PDA

View Full Version : POLL post 3.02b: WHAT DOTS DO YOU PREFER?



uhoh7
12-01-2004, 02:06 PM

FOE_Pappy
12-01-2004, 04:44 PM
S! 3.01 dots with the default dotrange reduced.

faustnik
12-01-2004, 04:47 PM
3.01 dots are the best! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Willey
12-01-2004, 04:55 PM
3.02b dotrange 25.

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2004, 05:20 PM
3.01 dots with the Default dotrange reduced.


Link to change dotrange and Dot Lineup Test Mission...
~~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542


Finally, all simmers, both High and Low resolution together, can all see dots with NO text icon labels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

antifreeze
12-01-2004, 08:24 PM
3.02b default dotrange 25km
Don't vote until you've tried 'mp_dotrange DOT 25'

At 1152x864, dots are fairly apparent at 12km
against the sky and 5-6km against the ground/sea.
The fade-in and distance-judgement
are simply great. Please try it before you vote.
The default dot distance (14km) does not do
these dots justice.

Hunde_3.JG51
12-01-2004, 08:29 PM
I'll pick one of the last two.

TheGozr
12-01-2004, 10:07 PM
dot 302 realy are bad i can't beleive that..

Ready to go back on 3.01 with dot range limit that was the best.

301m server dedicated would of been the best..

TheGozr
12-01-2004, 10:08 PM
is killing my eyes .

woofiedog
12-01-2004, 10:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif3.01 Dot.

xTHRUDx
12-02-2004, 12:31 AM
2.04 dots

Zen--
12-02-2004, 02:29 AM
3.01 with reduced default mp_dotrange

PinkPriest
12-02-2004, 04:41 AM
3.01 dots.

Diablo310th
12-02-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
3.01 with reduced default mp_dotrange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with Zen on this one. 3.02b is killing my eyes too and as old as I am i don't need it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-02-2004, 07:47 AM
Just got my 19inch monitor today (been on TV for a few days- horrible!). Now I can truly test... so no one make any new dot patches yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

RedChip
12-02-2004, 02:03 PM
I really like the 3.0 dots.

carguy_
12-02-2004, 04:50 PM
PLEASE BRING BACK 3.01 THIS REALLY PUTS DOWN ALL THE GAME EXPERIENCE MY EYES HURT!!!

LeadSpitter_
12-02-2004, 08:52 PM
3.02bm is best oleg these guys need glasses. the big basket ball dots we could not ever use horizon to blend in nor could we judge distance of over 8000m to 1500 dot was same darkness and size.

thanks for changing them back to how they have always been its helps so much on judging distance in full difficulty settings and for boom and zoom type aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
12-02-2004, 10:00 PM
leadspitter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the big basket ball dots we could not ever use horizon to blend in nor could we judge distance of over 8000m to 1500 dot was same darkness and size. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try changing dotrange for 3.01 dots. Default dotrange too high (14km according to Tully) with 3.01 Patch. Then the 3.01 dots become smaller with range better, and then fade even farther away.

3.01 dotrange fix, czech it out...
-> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542



leasdpittr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3.02bm is best oleg these guys need glasses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you want to insult flight simmers at this webboard, you start with me.

carguy_
12-03-2004, 05:07 AM
DOWN WITH 3.02b!!!!!!

SeaFireLIV
12-03-2004, 05:11 AM
Sorry,but I like 3.02b, I`m actually finding it easier to find and shoot down bogeys! 3.02bm is certainly easier to see than 3.00. I give it a thumbs up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p.s. I never tried 3.01, but I heard it was too easy to see opponents.

carguy_
12-03-2004, 05:16 AM
v3.02 IS TRAGEDY REMOVE IT!!!!!

Popey109
12-03-2004, 06:49 AM
I€m sorry you€re going blind€¦I€m sorry you€re playing on a 15€ monitor, I€m sorry you€re playing on a 21€ monitor and can€t lower your resolution! But you all ready have options! Change dot range! Use Icons!...I cant believe arguments about correct flight models will go on here for days, yet people want too see camouflaged aircraft ten thousand feet below them?...There were ace pilots before 3.01€¦there will be ace pilots after! Please don€t change dot range of 3.02bm. Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
12-03-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
I€m sorry you€re going blind€¦I€m sorry you€re playing on a 15€ monitor, I€m sorry you€re playing on a 21€ monitor and can€t lower your resolution! But you all ready have options! Change dot range! Use Icons!...I cant believe arguments about correct flight models will go on here for days, yet people want too see camouflaged aircraft ten thousand feet below them?...There were ace pilots before 3.01€¦there will be ace pilots after! Please don€t change dot range of 3.02bm. Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have options too Popey such as increasing resolution or changing dot range to make the 3.01 version less visible.

It sounds like many have realized that they have a competitive advantage with their system setup and the new dots. They are working hard to preserve it.

butzbeast
12-03-2004, 11:04 AM
dump da 3.02 dots, dude ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Popey109
12-03-2004, 11:12 AM
NO I don€t have that option!...Witch is my point! Reducing the range isn€t the problem, the dots in 3.01 are too large and too easy to spot and yet you have no perspective of range to target. They effectively KILL any since of emersion by telegraphing enemy planes location (no need to check my six once I€m in the fight) And they just look BAD!! Like I said€¦you can ware corrective lenses, you can change dot range or you can use icons. If 3.01 dots become 3.02 final than those of us who aren€t GAMING the GAME are left with what?...FAT black dots! I don€t fly on-line but the few times I did prier to 3.01 there was no shortage of Ace pilots able to find and shoot me down! Not all pilots are equal! Some were lucky, some were good, and some didn€t come home! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-03-2004, 07:15 PM
Popeye:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the dots in 3.01 are too large and too easy to spot and yet you have no perspective of range to target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, the difficulty of judging range was exactly what Heinz' noted back when 3.01 was releaced. The 3.01 Default dotrange was too large.

Czech out the 3.01 dot fix...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542

"big" dots at medium range, "small" dots at long range, and fading to "no" dot at Extreme long range.


Popeye, with 3.01 dots, for the first time you and ALL simmers have the Option to *see* and use dots without text icon labels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TAGERT.
12-03-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uhoh7:
democracy in action! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1/2 bewteen 3.01 and 3.02.. But if I had to chosse I would go with 3.01. Reasoning is it is fair that way.. That is I can see the dot at 1600x1200 that the guy sees at 1204x768.. Where as in <3.0 that was not the case, and people with high end cards using high resolutions where at a disadvantage because the dot was smaller and more blended in and thus harder to see in all cases. The dots in 3.01 made for a even and fair playing field no mater what rez you used.

Beckh_3.JG51
12-03-2004, 09:44 PM
_______________________________________________
I€m sorry you€re going blind€¦I€m sorry you€re playing on a 15€ monitor, I€m sorry you€re playing on a 21€ monitor and can€t lower your resolution! But you all ready have options! Change dot range! Use Icons!...I cant believe arguments about correct flight models will go on here for days, yet people want too see camouflaged aircraft ten thousand feet below them?...There were ace pilots before 3.01€¦there will be ace pilots after! Please don€t change dot range of 3.02bm
_______________________________________________


Right on the money Popey109, this is getting old, cant stand when ppl ready to make this game complete arcade..nuf said

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beckh_3.JG51:
Right on the money Popey109, this is getting old, cant stand when ppl ready to make this game complete arcade..nuf said <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know which dot is more realistic.. I only know that in 3.01 it was fair.. Unlike prior to 3.01. I hope they can find a happy middle ground.. I have seen some server settings in 3.02 that looked pretty good.. The VFC 3.02 stuff looked good.. 3.01 'ish' But other 3.02 servers dont.. They look pre 3.01.. ie 3.00 like.. So, there seems to be options.. Thus it is a mute point.. If the server can set options that make it 3.01 like or 3.00 like then all should be happy.. Best thing is that from the poll here it looks like the majority like the 3.01 dots.. Which hopfully will translate into the majority of the servers making use of the option and making it 3.01 like.

