PDA

View Full Version : TEST !How Well Can You Spot Enemy 'Dots'!?



ytareh
12-12-2008, 04:54 PM
OK so Im curious about the claims that people can spot dots with super high resolutions .Would you mind trying this(and post your res?) ?In the quick mission generator pick the 109G2 and as enemy 4xI16type 24s ....map Crimea and height 5000m...Now (on heading of about 86 degrees and keeping nose up a bit ) how many seconds before you spot the four enemy dots?

ytareh
12-12-2008, 04:54 PM
OK so Im curious about the claims that people can spot dots with super high resolutions .Would you mind trying this(and post your res?) ?In the quick mission generator pick the 109G2 and as enemy 4xI16type 24s ....map Crimea and height 5000m...Now (on heading of about 86 degrees and keeping nose up a bit ) how many seconds before you spot the four enemy dots?

general_kalle
12-12-2008, 05:17 PM
depends on your and the enemy speed.
and how good your eyes are.
and if you keep perfect course and altitude or if you deviate a little bit.

ytareh
12-12-2008, 05:19 PM
Max throttle ...dont have to be too particular just a rough test...

na85
12-12-2008, 05:53 PM
Does the LandGeom setting have anything to do with dot rendering range?

grifter2u
12-13-2008, 04:43 AM
good idea to do the comparison, its something that has been bothering me for years.

i think you need a more standardized way to compare what different il2 gamers can see, or report they can see. for ex have a few video clips people can load to make it easy for them to use, and then be sure you are comparing apples with apples when they report their observations.

why not make a track file for this purpose ?

Jaws2002
12-13-2008, 08:39 AM
Eight seconds.

Jaws2002
12-13-2008, 08:52 AM
This is dependant on the "Dot range" settings.
Ever been in a server where you won't see the dots until they are right on top of you, That's because the host tried to save on computing power too much and you end up with icons showing before the dot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif Anything shorter then 15km is wrong.
When i was playing in Historia server i didn't know why it was so nice and easy to identify and pick dots from confortable ranges. The 20Km setting for the "Dot" Was just perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ytareh
12-13-2008, 09:33 AM
Thanks for the time Jaws now what res is that at ?Im at 6-7 seconds .I dont think the standardisation of test variables is too critical but then again maybe its only gonna take the slowest guy 9 or 10 seconds anyway in which case the whole test is not that reliable . .

Jaws2002
12-13-2008, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">now what res is that at </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On 22" monitor, @1680x1050 with everything i could find maxed out. The mp_dotrange was set at 14Km.

Swivet
12-13-2008, 11:41 AM
Hmm..lots of things depend on this..Time of day. Are the bogey's above or below the horizon. Weather, cloud cover, Desert or winter maps....It's hard to see planes when they are low over a forrest and your high above. I guess it boils down to how good your eyesight is..Because if you wear glasses i dont think they let you fly at all in the RW...Dont think many pilots could change their screen reso in their cockpits,,,hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif...Tho i can spot them out pretty good on my 19" LCD @ 1152 by 864 @32bit. I would say i can spot them 5 miles or more away. But down low forget it. Like i say it depends on the weather, time of day and even what skin a particular plane is sporting to see it.

Jaws2002
12-13-2008, 12:20 PM
I changed the mp_dotrange to 25 km and i see the dots right from the start. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-Gunslinger
12-13-2008, 01:35 PM
This is very hard to test in QMB as Jaws described - you cannot adjust mp_dotrange (as far as I know, and I've tried about everything over the years) in QMB.

At 1152 X 864, I can spot to whatever mp_dotrange is set at - as long as dots are co-alt and background is simple (sky or Russian maps). When significant altitude differences occur, a slant range component should be considered. If you are at 10 km altitude and the target your looking for is at 20 meters off the ground, then you are not going to see the dot at 20 km of horizontal range (assuming that mp_dotrange is set to 20 km). In this case your visibility distance is the slant range (hypontenuse) of a right triangle where A = altitude, B = horizontal distance from a fixed point, and C = slant range or mp_dotrange. Solve for B, if you are defending a fixed point for example and wish to know where to position yourself to maximize coverage - from the object you are defending.

In the entire equation of vis distance in Il2 - many other significant variables come into play (many already mentioned in this thread) - such as:

1) Target size (B-29 vs P-51)
2) Background clutter
(Clouds vs Blue sky vs Crimea map vs Normandy vs "Little Italy" with it's notorious "cabbage patches")
3) Motion (already mentioned)
4) Resolution (more resolution means smaller dots - and more dots as a whole to scan)
5) Degree of anti-aliasing applied (smoothes out dot edges)
6) Sharpness or contrast scaling applied to video card

For me, the very best way to ascertain dot range, equipment settings and develop skill in dot detection are to record tracks (which capture the servers mp_dotrange permanently) on various servers under differing conditions, AFTER recording the mp_dotrange setting of the server.

Hope this is helpful and not too far off-topic..

S~

Gunny

Stiletto-
12-13-2008, 02:11 PM
+1

I would also add that the quality and size of your monitor is one of the biggest things. I have a 24 inch monitor so dots will appear way larger on it than a 17 inch monitor at the same resolution... I can pretty much afford to run my res at 1920x1200 and still see dots.. Simply because my monitor is big enough to still see individual pixels at this res, my monitor is high enough quality to seperate the pixels from each other at this res, and I sit relativley close to my monitor. All these kinds of things do alot more than computer settings.

TgD Thunderbolt56
12-13-2008, 05:27 PM
It's actually dependent on resolution as well as your particular monitor's dot pitch. For instance the dot pitch of the Dell 2707WFP is larger than that for either the 2407 (24" model) or 3007 (30" model) thus allowing the 27" the ability to "see" those little gnats from a slightly farther distance under the same circumstances.

Jaws2002
12-13-2008, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you cannot adjust mp_dotrange in QMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can but it resets to default every time you start a new sortie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I added this line:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">@a i mp_dotrange TYPE 5 ID 5 RANGE 5 COLOR 5 DOT 25</span>
in the RCU file (you'll find it in the il2 folder) and I don't have to write the whole sentence the every time. All I have to do is click Shift+Tab, type <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">i</span> in the console and hit enter. With this you'll make the dot apear at 25 kilometers instead of the default 14km during the mission.

TX-Gunslinger
12-13-2008, 08:00 PM
Thanks tons Jaws! I stand corrected.

Hi TB - That would be my monitor too. 2707. And I agree, I can see a little better than on the 2407.

I do think however, that the other things I mentioned, have greater effect - with the exception of AA, perhaps.

As you know, I'm not terribly blind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S~

Gunny

grifter2u
12-13-2008, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
It's actually dependent on resolution as well as your particular monitor's dot pitch. For instance the dot pitch of the Dell 2707WFP is larger than that for either the 2407 (24" model) or 3007 (30" model) thus allowing the 27" the ability to "see" those little gnats from a slightly farther distance under the same circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what you said about the pixel size in those 3 monitors is true. but a person with the larger pixels (say the 27' dell) on their monitor does not automatically see dot's in il2 better then a person with somewhat smaller pixels (like the 30' or 24' monitors you mentioned), because there are some other variables involved to.

there is a small group, and a very vocal one at that, of people in il2 who consistently claim they have no problems seeing distant dots against a ground textured background (forest, russian grassland, french countryside etc). the only variable i ever identified with them to be different, is that most of them were using 22' monitors. this is the largest of the lower resolution (1680 x 1050) widescreen monitors, so the pixel size is reasonably large already (at 0.282 mm it is about 15% larger then the 0.25 mm pixels in a 24' or 30' lcd screen). but there is another variable that matters to with that monitor range.

what is different about those 22' lcd monitors is that they are all 6 bit color, rather than the 8 bit colour hardware used in the larger more expensive widescreens (and all crt's from yrs ago were also 8 bit color of course). people with the early lcd screens in the 17 and 19' ranges (5 x 4 ratio size) were also usually 8 bit colour. there are some other monitor sizes in lcd pc monitors that are 6 bit to now (like many 19 and 20' widescreens), but i think all the 22' are because it is the only panel technology (TN) used in that size range. this made them cheaper to manufacture, and many gamers bought them when they transitioned from crt to lcd (usually because they wanted a "big" monitor at a low price).

the reason the 6 bit issue matters, is that those monitors have a much more limited range of grey scales (ie they cant display the shades of grey/black very well). and the dots we look for in il2 are dark-grey/black ! which on a 6 bit screen blend in much less into the background because they will be a little lighter or darker then the surrounding background colours (and since they are moving objects rather then static, the pc display constantly has to try and redraw the slight variations in grey/black).

if you want to get more technical about it, additionally when those monitors try and reproduce shades of grey the hardware display cant cope with, it uses "dithering" to approximate the color shade of grey, and this dithering makes those grey dots stand out even more because they "glitter". basically the dithering is used to approximate a grey shade its display technology cant cope with, and because of it use those grey/black dots will stand out even more. some examples ...

"temporal dithering" example
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/dynamic_dither.gif


and "simple temporal dithering"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/dithersim-pattern.gif

so on a 22' lcd in il2 you will currently much more easily see the "big chunky glittering dots" moving against the background !


right now in il2 if you have a large good quality monitor, which is correctly callibrated, then you are at a very significant disadvantage compared to the 22' 6 bit system i just described above. additionally, if you use high AA and AF settings (to make the environment we fly in more "realistic"), you will be at a further disadvantage, because the square pixels on an lcd monitor will be much less "blocky"

the bottom line in il2 currently is that if you have a high end system that is correctly setup, your dot spotting visibility is significantly below what you could see those same distant aircraft at in real life, and you probably see them at 50% less distance then the 22' lcd owners i just described.

the best way to compare what people can actually see, and to quantify how variable visibility really is in this game, is to have a standardized scene displayed (like in an il2 track file). if you have distant aircraft dots flying at known distance from the viewers (with the distant aircraft at a known altitude), you could have a string of them at 500 meter intervals up to about 10 km distance for ex (so 20 aircraft of the exact same size spaced out at fixed intervals).

it would be very simple for various viewers to then report back their visibility distance, and we'd get to the bottom of this issue once and for all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-Gunslinger
12-13-2008, 10:27 PM
Compress the color ranges (at the video card) - add sharpening - reduce AA to 0.

I think this produces a similar result, as far as dot range detection.

Perhaps it would be useful to specify test conditions other than co-alt air, to test the "any background" theory.

I would be surprised (not saying your wrong - just that I would be surprised) if the 6 bit quantization beats the major factors I've described. As I replied to TB, the monitor configuration is minor compared to the other factors I've listed.

In summary what I'm suggesting is to move from the Crimea map to a more challenging background, because I can spot these dots on the Crimea map at whatever dot range is set in the mission.

If these monitors can produce maximum dot range detection on the Italy map (say 25km) with target flying at low altitude over the cabbage (flat tree textures), then your theory is completely correct.

I absolutely agree with you, that if I wanted to really test the detection range performance, I would provide a track which can be run on anyone's computer to provide consistent test data over "noisy" ground textures. The current, stock QMB maps contain very "quiet" textures.

The track could be posted, and folks who wanted to particpate in the test could log their setup - and provide feedback.

S~

Gunny

Edit: If you want a basic start - here are some tracks (caveat:they are on a Russian map) with long range targets, several at low alt traveling over ground clutter, described in this thread and available for D/L:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/832...051043155#5051043155 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8321081155?r=5051043155#5051043155)

I'd had reports of some folks not being able to see the aircraft I was tracking at the time....

If your interested I can provide more detailed information on on the target ranges in the tracks...

T_O_A_D
12-13-2008, 10:43 PM
I agree, a standard track is the only way to truly compare.

grifter2u
12-14-2008, 12:27 AM
hiya gunny,

i think we mostly agree on the concepts involved.

to keep some of the issues involved separate, so we can identify their significance more clearly ...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Compress the color ranges (at the video card) - add sharpening - reduce AA to 0.

I think this produces a similar result, as far as dot range detection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the starting premise for any comparison has to be that each system, and their display, is correctly callibrated to the best of its ability. i am not talking about a professional grade calibration procedure with a hardware colorimetric device, but at least a correct software callibration has to be done so brightness, contrast, colour range etc is within normal limits for the display used. this can be done in 10 min on most pc's with free programs.

some competitive online players deliberatly set their displays to artificial levels to make enemy planes stand out more, and to see dots more clearly. the result is that the scenery looks totally unrealistic, or even has a fluorecent radioactive look.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Perhaps it would be useful to specify test conditions other than co-alt air, to test the "any background" theory.....In summary what I'm suggesting is to move from the Crimea map to a more challenging background, because I can spot these dots on the Crimea map at whatever dot range is set in the mission.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with you, the scenery background textures need to be standardized, and this is a significant variable. the russian grassland is very even textures, so would a forest background.i havnt used the italian maps much, so cant comment on them. it is also likely that, as you point out, one type of scenery will make it easier to spot dots then another type of scenery. but at the start, whatever scenery is chosen, it has to be the same ground cover in the whole scenery so people will be comparing apples with apples. the aircraft we look at in the distance also need to be a uniform size, and need to be seen from the same angle (hence a a track file where everybody sees the same scene is ideal)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
If these monitors can produce maximum dot range detection on the Italy map (say 25km) with target flying at low altitude over the cabbage (flat tree textures), then your theory is completely correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you'd be surprised at how bad the visibility is for some people. for some, they have problems locating/tracking an il2 dot at 2km or 3km, and for some il2 users visibility is so bad they have trouble seeing an aircraft at 300 or 500 meters under certain conditions. but lets keep this current discussion focused on the dot visibility issue in il2, or it will get to jumbled to be productive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:.... if I wanted to really test the detection range performance, I would provide a track which can be run on anyone's computer to provide consistent test data over "noisy" ground textures. The current, stock QMB maps contain very "quiet" textures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think it might be possible with the mission builder to have a series of identical aircraft flying in the same direction, each interspaced at a fixed interval (say 500 meters), you can also set the altitude for the aircraft, and the terrain background. we'd have to use an altitude somewhere between 500 and 1500 meters probably, to low and it makes it much harder under all conditions, and to high and it makes it to easy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The track could be posted, and folks who wanted to particpate in the test could log their setup - and provide feedback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

all we need is for somebody with enough knowledge of the mission builder to make one, i have played around with that program a bit but dont know enough about it to create one.

another variable that has to be "controlled", is that each viewer has to have their FoV correctly set for the monitor size they are using, and the distance their eyes are from it. having a wider FoV setting then correct for them has the effect of "zooming out" on what they look at and all objects shrink in size, or having a smaller FoV setting creates a zoom effect that enlarges everything and makes it easier to see dots.

if you have the correct FoV setting for your setup, then the "LoD to Dot" transition point is somewhere around 1500 meters distance, and it will similarly affect the dot visibility when you look at dots several km away because the "dot size" will change depending on the artificial zoom in/out setting you have created with altering your FoV setting. so again the presumption is that all viewers will know how to calculate that for their respective monitor sizes. some ballpark figures i gave in another recent post(presuming the viewer is sitting at approximately an arms length from their monitor)...

for a 30' widescreen 70 FoV (the "normal" default view in il2)
for a 27' widescreen: 55 FoV
for a 24' widescreen 40 FoV
for a 22' widescreen 35 FoV (the max zoomed in view)

simply put, for whatever monitor size you have, and whatever distance you sit from that monitor, only ONE FoV setting will be correct for you (to see all objects in the il2 virtual world in their "correct" sizes). some examples of how important this effect is in il2 .....

as an example, what you would see with a 70 FoV setting (against open blue sky to make it easier to see the effect)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/70fovcutsection.png

same scenery but now a 35 FoV creating the artificial zoom effect, and drawing distant dots in closer and magnifying them (some very distant ones now become suddenly visible, and some already visible ones now become much larger)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/30fov-cutsection.png

grifter2u
12-14-2008, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

At 1152 X 864, I can spot to whatever mp_dotrange is set at - as long as dots are co-alt and background is simple (sky or Russian maps). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i hadnt realised you were using il2 at such a low resolution, the lower the viewers resolution for any given monitor size, the larger their pixels will be onscreen, and the easier it is of course to spot dots in il2 (because the dots are drawn in the game engine as multi-pixel dots)

looking for aircraft dots on a russian winter map with a 30' lcd at native 2560 x 1600 resolution:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/h10-2560-1600high-reson30inchlcd.jpg

and looking at the exact same scenery but now the same 30' monitor set at 1/2 its native resolution (1280 x 800):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/silver-2/h10--l1280-800low-res-on-30inchlcd.jpg

notice how much easier it is to now see the aircraft dot below you !

for the purpose of our comparison we are trying to make here with people on different types of displays, resolution is much less important then the actual pixel size. simply put, a person with a 30' screen might have a native 2560 x 1600 resolution, but the person with a 15' screen whom has a 1280 x 800 native resolution will have the same pixel size, and pixel size is what matters for the dot display in il2. so resolution matters, but its relevance is dependent on the size of the display being used http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
12-14-2008, 01:38 AM
Quote:
(some very distant ones now become suddenly visible, and some already visible ones now become much larger)


It must be good eyesight because there's no way I would see that FW at 10 ks.


.

.

DuxCorvan
12-14-2008, 04:32 AM
I don't need to see them, I can smell their fear.

TX-Gunslinger
12-14-2008, 04:46 AM
Great points all Grifter. You've covered all salient points - including my biggest struggle with the sim.

That struggle being the balance between beauty and visual acquisition and situational awareness.

S~

Gunny

grifter2u
12-14-2008, 07:08 AM
gunny,

i had a look at the 2 tracks you posted

i think they are a good example of a pc config that is setup to maximize dot visibility, but at great cost to scenery quality

the inside of your own plane, and what you can see of its exterior (like wings), all look fine. but the scenery you are flying in looks pretty bad. in particular the water looks almost cartoonish, and edges of rivers and forests look very blocky.

what did you do to your settings to still let the interior of your plane look fairly good, yet sacrifice so much of the scenery beauty ? from what you said you run the game at a low resolution setting, but what size monitor do you use and what are your in game il2 settings (visibility), and what is your gfx card set to ?

the dot visibility is very good, and close up planes stand out very well to.

TX-Gunslinger
12-14-2008, 03:39 PM
Grifter,

As you may be aware, an Il2 track file will always render relative the the graphic settings of the individual computer that the playback occurs on, not the recording platform.

And yes, your exactly correct, my setup is maximized for detection - not beauty. There are some compromises, because even I have a tolerence level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Particularly, I can't tolerate 800 X 600 which makes dots stand out like boulders. Sometimes I'll use 1280 X 1024.

Those files were recorded on the non-modded Prokhorovka map (an early map in the series). The appearance is a characteristic of the map. On both test tracks mp_dotrange for the mission was set to 22km.

You can change the rendering settings on your graphics card, desktop control panel and monitor to scale up or down at your leisure.

If you playback the tracks with manual view off (to observe the cons/bogeys as I saw them), you'll be able to tell when I was able to view these targets by my view and zoom. I use TrackIR, so detection usually follows my point of view, followed immediately by a zoom (then return for to wide POV for SA), unless I've a clear idea of the cons direction of track.

In the track file 000-DoubleBounce, the sequence is as follows:

0:04 Target dot @ 2'oclock, across the river. Take a line perpindicular to my starboard wing tip, and follow it out in the direction of the river. Hopefully you'll see it right off. I did not zoom on this con - I could see him drawing gradually to the right, knowing he was coming to me. Before I could prosecute him, I had to make sure that I was clear on the other side of the airplane.
0:15 While checking to the portside, observed contact dot @ 8'oclock, approx co-alt tracking north, initially observed in front of a cloud background, tracking to sky background. I assumed he was friendly based on his direction of track and altitude. For the purpose of this discussion - it's a good exemplar for detection against sky and cloud, i.e. if you cannot see this dot - you have big problems with your setup. This exemplar is a good test for dots against simple ground background (specific to this map and all non-mod Russian maps).

0:25 - initial CON dot reaquired at next LOD @ 2 o'clock low just about to cross the river. I dive to obtain VID and in the process choose not to bleed 'E', but return to the "perch" to set up a better attack. I also am aware that because I've focused on this CON, I have no SA in the area behind him.
1:09 - as I'm climbing back up, scanning the area behind the con, I observe a second CON which appears as a grey (Russian gray) aircraft just above my right cockpit bar, trailing the first con (whom I'm mentally, not visually tracking)

In the second track - BandZ-breaking-target. I'm patrolling over friendly ground targets, expecting ingressing enemy attacks from SW.

0:02 contact dot sighted a significant distance across the river, just a hair forward of 9'oclock tracking right. I'm attempting to manuver to keep him down sun... and to not lose the dot.
0:20 contact dot tracks beneath large cloud.
0:30 checking to starboard - clear six is known due to turn - I'm aware that I have some time before that dot emerges from beneath the cloud.
0:49 spot of gunfire while scanning for target in vic of the cloud
0:56 above the right upper corner of the cockpit frame aircraft shadow is clearly visible - this is why it's important to use the sun.

My settings at the time:

Monitor: Dell 2407 or 2707 native 1920 X 1280
Scaling: Fixed aspect ratio (black side bands on montitor)
Resolution: 1152 X 864
AA: None
AF: None

Nvidea control panel Adjust Desktop Color Settings
Color channel Red:
Brightness = + 57%
Contrast = + 45%
Color channel Green:
Brightness = + 45%
Contrast = + 50%
Color channel Blue:
Brightness = + 55%
Contrast = + 60%

Sharpening (all channels) = 60%

Gunslinger's eyeball data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At the time the track was recorded I was 49 years old, with bifocals - strong nearsighted, moderate farsightedness, average color perception.

All other parameters are at default

I hope this helps. Pardon the long winded post, but I believe that the operational, tactical context is extremely important in it's relationship to the "human" portion of the equation.

S~

Gunny

Woke_Up_Dead
12-15-2008, 01:50 PM
What are "AA" and "AF" settings?

WTE_Galway
12-15-2008, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
What are "AA" and "AF" settings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anti-aliasing and anistropic-filtering



By the way this discussion entirely misses the main reason older players have trouble seeing dots ... failing eyesight :P

dirkpit7
12-15-2008, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you cannot adjust mp_dotrange in QMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can but it resets to default every time you start a new sortie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I added this line:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">@a i mp_dotrange TYPE 5 ID 5 RANGE 5 COLOR 5 DOT 25</span>
in the RCU file (you'll find it in the il2 folder) and I don't have to write the whole sentence the every time. All I have to do is click Shift+Tab, type <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">i</span> in the console and hit enter. With this you'll make the dot apear at 25 kilometers instead of the default 14km during the mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using IL-2 Shturmovik Stab you can easily adjust dot and icon range. They will be set to the new values automatically within seconds from mission start, no need for manual input.

TX-Gunslinger
12-15-2008, 04:04 PM
Thanks dirkpit - I'll have to get a copy of Stab - had no idea it had this capability....

S~

Gunny

ElAurens
12-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Wow, sacrificing the beauty of this sim just to get kills online.

I had no idea so many of you guys gamed the game, as it were.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this.
It just seems so wrong, like FPS kiddies jacking up the gamma for "night vision".

Oh well, carry on. I'll just crawl back under my rock here.

TX-Gunslinger
12-15-2008, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElAurens:
Wow, sacrificing the beauty of this sim just to get kills online.

I had no idea so many of you guys gamed the game, as it were.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this.
It just seems so wrong, like FPS kiddies jacking up the gamma for "night vision".
QUOTE]

It seems you can't post here anymore without someone accusing you of something.


How should I set my graphics up to conform to your standards?

Low resolution has always meant better dots - where's the news?

Gunny

ElAurens
12-15-2008, 04:52 PM
Gunslinger, it's not meant to be personal, but your sig mentions "full real" settings.

What's real about jacking the settings for advantage rather than making the game look as "real" as possible?

To each his own I guess.

TX-EcoDragon
12-15-2008, 05:25 PM
As it turns out, I used to fly and see in the dark reasonably well on my calibrated CRT, while my squad mates and friends with LCD monitors were complaining about it being hard to see. I figured they were actually seeing a similar thing to me – but perhaps just a bit more sensitive to flying in the dark than I was.

When I saw the sim in person on one of their computers, he really was nearly blind at night - I wasn't cheating, it was just how the sim looked to me - and it looked pretty similar to what I see in the real world at night. . .so I had no inclination to change anything.

I was a bit taken aback at seeing my friend's game though - he really was at a disadvantage vs my settings. So who had settings closer to accurate? I'm pretty comfortable in saying that I did. LCD monitors (especially TN panel based screens) have a hard time displaying blacks, and detail is lost. CRTs have no such issues.

If other people were at a disadvantage because they were hardware or settings limited, that would be unfortunate, but certainly not my fault or theirs, and certainly not a reason to change my settings. . .though perhaps reason for them to change theirs. At least in the case of night time rendering effects.

Spotting dots is perhaps a less obvious difference, but I think the same thing may come into play.

Additionally, many of us have very powerful computers compared to what people used when IL-2 was designed.

On my 26 inch monitor at 1920x1200 resolution with antialiasing and anisotropic filtering up at 16X I can hardly see a dot that I was in formation with a moment ago. How many users out there with a powerful computer are at a disadvantage as a result? If you bounce them and they didn't see you – and you aren't on a brand new machine with settings maxed out are you a cheater?

In the absence of some word from Oleg, or better yet, dots that scale correctly with resolution changes, people will run what looks right on their setup. Guess what though - Oleg has in fact posted (many years ago) that the dots in this sim were designed to be viewed at 1024x768 resolution. . .any higher resolution will necessarily reduce the the ability to spot dots. So that would suggest that Gunslinger is running at a resolution which puts him at a disadvantage. I remember a beta in which Oleg had incorporated different dot settings that were intended to be more visible at higher resolutions - and where things ended up I don't recal.

If Gunny takes the time to set up his system so that he can see dots, at a range in which they are drawn, I see no issue with that - if he tweaks things so that every edge looks like a neon sign, well clearly that would be a shady thing to do.

I for one do not tweak any sharpening or any other such thing, but I do limit my antialiasing to 2-4X at most, and up untila bout two weeks ago when I finally retired my 21"CRT, I ran 1280*960 or 1600*1200 resolutions. . .we don't fly with icons on, and I often wing with Gunny, and can attest to the fact that even at my settings, he has never spotted a dot that I couldn't see when we were winging together. . .and it would be my contention that if anything, at my settings with high AF medium AA, and higher resolutions than any obvious advantage he has as a result of having a lower resolution might be apparent. . .I'm quite certain there is a difference, I'm just saying that in my own settings changes, I don't think the difference is big enough to be much more than personal preference of how the sim looks – at least in Gunny's case.

I have to assume, having seen it first hand, that a one size fits all approach to in game settings just won't work in this sim – especially in this sim which is apparently optimized for 1024x768 resolutions.

That said, I've often found the dots just below the horizon at long range to be easier to see than my experience in real world flying (I'll pretend it's the fact that I fly in the modern era – with more smog!). As I've said before, I've certainly had uncomfortable moments where ATC notifies me of traffic, and I simply can't find the aircraft they are calling. On the flip side, as a pilot who has done a bit real world mock dogfighting, and formation flying, I can also say that tracking an aircraft fairly close to me is quite a bit easier than in the sim.

I guess my own conclusion is that the system isn't perfect – both within the sim code itself, and with respect to hardware and driver settings. If I set it up to look right with respect to near dots, it would be inaccurate with respect to distant dots – if I get a big 27 inch LCD monitor it's going to be different than a CRT, if I crank up my AA I'm going to be blind as a bat unless I'm at 800x600. In teh end I guess it does come down to the honor system - that's a scary thought I suppose - but I can at least vouch for Gunslinger. . .which might not mean much to anyone else.

TX-EcoDragon
12-15-2008, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you cannot adjust mp_dotrange in QMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can but it resets to default every time you start a new sortie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I added this line:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">@a i mp_dotrange TYPE 5 ID 5 RANGE 5 COLOR 5 DOT 25</span>
in the RCU file (you'll find it in the il2 folder) and I don't have to write the whole sentence the every time. All I have to do is click Shift+Tab, type <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">i</span> in the console and hit enter. With this you'll make the dot apear at 25 kilometers instead of the default 14km during the mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting info Jaws - I've been trying to decide on if I can get away with running my new LCD at its native resolution of 1920*1200. . .being able to make quick changes in the QMB is ideal! If only we had a rep function here. . .

The only problem that remains is most maps aren't in the QMB, like the worst offender, the Italy_Online map. That map is just terrible with respect to dot acquisition - I can't track a dot beneath me, to save my virtual life. I have to swoop down to the deck, and look up. . .and attack in much the same manner as that portrayed in your sig pic!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
. . .
When i was playing in Historia server i didn't know why it was so nice and easy to identify and pick dots from confortable ranges. The 20Km setting for the "Dot" Was just perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh yes. . the good ole days eh? You know we don't have to give up hope that we'll ever see servers of the quality of HISTORIA, and of course the TX-OC3!

I like to think they are merely hibernating!

buzzsaw1939
12-15-2008, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
What are "AA" and "AF" settings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anti-aliasing and anistropic-filtering



By the way this discussion entirely misses the main reason older players have trouble seeing dots ... failing eyesight :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH OH the secrets out! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ElAurens
12-15-2008, 06:51 PM
Here is how I "see" the sim, just for the sake of full disclosure on my part...

Viewsonic G90f 19 inch CRT monitor.

Nvidia/BFG 9800GT OC+

Core 2 Duo E8500, 4 Gigs of installed ram.

Anistropic Filtering 16x

Antialiasing 8x

I run the sim at 1024 x 768 x 32 as that is what is supposedly "native resolution", per Oleg.

All in game settings maxed out. Water = 4, etc...

Seeing the dots against a blue clear sky does not seem too difficult, but I regularly loose aircraft that are flying over forests, summer or winter, Which seems realistic to me for camouflaged aircraft.

To be honest this is my first rig that would allow running higher resolutions with acceptable frame rates, but I've never tried it as I'm used to flying like this for almost 7 years now.

TX-Gunslinger
12-15-2008, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Gunslinger, it's not meant to be personal, but your sig mentions "full real" settings.

What's real about jacking the settings for advantage rather than making the game look as "real" as possible?

To each his own I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks El, sorry I did sort of assume otherwise. It would be helpful, if F.I.S.C had a standard for this sort of thing, that way I'd know if I were violating a standard.

The use of the term "full real" has certainly caused enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from just about every special interest in this sim for a long time.

I will say that I do think the limit of graphics tweeks is the point at which the game looks ugly, you cannot read your cockpit dials and it does not seem real to you.

BTW I took the color correction values from a thread here a few years ago, which was devoted to color correction for more "realistic" color in game.

My sig is very old, and the "full real" monikor was created to advertise the fact that OC3 had changed from icons to no-icons/locked pit.

Thanks for the note...

Respectfully

Gunny

ElAurens
12-15-2008, 07:25 PM
Gunny, I don't think it's so much a thing of violating a "standard". The only way that would work is if we were all on consoles, heaven forbid.

It's just a personal decision, or "bias" if you will. As you can see by my specs I have compromised some for "visibility" issues, but I still like the eye candy. Mostly because I like aeroplanes so much I guess.

It's all good.

S!

Feathered_IV
12-16-2008, 07:19 AM
I run my resolution up as high as I can for overall visuals. I don't get upset if there is some chance that I might not see certain distant aircraft. After all, if I can't see them, I don't know they are there. If I don't know they are there, how could I possibly get upset about not seeing them? Because as far as I know, they are not even there....

FoolTrottel
12-16-2008, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I don't know they are there, how could I possibly get upset about not seeing them? Because as far as I know, they are not even there.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I use this approach too... and indeed, it works fine.
Though the good part of it ends when I have to type "S! &lt;insert pilotname&gt;, I never saw ya comin'!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

buzzsaw1939
12-16-2008, 09:49 AM
Ya beat me to it FT, aren't tracers purty up close? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

grifter2u
01-03-2009, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

As you may be aware, an Il2 track file will always render relative the the graphic settings of the individual computer that the playback occurs on, not the recording platform.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

emmm i had forgotten about that part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the video quality of the scenery of the tracks you posted looks very poor to me (not the inside of the cockpit), and this is much worse then what i can see on my own pc normally (for ex during the campaigns i am currently playing, or when playing online).

on your tracks i can spot the dots over ice/snow fairly well from the higher altitudes, but i think that is purely because the ice has a uniform white background. over forest/grassland they are almost impossible to see on your tracks from 5000 meters, even when you use the max-zoom view to take a closer look .

from what i see in your tracks i also seriously doubt that you could locate a dot and keep track of it over forest/grassland from 3000 meters, if you were not using the max zoomed view. that is a problem because in real life under normal conditions you should be able to see them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger: And yes, your exactly correct, my setup is maximized for detection - not beauty. There are some compromises, because even I have a tolerence level http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Particularly, I can't tolerate 800 X 600 which makes dots stand out like boulders. Sometimes I'll use 1280 X 1024.

My settings at the time: Monitor: Dell 2407 or 2707 native 1920 X 1280
Scaling: Fixed aspect ratio (black side bands on montitor)
Resolution: 1152 X 864
AA: None
AF: None </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why are you using those resolutions on a 24' or 27' widescreen monitor ? you are not using the full screen, and have black bars on the sides !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Nvidea control panel Adjust Desktop Color Settings
Color channel Red:
Brightness = + 57%
Contrast = + 45%
Color channel Green:
Brightness = + 45%
Contrast = + 50%
Color channel Blue:
Brightness = + 55%
Contrast = + 60%

Sharpening (all channels) = 60%
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i suspect you have made those adjustments to improve il2 gameplay, it doesnt sound like normal callibration settings

and *cough**cough*, where have the rear cockpit struts gone from your 190 cockpit ? looks like you have full 180 degree visibility http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the way you use your pc is to maximize visibility in il2, and that is your choice.

my argument is that with a correctly calibrated monitor, and the right FoV setting for your monitor size, you should have the same "dot spotting" ability in il2 that you would have in real life when you look out of your cockpit from the same altitude/distance to the enemy aircraft. sadly, that is not the case.

to get back to the original point, all other variables being the same, i still believe that people using 6 bit TN based monitors can spot dots much better, because the grey/black dots stand out more.

we still need a test track where there is a string of il2 aircraft dots at various distances, so people can comment on how far they can exactly see those dots at with their current setup http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i think you'll find the spotting/tracking distance can vary as much as 50% depending on the hardware setup and gfx settings.

Choctaw111
01-03-2009, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you cannot adjust mp_dotrange in QMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can but it resets to default every time you start a new sortie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I added this line:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">@a i mp_dotrange TYPE 5 ID 5 RANGE 5 COLOR 5 DOT 25</span>
in the RCU file (you'll find it in the il2 folder) and I don't have to write the whole sentence the every time. All I have to do is click Shift+Tab, type <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">i</span> in the console and hit enter. With this you'll make the dot apear at 25 kilometers instead of the default 14km during the mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never knew that. Thanks.

skarden
01-04-2009, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Wow, sacrificing the beauty of this sim just to get kills online.

I had no idea so many of you guys gamed the game, as it were.

Honestly, I don't know what to think about this.
It just seems so wrong, like FPS kiddies jacking up the gamma for "night vision".

Oh well, carry on. I'll just crawl back under my rock here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry El but i gotta disagree with this(and yes iv read the rest of the thread).from what iv read and heard about pilots of any era is that excellent eye sight is a given,and the aces (ie.chuck yeager and the like)seemed to all have superb eye sight,easly further then the default 14km

I have my dots moved out to 22km as this is the rough distance that I read that pilots can see too.but i also have my icons in nice and close as i like to try and ID planes before i get ID and country through icons.

I have my settings at
dots=22km
range=2km
ID=.5km
colour(side)=1.5km

I'v thought about going no icons at all but i really dont think this is "realistic" at all as a monitor is no way as clear as the human eye in the real world so this is a perfect comprimise for me.

I find these to be very fun yet challanging for how i like to play,Am i "gaming" the game?hell no,Am i cheating?definatly not.


"Full real" is anything but,i wish ppl would stop calling "full switch" real,and anythng that isn't default,"gaming" the game.

Tully__
01-04-2009, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
This is very hard to test in QMB as Jaws described - you cannot adjust mp_dotrange (as far as I know, and I've tried about everything over the years) in QMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shift-Tab to open console, then just type mp_dotrange (without the "&gt;" that you'd use when using the command in the chat window).

steiner562
01-04-2009, 07:32 AM
The host be it server/coop can limit these dot settings to what ever they want? I presume,or so I've been told.

SlickStick
01-05-2009, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by steiner562:
The host be it server/coop can limit these dot settings to what ever they want? I presume,or so I've been told. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct. The host of an online server/coop can set all aspects of the mp_dotrange command for the server.

From my experience, technology is the main difference in full real servers. Graphics settings, monitor resolution, hardware, etc., make so much more difference in a full server than a sever with externals on.

There are so many ways to gain advantages with technology in a full switch server, that are absolutely moot on an externals enabled server.

That's probably my favorite type of server, all switches ON except for No Externals. I just wish we could turn-off the "padlock" aspect of externals.

grifter2u
01-06-2009, 10:26 PM
so does anybody here know how to make a track that has a series of low flying aircraft at known distance intervals, so people here could easily compare how far they can see the dots at ?

it could be done with the dots over forest, or grasland etc. the distant aircraft need to all fly at the same altitude, and they need to all be the same size (like a me109 with a 10m wingspan), then the objects we look at are standardised. the aircraft should be at fixed intervals, like 500 or 1000 meters, up to a distance of about 10 or 15 km.

i think that even if we standardize the viewers settings, eg point of view from fixed altitude above the distant dots so we look down on them, FoV setting correctly set for monitor size etc.. we are likely to find there is a major difference in how far people can see these dots at. but rather then speculate, we can get some idea of what exact distance we can see them at.

why is this usefull ?

as a ww2 aircraft combat simulator, the ability to locate, track, and then identify aircraft correctly within our "combat envelope" is very important. if this visibility is significantly reduced, you cant simulate the experience of a real ww2 pilot. when you read about historical experiences of ww2 pilots locating and tracking enemy aircraft at various distances, this is something that is a MAJOR problem in il2, and probably one of its greatest weaknesses. yes, there are specific circumstances where aircraft can be hard to spot in real life to, but the inverse is the case in il2, they are nearly impossible to spot most of the time ! (note: using a zoomed view is a form of "gaming the game", no ww2 pilots flew around with binoculars strapped to their faces)

right now i suspect that for most people who have a roughly correctly setup pc, their dot spotting/tracking ability is reduced very significantly compared to real life, probably down to 30% of normal visibility, and they are flying in a mini bubble.

from what i can make out so far, the only people that find this less of an issue with this on modern flat panel displays, are either those using 6 bit lcd monitors, or those that have artificially distorted their video settings.

VBF-12_sluggo
01-15-2009, 12:19 PM
How do you change the FOV setting?

BSS_Sniper
01-15-2009, 12:38 PM
Seeing aircraft at range has always been a pet peave of mine. It is A LOT easier in this sim than in real life. I hate to compare, but if you'd like a more realistic example try LockOn. We are missing haze (and other factors) and more so than not, its around. I don't know why anyone complains about not seeing something at 15 or 20km, you shouldn't normally unless you already knew it was there and then you'd still have to look for it.

steiner562
01-15-2009, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VBF-12_sluggo:
How do you change the FOV setting? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It has to be set/assigned in the control menu,I think "toggle FOV" is the command,probably other options/commands also but thats the one I assigned to a button on my throttle.

Aaron_GT
01-15-2009, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">note: using a zoomed view is a form of "gaming the game", no ww2 pilots flew around with binoculars strapped to their faces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zoomed view is the opposite of this. It makes objects subjectively appear as big as they would in real life. (You can do the trig to show this).

The wide angle views are more akin to a pilot using binoculars the wrong way round (but with a fish eye lens in there somewhere).

Stiletto-
01-15-2009, 05:18 PM
Aaron, how can you say the gunsight is more like real life.. Surely for someone on a 17" monitor ir is, but if I am using a 52" LCD real life is probably smaller than the default field of view and gunsight view would make things absolutely enormous.

Just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

grifter2u
01-16-2009, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
Seeing aircraft at range has always been a pet peave of mine. It is A LOT easier in this sim than in real life. I hate to compare, but if you'd like a more realistic example try LockOn. We are missing haze (and other factors) and more so than not, its around. I don't know why anyone complains about not seeing something at 15 or 20km, you shouldn't normally unless you already knew it was there and then you'd still have to look for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

except of course that there is a significant difference in what all the different il2 users actually see on their monitors, even if the exact same scene is being depicted/played in the same il2 game engine. some of the main variables that cause this variation are, screen size, distance from screen, resolution setting, type of monitor/display, gfx card type and setup/calibration etc...

add to this that not many people here have real flying experience, so they dont always know what is "normal visibility", and can then compare it to what they see on their screens. in the same vein you get some well meaning people believing that a single engine fighter suddenly becoming nearly invisible in il2 at 400 or 500m (under certain conditions) is actually normal because that plane has camouflage painting, but it would in fact take a klingon cloaking device to make these planes disappear from sight in real life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

first we need a standardized way to display a series of aircraft at various distances in an il2 track as suggested earlier, once we have some ball park idea about the variation in visibility that exists on various pc's, we can then discuss what normal visibility would/should be like in real life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

grifter2u
01-16-2009, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">note: using a zoomed view is a form of "gaming the game", no ww2 pilots flew around with binoculars strapped to their faces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zoomed view is the opposite of this. It makes objects subjectively appear as big as they would in real life. (You can do the trig to show this).

The wide angle views are more akin to a pilot using binoculars the wrong way round (but with a fish eye lens in there somewhere). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the degree of magnification or "shrinkage" is completely dependent on the distance the viewer is from his monitor, and the monitor size. for whatever monitor size the person has, and the distance they sit from the monitor, they will only have ONE correct FoV setting. so it varries from person to person depending on their setup

from memory, for my 27' lcd the "normal" FoV setting in il2 is 50 (viewing distance +/- 60 cm), if i use the fully zoomed gunsight view (equal to 30 degree FoV) i see in game objects artificially enlarged, if i use the 90 foV setting i have better peripheral vision but all in game objects artificially shrink down in size.

so if you can only see il2 in-game objects in their correct sizes with a fully zoomed 30 FoV setting, you are either using a 15' monitor, or il2 is modeling its in game objects incorrectly and they are dinky toy sized http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
01-16-2009, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron, how can you say the gunsight is more like real life.. Surely for someone on a 17" monitor ir is, but if I am using a 52" LCD real life is probably smaller than the default field of view and gunsight view would make things absolutely enormous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most people are using monitors of a modest size at a reasonable distance. Obviously the game can't adjust itself automatically as it doesn't know the distance you are from the monitor (it would be nice if it could) but what I said will be true for the majority of people out there, even now, and would have been virtually universally true when the game was first introduced in 2001 so it made sense at the time. If typical monitor sizes get bigger then perhaps the smallest FOV available needs to get changed.

It's always going to be an issue and there's no real solution - to get sufficient detail on a modestly sized monitor you need to zoom to allow objects to subtend the right angle at the eye, but at the expense of having a very narrow field, but it does mean that those sitting close to large monitors they might have an advantage. I would imagine that someone playing on a 54" TV won't be sitting 3 feet away.

In your investigations it might be worth surveying the sizes of monitors people have to see what sizes are most common.

CrazySchmidt
01-16-2009, 01:42 AM
Just tagging onto this post without reading all the others.

After a time one gets to know the shape of the enemy (dots if you like) from a distance and can usually make an accurate call for engagement.

There are times however where one's identification of enemy aircraft fails and an engagement of friendly aircraft occurs resulting in great shame and humiliation (particularly when you execute a perfect burn job). I do this with about 10% of engagements and it ****s me every time particularly when they scream "number one... that's a friendly your shooting at" after they're already dancing with gravity.

Bottom line is this, no matter what your system is, try using familiarity as your key identifier without the red and blue ID tags, it will be the most accurate to what really happened and presents some interesting challenges as well.

Cheers, CrazySchmidt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tully__
01-17-2009, 01:33 AM
Here it is again:

http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/dav2ken/zoomview.jpg

grifter2u
01-17-2009, 07:33 AM
tully,

your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes.

i find the following concepts usefull to keep in mind:
- different monitor/display technologies will have a different ideal (or "correct") viewing distance. this will be different for crt, lcd, plasma, rear projection screens, projector screens etc... those ballpark numbers are very straight forward to determine, and videophiles have discussed this for many yrs.
- for lcd pc monitors the viewing distance will be roughly the same with monitors between 19' and 28', because the technology of the display is similar and pixel size at native resolution is fairly similar (yes dot pitch varies up to 15%, but its a similar ballpark). so the wider the monitor, the larger of a field of view it represents (once monitors get larger then 28' different principles apply, and similarly some very small laptop screens might have relatively high resolutions and small pixels).
- having a higher resolution image on screen will let you sit closer to the monitor because the image is less subject to pixillation, the lower the resolution the more ugly it will look close up so people sit back a little more to let the pixels blend in better and have a smooth image..

since dots representing distant aircraft are made up of a small fixed numbers of pixels in the il2 gfx engine, the bigger the pixels the easier they would be to see (hence some people game-the-game by lowering the resolution, and sitting closer to their screens), but .....

what hasnt been quantified and objectively confirmed, all other things being equal, is that there is a BIG variation in how well different people can see these "same sized" il2 dots on screen. some people can barely spot them at 1500m or 2km, others can see them up to 5km etc... (looking at them against a terrain texture background, not open sky). what has been fairly consistent, is that people with 6 bit monitors (which are generally inferior at representing accurate colors) will see these grey/black dots MUCH better.

the question is, is somebody here good at using the mission builder and make us a test track so we can objectively compare it ?

Aaron_GT
01-17-2009, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take your point, and for most people upgrading to things other than playing on big plasma screens in the living room this is a good point, but increasing the size of the screen might not increase the size of objects!

If you had a 17 inch 4:3 (what I have) the vertical height is 13.5 inches. If you replaced that with a 24 inch widescreen the vertical height would be 12 inches so you'd have a slightly smaller vertical FOV, so the objects would appear slightly smaller!. However the vertical resolution of 24 inch monitors tends to be a bit better, except that would be lost in using non native resolution if your graphics card can't drive 1920x1200. 22 inch widescreens are really good value and the vertical resolution's about the same as a 17 inch 4:3 and the vertical FOV (which will translate to object size at the eye) will be less!

The big advantage of the widescreen will be in giving you more peripheral vision even if the object size is no bigger, giving you better situational awareness.

But your point of, say, replacing a 19 inch widescreen (about 9 inches vertically) with 24 inch (12 inches vertically) at the same distance from the viewer does increase the effective object size by 33%. Going from 70 degree FOV to 30 degree FOV is a much bigger factor, though.

It's not a solvable issue at the moment, though as you can't mandate everyone uses a 22 inch widescreen at 30 inches. Something that improved the subjective impression of visibility would be very good indeed, though. I don't know what might work, but it is hard to identify planes. Actually it was easier flying icons off in EAW. Given that identification colours and bands were used in WW2 clearly in the real world it wasn't always easy either!

Flying an online campaign with a squad with icons off we decided to adorn each of our MiG-3s with colours for each pilot on nose and wingtips so we could see who was who to do 6 calls, etc. Sadly we didn't think to exclude yellow, and all the 109s of course had yellow noses. Cue friendly fire!

Tully__
01-17-2009, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
tully,

your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I created that image it was suitable for the circumstances, which were:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The increase/decrease FOV commands hadn't been added to the game, we only had Wide, Normal and Zoom (now renamed to Gunsight).
<LI>Only a very small number of people were using widescreen monitors, the vast majority were still using 4:3 aspect ratio CRT monitors[/list]
That image is over 4 years old and when it was created even a 21" monitor was considered to be more than anyone but the most dedicated gamer or graphic artist would require.

I take your point though, it could be useful to show how FOV setting varies with screen size. It would need to be done for a number of typical viewing distances though and currently this would take more time that I can afford to spend on it. For example, a laptop user (which currently includes me) will typically view the screen at about 20-24 inches when seated at a desk or table, maybe an inch or two closer when used on a lap. Even with the same sized screen, desktop compuer screens tend to be set up a couple of inches further away.

Add in that many large screen users (21-24") will set their screens further back, especially when using dual/triple screen setups and those using home entertainment screens (36-52") will often have them set up a couple of meters back and it's too much to deal with in a single image. It's going to need either a table (making it hard for some people to visualise) or a whole host of images.

grifter2u
01-17-2009, 09:08 PM
tully,

having looked at this in detail before, i believe it is an acceptable generalization for lcd pc monitor users to take the "correct" viewing distance from most normal lcd monitors to be about 60 cm (23.6 inches). this is largely determined by the pixel size on screen, which is what determines font sizes, and conforms to the ergonomic guidelines of OHS. it does presume the person has close to normal vision, and that the monitor is correctly setup for brightness, contrast etc (calibration in general). people will also sit at slightly different distances when gaming, compared to reading webpages or text. taking all that into account you reach the approximate number of 60 cm, some individuals will have a personal preference that is a little closer or further away.

for a 60 cm viewing distance for lcd's from about 15 to 27', you can use these approximate numbers:

14' = 35 FoV
16' = 40 FoV
20' = 45 FoV
22' = 50 FoV
24' = 55 FoV
27' = 62 FoV
30' = 70 FoV
36' = 90 FoV

note: monitors above 28' will have a significantly higher resolution, and monitors/screens in the 36' range will usually be similar to 28' in resolution. smaller then 19'screens are usually laptops with higher resolution.


if you want more detail and be more exact on the numbers, you can use this table previously produced by "lurch" in this forum (he is an astronomer by profession). the table was produced as an illustration that in order to view objects in the il2 game in their "correct 1:1 sizes" (presuming they are modeled in-game correctly) you had to adjust your FoV setting to represent your screen size and the distance you sit from it (so it is looking at the same information, but from a different perspective). having a larger then "correct" FoV setting will shrink all objects on screen, and having a smaller then "correct" FoV setting in il2 will magnify all objects and function as a zoom.

to quantify the "Correct" viewing distances, for a selection of screen widths:


=====================================
size:_14"____16"____20"____24"____30"
_____________________________________
FOV
90____7______8______10_____12_____15
80____8.3____9.5____11.9___14.3___17.9
70____10_____11.4___14.3___17.1___21.4
60____12.1___13.9___17.3___20.8___26
50____15_____17.1___21.4___25.7___32.2
40____19.2___22_____27.5___33_____41.2
30____26.1___29.9___37.3___44.8___56
=====================================

note: viewing distance given in inches, and for lcd monitors the "correct" viewing distance from the screen would be about 23.6 inches

most people here will not often fly in their "correct FoV" at all, so the visibility of the dots we are discussing here are affected by the incorrect FoV in a significant way. for ex with a 22'screen person who has a "normal FoV = 50" they will nearly double or half their il2 dot sizes on screen by switching to 35 or 90 FoV (this is exactly what gunslinger does in the earlier tracks he posted, where he constantly switches from max zoom to max peripheral vision, trying to spot objects and then briefly switching to maximized peripheral vision). imo doing this is gaming-the-game, and it becomes very difficult to compare "dot spotting ability". the point of reference really should be how well you can locate, track, and then identify dots in il2 using your "correct FoV", and then compare this information to visibility in real life under normal conditions.

from my experience using this "dot spotting ability" in il2 is significantly incorrect, and with a "correctly setup" pc and monitor we are down to 50 or even 30% of visibility we should have. the only people that i found consistently keep reporting they have little problems in spotting these distant dots (viewed against ground terrain textures) is 6 bit monitors users. as a separate issue, the old CRT monitors had also less of a problem with this, but for a different reason. for ex a 21'crt was usually set to a relatively low resolution (to keep the game fluid with old gfx cards), so pixel size was MUCH bigger and dots stood out more because they we physically much bigger.

and it is those same crt users with relatively low resolution settings who complained loudly that some yrs ago the 3.01 patch which "improved dot sizes" was so bad, whereas for the lcd users they briefly had closer-to-correct dot visibility (the russian gamers were very loud at complaining and had oleg's ear, but they were a few yrs behind the rest of us westerners who had started to transition to lcd's). CRT's were also generally a better video display medium, so it was easier to differentiate an il2-dot moving over ground textures displayed in the game. lcd's are much less able to give a 3D illusion of the in-game world, and the images being displayed are much "flatter" where everything blends in into a 2D image. with those 6-bit lcd owners their screens dont succeed in displaying the full greyscale color range (and color in general), so the grey/black tend to "shimmer and glitter" and stand out more, which is why some of them keep insisting they can see distant dots that are invisible for the rest of us who use "normal" 8-bit color monitors.

we need somebody who is good at using the full mission builder, so we can create a track that displays aircraft at various distances, and we can have a poll where people vote on their visibility distances and report their observations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

grifter2u
01-27-2009, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">your illustration is usefull to demonstrate the principles involved (screen size representing a degree of your field of view, which is represented by the FoV setting in il2), but it would be more accurate to keep the viewer distance from the screen the same, and alter the FoV number represented by the various screen sizes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take your point, and for most people upgrading to things other than playing on big plasma screens in the living room this is a good point, but increasing the size of the screen might not increase the size of objects!

If you had a 17 inch 4:3 (what I have) the vertical height is 13.5 inches. If you replaced that with a 24 inch widescreen the vertical height would be 12 inches so you'd have a slightly smaller vertical FOV, so the objects would appear slightly smaller!. However the vertical resolution of 24 inch monitors tends to be a bit better, except that would be lost in using non native resolution if your graphics card can't drive 1920x1200. 22 inch widescreens are really good value and the vertical resolution's about the same as a 17 inch 4:3 and the vertical FOV (which will translate to object size at the eye) will be less!

The big advantage of the widescreen will be in giving you more peripheral vision even if the object size is no bigger, giving you better situational awareness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think in this thread "size" of aircraft, will usually relate to how wide they are, ie horizontal size, and this is what changes significantly with FoV settings and with monitor sizes (most new monitors are widescreen, so significantly wider then tall).

the aircraft we deal with in the sky are also significantly wider then they are tall, any % in horizontal size affects their visibility much more, which makes it so relevant for il2 and is important to be displayed correctly.

the "dots" in il2 representing distant aircraft are actually 4 pixels (2 black and 2 grey ones on top), so in fact the distant dots are squares http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif changing your FoV however has an additional effect to simply zooming in or out (and by this making the dot larger or smaller),...
- using a smaller then "correct" FoV for yout monitor size also affects the "LoD model to dot transition point" (il2 models nearby aircraft with 3 different sized models of each aircraft, as you get further away the smaller models get modeled). so for example at 3000m distance a me109 might be drawn as a 4 pixel dot when you are set to your "normal" 70 FoV (presuming you have a big monitor), but if you set your FoV to 35 you might now suddenly see the smallest LoD model being drawn on screen and it might be 25 pixels wide (not just 8 pixels wide which would be the normal magnification facter by setting your view to 1/2 its correct FoV)

so if some people here are saying "i have no problems seeing that distant dot at 3000 meters over the Forrest", then what the person looks at can significantly change depending on how their system is setup, compared to the next person using il2. the only reason that this is important, is because you'd presume that a correctly setup pc with the right configuration in il2 (FoV setup etc..) would give you similar visibility and "dot spotting" and "nearby aircraft spotting/tracking" ability as you would have when looking from a real aircraft cockpit. this does not seem to be the case however, visibility of those objects in il2 is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced compared to real life (unless you "game the game" by using artificial zooms with wrong FoV, reduce your resolution dramatically, alter color calibration, change AA and AF to make the game look ugly, etc..)

unless you folks are happy to have the same problem again in BoB, you better start resolving this. once BoB is released, however nicer it will look, if the major issue of visibility for distant objects is still as bad as it currently is for il2, you wont have another chance to get this fixed for 8 to 10 yrs (whatever time the BoB engine will last). right now oleg's answer to this problem in il2 is "no can fix, game engine problem", yet there is no indication he takes this issue serious and plans to fix it for BoB.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not a solvable issue at the moment, though as you can't mandate everyone uses a 22 inch widescreen at 30 inches. Something that improved the subjective impression of visibility would be very good indeed, though. I don't know what might work, but it is hard to identify planes. Actually it was easier flying icons off in EAW. Given that identification colours and bands were used in WW2 clearly in the real world it wasn't always easy either! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what we need is a calibrated visual scene that people can look at, so we can compare what people report. right now there is a great variety in what il2 users report seeing in the game, and the distances they can spot distant aircraft at (dots, or small LoD models at 1500 m for ex). if we have a standard track, and people have their FoV's correctly set when looking at the track, then we can arrive at some reasonable conclusions of how bad this problem currently is.

we need somebody that is good with the full mission builder to spend 10 min on making us this track, its that simple.

Hawgdog
10-18-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm bumping this.
I'm having a hell of a time seeing enemy planes, they blend so well into the back ground.
against the sky isn't a problem, but me high, them low, I have to use F6 if available to keep track of them.
will finish reading the whole thread after lunch, might help

ytareh
10-18-2009, 01:24 PM
SUMMARY

1 Use LOW resolution -reccommend 1024x768 -game was 'optimised' for that apparently ...even lower if you are really struggling.
2 Dont use Anti Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering.
3 As a last resort monitor learn about the ('pitch') size of the pixels in your monitor .EG a 17 and 19 inch monitor both run at max 1280x1024 so if the same number of pixels are spread over a larger area in the 19 incher it must have bigger pixels (and hence dots)Similarly if you have a 20 and 22 inch monitor that both run max res 1680x1050 the smaller monitor will LOOK better with crisper image but the 22 is the one that will allow you to spot enemy dots best...

I have a Dell 30 inch monitor and the game at 2560x1600 would bring a tear to your eye its so beautiful BUT I NEVER play online at anything other then 1024x768 as you may as well be flying round with your eyes closed .(or on a commerciasl flight in FSX-at least until you are sixxed!)

Anybody who says that they can see dots fine at higher res must never get out of the weeds on the deck and always have enemy planes silhouetted against the horizon.Its simple science /technology related to the size of the pixels in your monitor and how they are used at different res.

EDIT It goes without saying that lower res doesnt look as good and this also means it will take longer to tell if the dot actually IS an enemy as plane silhouettes /outlines will take longer to become clear.This is quite significant in a fight at medium range .

JG52Uther
10-18-2009, 01:32 PM
I agree.When I got my 22" monitor,first thing I did was change the resolution to 1680x1050.Looks beautiful like that,but with my eyes I can't see a dot until its shooting me!
so now,I fly at 1024x768 and at least I have a chance.

BillSwagger
10-18-2009, 02:10 PM
i have a harder time seeing the enemy below me as well, particularly over the forest areas.
This is because the pan caked textures tend to steal frame rates making the image choppier. I've since added some ram which helped.

Normally i can see the dots, but as the plane gets closer and starts to take shape it can actually disappear, blend rather. So consequently i might dive onto a dot, only to have it disappear until i'm close enough to see the next LOD.

This is really only a problem for me when the forrest is the back ground.

hey speaking of forest,
did you see my new forest textures?
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2300-51-24-51-1.jpg

These don't really make it easier to spot planes, but i have an easier time following one if they dive below me.
Rather than not seeing the plane completely, i get a flickering which seems to simulate the glint that you might see when looking down at an aircraft.
Most planes are also better seen against a darker green back ground, except Zeros, in which case you can still see the yellow and the red from the markings if you are close enough.
I also use a lower resolution which has helped tremendously.



Bill

M_Gunz
10-18-2009, 06:13 PM
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX.

Unknown-Pilot
10-18-2009, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stiletto-
10-18-2009, 10:45 PM
I think you need to stop beating a dead horse.

No one mentioned server settings in this recently bumped thread and you already took the offense.

You shouldn't be bothered so much by what settings other people choose, or what they think of yours.

JG52Uther
10-19-2009, 12:32 AM
Well as Oleg optimised il2 for 1024x768 I don't see playing at that resolution as any sort on manipulation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DKoor
10-19-2009, 01:14 AM
Still, people with higher end machines will have advantage over lower end specs (regardless on how some people do well on low end PC's).
That is a fact... playing on low res doesn't change that fact one bit.

I think large portion of Unknown Pilots posts regarding this is precisely about that.

BillSwagger
10-19-2009, 02:18 AM
I really don't think it makes much a difference other than the lower resolutions lead to larger dots despite the distance they are. This might make it easier to see or spot from a distance, but you really lose a lot of depth perception since the dots are pretty much the same size.

On that note, my graphics card is fine for this game, and like i say i can't play in perfect mode. I also never encounter the problems that plague people online, while I'm offline. I think i've been thrown just about every excuse for why these things occur, and i'd just rather not deal with it. I paid my ten bucks, and i've gotten much more out of this sim than other games that charge a monthly fee.
I'd rather not see the sim go downhill, so i contribute what i can, but i'm also probably less likely to pay anymore money to play this sim. I figure if it gets so far out of whack eventually people will stop playing or someone with more authority will do something to ensure a quality game.

I still think we are in the cheap seats, so what we say here really won't get too far with the people who actually pay to keep the servers going. You have them to thank for that.



Bill

DKoor
10-19-2009, 06:07 AM
I bet bunch of people play 800x600 res while online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .
And no, I'm not joking.... difference is really there.
It is my and everyone else's prob if we can't stand using mid '90's res http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . I really can't stand it.

M_Gunz
10-19-2009, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This? Where is the manipulation of any of that in what I wrote?

Unknown-Pilot
10-19-2009, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dots become LODs somewhere inside 2km and IMO depending on your video can be harder to spot than the dots.
Bill, I've had the planes do the Romulan Cloaking Device while I watched many times right about 500m.
That was with my old video cards including the GF5200-FX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. And people call all this manipulation of resolution, scale, dot pitches, and rendering problems "full real". Then get their back up when you point out they are full of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This? Where is the manipulation of any of that in what I wrote? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your sig really is appropriate for you. lol Maybe getting out and doing something else for a change would lighten your mood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was, in fact, referring to the whole thread, taking your post as an example of the very reason Oleg (way back before PF ever came out) said that full switch is NOT "full real", and is in fact actually artificially difficult, and that PL and icons were added to compensate for the VERY things you stated (and we see in this entire thread).

Icons may not be the most realistic LOOKING thing, but when they are ranged appropriately, they bypass all the gaming the game tweaks so many of the over-the-top harcdore full switchers use, while also leveling the playing field across hardware and finances of various participants, AND also preventing the impossible things people see happen due to inherent limitations in the hardware and code.

That's all. So calm down, ok? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pudfark
10-19-2009, 11:03 AM
Oh boy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nomex suit on... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Full real or full switch in this game...is just as real as watching a dirty movie with a "blow up doll"...It's as "real" as you want to believe http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Nothing simulated is perfect or "real"..and never will be...this game has limitations that exceed it's ten year life span...mods and new hardware have made it more interesting...but more ribbons on an old pig, don't make it more beautiful....open pit or closed..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Unknown_Pilot summed it up really well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Each to their own and enjoy it....I do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BillSwagger
10-19-2009, 11:25 AM
Full Switch settings have really grown on me. That's all i used offline for months, and really my preference for online play. I don't pride myself on it, or think that you must suck if you aren't using full switch settings. For me, it just seems there is less bickering and more of an understanding between players.

I think playing with full switch settings you also learn to see planes at a distance, and get use to seeing the different LODs. With icons or other indicators like the different padlocks, you really aren't forced to learn those things.

The most useful tool for me is the analog zoom which lets me see everything with much more clarity. I also fly at 70 degrees FOV, rather than at full wide all the time, which can also help in getting a closer view of who is around me. There is also something more immersive about it.
I really only use full wide when i'm in a turn battle and the enemy is close enough to see well anyway.

Somethings to consider.



Bill

M_Gunz
10-19-2009, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was, in fact, referring to the whole thread, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TY for making that clear. I didn't understand what wasn't stated is why I asked instead of assuming.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's all. So calm down, ok? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any more calm and I go to sleep. I wasn't upset, just puzzled like having a jigsaw with extra pieces there.