make it more real - just more of a pain in the a$$!

There - I feel better. Now back to Hyperlobby!



Message Edited on 11/15/0303:29AM by ucanfly

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 03:11 AM
"The misguided folly of "friendly only icons", Prik, is that you get spotting help on the cons you need the LEAST amount of help with"


Exactly, this 'friendly only icons' makes no sense.


I agree with the post about reflections. When I was in the air, I could spot trucks easily - they reflected so much with the sun hitting them.

I was blinded by metallic objects in the ground on one flight when the sun was rising.

That same day I saw a small cessna, the glints off the metal were very visible. I had no problem tracking this cessna for quite a long way out.





S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 03:35 AM
What about limited friendly icons, no enemy icons and padlock? It solves the problem of ID of a enemy aircraft and the padlock feature simulates movement of the head. If there were only a way to allow padlock to work when within 1km of the target then it would eliminate using the padlock as a crutch when you lose contact.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 05:37 AM
You're not LISTENING, Espo. We don't need help to track friendlies. We need help to spot ALL dots, because they're poorly rendered and modelled.

Padlock for me is a wash; it has its good and its bad, but overall I don't feel I'm much at a disadvantage for not using it. If some other guy wants to fixate himself, fine. Have at.

Icons, however, for ALL planes are necessary to replicate what a 20/20 or better trained combat pilot can see.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 10:19 PM
Agree !!!

something has to be done,about that ...

this thing keep me of VEF which I would like to play
but for now it is just frustrating and no fun !

I think that I am bit better than average , read lots of documents about dogfighting ,and be able to kill almost everything that fly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (in FW190 from day1)

But you cant fight something that you dont see!!!!!

beside that Iam an aero-mechanic and love everthing that fly's ... IL2 beeing the best sim in the world ...but if Oleg and the team could solve that big problem ... would be PERFECT besides everything else !!!!

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 06:35 AM
Am I the only person that "friendly only icons" makes sense to? C'mon guys, think about it. If you have that enabled, and you see a dot and it doesn't have an icon by it, you better watch out, he's an enemy.

Why is this so hard to understand?

http://www.80snostalgia.com/classictv/airwolf/pic1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 10:37 AM
waterinthefuel wrote:
- Am I the only person that "friendly only icons"
- makes sense to? C'mon guys, think about it. If you
- have that enabled, and you see a dot and it doesn't
- have an icon by it, you better watch out, he's an
- enemy.
-
- Why is this so hard to understand?

No, it makes sense to me. To contradict myself, though, and depending on who you ask, it does not make sense either.

IMO, if a server is using icons at all, they should give the same info to both sides. Of course, there can be all kinds of debate on why that is not good.

Example: A squad should/could communicate with each other, and therefor, should/could know info in regards to bracket, posit, etc.

However, again, this is a computer sim, and online, for example, everyone is not on the same 'channel', if on one at all. So, just make it simple if using icons at all, and allow both sides the luxury of the same info.

It can be simple like...
DOT 3.10 RANGE 3.10 COLOR 1.50 ID 1.50 TYPE 1.50 NAME 1.50
or,
DOT 3.10 RANGE 3.10 COLOR 1.5 ID .001 TYPE .001 NAME .001
(Myself, I can tolerate any setting.)

In regards to less obtrusive, I would like ID'ing with icons to be 'simpler'. Like, you could set the range so as just a small colored dot would appear. To make it easy for Oleg, basically, the same thing we have now, but the option to use just a small colored dot, instead. No plane related info at all, other than color/side.

It would prob be considered too arcadish for some, but maybe one small light on top of the tail (akin to a navigation light) and that can be set by distance.

Anyay, I would like something less 'glaring' than what we have now. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#59626B">

Message Edited on 11/16/0303:50AM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 11:24 AM
Try to experiment with your video setup in IL/FB Hardware setup...most people can find combinations that allow them to see a lot more, especially against ground, etc., also tuning your drivers (digital vibrance for nVidia users helps alot I heard), IL2 setup and even monitor color temperatures etc., anything that´s connected with seeing and can be tweaked...everyone has to find his best combination for his given set of hardware

I would not mind outlines instead of text in iconed settings, but full real settings without any icons at all should remain full real settings...I guess majority of full real pilots can do pretty well the way it is now which is a sign, that it´s not that bad, actually very good imo.

But sure in BOB and future sims it´s gonna be even better and better. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 02:20 PM
I like the options as they are now but would like to see the triangle around the aircraft be changed into a small dot below the aircraft. The triangle is just too much. A red dot below the enemy aircraft when the icons are on would be plenty for ID purposes. I turn the Icons off once I have a distant ID but back on again if I have extended to the point were ID is not possible.
So it's an on again off again type of thing...

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 02:50 PM
My solution is to have ALL icons set to grey - no red or blue icons, all I see is the type of plane. That way I know if they're friend or foe depending on what they're flying.

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 02:56 PM
@a pi mp_dotrange FRIENDLY|FOE COLOR 0.01 DOT 14 RANGE 5 TYPE 0.01 ID 0.01 NAME 0.01



This is good icon settings.

If you want color, try COLOR at 1

You'd be able to id the aircraft a 1km - don't you agree?

(put this in your rcu file and type >pi to execute )

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem



Message Edited on 11/16/0301:56PM by Recon_609IAP

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 03:07 PM
Mine are something like :-
mp_dotrange COLOR 0.01 DOT 14 RANGE 0.01 TYPE 4 ID 0.01 NAME 0.01

grey text, no range, no ID just the type of plane.

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 05:45 PM
Ok what do you think about this :

1. disable skin download
2. change all planes default skin to VOID.BMP

3. or you just set void.bmp to enemy planes



so when you fly all planes are WHITE ....

what do you thimk about it , whell it is a cheat !!!

but help alot to spot enemy ...

NOW WHAT ???


S!

K.

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 06:51 PM
You're absolutely right about target recognition distances in FB. I use full real (well, almost. I keep the map flightplan (and my aircraft only) on) with TrackIR. If you're dogfighting someone who's airplane is similar to yours and your wingmans, you really have to hold your shot until you get very close. I was flying a Warhawk with a wingman protecting TB-3's against a squadron of A6M5's (ta heck with history), and I really had a hard time distinguishing them, even with the big red dots on the wings and fuselage. Without icons, I couldn't really say how far apart we were when I was finally able to tell who I was lining up on, but a rouh guess would be about 300 yards... or meters... or whatever. Way too close for comfort. If I had been spending all that time trying to close on my wingman, there's no telling where the bogies had gotten off to.


Tim
-Code Red Mountain Dew and
Almond Snickers-

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 07:02 PM
Sorry as I am not agree with you. I had heard WWII pilots though distant planes as friendly as close up to re-join until pilots stunned to see them as enemy planes.

One big thing is will able ID P-38 in distance what other can not see different in fighter.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 08:32 PM
Identifying airplanes is one problem - but assessing distances is even a greater one.
We don't see a real 3d view in game, and objects' size does not change with distance, only a few fixed sizes.
How do you manage this without icons' distance?

XyZspineZyX
11-16-2003, 10:38 PM
CSL_Kocour wrote:
- Try to experiment with your video setup in IL/FB
- Hardware setup...most people can find combinations
- that allow them to see a lot more, especially
- against ground, etc., also tuning your drivers
- (digital vibrance for nVidia users helps alot I
- heard), IL2 setup and even monitor color
- temperatures etc., anything that´s connected with
- seeing and can be tweaked...everyone has to find his
- best combination for his given set of hardware
-


The problem with this is that I get the best visibility of dots with low or medium settings, which makes the game look rather ugly. A lot of the graphics quality is wasted, and identification at close distance gets more difficult when I can see the dots.

---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2003, 12:03 AM
Hello all,

Well, so far it seems the majority think flying WITHOUT Icons in FULL Real mode is Unrealistic in comaprison with what one can actually see in real life. This is logical and agrees with what I first posted.

Secondly, most agree there IS a problem with the current Icon settings being too awkward, cumbersome, spread out, or too large.

Now, how to improve on the Icons AND make the aircraft still look realistic as possible (yet clearly visible) is the REAL problem.