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 03:39 AM
3.02bm dot are the best lol

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 04:44 AM
What gets me is that Oleg says that 3.02bm is what REAL pilots say is realistic, he said this himself. With 3.01 he said that real pilots said it was sh*t! (His words).

Why is it that these armchair pilots completely disregard what Oleg has said about this, he`s obviously been checking and asking REAL pilots. He`s slightly highlighted the dots to make it easier on moniter users too, so it`s actually better than real life.

I hate the way some users completely IGNORE Oleg`s words on this if it doesn`t suit them.

And for those with optical vision problems, this may sound a bit hard, but if the dots are realistic, is it right to make them unrealistically pronouncedfor hard-of-seeing viewers? In reality you`d have to cope with it as best you could (as no doubt you do in reality).
At least there are icons to help you out. Sorry if I sound hard or uncaring (I do care, but I don`t want big black dots of aircraft that aren`t realistic).

Anyway, 3.02bm seems good, you can sometimes LOSE the enmy and have to search for them, but with care you`ll find them. Also SHIP dots are excellent now ,and feel very real along that great expanse of sea, I never lose them any more... and I can also call out their location if (I ever ) do lose them.

Extreme_One
12-04-2004, 04:49 AM
I agree Seafire.

Not only are they more realistic (the new 3.02 dots) but they are easier to see than pre 3.01 dots.

The 3.01 dots made the game feel arcadey to me. My wife even commented on them - she said and I quote:- "What are all those wierd black dot things there?" - and my wife never pays any attention to what I'm doing on the PC!

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 04:57 AM
Yep, the wife (or-er-ex wife)is a good barometer for some things. When I secretly cleaned her laptop of 595 spyware that she never knew was there and forgot about it. Later that day she went on the laptop and asked me what I`d done to it, cos it was running better and faster than ever! Normally she can`t tell one improvement from another on her laptop.


If she notices then something is either VERY right or VERY wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
12-04-2004, 11:11 AM
Bull****!There was a 10000 experience hour pilot saying 3.01 are better.Dotrange setting took care of that "ugly eeky poopy dots" you esthetic geniuses were crying about so much.
A pilot account vs another pilot account dudes!Whatever they say the inability to spot and airplane from 3km can`t be realistic!

I wonder if a pilot when sees a plane 3km from him is he focusing only on the plane?No,he clearly sees an aircraft silhouette and can take a look at his gauges because when he looks back on the plane without focusing on it he can see it,it doesn`t just dissapear like a fart in the wind!In v3.02 you have to look ONLY on the plane you spotted because next time you take your eyes off of him he won`t be there but....he IS there after all!

Why don`t you esthetic experts brag about the speedbar all the time?Because you`re comfortable with it.You don`t have to look at the cockpit a few seconds to gather flight data,you just take a look at the speedbar and voila! we know everything.Anyone who calls out for realistic INVISIBLE FROM 3km dots and flies with speedbar on is a hypocrite to me.

Why do we need speedbar?Because real pilots took a blink and knew their flight data and we can`t do it because some instruments are too small or are obstructed.

Why do you deny the need to allow v3.01 dots?I need them because real life pilots CLEARLY saw planes at distances and I can`t see them without having an eye strain.I take a look at the speedbar and WHOA! the plane isn`t there anymore!
Icons are pathetic,I will never fly with settings that put big numbers on the aircraft silhouette.I want realism but v3.02 is too far!Technology restrictions require compromises which you super experts deny just for the sake of the magic word realism.
YOU are those people who fly full switch because it is the most difficult setting.I have no understanding for you narcicistic virtual pilots.

I want to see things like RL pilots did,I want to have same conditions lie RL pilots inflight.v3.02 dots completely negate this.

Oleg!
You must understand!We do want realism but those dots kill the ability to trace your target without having the need to look at it 99,5% of the fight.We look at the speedbar and the bogey sin`t there but he IS there.

v3.02 dot fans deny logic.

CHDT
12-04-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We do want realism but those dots kill the ability to trace your target without having the need to look at it 99,5% of the fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfectly true.

The beta-dots are no way realistic. I live in the circuit of a military base (so I see military aircrafts daily in the sky or against a mountain background) and I was for years an AA gunner in the army. And I can say that these dots are nothing like the real thing. They should be even bigger (about 20%)in the 1 to 3 kilometers range.

Cheers,

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 01:00 PM
one day there will be a arcadish patch for some of you men how can 3.01 dot be realistic those mosquito in the sky black and ugly c'mon fist time ive seen it i was thinking it was some shhit on my pc screen

CHDT
12-04-2004, 01:02 PM
Enigmus, look here, the post of Knell:

http://www.checksix-forums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=47456&st=90


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Tiens j ai rien dis encore dans celui la cowboy.gif
Je vous donne juste mon avis puis je sors
Sur le screen de merlin, les point au alentour de 5 km correspondent a une realite. Il devrai sdonc grossir de plus en plus pour etre a mon avis presque 10 fois plus gros a 700m (allez, 5 fois et on en parles plus)
Parce que dans la realite, un avion a 700 m on a l impression de lui rentrer dedans .... J exagere un peu mais c est vrai qu a 500m on voit tres tres bien un avion, beaucoup beaucoup beaucoup mieux que dans FB ou PF. Pour moi le probleme serait donc qu il faudrait grossir plus les points proches...

JE l avais dis, je sors .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Btw, Knell is a former Mirage F-1 pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Bull****!There was a 10000 experience hour pilot saying 3.01 are better.Dotrange setting took care of that "ugly eeky poopy dots" you esthetic geniuses were crying about so much.
A pilot account vs another pilot account dudes!Whatever they say the inability to spot and airplane from 3km can`t be realistic!

I wonder if a pilot when sees a plane 3km from him is he focusing only on the plane?No,he clearly sees an aircraft silhouette and can take a look at his gauges because when he looks back on the plane without focusing on it he can see it,it doesn`t just dissapear like a fart in the wind!In v3.02 you have to look ONLY on the plane you spotted because next time you take your eyes off of him he won`t be there but....he IS there after all!

Why don`t you esthetic experts brag about the speedbar all the time?Because you`re comfortable with it.You don`t have to look at the cockpit a few seconds to gather flight data,you just take a look at the speedbar and voila! we know everything.Anyone who calls out for realistic INVISIBLE FROM 3km dots and flies with speedbar on is a hypocrite to me.

Why do we need speedbar?Because real pilots took a blink and knew their flight data and we can`t do it because some instruments are too small or are obstructed.

Why do you deny the need to allow v3.01 dots?I need them because real life pilots CLEARLY saw planes at distances and I can`t see them without having an eye strain.I take a look at the speedbar and WHOA! the plane isn`t there anymore!
Icons are pathetic,I will never fly with settings that put big numbers on the aircraft silhouette.I want realism but v3.02 is too far!Technology restrictions require compromises which you super experts deny just for the sake of the magic word realism.
YOU are those people who fly full switch because it is the most difficult setting.I have no understanding for you narcicistic virtual pilots.

I want to see things like RL pilots did,I want to have same conditions lie RL pilots inflight.v3.02 dots completely negate this.

Oleg!
You must understand!We do want realism but those dots kill the ability to trace your target without having the need to look at it 99,5% of the fight.We look at the speedbar and the bogey sin`t there but he IS there.

v3.02 dot fans deny logic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly! What gets me is these guys who quote Oleg when Oleg agrees with them as if what Oleg says is allways fact, and then discount what Oleg says when what he says does not agree with them on another topic. These simple minded folks don't seem to realize that a simulation is not real from the get go and that many things are done that are know to be not real to MAKE UP for the fact that the real 3D world of 60 degrees of periferable view has been sqezzzed down to a 21 inch 2D monitor with about 20 degrees of periferable view.

These types of compromises are made in every aspect of a simulation! As for Oleg quoting pilots.. For every pilot that says *it* is real I can find you a pilot that says *it* is NOT real.. Where *it* can be the FM, DM, DOTS, etc! So, what pilots say does not impresse me very much.

