PDA

View Full Version : Dot Range what happened???



VMF-214_Pappy
11-29-2004, 02:03 PM
In 3.01m the dots where very visibile and easy to pick out even over heavy foilage on the ground. Now with the 3.02 you can hardly see the dots before you can the icons. I run 2km limited color icons and we all had a problem seeing the dots of planes until right on top of them. Most I have talked too loved the 3.01 version dots. Very visible and easy to pick out, now it seems you have to be right on top of a plane to see it. I dont know if this was left out in the 3.02 fix over the 3.01 but I thouhgt i would bring it up and see what people think and would prefer. Thank You.

MatoKKK
11-29-2004, 02:20 PM
Sorry man, but most people I know prefer dots in 3.02b patch. They are just perfect now.

faustnik
11-29-2004, 02:26 PM
I liked the big 3.01 dots. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
11-29-2004, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatoKKK:
Sorry man, but most people I know prefer dots in 3.02b patch. They are just perfect now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you check the results of the poll?????

MatoKKK
11-29-2004, 05:36 PM
Well, I wrote: Most people "I know".

DarthBane_
11-29-2004, 05:58 PM
What happened? They messed up perfect dots from 3.01 due to whiiiners.

LEXX_Luthor
11-29-2004, 06:11 PM
DarthBane_ :: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They messed up perfect dots from 3.01 due to whiiiners. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. The Patch 3.01 itself messed up the dots. The 3.01 Default dotrange was too high--14km according to Tully, thus causing us to see BIG dots at close range, and BIG dots at long range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 3.01 dot fix is to set mp_dotrange to smaller number, depending on simmer and resolution, thus causing big dots at close range and small dots at long range, and fading away at even longer ranges to about 8km (in my preference) and then fading out to nothing--this is Real Life behavior of small distant aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif There were some good Whines about not being able to judge range with 3.01 dots, and you CAN'T judge range when the big dots are both at close and long range.

3.01 dotfix is here...czech it out...
~>> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542

WUAF_Badsight
11-29-2004, 10:17 PM
the 3.01 dots were what was needed in FB since v1.0

they look good in the air still in v3.02 , but v3.01 dots were awesome

thompet03
11-30-2004, 12:07 AM
3.01 dots were like the dots we had in 1.0..

The whole community was realy happy to change them with the first patches and now they want it back?

I think the new ones are the most realistic we ever had and they rock..

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2004, 03:08 AM
thompet:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3.01 dots were like the dots we had in 1.0.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, 3.02b dots much better than 3.0 dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif For those with lesser eyesight and/or high resolution, I would recommend Oleg stay with 3.01 dots with dotrange reduced from Default 14km for realism--depending on resolution perhaps and/or simmer preference.

3.02b dot visibility actually matches aircraft grafic at the point the aircraft turns into dot. This is much better than 3.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I tried 640x480 and its HORRIBLE. The 3.02b dots seem to be made of TWO pixels side by side, weird, could use some help looking at this to figure it out and Be Sure. But if true, 3.02b dots are DOUBLE the size of 3.0 dots, plus the white help dots slightly.

If you increase dotrange, 3.02b dots are more visible and at greater range, but at cost of less fade with range--less ability to judge range. For me, the only problem is seeing 3.02 dots against the green forest.

For me at 1200x960...been doing less TESTING and more PLAY http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3.02b dots against the water is "bearable," but here you can really see the effects of resolution, and I recommend Oleg go with 3.01 dots for simmers with "old eyes" or higher resolution simmers.

3.02b dots and 3.01 dots are BOTH realistic when seen against the sky--but with Defualt dotrange changed in both cases. 3.02b dots need increased dotrange, 3.01 dots need decreased dotrange--but both cases depending on simmer eyesight and preference. This reversal may also be related to the recent porking of dotrange some have noticed.

Pacific Jungle is somewhat easier to see 3.02b dots than Easter Front Forest...I have been testing with Lvov map, naturally, and played over Japan map...not as bad, but still the white dot could be increased slightly in size perhaps.

Gunz, it doesn't take much to buy ATI~9200 now, the CD driver works great obviously, in fact its time to make that the recomended grafix card for low-end simmers, as Nvida Ti~4x00 apparently can only do 1024x768. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I suppose Ti still burns out often. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

hobnail
11-30-2004, 03:44 AM
Hur hur, foilage...

sorry, couldn't resist

LEXX_Luthor
11-30-2004, 03:48 AM
defoliant

Cossack13
11-30-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
No, 3.02b dots much better than 3.0 dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif For those with lesser eyesight and/or high resolution, I would recommend Oleg stay with 3.01 dots with dotrange reduced from Default 14km for realism--depending on resolution perhaps and/or simmer preference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely agree!!!

Da_eggman
11-30-2004, 03:09 PM
seeing a dot against the ground giving ya troubles huh? yea that cant be realistic, they only camoflaged aircraft to make them look cool it never had any real world effect. when looking down from 7,000m one should easily being able to pick out a low flying aircraft.....

Tully__
12-01-2004, 04:41 AM
I like both with some DOT range adjustment but I'm tending towards the 3.02b version as the LOD models appear at greater ranges even though the actual dots fade quicker. With mp_dotrange DOT set between 16-20km they're very good indeed.

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2004, 05:43 AM
mmm, I'm thinking the same thing.

Now running my ATI~9200 at 1280x960, the immersion is intense, seeing the aircraft grafics far away. Yes, dotrange about 20km seems about right--which means dots out to 10km as dotrange is porked now.

Zen--
12-01-2004, 06:54 AM
I completely do not like the current default 3.02 dot settings:


I can live with this kind of visibility against clouds (target just over 3km away)

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/dot.bmp

But the same target just over 2.5km is nearly invisible:

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/nodot.bmp

I certainly hope that 16-20km is better for this as Tully recommends, I will be extremely disappointed if this doesn't help with lower targets. I spent last night chasing inviso dots like some kind of blind man, it was very frustrating. Thanks Tully for the recommendation on mp_dotrange.

BTW: here is the target in the second picture:

http://209.163.147.67/zen/files/zen/nodot2.bmp

CHDT
12-01-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But the same target just over 2.5km is nearly invisible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, not seeing an aircraft, even camouflaged, at this distance is completely unrealistic!

Extreme_One
12-01-2004, 07:12 AM
The thing is that in a still image it is difficult to see the target - but a moving one is far easier to see. Or is it just me?

Zen--
12-01-2004, 07:34 AM
You are correct EO, moving targets are easier to see in game, for example the cloud target image I posted first. But the ground target I didn't actually see until I zoomed in photoshop.

In game I waited til he crossed over to the ground and then took a screen shot...I never saw him after that.

While playing I would watch as these targets would literally disappear...gone, vanished, invisible against the ground, not just hard to see but completely gone while looking directly at them.

DarthBane_
12-01-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
DarthBane_ :: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They messed up perfect dots from 3.01 due to whiiiners. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. The Patch 3.01 itself messed up the dots. The 3.01 Default dotrange was too high--14km according to Tully, thus causing us to see BIG dots at close range, and BIG dots at long range. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 3.01 dot fix is to set mp_dotrange to smaller number, depending on simmer and resolution, thus causing big dots at close range and small dots at long range, and fading away at even longer ranges to about 8km (in my preference) and then fading out to nothing--this is Real Life behavior of small distant aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif There were some good Whines about not being able to judge range with 3.01 dots, and you CAN'T judge range when the big dots are both at close and long range.

3.01 dotfix is here...czech it out...
~>> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take a look at voting results. Majority of people likes 301 dots. There are too much whiners among nobs but also among old hands on this forum. A cry baby is a cry baby no metter how many posts. Vay voting than anyway?

DarthBane_
12-01-2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatoKKK:
Sorry man, but most people I know prefer dots in 3.02b patch. They are just perfect now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, not most but whiners people whined to death for change. Most of people liked 301, and this 302 is pure ****.

WWMaxGunz
12-01-2004, 10:32 AM
Different realisms. Working, functional realism as opposed to picture perfect realism
where unfortunately by the time the picture is made, it doesn't work as real and what
works as real isn't the perfect picture or as closer to perfect as possible is farther
and farther from real working. The picture is small with small parts and small angle
of view. This changes simulation into something more art project some ways.

So there is the icons. We have text parts controllable, maybe the icons can add one
part as the 3.01 dot with range of that which the dots being in the icon control line
are battled about as a non-icon issue so.....

Why can't the dots be left clear enough to see and the realistic picture buffs can just
set the dotrange to 0.01 and live with the true-calculated pixel if they want picture
pieces all just so?

If we have dots as 3.01 controllable then we finally can dispense with the rest of the
icon elements, the floating text. It is still not instant find on my system, not any
guarantee of finding at all. My view angle remains small and unless I hold my search
over each area and delay to watch, I was able to miss dots. It was not a case of hatting
around through 8 views with 1 second of less to scan and identify presense which is how
many sims played by hard core hotas owners have been so it's not exactly so unreal by
far as some people posted. IMHO, the actual words of the people who objected counted
more than the votes but since they took no steps of control through settings and they
chose the words to cast negative views then their posts should have been read as such.
Oleg does not seem to react as so when Mk108 and 151/20 MG explosions are reported in
similar ways, or other DM ojections/whines or the, ummmm, 190 view.

I am hoping for some objectivity regarding how something shown as real solely in terms
of a part of the simulation that is only so real in terms of what is simulated is then
itself only so real as the part itself. The overall view is nice and pretty but if that
is what real pilots had to live and work by, the war would have been very different.


Neal

gates123
12-01-2004, 10:41 AM
I like the new dots much more realistic.

uhoh7
12-01-2004, 02:02 PM
New dots are very hard to see exccept against clouds at 1600x1200x32

A slight tweak of 3.01 dots may have been in order, but now for many FR is impossible and we have to use the **** icons,

The screen shots above speak for themselves