I have flown on many sims (including Aces High online) and have NOT yet seen a realistic looking solution to this problem.

I still think that blending the red and blue colors right INTO the aircraft (not over top or underneath) at different distances is the key to making them look as readily visible as possible with the current hardware restrictions that we have to work with on resolution.

It would be interesting to hear what could actually be programmed into the sim regarding this and how much EFFORT it would take to do this. As well the programmers themselves may shed a better light on this topic.

Thank-you
Maggnum

Maggnum wrote:
- Hello all,
-
- Don't post often but do a lot of reading. Sooner or
- later whatever problem I discover is dealt with by
- the posts of others.
-
- However, one problem that is a thorn has to do with
- Icons which make the planes readily visible. Now
- these are necessary because the limitations of
- current hardware make it much more difficult to fly
- totally without Icons. Why in real life one could
- see the glint of cockpit glass from miles away.
- Also, I live in an area where there is a lot of
- water bomber activiy in the summer time. I could
- easily make out the color scheme on these aircraft
- (which includes body, wing tip, and rudder color)
- from well over 800 metres without effort. As well
- the numbers on their tails are visible from way over
- a mile away. These are very conservative numbers as
- I think they are really higher.
-
- Now in FB the color scheme of aircraft just begins
- to be visible between 200 to 300 metres. So turning
- the Icons Off only makes the sitation of seeing
- aircraft distinctly (not mistaking them for monitor
- spittle as it stands now) much worse than in real
- life.
-
- However, the Icons as they stand now are a
- cumbersome method of aircraft recogniton with the
- text or even the distance numbers alone spread out
- too far.
-
- The outline of the plane itself should be
- highlighted with either red or blue (open to
- suggestion here) and nothing more from the current 5
- kilometres down to 300 metres or so. So the plane
- itself only, should be highlighted and eliminate the
- cumbersome text or numbers we have now. From 300
- metres and closer the aircraft should be left as
- they are now.
-
- This should be set as REALISTIC mode and not the
- visually impaired (crippling) No Icon realistic mode
- which is really not even close to what a person can
- see in real life.
-
- This is only a suggestion and a very important part
- of the game from a realism standpoint. I just wanted
- to throw out some guidelines because this has been
- bothering me since IL2 first came out.
-
- I use 1024 x 760 resolution in 32 bit color, usually
- in OpenGL.
-
- I think Oleg Maddox and company have done a
- fantastic job in producing this sim and this is the
- reason why I stick with it. Great Job guys!
-
- All other aspects of FULL REALISM are just fine with
- me.
-
- Thank-you
- Maggum
-
-


Maggnum wrote:
- Hello all,
-
- Don't post often but do a lot of reading. Sooner or
- later whatever problem I discover is dealt with by
- the posts of others.
-
- However, one problem that is a thorn has to do with
- Icons which make the planes readily visible. Now
- these are necessary because the limitations of
- current hardware make it much more difficult to fly
- totally without Icons. Why in real life one could
- see the glint of cockpit glass from miles away.
- Also, I live in an area where there is a lot of
- water bomber activiy in the summer time. I could
- easily make out the color scheme on these aircraft
- (which includes body, wing tip, and rudder color)
- from well over 800 metres without effort. As well
- the numbers on their tails are visible from way over
- a mile away. These are very conservative numbers as
- I think they are really higher.
-
- Now in FB the color scheme of aircraft just begins
- to be visible between 200 to 300 metres. So turning
- the Icons Off only makes the sitation of seeing
- aircraft distinctly (not mistaking them for monitor
- spittle as it stands now) much worse than in real
- life.
-
- However, the Icons as they stand now are a
- cumbersome method of aircraft recogniton with the
- text or even the distance numbers alone spread out
- too far.
-
- The outline of the plane itself should be
- highlighted with either red or blue (open to
- suggestion here) and nothing more from the current 5
- kilometres down to 300 metres or so. So the plane
- itself only, should be highlighted and eliminate the
- cumbersome text or numbers we have now. From 300
- metres and closer the aircraft should be left as
- they are now.
-
- This should be set as REALISTIC mode and not the
- visually impaired (crippling) No Icon realistic mode
- which is really not even close to what a person can
- see in real life.
-
- This is only a suggestion and a very important part
- of the game from a realism standpoint. I just wanted
- to throw out some guidelines because this has been
- bothering me since IL2 first came out.
-
- I use 1024 x 760 resolution in 32 bit color, usually
- in OpenGL.
-
- I think Oleg Maddox and company have done a
- fantastic job in producing this sim and this is the
- reason why I stick with it. Great Job guys!
-
- All other aspects of FULL REALISM are just fine with
- me.
-
- Thank-you
- Maggum
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 03:43 PM
Well I'll throw my 2 pence spanner in the works.

In JG5 we always fly (and always have flown) with Full Settings. We don't even have the map path on /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

After countless hours of team training this is no longer a problem for because of several factors :

Good spatial awareness
Good communication
Team Work - We stick rigidly to a Rotte Pair system so I "know" where my wingman is, or where he should be /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good aircraft recognition at zoomed level - We fly 109's mostly so these are easy to spot with their large radiators.

We use colour-coded skins with Rudder / Fuselage Bands that are unique to us (see below pic) :
http://www.alucinor.com/jg5/uploads/fwformation1.jpg


Observing MG fire and Cannon rounds tracer colour makes OKL aircraft easy to spot.

I can't stand icons as they riun the immersive feel for me, I have speedbar off and disable the HUD messages too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just IMHO - I have learned to live with the current system, don't get me wrong it really annoys me when I lose a target at 400M into the ground clutter during a BnZ run /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif but such is life. It doesn't annoy me to the point where I would put labels on things though......

BTW TrackIR user - makes it much easier
19' Monitor & I play at 1280 x 1024 Res on a Radeon 9700 Pro. One of my squad mates still plays with 800x600 Res to help with the dots /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 04:00 PM
I Like the original posters idea. All that ata an you don't see the dot that is the aircraft.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 05:14 PM
Which on of those settings controls that pesky arrow that points you in the direction of the planes if you fly in cntrl f1 view? the dot?
We have many new pilots and cockpit only is to much for them, I normaly take enemy icons off for cockpit views but if the easy cntrl view is enabled you still get the red or blue arrowhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 05:34 PM
Has anyone been on the ground and have heard a plane passing overhead and found it difficult to actaully see the plane? Perhaps in this situation someone else in a group of people can see the plane and he or she points it out so everyone else can see the plane too. Sometimes it is even still diffcult to get a fix on the plane being pointed at, but once the plane is spotted then one might wonder why it was difficult to find something so obviously contrasted against the sky. Move your fixation to something else and then try to return to the airplane, that can still be heard, and it again takes a moment to make a visual i.d..

When the real pilot scans the space around him he has much more area to cover than the virtual pilot. The virtual pilot has an unrealistic advantage.

Real pilots learn how to see better, how to scan and recognize distant objects quickly and they learn how to keep track of those targets.

A well trained and practiced combat pilot has an advantage over the average person in aquiring visual contact, identification and tracking.

If simulated combat includes icons, padlock, high contrasting colors, etc. then no advantage exists for the well trained individuals with practiced skills, instead everyone is instantly good at visual contact, identification and tracking.

When flying simulated combat with a team of players it soon becomes obvious who is better at seeing. Some players can i.d. better while others can track better. Some are better at type identification.

My opinion, for more realistic viewing, is to allow greater viewing range with the lower angles of viewing zoom.
So that someone scanning in full zoom view will be able to see objects farther away than someone scanning in full wide angle view.
As it is now a well practiced and skillful virtual pilot can already use this function for mid range viewing. Once a target has been momentarily lost in wide view, as long as the pilot kept track of the last know relative possition of the target and as long as the pilot has made a well educated guesstimate of the most likely flight path the target was going to take, then the skilled virtual pilot can zoom in (many degrees of zoom are possible) to reaquire the target since low angles of zoom allow for greater visibility in medium ranges.
If zoom extended viewing range to distances greater than wide angle view ranges then the virtual pilot who is capable of scanning in zoom view through practice and the development of that skill, he or she could see bogies at greater distances and here is where I think color shades can be manipulated to further reward those inclinded to work on skills rather than have capabilites handed out on silver platers.
I think it is a great idea to use one pixel color tones to help I.D. targets at long ranges. Zoom view already allows medium range I.D. help.