What does impress me is an even/fair playing field! That is what the dots in 3.01 provided! No cheating by setting your rez to 800x600!

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 02:58 PM
Ah, yes, the old who screams loudest gets what they want mentality is it? Hey, rant and rave all you want because Oleg will probably change it to EXACTLY what you want.

Then we can fly unrealistic FB with big black square dots that are unmissable no matter where you fly or what you do.

Keep screaming. Go on, who`s next to SCREAM what they want? LET THE SCREAM COMPETITION BEGIN. The loudest screamer wins.

Who cares about realism, eh? Let`s dump it in the bin.

Popey109
12-04-2004, 03:23 PM
I€m€ not going to get too exited! I don€t believe Oleg will ruin his good sim with arcade fat dots€¦not while options for the seeing impaired already exists, icons and dot range. Funny though how trying to keep as much immersive quality in the game by making it harder for ourselves draws complaints of (€œyour gaming the game€) or (€œyour trying to exploit resolution€)€¦if you cant see the dots in 3.02, but think dots in 3.01 are good than how the H*ll do you know what I see? See my piont! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 03:30 PM
I've given up on the dots down below. In the sky, I like 3.02 but down below I have
to get well into the LOD's to see even Bettys.

Back to icons and thankyou, eyecandy primadonnas and those with the hardware edge.
Well okay, the word ain't "thank" but it ends with k anyway.

Trade ya systems Popeye, then you can believe maybe.

There needs to be options, not "my way or highway... err, text icons you losers"

Beckh_3.JG51
12-04-2004, 03:31 PM
Honestly, I dont think Oleg is gonna change anything in this department. Catering arcaders is not a good idea, they got plenty of candy already. I wish he never touched those dots to begin with.

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 03:37 PM
CHDT a mirage F1 is way bigger than a yak or a 109

Popey109
12-04-2004, 03:38 PM
It€s not about my having an edge Gunz, I lose track of aircraft all the time. That€s what it€s about! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 03:41 PM
"arcaders" now.

It's been explained that different people get different results.
It's been explained that using dotrange can LIMIT as well as extend.
It's been explained that resolution/settings makes a difference.

Nothing settable will ADD visibility but settings can cut it down.
If you have limited hardware, 3.02 may not (in my case, will not)
allow what some dinkwads seem to obviously get but heavens preserve
their advantage as I guess they sorely need it if they have to stoop
to that.

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 03:42 PM
Yes, I lose track of aircraft too! That`s exactly how it was, sometimes you`d see `em, but if they flew against background you might lose them.

LOOK at WWII planes, they tend to have the top half camouflaged so they`re harder to see from above. Sometimes you`ll see, sometimes you won`t. It`s not GUARANTEED that you`ll see them every time, even if it`s moving. Remember, in an aircraft you`ll be moving too and sometimes your head movement will be too quick to see the target as with anything in reality.

I`m not against people seeing targets, but they shouldn`t see targets NO MATTER what the situation. Pilots lost targets all the time in WWII, that`s why many got away alive.

SeaFireLIV
12-04-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

allow what some dinkwads seem to obviously get but heavens preserve
their advantage as I guess they sorely need it if they have to stoop
to that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What`s this talk of `advantage`? I don`t talk for an advantage against any one. Like I said I lose targets too online as well as offline. And I play OFFLINE mostly.

I am concerned about realism. Things become more faded at a distance, they don`t stand out as black dots, EVEN against a clear sky.

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
It€s not about my having an edge Gunz, I lose track of aircraft all the time. That€s what it€s about! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't pick em up quick and easy with 3.01. Had dotrange severely down to 3.5km and
it worked as I didn't have omniscient SA. I cannot acheive that at all with 3.02. I
do not see the dots below with 3.02, only LOD's ever. Somehow 500m close before a fighter
may be visible (may not on some background below) doesn't cut it for me given the real
fighter pilot (TM) tactics taught and written about. Shaw must be full of it with those
diagrams of his if 3.02 on my system is "realistic".

Again... I cut down 3.01 till it worked for me. I can't pick up 3.02. I would rather
have a tool that works on everything than one that works only half the time. At least,
I wouldn't stick others with that limit and call them names.

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 03:50 PM
they're is lot of settings and config in our squad from 17" and fx5200,19" and ati9800pro,and some with 21" with geforce 6800 lol and evryone in it are agreed that 3.01 dot were big fat point like mosquito **** and we are all happy with new dot

no advantage here if you have prob then go to tech forum but don't spoil th game with big black dot in the sky

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yes, I lose track of aircraft too! That`s exactly how it was, sometimes you`d see `em, but if they flew against background you might lose them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The advantage is between might lose them and always lose them.

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
they're is lot of settings and config in our squad from 17" and fx5200,19" and ati9800pro,and some with 21" with geforce 6800 lol and evryone in it are agreed that 3.01 dot were big fat point like mosquito **** and we are all happy with new dot

no advantage here if you have prob then go to tech forum but don't spoil th game with big black dot in the sky <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cut yer dotrange. In 3.02 the dots got smaller past the range number. I ran 3.5km, what
did you use?

EDIT: excuse me, that's 3.01 above, not 3.02

faustnik
12-04-2004, 03:56 PM
Seafire,

You can easily customize the larger 3.01 dots so that by pressing three keys they can appear however you wish. Unfortunately, some of us are not so lucky with the 3.02 dots. Targets become invisible to me at medium, not long, ranges with the 3.02 system. Online, this becomes a serious handicap and is very unrealistic. If you have ever flown in a small plane (or even looked out the window of a airliner) you know that it is easy to track a small moving plane up to a good distance.

Many people here, through luck of hardware/driver combination, have no problem tracking targets. They probably also tend to fly low and targets are more visable against the blue sky in 3.02. This gives them a big advantage over those in my (ans scores of others) situation. So, many of those people are screaming to preserve that advantage online.

If you can alter the 3.01 dots so easily offline, why would you be against them?

WWMaxGunz
12-04-2004, 04:05 PM
I have the dot settings autoload through RCU -- 90 seconds after PF starts.

RCU line:
@timeout 90000 file PF_Dot.auto

That file named there I created with notepad and has now:
mp_dotrange TYPE .1 COLOR 1 RANGE 5 ID .1 NAME .1 DOT 25
hotkeycmd EXEC showPositionHint
hotkeycmd EXEC showPositionHint

And yes, with 3.02 I'm back to using the range text icon which I do not like.
3.01, very short dotrange, no need.

antifreeze
12-04-2004, 04:07 PM
> Whatever they say the inability to spot an
> airplane from 3km can`t be realistic!

I would be cheesed off as well if that were the case. So would all these guys who are pushing to keep 3.02b dots; trust us on that point. If we couldn't see a plane at 3km, there is no way we would want to keep these dots.
But what you are seeing is definitely not what I am seeing. With the DOT parameter set to 25km and 1152x864 resolution, I can see dots fairly clearly when they first appear in the sky at 12km in poor weather; I have not lost track of a 'sky dot' yet.
And I can see dots fairly clearly 5-6km below me near the ground. Yes I have to work at keeping these in sight at this distance and I do lose them occasionally, but only 5% of the time. I think that adds spice to the game.

What is really, really weird is that at 3km I do not see a DOT any longer. In zoom view, from 4km I see an actual aircraft rendered. If you are seeing a faint dot at 3km, then I can only imagine that there is something 'wrong' with your set-up, because I can even make out wings in wide view at 3km, depending on the aspect of the plane. There is no way I'd miss an aircraft at 3km using the 3.02b dots. I might lose him if his evasive actions were good enough, but I would definitely see him in the first instance if he was in front or to the side of me at 3km.

Obviously we are not seeing the same thing.

GF4 Ti4600
1152x864x32
OpenGL
DOT set to 25
Quncunx 4x antialiasing

CHDT
12-04-2004, 04:10 PM
Enigmus, in the AA, I used to shot against DH-100 Vampire and C-3605 which were WWII design aircrafts.

No problem to see them, except with the sun in front.

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 04:14 PM
don't want to have them at any range if they appear at 3km they are still those black ugly shhit and we can't see if they go on your side or in other way in 3.01 as they are just big black point,not a solution here

the 3.02 are really great to me as for ground targets(i can see them now lol whitout having to zoom)and air targets,you must look in the sky and everywhere for seeing a plane from far away and have good eyes for following it in close combat on the ground in full setting,that's good to me

my spec:
17" screen and a geforce 5200 as you can see nothing special here quite low system i play in 1024*768 with 20fps average with no hardwareshaders,no aniso etc... as excelent settings(not maximal)

CHDT
12-04-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you must look in the sky and everywhere for seeing a plane from far away and have good eyes for following it in close combat on the ground in full setting,that's good to me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's not realistic.

I wear medical shades, but I can see without problems a grey F-5 in the landing circuit, five kilometers away from me or a camouflaged DH-115 over a forest background.

NN_EnigmuS
12-04-2004, 04:32 PM
i can see contact ffrom far away but not as it was at 500m like it was in 3.01 chdt lol in 3.01 i had the same ugly black dot from 1m to 20km is it realistic?

anyway if you had problem at mid range don't say to people who enjoy new dots to fly the arcadish previous one and to adjust it with dotrange just stop play at full settings you have lot of stuff for help you like padlock etc...

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ah, yes, the old who screams loudest gets what they want mentality is it? Hey, rant and rave all you want because Oleg will probably change it to EXACTLY what you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mentality? Not at all, just an observation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Then we can fly unrealistic FB with big black square dots that are unmissable no matter where you fly or what you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Little news flash for you.. There are alot of things in a simulation that are urealistic.. As a mater of fact all of it! As for big blakc dots.. Never said it was real, only that some of us REALise that the simulation is NOT real. Once you REALise that you will understnad that everything is a compromise! EVERYTHING! Some things that people calls bugs are actually INTENTIONALY done to make up for something else that is lacking. The DOTS fall into that catagory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Keep screaming. Go on, who`s next to SCREAM what they want? LET THE SCREAM COMPETITION BEGIN. The loudest screamer wins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I love how scraming for something is bad, but screaming agints it is not bad. Oh well, typical double standards to try and get ones point of view.. child like really.. I just hope that what ever Oleg does it is an option that the server can control.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Who cares about realism, eh? Let`s dump it in the bin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! The funniest part is you say that as if what you got IS REAL! As I pointed out before, for every pilot you or Oleg can find that says *it* is real.. Another pilot can be found that says *it* is not real. I dont know what is or is not real.. But one thing that I am sure about is your not the one to make the call either.

TAGERT.
12-04-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The advantage is between might lose them and always lose them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! I think your onto something Max.. The ones shouting about the ones shouting are probally the ones runnig at 800x600 to get an edge that they need.

antifreeze
12-04-2004, 05:37 PM
> I wear medical shades, but I can see without
> problems a grey F-5 in the landing circuit,
> five kilometers away from me or a camouflaged
> DH-115 over a forest background.

In 3.02 I can see without problems a good dot at 5km below me against the trees/sea.
Plus the fact that where you are observing from, you are not simultaneously moving at 300 km/h on a different vector from the target, looking at instruments and your joystick/keyboard, scanning the sky for other bogeys, and manouvering your plane in to a good position. You're just standing there watching the plane and sipping beer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And the aircraft probably follow the same flight path most of the time? So you know where to look? Whereas in FB/PF they can be very erratic. I'd say that, where the issue is whether you'd lose a sight of a target or not, Oleg has got it closer with 3.02 than with 3.01.

Whether the dots actually look like realistic aircraft at a certain distance is beside the point. What matters is that they manage to escape the correct proportion of the time, and I'd say that 3.02 beats 3.01 hands down in that respect. 3.01 dots just cannot escape. Low-level bomber missions are ruined, and everything is reduced to a dogfight furball that never disengages because one has lost sight of the other. We may as well all have padlock turned on.

LEXX_Luthor
12-04-2004, 05:44 PM
SeaFire has not tried the 3.01 dots. He/She posted so last nite.


The only debatable "pro-3.02" content offered here is Antifreeze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif And very polite and professional. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif He/She advises we *need* Extreme high dotrange--the maximum possible of 25km--to be able to see 3.02b dots. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This tells you something is wrong with 3.02b dots. Remember, the ONLY post against 3.01 dots that had any merit was Heinz' post about 3.01 dots not letting simmers judge range...because the 3.01 Default dotrange was to high--although Heinz' missed this connection--now Antifreeze proposes high dotrange and guess what, 3.02b dots against the sky are now visible at Extreme long ranges, but don't fade out until Extreme long range. We are back to what Heinz posted about.

To see 3.02b dots, dotrange must be set to very high, but as we found in the mp_dotrange thread, high dotrange ruins dot fade with range, causing impossibility of judging range--the same problem Heinz noted soon after 3.01 dots came out with Default dotrange too high.

Weird eh?

-- edit -- I think Antifreeze and I have conflicting opinion on how far aircraft should be seen (against white sky horizon). I say no more than 7-8 km for small fighter aircraft, "ah, depending on the breaks" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , as that is the AI detections range, is what works with 3.01 dotrange lowered from Default of 14km down to 8km, and matches my experience of seeing tiny dot-like Learjets passing directly overhead at 10km altitude--with Learjets are much larger than small fighter.

carguy_
12-04-2004, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT:
Little news flash for you.. There are alot of things in a simulation that are urealistic.. As a mater of fact all of it! As for big blakc dots.. Never said it was real, only that some of us REALise that the simulation is NOT real. Once you REALise that you will understnad that everything is a compromise! EVERYTHING! Some things that people calls bugs are actually INTENTIONALY done to make up for something else that is lacking. The DOTS fall into that catagory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point.We have many compromises to make up for something the tech limits can`t recreate.Oleg may or may not choose opinions of RL pilots but I`d like him to answer me this.Are those pilots playing IL2 series?Or are they just voicing their opinions on how the dot looks like from a certain distance?For me you can be a WWII pilot or British Airlines 747 pilot but if you don`t know how is it in IL2 you can`t really apply your real life experience in spotting planes against the sky or ground background.AFAIK the concept is to recreate what pilots did and all the conditions they fought under.You take a real life pilot and ask his opinion about the dots.A bad approach IMO.Those dots may be realistic(I don`t deny that) but let the pilot play some qmb squad vs squad engagements and after maybe 5 hour IL2 experience tell us what he thinks.And guess what.I`m confident that he`d say it is a lot harder to spot planes because there are many things a virtual pilot can`t do.

The point is,it is needed to achieve a point where overall(!) real life fighting conditions meet with those experienced on a PC.The dots are definitely a step towards DIFFICULTY realism,but certainly crashes the overall fighting realism which pretty close(closest) was resembled by v3.01 dots.I agree that visual v3.02 plane silhouette effects comes closer to the real thing but in a 3D world it is a whole different ball game.Hence we need to point out a middle ground between visual effects and SA of a virtual pilot.The second is limited by the disproportion the first causes.

The point is that the overall feeling must be closer to realism than just the visual aspect.

WWMaxGunz
12-05-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Antifreeze:
> Whatever they say the inability to spot an
> airplane from 3km can`t be realistic!

I would be cheesed off as well if that were the case. So would all these guys who are pushing to keep 3.02b dots; trust us on that point. If we couldn't see a plane at 3km, there is no way we would want to keep these dots.
But what _you_ are seeing is definitely not what I am seeing. With the DOT parameter set to 25km and 1152x864 resolution, I can see dots fairly clearly when they first appear in the sky at 12km in poor weather; I have not lost track of a 'sky dot' yet.
And I can see dots fairly clearly 5-6km below me near the ground. Yes I have to work at keeping these in sight at this distance and I do lose them occasionally, but only 5% of the time. I think that adds spice to the game.

What is really, really weird is that at 3km I do not see a DOT any longer. In zoom view, from 4km I see an actual aircraft rendered. If you are seeing a faint dot at 3km, then I can only imagine that there is something 'wrong' with your set-up, because I can even make out wings in wide view at 3km, depending on the aspect of the plane. There is no way I'd miss an aircraft at 3km using the 3.02b dots. I might lose him if his evasive actions were good enough, but I would definitely see him in the first instance if he was in front or to the side of me at 3km.

Obviously we are not seeing the same thing.

GF4 Ti4600
1152x864x32
OpenGL
DOT set to 25
Quncunx 4x antialiasing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope to see what you do and maybe when I upgrade I will and it will be fine for me.
Right now video is 64M GF2MX400 at 1024x768 and no antialiasing. Render range is
medium in graphics settings or I get below 20 FPS. Been looking at ads, 128M GF5200FX
and 512M DDR333 will take a little longer to budget in than right now. Also I've been
running DX not GL but can't remember just why.

I remember a screenshot showing LOD's but can't remember them going all the way to 3km.
That was during 3.01 and it showed the LOD's against ground going practically invisible
from about 1.2km on till the dots took up. I think that with 3.02 they have improved
the LOD's, haven't they?

It would be nice to either have a workable solution for the range of PC's the sim runs
on or if not then multiple choices so no one gets left in the dark as it were.

For me, I'm waiting for the next revelation and leaving icons on.

T_Rom
12-05-2004, 01:45 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 (including our bombers 1000m below me, who I was supposed to escort)! 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,
T_ROM

DarthBane_
12-05-2004, 03:14 PM
I am realy sick of hurting my eyes while looking for enemy on monitor, take vote results into acaunt not guys who like to put their faces 3cm from screen, thats realy sick habit! Sick! Down with 3.02 ****. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-05-2004, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The advantage is between might lose them and always lose them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! I think your onto something Max.. The ones shouting about the ones shouting are probally the ones runnig at 800x600 to get an edge that they need. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m sick of hearing these childish accusations.
First it`s , `We do it for an advantage`, now it`s we play `800X600`. It`s just stupid.

You guys will stoop real low to try and bully Oleg into changing things. My first post here simply said I thought 3.02b was great and that was it, but then I get Carguy screaming, then TAGERT and even WWMaxGunz going crazy. If Oleg changes things, he changes it, I`ll live with it. And yes, I haven`t 3.01 cos I was stuck 100 miles away. I just stood up for what was better than what I knew previously (3.00). I stand up even more when people try to `shout` me down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I think Lexx has been the only one to keep a level head on this.

It really is a case of who can bully who the most to get what they want, even if they have to come out with a variety of silly accusations or shout like a small child. Amazing and very immature.

TAGERT.
12-06-2004, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The advantage is between might lose them and always lose them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! I think your onto something Max.. The ones shouting about the ones shouting are probally the ones runnig at 800x600 to get an edge that they need. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m sick of hearing these childish accusations.
First it`s , `We do it for an advantage`, now it`s we play `800X600`. It`s just stupid.

You guys will stoop real low to try and bully Oleg into changing things. My first post here simply said I thought 3.02b was great and that was it, but then I get Carguy screaming, then TAGERT and even WWMaxGunz going crazy. If Oleg changes things, he changes it, I`ll live with it. And yes, I haven`t 3.01 cos I was stuck 100 miles away. I just stood up for what was better than what I knew previously (3.00). I stand up even more when people try to `shout` me down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I think Lexx has been the only one to keep a level head on this.

It really is a case of who can bully who the most to get what they want, even if they have to come out with a variety of silly accusations or shout like a small child. Amazing and very immature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sit down son.. Adults talkin here.

Popey109
12-06-2004, 12:55 AM
LOL!!!...It€s a weak argument that changes position! You all have gone from €œ3.01 is more realistic€€¦too €œOleg should adjust for us who can€t see€€¦too €œ3.02bm is too realistic! And needs to be adjusted for game play€€¦finally you€ve resorted to insults and accusation of cheating and gaming the game! Our position has been the same all along. The emersion of the game depends on situewation awareness. This becomes even more important for those of use who fly off line ware AI are lacking€¦3.01 diminished any opportunity for surprise€¦it€s just that simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Popey109
12-06-2004, 01:34 AM
Let me put it another way, FAT DOTS mite be acceptable on-line ware your flying against a human opponent, A human can be unpredictable. But all of us here have flown against AI long enough too know what there next move will be. There single greatest weapon is the one that slipped by you! The one you didn€t see sliding in on your six! If you take that away than you mite as well ask me to shelve the game. thats all I'm saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-06-2004, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
and even WWMaxGunz going crazy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

I think you overreact a bit here, yourself, thank you.
Or you can point out the crazy parts to me?

Maybe with what I see, you read crazy, and from what you see....
When I see people posting they can see planes below against the
ground at 3 to 5 km away... buddy that is an extreme advantage
to what I have been getting. When the same people post that the
3.01 dots are unfair to them or just way too obvious and ugly
when against the ground I have to search for them unless I have
followed them from up in the sky where they were very dark but
not exactly huge at my 1024x768x32...
Those of us who don't get visibles down against the ground no
matter what with 3.02 keep posting that and you that do just blow
it off. 3.01 can be configured to cut the dotrange and I did post
asking if anyone else tried a very low setting like the 3.5km I
used. I got NO answers. I sincerely DOUBT that the majority of
"hate the 3.01 dots" posters even tried changing the dotrange at
all since I haven't seen much about it except by people who CHANGED
THEIR MINDS.

Another post said you hadn't even seen the 3.01 dots, IIRC.
Not true, I'm sure and yet I can't remember any dispute to that
but then in the middle of all this I've been in to surgery and
a short hospital stay and haven't been keeping up all that well.
Maybe you can say what dotranges and resolutions you've actually
run with 3.01?

And please, your posts are not the most settled here by far.
In fact, I'd say you're pretty reactionary yourself but I won't say crazy.

Tagert's reply to me was inaccurate as people posting about liking 3.02
better are generally running at least 1024x768 and more often higher than
that. IIUC, 800x600 has the bigger edge with 3.0 and 3.01. It's got to
be crud at LOD's and ID'ing planes though which is why I won't bother to
drop that far even for FPS.

WWMaxGunz
12-06-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
LOL!!!...It€s a weak argument that changes position! You all have gone from €œ3.01 is more realistic€€¦too €œOleg should adjust for us who can€t see€€¦too €œ3.02bm is too realistic! And needs to be adjusted for game play€€¦finally you€ve resorted to insults and accusation of cheating and gaming the game! Our position has been the same all along. The emersion of the game depends on situewation awareness. This becomes even more important for those of use who fly off line ware AI are lacking€¦3.01 diminished any opportunity for surprise€¦it€s just that simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen insults and accusations from both sides counting not just this thread but the
entire subject since the dots versions have been out.

SA is entirely the point. Offline? The AI "sees" everything. If you set your dotrange down
low online or offline then you will increase your opportunity to be surprised dramatically.
Have you ever tried? 3.01, at the dotrange and outwards the dots get smaller then are gone.
Check Hunters' and Lexx's posts on the subject going back to before even 3.02. If you ran
dotrange at 5km or less then I am sure you would not post comments such as that which here
we find posted as absolute truths.

The majority still complaining about 3.01 dots have not bothered with experimenting with the
range or not much at all given the lack of feedback on that. The ones who posted feedback,
that actually tried, I have seen the majority accept the 3.01 as workable and acceptable.
Yes, there are quite a few who understood and made it work, even discussion as to what
settings worked best for them.

Once again. There are two ways of dots. One can be configured and work by anybody to where
all can see reasonably and the other only works for some people. Which one is so right to
make everyone use? Must it be the one that looks best on "your" (whoever) PC with no work
of settings and adjusting done by you at all? Yes, democratic... the tyranny of the majority
known as the straight vote.

TheGozr
12-06-2004, 02:06 AM
The 3.02b dots are very hard I agree with some post above about the distance of the dot becoming a visible plane silhouette is way too short. It makes a wrong distance judgment.

Today I was in Chock! a total chock I decided to make my Clouds vision to "medium".. WAAaaaaoooo! I felt like an AI pilot I could see behind the clouds or a mean where it WAS ...no clouds far away and be able to see enemy approaching that normally used clouds for a surprise attack .
No need to hide now..
I wish to have a command line to block this setting from the server side at will.

WWMaxGunz
12-06-2004, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
Let me put it another way, FAT DOTS mite be acceptable on-line ware your flying against a human opponent, A human can be unpredictable. But all of us here have flown against AI long enough too know what there next move will be. There single greatest weapon is the one that slipped by you! The one you didn€t see sliding in on your six! If you take that away than you mite as well ask me to shelve the game. thats all I'm saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inside 2km or so (maybe 2.5 to 3) what we see is LOD's, not dots.
If you don't want to see past that then set dotrange to 1 and you won't.

I don't know about you anyway but I don't see more than a 90 degree cone from the cockpit
and planes slide past me that could be flashing like strobes just because my view is not
pointed where they are.

Now that is two ways you're argument there dose not work. No need to quit playing.
Try again 3.01 and set dotrange to low numbers. Start with 3km. If you need help
setting the sim up for automatic dotrange loading then say so, it is done once and
then you have it. Not more trouble than posting to a forum, really.

carguy_
12-06-2004, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
LOL!!!...It€s a weak argument that changes position! You all have gone from €œ3.01 is more realistic€€¦too €œOleg should adjust for us who can€t see€€¦too €œ3.02bm is too realistic! And needs to be adjusted for game play€€¦finally you€ve resorted to insults and accusation of cheating and gaming the game! Our position has been the same all along. The emersion of the game depends on situewation awareness. This becomes even more important for those of use who fly off line ware AI are lacking€¦3.01 diminished any opportunity for surprise€¦it€s just that simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn`t want to take it your way but since your generalizin ppl who place arguments and ppl who just scream for 3.01 I`ll play the game aswell.

Let me tell you what your position has been since you don`t realize it.Your arguments agaist 3.01 dots are

1.They`re ugly.
Yeah,avery rational argument,congratulations.

2.Visible from very big distances.
Mp_dotrange took care of this.You can set the range at which those dots become blurry and gradually invisible.Sounds like you lads didn`t even think about trying it out.

3.Oleg and his real life pilots say 3.02 is more realistic.

Well,I have some real life pilot account(also see Animal`s post)that says 3.01 are revolutionary for IL2 series since mp_dotrange setting lets you set all dot shapes at distance which you like.
Besides,it`s not the first time you take Oleg`s "most realistic" opinion for granted.You relistic-hardcore-proud-simmers react to "realistic" statements like dogs seeing a big chunk of meat and "arf arf arf" everyone who disagrees out of the stage.You have completely no critic of what Oleg gives you.

Yes,I agree your position has been the same all along and I can describe it with one word - "irrational".You failed to place even one argument which I couldn`t answer against so you just deny everything we say.

Yes,3.02 doesn`t cope with current PC limitations hence denies realism itself.

The main point of this whole discussion is that mp_dotrange setting made everyone happy whereas 3.02 gives us no choice.You seem to be pleased by it very much.

I think you "Oleg says it`s realistic so it is" boys know better and obviously can do better than that.


PS.Seafire,all the time I see you stating that you like it more than 3.01 but I dont see any rational aruments why.So far you accept v3.02b and just are sick with those who try to prove 3.01 was better for everyone.

PS2.And yes,hmmmmm I think Oleg could implement random engine failures again like it was back in 1.20 IL2 days,don`t you think?It is realistic so what`s the case?You want ultimate realism,dontcha?

Popey109
12-06-2004, 03:44 AM
€œThe main point of this whole discussion is that mp_dotrange setting made everyone happy whereas 3.02 gives us no choice. You seem to be pleased by it very much.€ LOL! Well, if everyone was happy we wouldn€t be having this discussion, would we? And if I€m irritating you it€s because I€m tired of your insinuations. My reasons for keeping 3.02bm are clearly stated above. Maxgunz, you seem a reasonable person, it€s a simple mater to go from 3.02bm to 3.01 and back, I€ll try it again and take some screens for comparison. But it€s late her and I have too work in the morning€¦till than€¦~S~ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Recon_609IAP
12-06-2004, 05:59 AM
FYI:

From: Oleg Maddox [mailto:mado@1c.ru]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM 05.60] Dots for next patch


Will be increased only visibility for the ground objects. For the planes we will stay as it is in 3.02"

DarthBane_
12-06-2004, 08:46 AM
More bad decidions eh? And then comes the talk about bad sales? This game should stop beeing so sterile and tuned to wishes of few old customers. Or there should be no talk about bad sales anymore. Simple.

faustnik
12-06-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
FYI:

From: Oleg Maddox [mailto:mado@1c.ru]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM 05.60] Dots for next patch


Will be increased only visibility for the ground objects. For the planes we will stay as it is in 3.02" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's too bad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I guess PF online will be a "game" about tweaking your sytem for "dot" visibility and a low altitude T&B fest as B&Z will become B&L, blind and lost.

WWMaxGunz
12-06-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
€œThe main point of this whole discussion is that mp_dotrange setting made everyone happy whereas 3.02 gives us no choice. You seem to be pleased by it very much.€ LOL! Well, if everyone was happy we wouldn€t be having this discussion, would we? And if I€m irritating you it€s because I€m tired of your insinuations. My reasons for keeping 3.02bm are clearly stated above. Maxgunz, you seem a reasonable person, it€s a simple mater to go from 3.02bm to 3.01 and back, I€ll try it again and take some screens for comparison. But it€s late her and I have too work in the morning€¦till than€¦~S~ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake. It made most everyone happy who used mp_dotrange to get it right.
Now you try it without tweaking the dotrange and you only prove nothing at all.
Why do I think that is what you will do? Simply because you like so many others
have never answered about having worked with dotrange towards making the best of
what you could see. Why would you? It seems the decision must have been made at
the start and is unchangeable because no matter how often the ability to change
the result has been posted there are people who never discuss that except for
ones who did the least bit and stopped still unhappy and those who changed their
opinions which we have some posts of and posts speaking for others by respected
members like I think Tully in Lexx's thread. Those people worked to find reasonably
good results, not to just keep their first impression as being godlike correct.

With using dotrange, everyone should be able to be happy with 3.01. With using
dotrange, not everyone can be happy with 3.02.

In the skies I like the 3.02 dots but down below on my hardware which is not unique
the ability to see planes against the ground within reasonable distances is unplayable
without text icons. Like 3.01 I can adjust the text icons distances but the text
gives too much information and destroys immersion.

Perhaps Oleg can do something with the LOD's if not the dots. Against ground below
a LOT OF US are unable to see fighters until we are well within 1km. The shade of
the LOD's being set different to what is below by an amount of how far above that
ground the plane is would be a nice way. Really, the higher you go, the more faded
and lightened the ground and all close to or on it should be due to light scattering
by dust and water in the lower air as like looking at distant objects while you are
on low ground, the fading with distance and close things stand out better, they look
sharper. The ground in the sim does not fade/soften as you go up so a plane with
matching camo anywhere between still matches what is drawn below and must get bigger
than ground details below or be over detail not the same overall color or be shown
in enough detail to see they do not match which higher resolution affords longer
ranges to have that. Solutions may include having the ground not be the same as you
go higher above or not having the LOD's match the ground which does not change.
3.01 dots below have the contrast white which while coupled with dotrange controls
set close are not super real is no more unreal than always invisible planes that
3.02 gives us back.

Maybe you can discuss this or maybe you just crank out the worst screenshots you can
and call them "proof" which is the polarization I have seen so far.

FOE_Pappy
12-06-2004, 11:23 AM
S! That is to bad, if in fact that is Oleg's response to the various polls a discussions in which the results all come out in favor of the 3.01 dots, at least with a default range reduction.

The point that has been brought forth is that planes cannot be seen, unless you are running the 1970's resolutions. There was very little discussion directed to ground targets.

For a couple weeks, we had a good game with 3.01 dots in which you could get into a dogfight without going into a low level, furball location to find an enemy.

The game now is that you fly around, looking for those big bright tracers that indicated a fight is going on or post grid location of plane kills, like one online server is doing. This just generates the low level furball type game.

Why is it that you can see 50 cal. tracers miles away, but cannot see you own 50 cal. tracers to the point where they merge?

I hope Oleg takes another look at the discussions and changes his mind.

Popey109
12-06-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
€œThe main point of this whole discussion is that mp_dotrange setting made everyone happy whereas 3.02 gives us no choice. You seem to be pleased by it very much.€ LOL! Well, if everyone was happy we wouldn€t be having this discussion, would we? And if I€m irritating you it€s because I€m tired of your insinuations. My reasons for keeping 3.02bm are clearly stated above. Maxgunz, you seem a reasonable person, it€s a simple mater to go from 3.02bm to 3.01 and back, I€ll try it again and take some screens for comparison. But it€s late her and I have too work in the morning€¦till than€¦~S~ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake. It made most everyone happy who used mp_dotrange to get it right.
Now you try it without tweaking the dotrange and you only prove nothing at all.
Why do I think that is what you will do? Simply because you like so many others
have never answered about having worked with dotrange towards making the best of
what you could see. Why would you? It seems the decision must have been made at
the start and is unchangeable because no matter how often the ability to change
the result has been posted there are people who never discuss that except for
ones who did the least bit and stopped still unhappy and those who changed their
opinions which we have some posts of and posts speaking for others by respected
members like I think Tully in Lexx's thread. Those people worked to find reasonably
good results, not to just keep their first impression as being godlike correct.

With using dotrange, everyone should be able to be happy with 3.01. With using
dotrange, not everyone can be happy with 3.02.

In the skies I like the 3.02 dots but down below on my hardware which is not unique
the ability to see planes against the ground within reasonable distances is unplayable
without text icons. Like 3.01 I can adjust the text icons distances but the text
gives too much information and destroys immersion.

Perhaps Oleg can do something with the LOD's if not the dots. Against ground below
a LOT OF US are unable to see fighters until we are well within 1km. The shade of
the LOD's being set different to what is below by an amount of how far above that
ground the plane is would be a nice way. Really, the higher you go, the more faded
and lightened the ground and all close to or on it should be due to light scattering
by dust and water in the lower air as like looking at distant objects while you are
on low ground, the fading with distance and close things stand out better, they look
sharper. The ground in the sim does not fade/soften as you go up so a plane with
matching camo anywhere between still matches what is drawn below and must get bigger
than ground details below or be over detail not the same overall color or be shown
in enough detail to see they do not match which higher resolution affords longer
ranges to have that. Solutions may include having the ground not be the same as you
go higher above or not having the LOD's match the ground which does not change.
3.01 dots below have the contrast white which while coupled with dotrange controls
set close are not super real is no more unreal than always invisible planes that
3.02 gives us back.

Maybe you can discuss this or maybe you just crank out the worst screenshots you can
and call them "proof" which is the polarization I have seen so far. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> €œThe main point of this whole discussion is that mp_dotrange setting made everyone happy whereas 3.02 gives us no choice. You seem to be pleased by it very much.€ This was a comment by carguy_!!! What immediately fallowed was my response to him. I guess it applies to you as well. I€m not accustom to being called a liar or a cheat. I had even thought of asking you what would be the best format to save in, tests in 3.02bm saved in jpeg are not what I see in game (using snagit). But you chose to preempt my effort with accusations! What€s sad is I believe we are seeing the same thing, aircraft against the terrain are very hard too see. Our difference of opinion is whether we should easily spot a camouflaged aircraft moving 300 mph€¦.So, since you don€t trust me to test why don€t you post your results! I have no doubt it will be fare and Impartial http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T_Rom
12-06-2004, 03:07 PM
LOL!!! B&Z will become B&L = Blind and Lost! I agree 100%.

In my opinion, 3.0 dots were the best solution. Why make dots less visible? I don't understand.

Recon_609IAP
12-06-2004, 04:00 PM
Pappy, this is just US poll, more Russians bought PF than American's. In Russian forum, I was told they prefer the 3.02b dots.

Oleg says he recieves 20 to 1 more emails about 3.02b dots. Maybe all of you should email him personally and balance those numbers =)

Around here, the more you complain, the more you are heard unfortunately.

WWMaxGunz
12-06-2004, 04:06 PM
Me saying that I don't believe you will try the dotrange much at all is not accusation,
it is opinion. Accusation is me saying that I am sure you have not yet tried dotrange
with small values because you have not the interest. Prove me wrong. My opinion is
that you will not give it a fair trial based on how very long the information has been
out of completely how to do it and values to try (Tully used 8, I used 3.5 and 3) for
weeks now an I don't see people who did try saying how bad 3.01 is, but you do. Is it
an insult to make you cry that I think you are a stubborn one? Does the shoe fit?

If the jpg does not show then maybe the .TGA that PF captures will though right now I
don't have graphics installed that will view that. I don't care if you do post shots
anyway as I do believe that you can pick out planes below at 1km and over to some range
you consider appropriate. If you couldn't, if you could only see how I do then you
would not be saying 3.02 is good. If I could see as you say then I STILL would look to
see that others are not stuck out before saying 3.01 is so terrible. Oh, but that is
also because by cutting the dotrange way down it did not look terrible on my machine.
Funny but others have the same results, even some who did not find 3.01 acceptable
before they worked the settings.

I don't need to see screenshots for this. I take you at your word what you can see.

LEXX_Luthor
12-06-2004, 04:46 PM
If Oleg goes for 3.02b dots, then it will still be vast improvement over 3.0 dots...even for ALL simmers, even for simmers like me that can't see 3.02b dots against [summer] forest.

Tip--against winter forest 3.02b dots are "easy" even with winter cammo. So much for the cammo arguments seen here that say you should not be able to see cammo aircraft.

"rcu Tully" is going for 3.02b dots, and that carries much mass with me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I still would prefer 3.01 but...I can't say how much even 3.02b dots are improved over 3.0.

faustnik
12-06-2004, 05:14 PM
I guess it really depends on your system, because 3.02 dots are harder to spot than any previous versions on my system from 2-4km in perfect mode.

Tvrdi
12-06-2004, 05:29 PM
3.01 dots are ridiculous...uv got big f dots when u see planes far away and near u....scale this a little bit i would say

LEXX_Luthor
12-06-2004, 05:50 PM
Tveri:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3.01 dots are ridiculous...uv got big f dots when u see planes far away and near u....scale this a little bit i would say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, big dot at short range, big dot at long range. You scale them with mp_dotrange.

3.01 was releaced with dotrange set too high...

link ~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1751051542

3.02 dots same thing, small dot at short range, small dot at long range, but the dot is small so it can't get smaller with range like 3.01 dots could.

Recon_609IAP
12-06-2004, 08:35 PM
I like your idea about the mp_dotrange.

I will retry the 3.01 with this - although, based on Oleg's email, it will not be used, so probably a waste of time.

Recon_609IAP
12-07-2004, 04:46 AM
for those wanting more information:

"From: Oleg Maddox [mailto:mado@1c.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM 05.60] Dots for next patch


in 3.02 the distance change paramenters are working. I don't know how you get it not working. However these settings were always ajustable only for online.


Another info for all all your friends. Visibility dots of aircraft with 1024x768x32 stancil buffer enabled (must be for the modern cards). 16 bit and low resolution now doesn't give the advantage like in the past.

I-16 - 7 km
Yak-9 - 8,5 km
Il-2 - 12 km
B-17 - 22 km
Corsair - 11 km
P-51 - 10 km
Spirfires - 9 km.

This way more than in 3,0 and 2.04.


Completely dissapearing aircraft - this is only for your own aircraft when you are pilot of this plane. It is from original Il-2 rlease and we don't plan to change it becasue it isn't neccessary.

In 3.03 the distance of visibility for the tanks, etc will be again increased back to 5.000 meters, not less."

Recon_609IAP
12-07-2004, 04:56 AM
it's not the range I want - heck, I think the range is too far - its the size as aircraft get closer - they should get larger imo.

When I escort bombers at 1.5km, I have to zoom in to see them in 3.02b and prior to 3.01. Finally in 3.01 I could actually not zoom in to see them. These are A20's, I should see 3 in formation easy at 1-1.5km.

in 3.01 this was possible, now, I have trouble over maps like Kursk where it's green terrain - not forest, just regular green.

TAGERT.
12-07-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
it's not the range I want - heck, I think the range is too far - its the size as aircraft get closer - they should get larger imo.

When I escort bombers at 1.5km, I have to zoom in to see them in 3.02b and prior to 3.01. Finally in 3.01 I could actually not zoom in to see them. These are A20's, I should see 3 in formation easy at 1-1.5km.

in 3.01 this was possible, now, I have trouble over maps like Kursk where it's green terrain - not forest, just regular green. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally

faustnik
12-07-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
it's not the range I want - heck, I think the range is too far - its the size as aircraft get closer - they should get larger imo.

When I escort bombers at 1.5km, I have to zoom in to see them in 3.02b and prior to 3.01. Finally in 3.01 I could actually not zoom in to see them. These are A20's, I should see 3 in formation easy at 1-1.5km.

in 3.01 this was possible, now, I have trouble over maps like Kursk where it's green terrain - not forest, just regular green. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the problem! The long range dots are fine in 3.02, it's at close and medium range that there is an issue.

Von_Rat
12-07-2004, 01:49 PM
i don't know why oleg says low resolution doesn't give advantage anymore. i've had to lower my resolution to 1152x864 to be just barely able to see 3.02 dots against ground.

its a shame i can't play at 1600x1200 on my 22 in. monitor anymore if i want to compete online. game doen't look nearly as nice at the lower resolution.

WWMaxGunz
12-07-2004, 04:59 PM
It's nice to know that by world standards of sim players, my PC is so crappy.
Now I don't have to feel bad for so many others. There are not people buying the sim
and then telling friends they can't play it. Instead they are telling friends about
big ugly dots and too easy to see with a patch to avoid and another fixes so great.
I guess the sim is for serious with money players first and most.

uhoh7
12-07-2004, 11:20 PM
"Instead they are telling friends about
big ugly dots and too easy to see with a patch to avoid and another fixes so great."

oh give us a break........

what it comes down to is Better vis= more able to play FR. That would be good for the game. I guess having dot size options for the server would be too hard to code.

but ty to 1c for working on the problem anyway

JG54_Arnie
12-08-2004, 12:58 AM
Hmm, I was actually surprised when I fired up 3.02bm last night. It's actually possible to see the wings on enemy fighters at more than 1.5 km. Which is good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And in 3.02bm I have no problem at all spotting a dot against the ground.

But why do people have a problem with planes dissapearing from view(being hard to see) so now and then? Its not like its easy to keep track of such a small object down low and it wouldnt be in real life.

Recon_609IAP
12-08-2004, 05:45 AM
I have good follow up from Oleg, I guess the reason for the 3.02b vs 3.01 dot size has to do with scaling.

This was my response on asking Oleg why dots couldn't be larger up close like 3.01. To do this, means it's not in scale, which, now I think about it - this would most likely give you a false impression on how close the object was to you. (ie. very small dot far away, as it get's closer, all of sudden it's very large).

Although, I struggle here in wondering if, because of monitor size, resolutions, etc... if it would actually make it seem 'more real' if they were bigger up closer.

However, I do now understand why Oleg would keep the scaling.

---

From: Oleg Maddox [mailto:mado@1c.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM 05.60] Dots for next patch


But in 3.01 it was out of real scale! It was one the same size for the large differences in distance (by a bug that did programmer!!!)!
Also white/grey dots we keep as it was in 3.01 except the changes of realistic scale! Look over the sea with more attention.

And I use myself 17' monitor and still worstest of GF4 card!!! and have no problems in 1024x748x32bit!!

I hope that you didn't use the 16bit mode! where it is really bad. But 16bit mode works slowly and less precise in tops of triangles than 32bit on the card higher than GF4 and even very first ATI!"

WWMaxGunz
12-08-2004, 08:00 AM
There's my answer... I have almost worstest of GF2 card. Just ordered 128M GF5200FX, $45,
to leave me the bread for that extra RAM I also need. Still to go, XP and a better stick.

T_Rom
12-08-2004, 03:06 PM
Let me get this straight. I run on 1024x748x16bit, stencil buffering off. I had no problems spotting an enemy 3000m below me in version 3.0. Exception being forests. But now with 3.02b a plane flying over grassland 3000m below me can be seen ONLY WITH ZOOM, which was not the case in 3.0 where a bright white dot or sometimes dark black dot could be seen without zoom. I haven't changed any settings. My card is RADEON9800. What is wrong? Are the dots really harder in 3.02b than 3.0? Why??? I thought that people wanted more visibility, not less.

S!
T_ROM

LEXX_Luthor
12-08-2004, 05:13 PM
oh helll

Set my ATI~9200 to Perfect Mode (just trust me) and guess what...

3.02b dots EASY to see against summer Lvov forest below, and with dotrange set low too.

Maybe it is grafix card and driver related as Hunde suggested.

I couldn't believe what I saw, all my Whinnage about not seeing 3.02b dots, and there they were, big black/white dots too -- with low dotrange even.

Still can't see them with Excellent Mode, and I guess I will Suffer until I get a newer card. But...yes 3.02b dots can be easy or hard to see against forest below, depending on hardware/software.

ucanfly
12-08-2004, 06:42 PM
Aha! perfect mode makes dots easier to see! Please make them easier to see in Excellent mode as well Oleg! Otherwise - why even have excellent mode?

karost
12-08-2004, 07:22 PM
Well , Thanks Oleg and friends who support 3.02 dot and feel sorry for friends who need 3.01 dot

if look in term of offensive action, 3.01 dot is good but how about when you have to stay with defensive situation when lose sight of enemy is your chance to survive ..?

I play fullswith and full real, I like to fly over enemy base at 6-7k ALONG... this is fun and you all know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

WWMaxGunz
12-08-2004, 09:25 PM
We get what we get. Just try and remember that full zoom view is actually what normal
vision gives. All others are zoomed out from real, widened angle, smaller size and
loss of detail. How hard is something to find moving around when you are searching
by looking through a narrow paper cone? How hard to lose and how long to find again
that is not real? All I am saying is, watch out using the words "full real" because
it is not. In the meantime, take what you can get... I will.

carguy_
12-09-2004, 01:41 PM
It is pretty obvious that Russians like 3.02b more.They`re a T&B crowd.Don`t ever tell me that this game ain`t biased then.

PB0_Roll
12-09-2004, 05:36 PM
flying german 99% of time, i prefer current 3.02b dots, and HATE 3.01 dots.

Snoop_Baron
12-09-2004, 06:11 PM
I bumped my resolution from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 when 3.01 came out last night I finaly decided to drop it back down to 1024x768. You simply loose to much dot visibility (atleast on my system) when you play at 1600x1200 vs 1024x768 with 3.02b.

I agree that in 301 the dots where ugly at 1024x768. But they where great at 1600x1200. I think that in the next version they should try making the dots take progressively more pixels as you increase resolution so that we get on average 1024x768 visibility at 1600x1200.

Regards,
Snoop

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 06:30 PM
UltraPro video cards running 640x480 Perfect with 8x Antialiasing and Anisotropic Filtering is the Future of internet dogfight Brownie Point scoring.

1600x1200 and higher for seeing distant aircraft grafix and readable guages is the Future of flight simming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Arnie
12-10-2004, 03:12 AM
Hmm, a note from my system: Perfect of excellent settings doesnt make any difference at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I cant see what you guys are complaining about, 3.01 was obviously having dots that were waaaay to easy to see.
Maybe its a big difference between videocards, resolutions and whatever, I dont know, your monitor probably also plays part in all this. So maybe everybody should play around with contrast and brightness a little bit? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Loving the 3.02bm dots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif