PDA

View Full Version : Read inside and vote by link



Oleg_Maddox
11-19-2004, 05:52 AM
Visibility of aircraft: old dots or new white+dots.

We did them just as test. Becasue with the next add-on we may change them.

To make them smaller is impossible.

As for visibility - real pilots will say you that it is sh....t and we know this ourselves.
However compomisses for the limit of view on monitor should be done, but which? We offer currently the best we found, which is possible to implement and look now for reaction.

All was asking for increasing of visibility, but with pixels of monitor and limit of technologies (resolutions) real life things are not possible. So should be found some compromise isn't it?

So _technology_ based suggestion please post here in this topic, but vote there:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3191061342

Willey
11-19-2004, 05:59 AM
I really like it. I was really amazed that I could track a dot that was 3000m below me after I found it, that was close to impossible before. I also like the ship dots very much. It's just better to see something at longer distaces, I also had a hard time using level bombing from 3000+m because of the visibility, I suspect it is easier now to have the right course early enough.

JG5_JaRa
11-19-2004, 06:19 AM
I liked the feature of dots fading in. However, the problem with the one-pixel dots from FB/AEP was that they were practically invisible at high resolutions (1280 and higher) and easily visible on lower resolutions. The black dots are now easily visible at any resolution, but the camoflage effect (aircraft color and fade out at distance) is gone. IMHO the best solution would be to use the old color from FB/AEP but make the dots bigger at high resolutions, for example:
1x1 pixel for 800x600
2x1 pixel for 1024x768
2x2 pixel for 1280x1024
etc.

Oleg_Maddox
11-19-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
I really like it. I was really amazed that I could track a dot that was 3000m below me after I found it, that was close to impossible before. I also like the ship dots very much. It's just better to see something at longer distaces, I also had a hard time using level bombing from 3000+m because of the visibility, I suspect it is easier now to have the right course early enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willey,

In real life you will be not able to track the camoflaged aircraft over the surface from such altitude. Be sure in 90% cases. You probably may track it if you just by these 10% cases was able by the case to see movement somewhere and then to dive there... This you may found in many recals of WWII pilots. Even in Hartmann book.
However on the sky backgound and mostly on the line of horizon the visibility is way diferent comparing to the mentioned above.

Oleg_Maddox
11-19-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
I liked the feature of dots fading in. However, the problem with the one-pixel dots from FB/AEP was that they were practically invisible at high resolutions (1280 and higher) and easily visible on lower resolutions. The black dots are now easily visible at any resolution, but the camoflage effect (aircraft color and fade out at distance) is gone. IMHO the best solution would be to use the old color from FB/AEP but make the dots bigger at high resolutions, for example:
1x1 pixel for 800x600
2x1 pixel for 1024x768
2x2 pixel for 1280x1024
etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry... we didn't add black dots... but white above old. Using contrast.

WWMaxGunz
11-19-2004, 07:01 AM
mp_dotrange limits distances of dots? So problem? Now not to chase dust specks.

1x1 at 800x600 is smaller than 2x2 at 1280x1024 = 1x1 at 640x512 benefits best hardware

1x1 at 1024x768 is visible dust speck, thank you, very tiny on 17" monitor.
We don't all have perfect eyesight or great hardware.

JG5_JaRa
11-19-2004, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Sorry... we didn't add black dots... but white above old. Using contrast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, it just seemed rather black to me then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
However, I still find that it turns camoflage rather useless. I would prefer larger dots at higher res, but same color as before, fading out in the distance. I however think that you will have a hard time finding out what people consider realistic - those who say you should always be able to spot a plane 10 miles away and those who say you may still lose it at 5km - depending on the relative position, light etc. Which comes closer to my real life experience.
WWMaxGunz, the values should then be adjusted such that the dots fill the same percentage of the screen at any resolution - as far as possible.

A.K.Davis
11-19-2004, 08:12 AM
Please do not take away the dots for ships. Much more realistic. In fact, keep the ship dots and add a few more LODs for the big ships for smoother transition from dot to model.

Mc_Wolf
11-19-2004, 08:13 AM
As known limitation on our computer, I wonder if we can tund down a little the contrast of the white and black. I think the black is too dark.

Another way is moded icon setting as an option for us. For example, just display aircraft name and number in near distance without the ditance signal. Now I use script to achive it, but must type it in every start http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I also wish to make the aircrafts a little large in sight, it should be easily to track. I don't mean far away tracking, only in dogfighting. It's really hurt my eyes without icon, even it looks more "realistic"

ZG77_Nagual
11-19-2004, 08:14 AM
I think toned down a bit would be good.

A big giveaway in real flying is reflections off metal or cockpit glass. I think many interceptions were based on a pilot seeing such a reflection and turning in that direction until the A/C became visible. Might not be practical however to do those kinds of reflections.

I see white dots added to the black dots that were allready there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
11-19-2004, 08:17 AM
Oleg, get the hell out of here and take a long weekend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tater

Mc_Wolf
11-19-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Oleg, get the hell out of here and take a long weekend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If I am Oleg, I must have run away from here. Salute and respect for his work. There are only two games in my hard disk, IL2 and Operation Flash point. Love them above all.

Jambock__01
11-19-2004, 08:30 AM
Keep the new ones!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

jimmie_T
11-19-2004, 08:31 AM
Saying this may be stupid...I don't know, but it's obvioius that there are strong desire for both sides, and then, what is the problem of making it as an option? If it's an option, will there not be heated realism war, will it...

I personally prefer newer one to the older, well, it looks a bit blacker tho...

And I know I'm asking too much but I wish now AI has various eyesight or a bit random enemy detection at a distance...

jimmie_T
11-19-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Oleg, get the hell out of here and take a long weekend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Ya! Please don't work too hard!

Willey
11-19-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Willey,

In real life you will be not able to track the camoflaged aircraft over the surface from such altitude. Be sure in 90% cases. You probably may track it if you just by these 10% cases was able by the case to see movement somewhere and then to dive there... This you may found in many recals of WWII pilots. Even in Hartmann book.
However on the sky backgound and mostly on the line of horizon the visibility is way diferent comparing to the mentioned above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The plane was just taking off from a concrete runway. It was the dogfight map where ICAS championship was done, the SW airfield. And the plane I tracked had a green camoflage. Not very good above that desert ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And I think dot's don't disappear at some distances anymore like before. That's the biggest plus. But I'll have to test it more.

carguy_
11-19-2004, 09:12 AM
Yes Oleg,IMO contrast is the key.I`m having my monitor contrast set 100% just for the game.

Oleg_Maddox
11-19-2004, 09:36 AM
Read here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=5731052342&r=5731052342#5731052342

Thera
11-19-2004, 09:45 AM
This change ruins the historic role of the IL2 in the game. It's simply not possible to fly historically at this point.

My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that this game succeeds when it creates an atmosphere and flying habits that mirror real life tactics. The game becomes and arcade game when real life tactics take a back seat to community whims.

I'm sure everyone that likes the dots would also like to see radar and HUD's in all planes. This stuff ruins the historic nature of the IL2 series of games. Please develope your game to insure historic flying, not this unrealistic gaming.

Chuck_Older
11-19-2004, 10:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thera:


My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that this game succeeds when it creates an atmosphere and flying habits that mirror real life tactics. The game becomes and arcade game when real life tactics take a back seat to community whims.

[QUOTE]

that's great and all, but please consider those that are different from yourself.

For example, not everyone has perfect eyesight. I do, and maybe you do, but if you take a look, most people wear glasses. I'm not sure that a change that, again for example, allows people with less than perfect eyesight is a detraction from realism to the extent that it makes FB/PF an "arcade game"

The term "arcade game" is a derogatory comment used to indicate the 'kiddie' way to play, or the 'less realistic than I want' way, and so on, pick your perjorative.

If there are no concessions to gameplay, these games would die. Some concessions to gameplay are needed, whether it is because of PC limitations of the 'average' player, monitor quality limitations of the 'average' player, or anything of that nature that is just too big a variable for Oleg and his company to address, then that is needed.

If you read and consider what Oleg posted when he started this thread, you'd have to come to the conclusion that it's true, technology does not offer the ability to perfectly do what we might like the sim to do. That's not his rule, or my rule, it's just the way it is.

Also consider that people play offline as well as online. Most times, I find that online-only players completely forget that offline considerations may be different from online ones.

Please consider different standpoints and the real world considerations that go into these compromises. They are not "whims", you make it sound as if Oleg and his team finally caved in to the player's demands that every Spitfire be painted bright pink and have sunflowers on the wings. We're grown-ups, too.

Kootenai
11-19-2004, 10:52 AM
I really don't think the poll is going to prove very much. My feeling is that the people who play with external views and icons are going to love the new "dots" and those who play full-real or close to full-real are going to hate them. I fall into the latter category so I voted against the dots.

Flying without icons or external views isn't just about immersion. It's also about being able to hide yourself from the enemy to catch him by surprise or to get away. To me the exaggerated visibility dots are almost as bad in that regard as long-range icons or external views.

As others have mentioned, perhaps the best solution would be to allow them as an option that could be turned on or off at the server level.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-19-2004, 11:11 AM
I fly close to full switch exclusively and I know how difficult it can be to attempt to locate an object represented by 1 or 2 pixels down below me. I think for the purpose of gameplay that the newer dots should stay. While it may be harder to escape detection, it will still be possible even if it requires a better-laid flight plan.

I can go either way, but with the visibility of a 2 dimensional screen, I think the new dots make it more playable.

TB

Boandlgramer
11-19-2004, 11:24 AM
full real player here ( of course no icons)
IMO the new dots are ugly, more than that, they are ultra ugly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

gates123
11-19-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
I fly close to full switch exclusively and I know how difficult it can be to attempt to locate an object represented by 1 or 2 pixels down below me. I think for the purpose of gameplay that the newer dots should stay. While it may be harder to escape detection, it will still be possible even if it requires a better-laid flight plan.

I can go either way, but with the visibility of a 2 dimensional screen, I think the new dots make it more playable.

TB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


TB I have to disagree with you on this, i think it has taken away the element of surprise. Bouncing someone now undetected (no icons) is almost impossible against a pilot with just average SA. Theres no more maybe. Its either a plane or its not even at 6k while the bogey is at 300m. Bottom line its not realistic and it makes camoflouge, on the deck bombing runs, and a means to escape useless.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 01:21 PM
I voted, but just to repeat myself:

I run PF at 1600x1200 so for me the dots are one of the best parts about the patch, before that planes would simply disappear at very close range, MUCH closer than if I ran at lower resolutions. It is just as unrealistic to have planes simply vanish at very close range when thay fall below the horizon, and it is very frustrating.

PLEASE keep the dots for those who run higher resolutions.

swingman
11-19-2004, 01:50 PM
I can understand why doing something to improve visibility, to compensate for the limitations of narrow view and resolution, but this has become extremely exaggerated. I know very well how difficult it is to see non-camouflaged planes at much closer range, even when you know where to look (like a plane calling short final.)
_
/Bjorn.

womenfly
11-19-2004, 01:59 PM
My 2-cents for what its worth on this ... as a real pilot, I see all approaching aircraft as black dots in the far distance when viewed with the sky as a background. Light colored aircraft appear gray in color as they become closer, only within a very, very close distance does color show up. With dark colored aircraft or camouflaged ones, they most always appear black in color. If dark colored or camouflaged aircraft are viewed with the ground as a backdrop, well €¦€¦ good luck in seeing anything until it€s to late!

Womenfly2

P.S. I like it REAL!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IVJG51_Swine
11-19-2004, 04:03 PM
I think this might be a great compromise if it's done correclty...

Metallic is better then black though..

How about light reflection from canopies also?? That would be cool..

Thanks Oleg and Crew!!

Snoop_Baron
11-19-2004, 05:10 PM
The new dots is a good especialy for those who had trouble using the old icons with their video settings.

I say improve them (tweak colors and contrast?) and/or make them configurable. Just as long as we get something that I can still see the dots on my new 21" LCD at 1600x1200 resolution like I see them at 1024x768 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here is one idea:

1) Client side option to turn on or off the display of these new dot types.

2) New mp_dotrange server side option to limit max range at which the new dots will display on clients that have them turned on. But with a built in mimum new dot display distance (decided by Oleg and team).

// client option
alt_dot ON|OFF

// server+client option
mp_dotrange ALT_DOT 5 DOT 20 NAME 0.01 COLOR 0.01 TYPE 0.01 RANGE 0.01 ID 0.01

Where ALT_DOT is the new alternate dot type.

:FI:Snoop Baron

JaVA_Zeehond
11-19-2004, 05:59 PM
I think it is best to add the new dots as a graphic or difficulty option. This solution should please every one no?

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 07:06 PM
As long as it is a user option, not a server option. The problem is that some people will game the game, but the alternative just goes back to punishing high res users with a big disadvantage.

Freycinet
11-19-2004, 09:14 PM
1) Maybe have dots tied to monitor resolution? One type for people who play in 1600x1200, another type for those who have chosen 1024x768 in their setup. Just a thought...

2) It should not be possible to choose between dots from the user side when on-line. This would ruin on-line combat. Server decides on-line, user decides off-line.

These two consideratinos ae independent of each other, by the way.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-19-2004, 09:23 PM
Freycinet, regarding #2, leaving it up to the server would still punish high res users as my guess is most would go with old dots since I think high res users are in the minority. I just don't think that is the solution. But I understand the problem this causes as well.

I really wish they could just tie it to resolution as you said (option #1), I assume this would be possible and would eliminate the whole user/server thing. I think this would be a great solution. Still, I think Oleg already has something worked out and I am curious as to what it is, though I doubt it will be dependent on resolution setting.

Snoop_Baron
11-19-2004, 10:07 PM
Give the server control over max range at which the new dots can be used. Because I think they are only unrealistic at low res and long distance.

Let the client decide the rest.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-19-2004, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
TB I have to disagree with you on this, i think it has taken away the element of surprise. Bouncing someone now undetected (no icons) is almost impossible against a pilot with just average SA. Theres no more maybe. Its either a plane or its not even at 6k while the bogey is at 300m. Bottom line its not realistic and it makes camoflouge, on the deck bombing runs, and a means to escape useless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I haven't flown it much (for well-recorded hardware issues) but everything looks to be back on track. I'll be better informed in the near future...be sure.

WWMaxGunz
11-19-2004, 11:01 PM
I read elesewhere that range of the dots is fully limited by mp_dotrange.

So where is the problem?

Michcich_303
11-20-2004, 03:48 AM
Oleg, congratulations on the patch ! Things are going in good direction !!!

As to new dots they seem good solution, at least for me as I play full real most of time.

I`d have one suggestion regarding visibilty though - is there a way to make sun more blinding when looking straight into it ? Don`t get me wrong, the current sun is "modelled" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif very well, but we all know that historically an attcker coming down from the sun direction was practically impossible to notice. Currently in game the area of blinding sun is very narrow and you can also partly obscure the sun by cockpit struts when it looses its blinding effect.

Again then - do you think it would be realistic (and possible to do in like next opatch ?) to make sun blinding effect more extensive ?

thanks

Ala11_Kal
11-20-2004, 04:42 AM
Full real player here as well.

I would love dots tuned in a stage somewhere between pre and post patch dots. Was hard for me to keep track of boggies before, now it´s too easy.

Anyway, I agree with those folks who say:

Take a rest, enjoy your week-end, and...

THANK YOU OLEG

Boandlgramer
11-20-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaVA_Zeehond:
I think it is best to add the new dots as a graphic or difficulty option. This solution should please every one no? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i agree.
i don´t like the new dots, but still understand other people very well.
this would be the best way, to add it as an difficult option.

yogy
11-20-2004, 11:42 AM
For AC, I like the solution in 3.01 best of all I can remember since Il2-beta.

For the ground objects, I would like a solution with a lower visibility for immobile objects. For mobile ones, it is OK like now in 3.01.

--> Alltogether, what we have now is a step forward IMHO.

Hunde_3.JG51
11-20-2004, 12:56 PM
Having it as a difficulty option will not work either for online players.

How can it be a difficulty option when two people see two totally different things depending on what resolution they run? Most servers will turn the new dots off because the majority of players likely run the game in lower resolutions or will be uninformed and think it is more realistic for everyone. Like I said before, for those of us who run the game at 1600x1200 the old dots are even more unrealistic, and alot more frustrating as they cause a serious disadvantage (always have). But since the issue is finally being addressed this needs to be said.

The only fair solution is to tie dot visibility to resolution.

ucanfly
11-20-2004, 04:40 PM
Oleg please never go back to the old dots. I could not see anything after 500m in certain maps. That is not realistic and unplayable without icons. These new dots are the greatest fix ever. My eyes thank you. I never use icons and the old dots were a constant source of frustration.

Never go BACK. PLEASE! Let the complainers of the new dots change their dot range.

MaxMhz
11-20-2004, 08:48 PM
Oleg - thanks for doing more than we asked for ...

on the dots etc wouldnt a place like www.war-clouds.net (http://www.war-clouds.net) be a good starting point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

to SPaRX - do a survey on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tolwyn.com
11-20-2004, 09:27 PM
How about a new setting in conf.ini

contrast_dot_opacity (from 0 to 1; Default 0.7)

Where 0 is completely transparent (old dot)
Where 1 is completely opaque (3.01 dot)

TS_Quixote
11-21-2004, 02:06 AM
Make this a selectable option... anyone who doesnt like one version or the other can use another server that has it to their taste.

However, "if" this is not an option, then I would only request the ships visual distance and appearance be returned to 3.0 specs. The way 3.01m is now, I find myself thinking they are aircraft bogeys when far out from them. They are distracting.

TS_Quixote

JRJacobs
11-21-2004, 09:19 AM
wow such emotions! no wonder oleg and crew dred changes [an assumption here not based on any facts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif]
i see many in my full real crowd that refuse to accept that it is not , nor will it ever be full real - it is in fact, full difficulty.
you cannot "feel" the plane slipping into a stall, and you will pull g-forces that in full real, would have crippled your eyesight, therefor it is not full real.
whether old or young eyes, if you try to get your sensation from a two dimensional surface [monitor] you will not experience the full real of spotting a moving object from a plane. you cannot make a monitor display anything it doesn't have. as ALL game developers know, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. resolution for the eyeball Mk1-A1 is orders of magnitude above what a monitor can display so you must compromise to achieve a virtual effect - in full real the dot may seem to large but in virtual real it's a compromise between your what your monitor can display and your eyeball can see. more people wash out of pilot training because of their eyesight than any other single reason... why do you suppose that is?
i play full difficulty on and off-line - my opinion only but i appreciate being able see an aircraft at what are actual ranges even if it's done by using artificial dot sizes. this ability to finally "SEE" planes at a realistic distance, even if unrealistic representation, caused me to plunk down the $ and but a trackIR last night - so PLEASE at least leave it as an option.
maybe you could keep the white dot and change the black dot to a grey? or set a transparency value that allowed the black dot to pickup tones of color, so over ground it appeared more greenish... heck "IF" you can make them an option and allow each to set their own - me I'd set them to on.

Alexi_Alx_Anova
11-21-2004, 10:50 AM
1) The new dots make spotting planes and positional awareness easier.

2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mpdotrange command allows the user or server to limit the range at which dots first appear.

3) Although not as convenient as a toggle switch in the game interface, this means 3.01 allows both a form of 'old', and therefore hard to see dots, and the new easy to see dots, thus allowing both types of game play.

4) Oleg has said he can't make the dots smaller than what they are now unless he goes back to the version 3.00 dots (i.e., it is not technically possible to make an intermediate dot size.) But see point 6) below.

5) Since we now have the choice of both hard/easy dots, I say keep it. We'll just have to add "small dots" to server names in HL so we know what is set. Perhaps SD and LD could become a standardized abbreviation.

6) However, I find the contrast a little too much. The dots look to me like a swarm of floating eyeballs. Perhaps a grey dot inside the black dot.

Alexi

P.S. I agree with Oleg that the large dots are unrealistic and so personally I will set my games to hard for realism.

TWISTER353rd
11-21-2004, 09:04 PM
Oleg:

Love the dots*slaps on BS protectors against these full*real*fanatics* Visibility of oncoming aircraft has and continues to be,a problem spot in this sim.Yet again I find myself having to jump in to this incessant full*real*debate.Anything that can be done to improve the distance attenuation and visibility should be done,as it stands now the full real crowd have fully exploited the games flaws to their advantage in any and all fights.ONe of the sole reasons I and many like me prefer the so labelled*arcade* mode is that icons and cockpit off are THE single greatest equalizer.

They assist those with lesser computer systems,lesser graphics cards,no track IR,as it stood for the longest time,these full difficulty enthusiasts(read fanatics) have used those settings to fully take advantage of their better overall systems,and the flaws in the visibility to fully dominate the sim(VOW,VEF,etc)Add to that them coming into every avalable forum,lobby and what have you and proclaiming themselves somehow superior pilots.What's worse they also monopolize forums like these to whine about the game, in droves.

No these dots do NOT make this sim more arcadish,as some would have you believe,rather,it enhances it so now maybe a few more of us will delve into more difficult settings more regularly ,I really like the fact that I can see a spec approaching from much farther out now.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2004, 09:36 PM
I would bet most full realers would have the dot appear at 5km out.

So everybody would be back to square 1, I suppose

tolwyn.com
11-22-2004, 12:09 PM
I'm telling you, a contrast-dot opacity ramp associated by distance and controlled by mp_dotrange will solve the problem and keep people happy.

IVJG51_Animal
11-22-2004, 02:29 PM
Howdy everybody,
I've never posted on this forum, as I'm usually busy with my squad forum or FS. But, I have to comment on the visibility issue. I'm going to give you my background, not to boast, but to simply quantify my opinion as representative of RL observations. I have always had 20/15 to 20/20 uncorrected vision. I was a USAF T-38 instructor pilot for 6 years, flying a lot of formation, and looking for a lot of "DOTS," on which to rejoin. I had an F-16 assignment, but instead separated to go fly for American Airlines. I have close to 10,000 hours flying everything from Boeing 767's to Kolb Ultralights. I have been involved in the IL-2 community for just over a year, and IMHO the most unrealistic part of the sim is the lack of realistic visibility of other aircraft! It's simply much more difficult than in RL. I have been paying close attention to this issue since my involvement with the sim, and here is what I have observed (these RL observations were typically made at high altitude, clear day):

Something the sim can never address is focal length. To find contacts in RL, requires the ability to force your eyes to focus at different distances, scan, refocus at a different distance, scan again, etc.

Visibility is highly dependent on the sun. If the contact is between you and the sun, you are looking at his silhouette, and he is much easier to see. If the sun is behind you, the illumination of the aircraft surface will often cause it to become camouflaged against a light colored sky or white clouds.

The eye is attracted to movement. The surest way to see a contact, is to see his movement.

10 - 20 miles, other aircraft are very difficult to see, and represent a very small dot, that is difficult to track.

5 - 10 miles, other aircraft can be seen clearly as a dot, and sometimes you can make out the tail or wings.

Within 5 miles, you can definately see the features of the airplane, his orientation, heading, etc.

Within 1000 feet, you can begin to make out the designations on the aircraft. Letters, insignia, etc.

You can see a good contrail out to 30 miles. Maybe 40 if the sun is in the right spot.

Airliners carry a display called TCAS. This display tells the pilot where every other airplane is around him, out to 40 miles, plus or minus 8000feet, and whether he is climbing or decending. By using this display, I have been able to make my observations.

I am going to do some more tests with the new patch, to see if what I'm seeing in RL is better represented in the sim. I know that prior to the patch, it was not. From what I have seen so far, I'm voting to keep the new dots. Oleg, don't be swayed, I think it's a great improvement.

Salute!
Animal
IV/JG51 Hohen Staffelkapitan

Bogun
11-22-2004, 02:33 PM
Oleg,

I truly believe €" you already did everything necessary to remedy the problem with overly good €œnew dot€ visibility at long distance by allowing us to tweak it with mp_dotrange settings. May be just made €œnew dots€ to fade away sooner by default.

My problem is not the overly good visibility €œnew dots€ at long distances, but visibility at the mid range, between 1-2km, when dot becomes rendered image of the plane, showing smallest LOD (not sure if I worded it correctly).
Oleg, it is much harder to track planes between 1 and 2km then farther away.
This is bigger problem, but nobody is trying to fix it€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

In my view the solution would be €" to overlay/superimpose €œnew dots€ on all small LODs starting from about 1km distance, if possible, letting them to fade away at a distance defined for dots by mp_dotrange settings.
This will create the one consistent and continuous way to see objects in the air without "visibility gap" in between 1 and 2 km.

Please, take a look:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Mid_range_visibility.jpg

BANZAI_EAF51
11-22-2004, 03:40 PM
Oleg, this is my first post on any UBI forum...

I've never posted before because I thought your team could fix any problem without the need of external help, but this time I'm so scared about these new dots that I couldn't stay in silence.

I appreciate your idea and this "test" about better visibility, but these "flies" on the screen are simply horrible! These dots make PF like "Red Baron" or "F-15 Strike Eagle II", games more than 10 years old!
With fading "dots" we had an idea about their distance and the sky seem more "deep", while now it seems a flat blu sheet with objects stiked on, because the dots are too black to seem real!
And those dots prevent any early identification, since they are so big that hide a good porsion of the incoming plane until you are very close to it.
Maybe you can try with grey dots, intead of black ones, but I think the old dots were quite good, since they "disappeard" only when their color matched the color in the foreground, like it should be in the real life (that's the essence of camouflaged objects).

I know there are many players who like arcade action and want to track airplanes from great distance, or see low-flying objects from high altitude, but for those there are already the icons, witch are unrealistic but at last don't affect the beautiful graphic we always had in your Maddox's sims, while those black dots put PF on a lower graphic and realism level!

609IAP_Recon
11-22-2004, 04:06 PM
one thing about making it a setting on server: this means now that one game I play is not at all like other game.

I am seeing this will be very confusing why on one server people can't see squat, while the other people will see realistically.

I hope not a mp_dotrange, or it will take me forever to find a server on HL - have to join, check setting, leave if old dots, stay if new... lol

Dots are too big right now and too black from a distance, otherwise they are good. Keep white dot Oleg, just get rid of the big black dot from 14km out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wish the community would come to a middle ground - I think the middle is a good spot on this one. Everyone is so polar on this issue - but I think it's a good direction - just needs a bit toning down, anyone agree?

ucanfly
11-22-2004, 04:17 PM
Please Oleg close the book on the OLD dots and Never open again!

ER_Loyalty
11-22-2004, 09:32 PM
Mr. Maddox please make it an option in the realism settings. It is one of the first things I noticed in the patch. It is not real and as a real pilot I would definate;y agree with you that spotting aircraft is very hard to do. I think that it should definately be an OPTION in the realism menu. I think alot of people are wanting too much in the way of ARCADISH type features. And the more arcadish it gets the more unattractive it becomes, IMHO.


Thanks, Loyalty Out



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Visibility of aircraft: old dots or new white+dots.

We did them just as test. Becasue with the next add-on we may change them.

To make them smaller is impossible.

As for visibility - real pilots will say you that it is sh....t and we know this ourselves.
However compomisses for the limit of view on monitor should be done, but which? We offer currently the best we found, which is possible to implement and look now for reaction.

All was asking for increasing of visibility, but with pixels of monitor and limit of technologies (resolutions) real life things are not possible. So should be found some compromise isn't it?

So _technology_ based suggestion please post here in this topic, but vote there:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3191061342 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ER_Loyalty
11-22-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am seeing this will be very confusing why on one server people can't see squat, while the other people will see realistically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With this being a realism option, it will be the same as joining a server with External Veiws Enabled or Disabled. IF if have black dots or any dots for that matter which I willnot have dots on my server, then when you connected you would be forced to play with my settings. NO DOTS.

You would not be able to slect show dots and join a server that doesnt allow it is what I am saying.

AGAIN, please Mr. Maddox make it an option in the realism menu.

Thanks AGain, Loyalty Out

Eaf51_Iceman
11-23-2004, 01:30 AM
As my group's friend Banzai i think new dots, even if useful for a fast enemy track, isn't so realistic, one of pilot's difficult in WWII i think was the correct identification of an airplane and lost the contact 'cause it is too far is one possibility.
I prefer old dots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LLv26_Morko
11-23-2004, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jambock__01:
Keep the new ones!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here! keep the new ones!

Atomic_Marten
11-23-2004, 08:45 AM
I'm for better visibility.

JG53Frankyboy
11-23-2004, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Oleg,

I truly believe €" you already did everything necessary to remedy the problem with overly good €œnew dot€ visibility at long distance by allowing us to tweak it with _mp_dotrange_ settings. May be just made €œnew dots€ to fade away sooner by default.

My problem is not the overly good visibility €œnew dots€ at long distances, but visibility at the mid range, between 1-2km, when dot becomes rendered image of the plane, showing smallest LOD (not sure if I worded it correctly).
_Oleg, it is much harder to track planes between 1 and 2km then farther away_.
This is bigger problem, but nobody is trying to fix it€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

In my view the solution would be €" to overlay/superimpose €œnew dots€ on all small LODs starting from about 1km distance, if possible, letting them to fade away at a distance defined for dots by mp_dotrange settings.
This will create the one consistent and continuous way to see objects in the air without "visibility gap" in between 1 and 2 km.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats exactly the point !

i also never had proplems to spot planes in game far away. but at midrange , between DOT range and LOD range, hell, sometimes there was nothing ! that was the proplem.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
11-23-2004, 07:53 PM
Hello Oleg

I would prefer if you could have the dot setting as an option.

I don't think it will be a problem on the servers. Right now we have many options as to whether we have icons, no icons, cockpits, no cockpits, etc. And we don't have a problem. So this won't be a problem either.

Thankyou for taking the time to ask us what we think. It is another sign that you are the best Flight Sim Designer ever.

Cheers Buzzsaw

GK-66SS
11-24-2004, 11:35 AM
I like the new dots that came with the latest patch. Leave them as they are.

Skalgrim
11-24-2004, 05:58 PM
mportant should be, that plane with similar size have too similar great dots at distance.

not like before, where you can see 109,la-7 p39 2-3 time bigger as plane like yak or 190, mig, etc

optional would probable the best way, i had hate to fly without icon therefore before the bigger dots, now not.

because some plane are almost not to recognize although same or greater size as examble 109 or la-7

when similar great plane have too similar great dots at distance, think it would be more fun to of server without icon.

skyfox_249th
11-24-2004, 07:11 PM
the only problem i now have is: it's really difficult to figure out how far away the planes are

SlowDancer
11-24-2004, 07:15 PM
Seen by an off-liner (res 1152x864): the new dots are no progress, they are not only too big, too prominent, and look unrealistic but also - as already mentioned by others - make it hard if not impossible to judge the distance (icons off here). I have no visual clue whether the 'thing' is going or coming. During head-on approaches the distance seems to stay constant for a much too long time (seemingly no relative movement) and suddenly it's becoming a plane very near me. These dots make the impression, as if they were located 'nowhere' in the 3D world but in front of it (does this make sense to You?) because of the 'visually undefined z value' - sorry, can't say it more precisely.
I would prefer the old style, but maybe the announced new solution can top it (smaller, fading dots with more gradually changing levels of detail and so on) ...

necrobaron
11-25-2004, 12:52 AM
I would prefer to keep the dots just for the ground objects, BUT I also think if the dots were made lighter, it'd be acceptable to keep them for planes too.

HayateKid
11-25-2004, 08:49 AM
Great post by Bogun. I'm voting for new dots, but fix the transition to rendered image.

No601_Zulu
11-25-2004, 10:48 AM
This would be my option:Remove black dots for planes but keep them for the ground objects.

I find the black dots for aircraft way to intense, for ages they seem to hover around not really doing much. As one poster has stated its hard now to get an idea of which direction they are travelling in unless they are going from say, left to right across the screen, IMO. Of course some will like them. I personally do not think they are the way forward for a simulation of this level.

Ok_UncleBob
11-25-2004, 02:28 PM
If this dots stay after patch as an option we will see on Hyperlobby Full real servers and new dots servers. They are replacing labels but better looking. They are not real and, more important, they screw real tactics use and emersive atmosphere. I think that real tactics use and historic acuracy is what puts IL2 series at the level it is now. Changing that after so many time is a shame!
For ships, I think they are mutch more realistic.

johnbn
11-27-2004, 08:11 AM
I vote for the new dots.

Much better IMHO pure and simple.

And a big thanks to you Oleg for giving me and everyone who loves this game hours and hours of fun.

Jumoschwanz
11-28-2004, 10:16 PM
The visibility of flying objects in this sim is important to me because my all time favourite settings are full difficulty.

I always think all aspects of this sim should be as close to reality as possible, whatever real pilots see. I am not a real pilot, I have been a passenger in craft and seen ground objects and can anytime see planes against the sky because of the local airport.

The visibility of air objects in PF 3.0 and all previous versions of the Il2 sim series seemed very much alike or changes were gradual enough that they were not an issue.

Patch 3.1 brought very easily seen dots, and now 3.02 takes dot visibility back to 3.0 and earlier and it looks even a bit harder maybe to me, I have only tested 3.02 for a few days.

I know Oleg and company have spent many hours in aircraft and know what the dots should be. The sim pilots that like to fly full difficulty want the dots to be like in real life. Those who fly with no cockpit or with icons this subject should not be an issue for them.
Whatever compromise has to be made so that the sim can be run on a broad spectrum of equipment should be made. All sim pilots do not have access to or cannot afford the latest video cards and motherboards. I have a 9800pro which is very good, but also I have a geforce 3 and two friends have geforce2 cards.

I am lucky to be in the USA and have easy access to good equipment, my one friend in Finland is not so lucky, and that is more the case in much more of the world than it is not. We have to take care of everyone right?

With all the hours Oleg and company have in aircraft and this sim also I trust them to do what is best. Long live Il2! S!

Jumoschwanz

P.S. I know there is a poll for this subject but I am not voting in it, I don't like any of the choices. What the majority wants is not always the best, unless you are compromising the reality of the sim to make money. The majority of sim pilots are not real pilots anyway and do not have the ability to make as good a decision as Oleg and crew, so what they thinks should be a factor but not the deciding one. This sim has the chance to be the best sim there will be for a long time. If it is molded to suit the opinions of uneducated and ignorant masses then it ceases to be a sim and becomes a game like all others that are marketed for money. A labor of love should be free from the influence of money and the ignorant.

T_Rom
12-05-2004, 01:40 PM
Dear Oleg sir,

I voted against the "black dots" in version 3.01, and you indeed changed them less visible in version 3.02B. They look good against the sky, and you can even estimate distance... However, NOW THEY ARE NEARLY INVISIBLE AGAINST GROUND! I just flew first Bellum mission 3.02B, and I lost ALL planes from sight! Very embarrassing... After all, I have many hundred war sorties. In my opinion, at least, they are less visible now than in version 3.0! I miss the dots from v. 3.0. But even the 3.01 dots were better than invisible ones in 3.02B!

Looking forward to seeing the next version.

With respect, S!

T_Rom
12-05-2004, 01:55 PM
So, just for the record, I would like to change my vote. I want to keep 3.01 dots, if only options are 3.01 and 3.02b.

Thank you,
T_ROM

aniol_zaglady
12-06-2004, 04:24 AM
I like the new dots. At least in the case of aircraft becouse I didn't play much with ships

StG77_Stuka
12-08-2004, 04:23 PM
Short and sweet, i like the new dots (3.02b).
resolution setting-1280x960 32bit

Philipscdrw
12-10-2004, 07:29 PM
Uhh, I don't know what the difference is! I've not been paying a lot of attention recently - what's the difference between 3.01 and 3.02??

VBF-83_Hawk
12-18-2004, 10:19 AM
Seeing dot 20 miles away is not good when trying to fly a mission.

Furballers want to see dots that far away but not guys that like to fly missions.

Make dots so servers can choose what setting they want.

LEXX_Luthor
12-22-2004, 09:01 PM
VBF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Make dots so servers can choose what setting they want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is mp_dotrange -- its in the Manual. The "mp" is for "multiplay" but it works offline too. Dotrange is one of the mp_dotrange variables used in setting up servers with "text icon" options -- including no text icons.

I like 3.01 dots as I run high resolution 1280x960 even on old ATI~9200, and hope to run 1600x1200 --the Future of flight sims -- next year with ATI~9800. But 3.01 Patch had Default dotrange too high making dots not fade with distance at medium ranges. Lower dotrange helped fix that.

Wow, all my Whinnig on the other threads and I never saw this thread. Very Poor vision. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
12-28-2004, 04:17 PM
Thanks Lexx,
I missed the mp_dotrange myself. Guess I am blind too. I will look into it.