I think it is more difficult to simulate feedback than it is to simulate viewing capabilities and IL2/FB does a very good job simulating viewing capabilities. A lot of people want instant ability and for them there are icons, padlock, and VVS planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Note the smiley face





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 06:11 PM
Waterinthefuel wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Am I the only person that "friendly only icons" makes sense to? C'mon guys, think about it. If you have that enabled, and you see a dot and it doesn't have an icon by it, you better watch out, he's an enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can give you two examples of why it doesn't make sense:

1) If you don't see the dot in the first place, the IFF point is moot.

2) If you already know the dot or plane shape is an enemy and it simply disappears from in front of your face, due to the failings of the graphic engine, the icon isn't there to help you.

An example from just last night: I found myself about d0.5 behind a P51B (with green skin and D-Day stripes), headed straight down to the water. His cross section made it so he flat out disappeared from view against the water in zoomed out and "normal" view (and when you're headed directly down, you do NOT want to zoom all the way in, because you lose your sense of depth, which tells you when you'd better pull up). Patently ridiculous. The same thing happened at the other side of the loop, when I was hovering over him in a zoom climb and he was attempting to point his nose up at me. Once the cross-section view was "straight on", the shape simply failed to render.
================================================== ====
As to there never being a good icon system, I have to say the one WWII Online uses is the best implementation EVER. They use what I call arc-cons: each plane in range gets a red (enemy) or blue (friend) or neutral (grey) arc drawn around it. As range gets shorter, the grey icon turns to red or blue; and the arc/circle itself begins to "unwind" clockwise, so that by the time you get to firing range, the arc-con is a small curved line under the plane that absolutely does nothing to interfere with your nice view of the enemy. It also helps to serve as a great visual (but NOT digital!) rangefinder.

The only failing of that system in WWIIOL is that when arc-cons are at the far limits of their range, the arc-cons show in a light grey...which blends in with cloud layers, effectively rendering them invisible. The way this interacts with their "every 500 meters" cloud layers, it kills the ability to stay at altitude and pick out lower targets. If this problem were fixed, this sytem would be PERFECT.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 08:17 PM
I take a slightly alternative view to some who wish some Viusal improvement. I have always wanted to play full real (and have) but find tha the monitor does not support specs of dust sized objects contrasting with the green terrain very well.

I would be happy if they impproved the visibillity of the dots (before it becomes a plane) with more constrast when within a certain distance so that one could tally easier when using 1024X768.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 11:51 PM
The sim *had* that before (all dots were 4 pixel squares and black, for both planes and ground targets)....and they changed from that.

Actually, I can remember complaining a bit about that then (having only the option of 10km billboard icons or none at all)...but I take it all back. I'd much rather have a unidentified black dot I can see than the faint grey invisispecks we have now.

All in all, I really feel that some limited form of abbrevited icons is the way to go, but the "hairshirt difficulty crowd" are adamantly against it (preferring "hardER than real life" to "best simulation")...and unfortunately, they run all the organized online wars.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 12:15 AM
Hello all,

Stiglr, it sounds like you have found a good compromise. The WWII online arc-con (as you call it) sounds a lot better than what FB has now. It is by far a more natural system using a shape instead of awkward text and numbers or even worse no Icons at all (like flying legally blind with the current hardware limitations).

I personally think that an Icon system like this should be part of FB and the Default setting for FULL REALISM. As I mentioned before all other aspects of Full Realism are necessary.


Stiglr wrote:

"As to there never being a good icon system, I have to say the one WWII Online uses is the best implementation EVER. They use what I call arc-cons: each plane in range gets a red (enemy) or blue (friend) or neutral (grey) arc drawn around it. As range gets shorter, the grey icon turns to red or blue; and the arc/circle itself begins to "unwind" clockwise, so that by the time you get to firing range, the arc-con is a small curved line under the plane that absolutely does nothing to interfere with your nice view of the enemy. It also helps to serve as a great visual (but NOT digital!) rangefinder.

The only failing of that system in WWIIOL is that when arc-cons are at the far limits of their range, the arc-cons show in a light grey...which blends in with cloud layers, effectively rendering them invisible. The way this interacts with their "every 500 meters" cloud layers, it kills the ability to stay at altitude and pick out lower targets. If this problem were fixed, this sytem would be PERFECT."

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 12:24 AM
I have always been a advocate of "FOR REAL" setups in games i play online... i play nascar 2003 online... we have already done away with aids like traction control, steering assit, stability control to make the cars drive real, alot of the hardcore peeps want to make people run full cockpit car only, but people just dont realize playing a video game like this is far from real, you dont have the feel, while driving you can move your head a bit to look at diff area, but playing a game you have to move a mouse, which takes away from you concentration on track etc...

same goes for FB, you just dont have the feel needed for it to be just like realife, to restrict cockpit only really hinders your ability to properly fly the plane, moving a mouse back and forth takes time and concentration on the task at hand... graphics also play a big part in this too, not everyone can afford a top notch system that is perfect and allows you to see whats out there, while moving the mouse looking etc... and dots on the horizon are awful, real planes at a distance you can still make out shapes etc.. on this game its a freaking dot until you get rather close(depending on system)... i think maybe little icon with number of plane and color would do, no need for range or type of plane etc...

i realize plenty of people want to be hardcore with the game, but we all want to have some fun, there has to be a middle ground covered, make the planes fly realistic etc.. but at least give computer challenge people icons for enemies and external view... but hey, thats just my opinnion...

see some of ya online tonight, you can shoot me down if you think iam a noob.. lol

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 12:51 AM
Stiglr wrote:
- The sim *had* that before (all dots were 4 pixel
- squares and black, for both planes and ground
- targets)....and they changed from that.
-
- Actually, I can remember complaining a bit about
- that then (having only the option of 10km billboard
- icons or none at all)...but I take it all back. I'd
- much rather have a unidentified black dot I can see
- than the faint grey invisispecks we have now....
-
Aaaah maaan! Be careful what you wish for. I wish they would have kept the higher visibility option. I don't like using icons most of the time I can't see my foe when I use no icons.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 01:23 AM
Yep, I often wish for those halcyon days where, even if you couldn't tell whose dot it was, at least you could see the damned dot.

Still, icons *used properly* are less of an affront than you'd think. They create the right overall effect and hence, to my eyes, are the best simulation, taking all things into account.

One of the more frustratiing things about this sim: how some things end up so polar: it's either way over <---here or way over there --->, when the middle ground is the preferred way to go.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 02:31 AM
Well since the original poster seems to be taking a poll here, I'll vote no icons too.

I couldn't agree more with JG5_UnKle and JG 14_Josf--good posts guys. I can't help but wonder just what books you pro-icon people are reading when you say seeing enemy aircraft was so much easier in RL. Not from the books I read. I think in some ways it is easier to identify aircraft in RL, but it is very often harder to see them in the first place. A common escape practice by the outnumbered Germans was a split ess to low altitude, preferably over a forest, where their camoflauge helped them get away on numerous occasions. The Adjutant of JG 3 commented after their first large scale combat in the BoB that it would be wise to avoid getting into scraps with large numbers of enemy aircraft as it is almost impossible to tell whos who. Over and over and over I read RL combat stories that just plain wouldn't/can't happen on servers using icons and/or padlock.

It's not full real without icons, but it is closer than with them. Furthermore, why do we have to come to a compromise? You guys that want to fly with icons go right ahead, no one is stopping you. In Warbirds that wasn't the case and that (among other things) is what was wrong with it. Here we have choice, isn't that a good thing?

Stachl http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 02:40 AM
Just to clarify, I would love to play no icons with more visible profiles than what we have now.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 05:03 AM
You know, maybe we should look at a bigger picture.

Map icons.

With a (real) squad flying, say, a recon, and their radios were working and they were in range with each other, even if one 'got separated' for some reason, and later, a member of the rest of the squad reported a bogie, and it was the separated member, the loner would/could radio back, negative, and give his position.

Now, since I have never been in a squad, when I go online, I am never on COMMs with everyone in my squad/team. In fact, I am very rarely on COMM with anyone, ever.

So, with no icons on, but with a map icon setting that can show only friendlies, we would get something along that same line.

Yes, I know some people will hate that, but, again, when is everyone able to be on COMMs with everyone on their team. Not very often. (Squads aside.)

So, what we would have is a pretend situation where everyone is 'able to communicate' (even if they really are not 'able', via 'icon' on map) which would mean that they can determine friend or foe by radio (again, map icon). No plane info is given, no 'external' icons, but all team mates have 'gave position' (you are actually looking at the map).

The plane icon can be a simple little circle, red or blue, (so you never forget which team you are on, heh). The icon could be made to not 'refresh' until you opened the map again, say a minute later. (No map cheat. Ha.) That way, you can not even see right away which direction your friendlies are flying.

-

I have not thought about this since my last post.

Other than that:

A long time ago I mentioned about the light on the tail.

I also mentioned about navigation lights, when we did not have them, that could be either red or blue. Now that we have navigation lights, that might be a good idea. (Except red is easier to see at night, and you can be sure 'we' will hear about that. Heh.)

EDIT: The map icon distance could be adjustable. Again, though, the simplest thing to implement now, that would be less obtrusive, would be just an option for a little dot over the plane, set the same way as we do now.

BTW, "I" prefer no icons. But, if they are available, sometimes I just have to hit that key to see what the heck is going on. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

Message Edited on 11/19/0310:17PM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:01 AM
I have an idea (just thinking out loud that's all) that maybe the perspective of the vanishing aircraft could be changed in such a way as to make the vanishing plane stay larger for further in the distance. And instead of reducing in size as much as it does at the moment, to reduce it by a factor of a half of the present scale but make the plane fade in colour and intensity until it is nearly invisible in the haze of the atmosphere. Lets say that at 5km to 7km the plane almost blends with the haze of the atmosphere, but the aircraft size is maybe a quarter the apparent size of a plane at 20meters. Obviously this is impossible to implement in FB's, but maybe BOB could have it factored into the perspective engine. My guess is the game engine would have 2 perspective calculators working simultaneously, 1 for the terrain and the other for rendering the aircraft. Sounds a tad complicated but surely the genius's that work for Oleg can make it work?

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:35 PM
aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think that the dots in original IL where much more better than in FB.

In IL I could actualy see them ...In FB i was suprised ...
the dots visibility is now I think 1/4 of the original IL.

I could live if they would return the "DOT" from IL...

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:40 PM
To Stachl, I'd say that I wouldn't even mind if icons didn't give you IFF until much closer in, if the tradeoff was that you'd be able to just SEE plane dots and shapes when you should (which is FAR from the case in FB).

As regards the split-S maneuver, the reason it was so effective is that if you did it right, you also put your enemy's own plane and wings in the pilot's sight line. *That's* why you couldn't see the plane. Camo was generally only really effective for hiding planes immobile on the ground. In the air, they might "delay" the time it would take to acquire the plane visually, or hide it to a casual, fleeting glance, but never to determined viewing, or "informed searching", where one knows the area to look in (as is the case during a dogfight).

IL-2 FB is simply PENAL when it comes to making out plane shapes, even at extremely close ranges, zoomed in. Our monitors just don't support the level of detail we'd see with our own eyes. The effect is as if we were the real pilots flying today, after decades of age has taken its toll. And that's usually in good weather with no haze. You put haze into a no-icon server and its a recipe for total inactivity: nobody can find anybody else. In rain and poor weather, I can accept a hard time of spotting anything: just not in CAVU, summer weather. And the Finland map: laughable.

You can read just as many accounts where enemy were spotted at range as you can about misidentification, and that strange phenomenon where one second the sky is full of planes, the next minute you're totally alone. Also, you read a LOT of accounts where having altitude made it a good prospect to spot lower planes (unless they were *really* low, where ground clutter and camo had the most effect). As it is in FB, the gray pencil specs are extremely inconsistent in their visibility, and do not well simulate the ability of a trained pilot with *excellent* visibility (standard in ALL countries' AFs) to spot aircraft. For proof, nothing is more damning than how in FB you can spot a dot in the most zoomed out view, then zoom in for a closer look only to have the dot not only NOT get bigger, but disappear entirely.

Throw in the ludicrous close range disappearances of planes against forest canopies, and you quickly realize that "no icon" is just difficulty for difficulty's sake. It's just as poor a simulation as the full billboard icons, only the effects are different.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:46 PM
Stiglr,

Hi, I just want to thank you again for all the excellent work you did for the Warbirds Con 2000.

On this subject I wish to stress the point made earlier in regards to any computer assisted viewing capabilities.

Please realize that among the players of IL2/FB some are able to see much better than others without the computer help and this is not so much a function of hardware as it is a function of ability. I've been flying sims for years and in every new sim and with consistantly less advanced and expensive hardware my friend Hertt can see better than I can. In an icon, padlock, computer aided viewing environment Hertt does not have an advantage.

Hertt:
"Bogie at 9 o clock heading 330"
Josf:
"No vis, I'll follow you"

It is not so much that the sim exactly simulates human viewing capabilities but this sim is capable of simulating the advantage of skill, talent, experience, and the wide range of viewing capabilities between individual humans.

When I hear someone say something like this:
"ludicrous close range disappearances of planes against forest canopies"
I wonder if we are playing the same game.

Hertt:
"I lost him"
Josf:
"I've got him. I'm in. Heading 240, The target is turning right and climbing"

While Hertt goes in for a pass, I stay above and work on keeping track of the target. If I look around to make sure that we are clear and not threatened by a stray boggie I try only to do so after taking a mental snap shot of the target against the terrain and only when the target is acting predictably (for example: following Hertt after the pass i.e. drag bait).
I do not often loose the target in zoomed in view, and I can often see the target good enough in zoomed in view to be able to tell if the target is turning, if the target is turning hard, if the target is climbing, diving, or getting ready to shoot (lined up on Hertt). It is not easy to maneuver and stay zoomed in. On the contrary it takes a lot of effort to develop the skill to be able to see good in IL2/FB. It doesn't take much effort or skill to see good in IL2/FB with icons, padlock, or any such computer aided viewing help.
If the object of the game is to get the enemy in your sights and hose him down then by all means make it easy to do so with all kinds of computer aids.
If the object of the game is to simulate WWII combat then a big part of the fun is being able to find the limits of your abiities and employ them against the enemy.
Here is an old saying, I do not know where this saying originated but it is telling something about the subject.
"Loose sight - Loose the fight"


The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert
ISBN: 0-88740-446-4
page 78
"The Russian had to appear soon. If he did come, it would have to be over the foul lake in the north or directly from the east across the narrowest part of the Strait of Kerch. Suddenly I thought I saw a shadow gliding over the water of the bay north of Taman. But where there was a shadow there also had to be something to cause it. I was still doubtful whether I should leave my favorable altitude because of this shadow, but it gave me no peace, especially since it was wandering westward in the direction of the Crimea. I waved Mohr over and pointed downward. He nodded. We were going to have a closer look at this shadow.
At 4,000 meters there was still nothing to be seen of an aircraft. However the shadow was so large that it definitely couldn't be from a fighter. At 3,500 meters I was finally able to make out the aircraft. The machine which approached from out of the east was quite large. It had to be the general's aircraft we were so eagerly awaiting. Mohr, too, had spotted the enemy. Was it possible that such a large aircraft was flying alone, without fighter escort? I strained to spot possible escorting aircraft. Finally I discovered them. Eight fighters were perched close above the twin-engined machine."




JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:50 PM
Hello all,

I really appreciate all the good constructive suggestions that have been posted.

However, any computer aid that is required for VISUAL AID in my opinion is NOT realistic. Visual aids such as padlock, zooming in, tweaking of hardware, larger monitors, advantages unknown to others etc., are all skirting the REAL issue.

The REAL issue is that current hardware cannot display images of aircraft at high enough resolutions to properly simulate what a real pilot could see. As a matter of fact the current hardware cannot even come close to showing what a real pilot sees even if it does look really good, like FB does. Its that simple.

The issue here is to make the aircraft visual recognition part of the sim work is such a way as to make all these computer visual aids mentioned above unnecessary.

Yes, Icons ARE a visual aid too. However, it is much more natural and realistic to look around as real pilots did and not be stabbing at padlock, zooming in, adjusting contrast, etc., etc.

Using some form of Icon is the only NATURAL way to compensate for the visual impairment that is curretly present in FB. Right now flying without Icons makes visual recognition of aircraft much, much more difficult than in real life. The idea here is to simulate as closely as possible what was actually done in real life and not make things much more difficult than they really were.

If you have doubts about this go to an airport and see how well you can recognize aircraft and at what distances. You will be surprised at what you can acutally SEE in REAL life. I mentioned this in my original post.

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:07 PM
Maggnum wrote:

"Using some form of Icon is the only NATURAL way to
compensate for the visual impairment that is
curretly present in FB."


My opinion is that zooming in simultes the conscious effort a person can exert when focusing attention in a narrow field of view
example:
Helmut Lipfert "I strained to spot possible escorting aircraft"

How would the Helmut Lipfert example of combat be rewritten had Lipfert been blessed with icon vision?

Lipfert:
"Hold on Mohr we are almost in icon range so there is no need to stop scanning for threats the information we need is soon to be presented to us on a silver platter with no margin for error and no need on our part to strain our focus in one narrow field of view."

If you prefer to have visual information presented to you by the computer without any requirement to develop the skills required in the game then Icons are a simple matter to enable within the existing program, but to say Icons are the only NATURAL... anything is not factual in my opinion.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:20 PM
Opps



JG14_Josf

Message Edited on 11/20/0311:44PM by JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:29 PM
Josf mused:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How would the Helmut Lipfert example of combat be rewritten had Lipfert been blessed with icon vision?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't have ever been written, because he and Mohr would simply have overflown the flight without ever seeing it. Especially from what, 4km alt? No way you will EVER see a plane from 4km in no-visibility, er, no-icon mode in FB.

That's my whole point: it isn't about wanting visuals to be handed to you on a silver platter. People who don't search properly (or at all) won't see things. People who DO, should. And our monitors cannot properly replicate distant (and sometimes, not so distant) objects well enough not to need some visual aid so that the end effect is more realistic.

As for planes right in front of you disappearing, this happens all the time, especially since the VVS camo is a dead match for the stock tree color.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:31 PM
And by the way, Josf, thanks for the mention of the 2000 Warbirds con. That was possibly the highlight of my entire gaming life!!! I have many fond memories of that con still.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:41 AM
I'm looking out my window at a car that is 80meters down the road. If I lift my hand and measure its size at arms length it appears to be approximately 50mm long. At 5 meters that same car would probably appear 600mm long. So in real life there is a scaling factor that would reduce a given size a given amount for every doubling of it's distance from the observer. It would seem to me that all that is needed is to alter this scaling factor to better simulate size on our monitors rather than simulate the true scaling factor of real life. I would assume that the scaling factor in FB's approximates real life and possibly this is where game visibility at distance has become an issue. At present all aircraft in the game reduce in size to the point where they become blocks of unrecognizeable pixels at around 900meters, if this distance was increased 3 fold and then include the fact that colour becomes blueish due to atmospheric contaminates then the aircraft would slowly become hazy looking before their apparent size reduced too much, in other words they would blend in with the haze of atmosphere. This would better simulate real life and at the same time increase the visibility problems of our monitors. Just my opinion which is either correct or incorrect but surely worth thinking on. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just looked at my post time 12.41am, the wee hours of the morning for most of you fella's, it's 10.50am for me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 11/21/03 12:57AM by E_Temperament

Message Edited on 11/21/0303:07AM by E_Temperament

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:05 AM
My approach to this topic..

Offline I use everything set to full difficulty with the exceptions of my aircraft and map route showing on the inflight map and speed bar enabled. I find it tedius, time consuming and sometimes disorienting to visually navigate some maps. Also, on some aircraft, the compass is obscured by other things so the speed bar is a necessary evil.

Online I prefer limited icons, map route, and speed bar enabled. If I'm hosting, limited icons are a must due to the fact that not everyone has a state of the art system and may have trouble seeing and identifying aircraft at distance or even up close.

Just my personal preferences http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:09 AM
Stiglr,

I think the highlights of the convention was talking with Gabby, Charley, Franz, and the MC's humor.

Visual distance limits in the game may be accurate to reality for a few people with bad eyes but for the remainder of us the game will be inaccurate in simulating the variable ranges at which we all are capable of seeing.

The producer of the game has made visual range a constant value for all players.

What is that range?

Lipfert's experience is well simulated albeit over snow, I have not seen any shadows over water. The range at which a shadow is visible in IL2/FB is very close to the Lipfert reference I cannot be any more accurate in that estimate at this time. Even if shadows are not visible at the exact range, the effect is simulated in the game where planes are harder to see than shadows. Someone flying with Icons on will probably not ever notice shadows.

So flying along at whatever altitude in FB that IS in visual range for shadows the Lipfert's quote is simulated, I have done it. I have been flying along in IL2/FB over snow without icons on and have seen shadows and have had difficulty. just as Lipfert reports, in finding the object that casts the shadow. However the 8 fighters that Lifert had a hard time finding after he saw the bomber at 3500meters would be easy to spot in IL2/FB. How close was Lipfert by the time he saw the fighters; 3000meters?

Seeing is not easy without Icons. Some players are better at this than others, some are restricted by hardware limitations, others I suspect are just not up to the task.
I am doing all I can to be as good as Hertt in the ability to see, this may never happen since he resently upgraded his system equal to mine, but I try. If Hertt can see better than I can then he is doing something better, he is more capable than I am, we play the same game. How is it that IL2/FB can simulate this disparity when visual range is actaully constant in the game?


JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:15 AM
I really don't know why should everyone see everything. It was't the case in RL and it make no sense in FB either. Besides,flying FR is much more fun then anything else, just ask a IL2 flyer trying to penetrate behind enemy lines witout fighter escort if he likes icons/padlock aids..

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 05:42 PM
Josf wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The producer of the game has made visual range a constant value for all players.

What is that range? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's variable by video card, by monitor, and by settings, actually. But, I find it extremely inconsistent.

Last night was a good example. I'm on a no-icon server and I'm tooling around near an enemy base. I see some tracer fire near ground level about 5km away, and I'm up at about 3km. I fly closer to the area, and discover a plane trying to strafe another plane that'd been forced down. I throttled back and began to maneuver so that as I dropped, I kept the strafing plane between me and the grounded plane: the idea being, the strafer was probably keeping his attention on his helpless target, so he wouldn't see me if I came from the opposite direction.

Well, due to the (in)visibility of dots in this sim, I lost him two or three times (against a nearby forest and against the ground) as I maneuvered down, despite the fact that the range was always getting shorter, and that I knew where to look for the bogie, based on his flight path and that I knew his intentions (to return again and again to strafe the grounded plane). Finally I had to pull way up and fly AWAY from the scene to reacquire the bogie. Ridiculous.

I can understand how no-icon should allow lowflying planes to sometimes avoid being seen...and they do a great job of defying those who don't do good, determined area searches (at least 3 seconds in each direction)...but they not only do this, they defeat high-percentage, informed searches. That's the problem I have with them. When you consider how dots can get smaller or disappear as one ZOOMS *IN*, it just gives the impression (and the effect) that the implementation is just flat out wrong.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:13 PM
you are completly right Stiglr !!!!!

same thing here ...

it's no fun nor realistic

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:46 PM
I also concur . I fly no enemy icons now , but often see transitions between a well articulated profile and complete disappearance while I am gaining on the bandit. If that bandit is a Zero for example then it could have gone anywhere! Verrry annoying! Furthermore if the disappearing bandit is approaching the edge of your FOV, then zooming does not help.



Message Edited on 11/21/0305:48PM by ucanfly

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:36 PM
Stiglr,

It occured to me that it is important to convey a perception that I share; IL2/FB is not perfect.

My perception is that as far as viewing goes the sim has done an outstanding job of simulating the differences each of us have in our abilities to command perception in a no icon environment. It also give us those icons if we want them, but there is no longer any advantage one might have had over another once icons or padlock has been enabled.

I do not think that hardware is the determining factor when considering why one player see's better than another.

If you care to; try this:

Record a session of play in IL2/FB. If a case occured during that session where a target dissapears; go back and find that moment and take a before and after screen capture. Before is when the target was visiable/after is when the target dissapears.
You then have three files; a track file and two screen captures. Send them to me.

josf.kelley@verizon.net

If I can see the target where you cannot then we can look into why this condition exists, perhaps it is a hardware difference.

If we both cannot see the target then here is where your concern is legitimate relative to my concern.
I've done this test before, but not in the latest version of the game. The target that I thought was not visable was in fact visable but not easy to see. I concluded that in such situations Hertt would have been less likely to loose sight for whatever reason.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:58 PM
Interesting proposition. I'll try to remember to make tracks while I'm flying. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. And as I mentioned, sometimes dots are problematic, sometimes not, in the same kinds of situations. For instance, I have sorties where I can fly into an area and easily notice a bunch of little dots lower and against the terrain 5-10km away...other sorties (during the same session of IL-2) I can fly around areas and never see anything, although chat reveals that there's been action below I should've seen; or, tracer will indicate combat and even when I fly to the area, I don't see dots; if the tracer doesn't light up again, I'll never find anything.

Here's another thing to add to the mix: have you ever noticed a change in the entire view outside while you're flying? I've noticed that, quite suddenly, a LARGE PORTION of some distant area outside suddenly goes "blurry" or lower res while I'm searching. I've never noticed this happening while a dot was visible (to determine whether the dot disappears when this blurring occurs)...but it's possible that it could happen while I'm concentrating on a small area of the screen and don't notice the larger effect.

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:56 AM
Hello all,

It appears that at the VERY LEAST there is a great need to overhaul the current Icon system in order to make it more visually realistic. Practically everyone agrees that the current Icons DO NOT visually portray a realistic looking aircraft recognition system. This is why some go the EXTREME of flying without Icons which introduces many other problems.

There have been many good suggestions presented in this thread on improving this situation. Now it is simply a matter of trying to implement the best of these suggestions into the sim. As an example, Stiglr's excellent suggestion on implementing the WWII online icon-arc system (or any variation on it) would be a GREAT improvement over what we have now.

I am very surprised that Olegg and company have not stated their opinion on this matter. In my opinion, as it stands the current Icon system is the MOST unrealistic part of FB.

Olegg is it possible to overhaul or improve the current Icon system according to what has been discussed in this thread??

An answer would be greatly appreciated as another thread has already been stared on aircraft visibility.

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:16 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- @a pi mp_dotrange FRIENDLY|FOE COLOR 0.01 DOT 14
- RANGE 5 TYPE 0.01 ID 0.01 NAME 0.01
-
-
-
- This is good icon settings.
-
- If you want color, try COLOR at 1
-
- You'd be able to id the aircraft a 1km - don't you
- agree?
-
- (put this in your rcu file and type >pi to execute
- )
-
- S!
- 609IAP_Recon
-


Great, But wheres the RCU file???


"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close your eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:52 AM
1 km?

This does nothing for the critical 2 - 5km range where most of the worst effects of the sim are realized (backwards scaling, dot appearance/disappearance anamolies, invisibility against water, etc.).

This would only help a little in the 'disappearing into tree canopy' department, and with IFF.

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 08:47 PM
I had the exact same same thing the other night on the Normandy map, Looking down on a strafer, roll over & still have him in view, know where to look & can follow his motion with my view keys & he just disappears, had to extend & look again. Server was a bit funky so that could have played a part but once i'm close enough to engage I shouldn't loose him unless he gets under my nose or wing & changes direction. Bandit was in my front & front up view the whole time & I was closing. Finally just quit. going for icons myself from now on. i don't have much time to fly anyway so why waste it, also don't want to have to spend an after noon "Tweaking" my settings PITA. Offline i been using range only in red & blue, makes it interesting when attacking bombers as they have gunners in diff. positions.

Icons may make detection too easy but i prefer that to constantly loosing a bandit i have tally on. Besides the fun of this game isnt being able to spot little dots better than the other guy but in out manuevering him, for me anyway.
I do respect the squad felows who learn maps & navigate themselvs & don't need icons-tho they usually have better sytems than me- & maybe more importantly more time.

The arc icons do sound better than the numbers which can be distracting at times.
Still i gotta vote FOR ICONS .
Stiglr wrote:
- Josf wrote:
-
- <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The producer of the game has made visual
- range a constant value for all players.
-
- What is that range? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
-
- It's variable by video card, by monitor, and by
- settings, actually. But, I find it extremely
- inconsistent.
-
- Last night was a good example. I'm on a no-icon
- server and I'm tooling around near an enemy base. I
- see some tracer fire near ground level about 5km
- away, and I'm up at about 3km. I fly closer to the
- area, and discover a plane trying to strafe another
- plane that'd been forced down. I throttled back and
- began to maneuver so that as I dropped, I kept the
- strafing plane between me and the grounded plane:
- the idea being, the strafer was probably keeping his
- attention on his helpless target, so he wouldn't see
- me if I came from the opposite direction.
-
- Well, due to the (in)visibility of dots in this sim,
- I lost him two or three times (against a nearby
- forest and against the ground) as I maneuvered down,
- despite the fact that the range was always getting
- shorter, and that I knew where to look for the
- bogie, based on his flight path and that I knew his
- intentions (to return again and again to strafe the
- grounded plane). Finally I had to pull way up and
- fly AWAY from the scene to reacquire the bogie.
- Ridiculous.
-
- I can understand how no-icon should allow lowflying
- planes to sometimes avoid being seen...and they do a
- great job of defying those who don't do good,
- determined area searches (at least 3 seconds in each
- direction)...but they not only do this, they defeat
- high-percentage, informed searches. That's the
- problem I have with them. When you consider how dots
- can get smaller or disappear as one ZOOMS *IN*, it
- just gives the impression (and the effect) that the
- implementation is just flat out wrong.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 11:01 AM
It's all Stiglr's fault. He wanted Oleg to get rid of the dark dots and he did. Now we have invisidots. KILL STIGLR!

Just kidding mate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wish we had those dark dots back. In the meantime, I like to fly with Icons on. But most people fly with just friendly icons which means the enemy is still invisible, which is silly.

Mr. Magoo in WW2.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 07:59 PM
Oleg if you have the time, a constructive reponse from you on this thread would be greatly appreciated.

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 08:12 PM
Actually I think Oleg (or someone from his company) has given their comment in the game manual.

It goes something like "while some would not agree that it is realistic to have icons, the visual perception of real pilots in a true 3d environment cannot be duplicated by a computer game." I realize these are the exact words, but hopefully I have captured the meaning. Please refer to your manual.

Regards

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Sir Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 09:17 PM
Hello,

TacticalSkirmish wrote:

"Actually I think Oleg (or someone from his company) has given their comment in the game manual.

It goes something like "while some would not agree that it is realistic to have icons, the visual perception of real pilots in a true 3d environment cannot be duplicated by a computer game." I realize these are the exact words, but hopefully I have captured the meaning. Please refer to your manual."

Actually the idea here is to IMPROVE the visual perception and bring us a little closer to a realistic 3d environment and NOT to duplicate a true 3d environment. This is exactly why the current Icon system needs to be improved upon. The technology currently exists with which to make Icons look much more natural. This in turn will make Icons a much more ACCEPTABLE tool for aircraft recognition.

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 10:34 PM
Stigler: you have answered and responded the same way I would have - interesting we share the same view.

And as Pentallion said, give us back our 4 pixel dots http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Again, we are seeing at a 32:1 ratio - this isn't realistic to begin with, and makes no comparision to real life.

Go mock dogfight - you will see a HUGE difference - you can't even begin to compare real life colors, light, etc...

Again, it's not even close to real life. We are get 17-19" displays at resolutions and colors in the game that can't even come close.

Josf, I don't think this is all about ability though, I will disagree there.

Current icons aren't too bad if you know how to use them correctly.

someone above asked where the RCU file is - it's in your main fb directory.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 11:57 PM
Recon wrote:

"Josf, I don't think this is all about ability
though, I will disagree there."

I don't either. Hardware differences inevitably cause one player to have an edge over another. I don't think this is a big factor and it is not well understood either. Are lower resolutions better or worse for seeing planes in IL2/FB and if so does this apply to all distances and all conditions?

The problem with icons is that the skills required to identify and track targets no longer becomes neccessary at the distance the icons become visible or at least is no longer as much of a factor.
I think that a player with good I.D and tracking skills will have a much greater advantage over someone with less I.D. and tracking skills in a no icon environment and that this condition simulates the real deal. It simulates the competitive nature of Air combat. Lose sight and lose the fight.

It is not realistic to have airplanes flying around with huge neon signs. I am certain if the USAF can pass a bill in the U.N requiring all our enemies to have electronic devises in their planes that cause our pilots to have Helmet HUD plane I.D. Labels visible for all enemy planes they will do so.

The hardware issue exists and will never be totally addressed unless each program requires the same hardware to run the game. It is just too bad for those with hardware that isn't up to snuff. It is wonderful that the makers of games are not so stupid as to contruct games for the least common denominator which would be analogous to the tendencies in public schooling in America these days; teaching everyone only as much as the least capable is able to comprehend.

If you don't want to develop identification and tracking skills, if you want the computer to do that for you then turn on Icons. It makes it a lot easier for everyone on that server. It is not the same game as no icon servers and it is not as realistic in my opinion based upon the books I've read written by the people who were there fighting those battles.

Pilots who could not I.D. and could not track targets were shot down.

The game does not represent absolute reality, but it does a very good job of simulating the relative competitive nature of it, without icons.

The game could definitly be improved when and if planes do actually dissapear or if they become so diffcult to see that looking straight at them requires a pixel by pixel examination to determine their presence. But couldn't this be fixed by simply changing the contrast of colors for those planes at those moments?

I've been playing WWIIonline. In my opinion IL2/FB is far better because it does not give each pilot automatic identification and tracking abilities. Those huge flying neon circles make it nearly impossible to go undetected to all but the players that are not in the same room as their computers i.e. getting another beer or taking a leak.






JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 12:24 AM
Hello all,

The WHOLE problem is the need to improve the visibility of planes. Whether Icons, planes, or a combination of Icons and planes it is aircraft recognition that we are talking about. Everyone seems to agree that this needs to be improved upon.

Now, how to do it??

1) Icons as they exist now are far too bulky and unnatural with numbers, text, or both splashed on the screen. People don't use them for that reason and I don't blame them.

2) Turn Icons OFF and you cannot come close to seeing the planes as in real life (if at all). This has been well supported in more than one thread now.

3) Make the planes more readily visible by using either: a)Icons, b)the planes themselves, c)a combination of planes and colors etc., d)or a combination of natural Icons and planes, e)anything else not mentioned.

However, you want to do it, just someone please do it!

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 12:46 AM
waterinthefuel wrote:
- Am I the only person that "friendly only icons"
- makes sense to? C'mon guys, think about it. If you
- have that enabled, and you see a dot and it doesn't
- have an icon by it, you better watch out, he's an
- enemy.
-
- Why is this so hard to understand?
-

Because you are not making the effort to understand what is being said. The issue, which I totally agree with btw, is that the mid-LOD models in FB are lacking. You can be looking straight at a bogie - friendly or otherwise and have him disappear from view because he is crossing the infamous "blur-line" or he's below you. While both might make sense if the bogie were more than a few km away, it does not make sense when the bogie is less than 3-4km.

The second issue is that even when you can see the bogie, there's not enough detail unless you zoom in because of screen resolution limitations and the size of the "dots".

I am not looking for a way to tell bandits from friendlies artificially but to be able to track/discern what I would normally be able to track/discern. With that in mind, I've been testing a number of custom icons settings offline (padlock off, again to prevent an artificial IFF) and my most recent experiment has been:


@a fr5 mp_dotrange FRIENDLY RANGE 4 DOT 15 COLOR .005 TYPE .005 ID .6 NAME .005
@a fo5 mp_dotrange FOE RANGE 4 DOT 15 COLOR .005 TYPE .005 ID .5 NAME .005

These settings allow me to:

1. Not lose track of a bogie once he's inside of 4km so long as I'm looking at the right piece of sky - I would have preferred 3km but for some quirky reason dots are harder to see just before the range kicks in.

2. Be able to "read" the ID's/numbers on the side of an aircraft within 500m without resorting to zoomed view.

3. Still have to expend some mental energy to decide whether a bogie is a good guy or a bad guy through studying flight-pattern, planeform, tracer colors, etc.

These work great, but there are a few drawbacks:

1. The settings are very specific to my preferences and YMMV which means it is unlikely you'll ever find the settings you like on a server.

2. Padlock ruins it because it will still tell good guy from bad guy at 3km.

3. To a certain degree, it does marr the visuals of FB, but c'est la vie.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:01 AM
Icon's are a poor subsitute for simulating real life visibility on 17"- 21" monitors. Does anyone here have a working understanding of how the game engine scales perspective? It would seem to me that to solve the issue without reverting to icon's, simply adjust the game engine to scale perspective in such a way as to increae the size of a plane viewed from 900meters so as to appear approximately 1/4 to 1/6 the size of a plane viewed at 10 meters. In other words make a 900 meter distant aircraft approximately 4 times its current in game size, then make the scaling factor less as the aircraft moves past the 900 meter distance and up to around 5km so that at 5km an aircraft is still identifiable by its fuselage, wings,tailplane and vertical stabiliser ie the classic cross shape. Additionally include the fact that objects start to blend in with the atmosphere the further they are from the observer, which naturely depends on the conditions of the weather in the map that is loaded and, kiss my butt the problem is solved. No more bloody icons. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 09:22 AM
Stigler mentions changing pixels back to how that il2 was - I'd be for that - much better than adding pixels.


But until then, we should use this:

http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/ftp/icon_test.jpg


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 12:47 PM
Ok, just my little input to balance things out.

I understand Maggnum`s points, but his words speak of a lack of fighting experience in FB. I doubt he`s given full real a real try.
I am very much of the opinion of JG5-Unkle. I fly very much like him on and offline. I fly routinely with NO icons in 1024 x 768 and have a far better and IMMERSIVE experience.

Now there is a problem with dissappearing dots in mid range, but what I do is keep my view to the FURTHEST OUT range where I can see them until they`ve come closer then no problem.

A BIG NO NO, Maggnum , is your wish to your icon idea as the `REALISTIC` option. Why? Surely it should be an option called `Semi-Icons` or something, but why force everyone to have your view of how FB should be viewed? NEVER reduce choice. Realistic should be absolutely NO icons for those of us who want it with its warts an all. Your idea itself is not bad, the way you want it implemented is quite selfish. eg :`EVERYONE MUST have MY IDEA!`

Being forced to have icons on planes would destroy FB for me, and I would certainly blame you for it, if it happened.

Granted, Oleg needs to somehow correct the vanishing dot in midrange view though. But let`s not chop our tails off for one wolf!



ps. Also, why are people who suggest `Friendly icons ` made to look like idiots? It greatly helps others who find `Full real` difficult. It is not silly. It is not difficult to understand. Someone mentioned friendly icons are no good cos you still need to SEE the enemy. ? I find it extremely easy to see and intercept enemies on servers with this. It`s almost a joy. If you can`t understand its benefits, well then you never will.









"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).



Message Edited on 11/27/0312:23PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 08:39 PM
Seafire wrote:

Realistic should be absolutely NO icons for those of us who want it with its warts and all.
=====================

No, realistic should be what produces the most realistic results in the sim, not necessarily what "looks" or "seems" at face value to be the most realistic. It's not just about graphics, it's about impact on the way the sim plays!!!

It is true that we don't have Las Vegas style neon signs labeling every object in real life. But then again, things don't disappear while you're looking directly at them either (except in Hollywood movies), and if you concentrate on an object and move closer to it, it doesn't get *smaller*. This happens all the time in "no icon", and affects the action dramatically.

So, no icon is pretty much showed up to be "hardER than real life" and is just as flawed a simulation as any arcade method.

Why icons work better *as a simulation* is that they offer that little bit of color that draws the eye while you're twisting turning, adjusting your throttle, changing your view magnification, etc., so that you don't lose an acquired bogie at medium to long ranges (or even close range, if there's a tree canopy as a background). And, to quash that sarcastic Vegas post, provided they're not the default icons (which I fully agree go too far), but icons modified to be short (both in appearance range and appearance on-screen), then they PRODUCE THE MOST REALISTIC RESULTS. The way action unfolds from discovery through shot prosecution is much closer to what you read from first-person accounts than what you get from the "hairshirt, full difficulty settings".

Yesterday I was on the Mudmovers server on HyperLobby, a perfect illustration of the fallacy of "hairshirt, full difficulty" servers. No icons, weather set to hazy over the Caen map. In the area where the most planes were, I spied a P-51 (luckily, against a cloud; you could see absolutely NOTHING against the ground, which looked like Los Angeles in the summertime). He was trying to climb up to me and I was waiting for him, tracking his movement over a wing, while I waited for him to lose steam, and have to dive away.

Every time, because his aspect angle to me offended the "pixel drawing" method of the graphics system, he flat out disappeared, within 2km range. Just *pip*, gone. I couldn't reacquire him until he was at least 4 or 5km away, and against the "far-rendered" terrain, which wasn't as "hazy" as the close-in terrain backdrop. Realistic? Not even remotely.

While I wasted 3/4 of a tank of petrol stooging around at a very historical perch of about 4km, plane destruction due to prangs and crashes outnumbered kills due to enemy fire by about 4:1. Nobody could get a clean kill because they couldn't FIND any other planes...and if they did, they were all losing visibility during combat, stalling in and crashing. It was like Keystone Cops Over Normandy. Finally, I got fed up and left.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 08:43 PM
By the way, Recon, if you're gonna be sarcastic about icons, at least use an example of where people need HELP seeing. Nobody needs icons at the range where *that* plane appears. Don't distort the argument.

Although, I will mention, at that range, you WOULD be able to make out things like markings, roundels, theatre bands, etc. that would make IFF decisions easier. One good reason why, even there, a small icon would be helpful.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 02:06 AM
Hello all,

Stiglr wrote:
================================================== =====
Quote STARTs

"No, realistic should be what produces the most realistic results in the sim, not necessarily what "looks" or "seems" at face value to be the most realistic. It's not just about graphics, it's about impact on the way the sim plays!!!

It is true that we don't have Las Vegas style neon signs labeling every object in real life. But then again, things don't disappear while you're looking directly at them either (except in Hollywood movies), and if you concentrate on an object and move closer to it, it doesn't get *smaller*. This happens all the time in "no icon", and affects the action dramatically.

So, no icon is pretty much showed up to be "hardER than real life" and is just as flawed a simulation as any arcade method.

Why icons work better *as a simulation* is that they offer that little bit of color that draws the eye while you're twisting turning, adjusting your throttle, changing your view magnification, etc., so that you don't lose an acquired bogie at medium to long ranges (or even close range, if there's a tree canopy as a background). And, to quash that sarcastic Vegas post, provided they're not the default icons (which I fully agree go too far), but icons modified to be short (both in appearance range and appearance on-screen), then they PRODUCE THE MOST REALISTIC RESULTS. The way action unfolds from discovery through shot prosecution is much closer to what you read from first-person accounts than what you get from the "hairshirt, full difficulty settings"."

Quote ENDs
================================================== ======

I could NOT have said it better myself. However, this seems to be a very difficult concept to comprehend. Honestly I don't know WHY? But, this forum is open to all constructive opinions and this is what it is all about.

Thank-you
Maggnum

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 02:11 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- ps. Also, why are people who suggest `Friendly
- icons ` made to look like idiots? It greatly helps
- others who find `Full real` difficult. It is not
- silly. It is not difficult to understand. Someone
- mentioned friendly icons are no good cos you still
- need to SEE the enemy. ? I find it extremely easy
- to see and intercept enemies on servers with this.
- It`s almost a joy. If you can`t understand its
- benefits, well then you never will.
-

Who's making who look like an idiot? Friendly-only icons do not address the topic of this thread - namely, the lack of realistic visibility in FB due to hardware/software constraints. Furthermore, for your information, I prefer no icons at all and fly that way regularly. I have adapted to spot aircraft at 8+km and track them to within 3km. Even within the notorious middle distance, I've learnt a few tricks to keep tally on bandits. (besides mashing padlock which I don't use any more)

However, many others don't seem to get the same visibility I do and I don't think it's fair first and foremost. So you see, I don't particularly like icons, but believe they are a necessary evil in some situations in FB until the LOD modelling is fixed.

Now, wrt friendly-only icons, I find they worsen the mid-distance problem for bandits for some obscure reason, don't know why. Furthermore, you are now adding IFF functionality when all I'd really like to add is better visibility not magical "hey, I'm a bandit!" qualities. In fact, I prefer no icons at all to friendly-only icons. It's a personal preference and you may not like it but you can't force your view on others, a trait you seem to despise yourself.

Last, but not least, I have indeed tried friendly-only icons on several occasions, can you say the same about non-ID'ing, range-only icons? I thought so...

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 03:14 AM
Jetbuff wrote:
-
- Last, but not least, I have indeed tried
- friendly-only icons on several occasions, can you
- say the same about non-ID'ing, range-only icons? I
- thought so...
-

I don`t quite understand that last bit, I have flown nearly every icon type server, but anyway....


I find playing with friendly icons a little too easy and unrealistic, but I mentioned it earlier as a help to others. A CHOICE. I much prefer playing without icons at all, which for me is far more immersive (harder, but more enjoyable).

It seems some people are having real problems. OK, I agree some things need fixing with the mid-distance vision, but it still is not as bad as people make out. Maybe it`s my graphic`s card, or settings, but I do not have this kind of trouble acquiring bandits. I have noticed that i tend to spot the `dots` of bandits from VERY far out.

After that I use common sense to work out if friend or enemy, fighters or bombers, ie direction of flight, formation, high or low, do they scatter or stay put, etc...

My real gripe is not so much with the suggestion for a cure, but the implied suggestion to do away with the `no icon` setting all together and to have the `limited icon` setting as the REALISTIC. Whether you call it realistic or no is not important, as long as there is a NO ICON choice. My point is keep the choices at least. Always.

Improve far away graphics yes, but I don`t want to find my copy of FB `forcing` me to see things with an `icon` if I don`t wish to.

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).



Message Edited on 11/28/0302:18AM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 03:22 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- Jetbuff wrote:
--
-- Last, but not least, I have indeed tried
-- friendly-only icons on several occasions, can you
-- say the same about non-ID'ing, range-only icons? I
-- thought so...
--
-
- I don`t quite understand that last bit, I have flown
- nearly every icon type server, but anyway....
-

I mean limited icons with only range on for BOTH friendlies and enemies, no color or type to give away the bandits from the good guys. I find this an acceptable alternative to no icons.

- Improve far away graphics yes, but I don`t want to
- find my copy of FB `forcing` me to see things with
- an `icon` if I don`t wish to.
-

Me neither. Like I said, I don't particularly like icons, but sometimes I see the point because really it makes no sense when you lose track when the bandit is a mere km away - the 190, mig and lagg are particularly adept at this.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 05:00 AM
SeaFire, all this hemming and hawing about choice is irrelevant. Everyone has the choice to fly however he or she wishes, from full arcade to full difficulty.

That's not the issue.

What IS the issue is whether a no-icon setting or a limited-icon setting is more realistic, given the limitations of the software and the systems we play it on.

You (and I) will ALWAYS have choice. That was built into the sim from the get-go.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 05:17 AM
It`s a touchy subject IMO... too many buts are coming into play.

1) Level of hardware (PC)
2) Size of monitor
3) Sight... old vs young, 20x20 vs...whatever..

As a full time host i rather to take all those under consideration...but to some extent.. Bottom line is to make enjoyable and fair game for everybody regardless of those 1,2,3 above.

Personally i don`t like icons...and depending on the game type i`m trying to limit them

If there are no externals it`s usually 3k for friendlies no color... foe icons are off.

If exernals are on, no icons are needed IMO...Everyone knows how to use F6 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub