Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. 18 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

    You just disproved yourself. A plane 2/3rds the size a Mig-21 (most fighters we have ingame) is spotable by  2/3rds the abovementioned distance OR above.

    This sort of shallow and vacuous interpretation of data is why we are still here 6 pages later.

     

    -A mig 21 is not 2/3's the size of in game fighters. It is bigger or smaller depending on the aspect.

    -This chart is only for 1 eyeball, it is only intended to give a sense of how the eye works.

    -You are ignoring that other data I posted about the average spotting distance of the T-38 and other planes.

    -You actually cannot consistently spot il2 planes at 2/3ds of these ranges. At almost any range il2 planes are wildly inconsistent and disappear for no reason.

    • Confused 1

  2. 5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

    t does not even draw a range beyond 7 nm and shows that being able to spot a modern fighter at 5 nm (less than the old bubble) would require specifically focusing in the right direction, but also implies that planes closer than 2-2.5 nm (4 km) should be quite easy to detect, when looking at their general direction. That is where the spotting problem is more for me, with my system (I understand that different people with different setup might have different experience), so I would welcome it if devs found a way of improving spotting/tracking close contacts, but don't like the over-sized planes visible at extreme ranges.

    Yes and this is one of the points I have been trying to make. The primary issue is not the ranges at which things can technically come into view, it is modeling this image here. ALSO, consider that this is only for one eye, and so is the predicted range chart I posted. TWO eyes never see anything from exactly the same angle, and they combine information from independent fixations to create a image.

    6 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

    I can consistently see planes at less than 10km

    No you cant, and if you think you do, we have different definitions of the word consistent. I dont dispute, as I have already made clear, that you can spot contacts at these distances. The problem is that there will be several others that cannot be seen in the same picture. Even if you look right at them, the will be invisible or nearly invisible. "Consistent" does not mean you flew a sortie and spotted some people at this range.

     

    6 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

    And now when you lose your argument, you claim to be able to see what other people can see lol.

    This doesnt even make sense.

    7 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

    On the graph that you presented, it says that "this graph estimates the maximum (central acuity) visual detection ranges ...".

    So, according to this estimation, the maximum range that a person can spot a MiG-21 in belly view, with it's delta wing, when specifically focusing on it (central acuity) is 7 nm (about 13 km).

    For one eye. Which is why the average detection ranges of the T-38 or other planes in the other reports are between 4-7 miles.

    10 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you have ever tried to spot a plane while flying in real life. 

    Not sure what this image is trying to show, is this airplane supposed to be hard to see lol? But here, spotting from 38,000ft small planes against a cluttered background. Greater than 8nm away. Ive posted these several times already.

     

    11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    No. If you share a thermal flying a glider with five other gliders it may well be that you see only four of them. The one that can cut off your tail with its wing is the one you never saw until it was too late.

    Right, this is  not a conversation about spotting technique. This is a discussion about the eye as a sensor. Discussing how pilot workload or poor focusing techniques interfere with this is not relevant. Also, I wish I could see 4 of 5 planes in il2. That game as it is right now does not support correct spotting even with the best technique.

    • Upvote 1

  3. 1 hour ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    Yep I see exactly what you suggest I should see/get in Il2, and Therein lies the dilemma, you don’t, but I do.

    Nope. No you dont, not unless you have a huge screen. The game is the same for everyone. If you have normal vision, you are seeing the exact same thing I am. No one in this game is seeing contacts at 10-12km as the average spotting distance as I just described. If you are claiming otherwise you either do not know what you are missing, are being disingenuous, or dont understand what you should be seeing based on my description above.

     

    This is pointless if were going to sit here and entertain counter-factual claims. Ive already showed plenty of screenshots and videos showing that spotting at long and short distances is absurdly inconsistent. For every contact spotted at 10km, even 2km, there are generally 10 others that should be detectable that are not. In many cases a contact is invisible even if you look right at it.  Anyone who says otherwise at this point does not know what they are missing or is just ignoring the facts.

    • Sad 3

  4. 2 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    I can pick up a dot in game at ranges of 10k plus, sometimes 12

    No, in il2 you occasionally get a dot at 10km. Meanwhile you miss the other 6 at 2km. And 3 others at 8km etc. Il2s spotting is incredibly inconsistent, even when looking right at it. The problem is not what you can technically see, its what can be seen easily enough to be considered average. What you should be seeing is frequent spots at 4-7nm's with a much higher ability to require once taking your eyes off it so the player doesnt have to track it in zoom constantly. And occasionally getting spots at even greater ranges 17km or so, with the sort of rarity we currently get contacts from 8-12.

     

    You can sometimes see airplanes in DCS from over 10nm away.  No one thinks the spotting in that game is reasonable. Again, this is not about max spotting distance, or what you occasionally spot.

     

    Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you are half blind in real life.


  5. 28 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    beginning to see a dot on average at 8km

    This is not quite right, and what you said right after this makes my the point. The dot at 8km is not just a spec (maybe if head on). This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible. The reason you see this as the average distance is because as range decreases the angular distance between foveal fixations goes down. Each eye is making several fixations per second, and homogenizing this into a "minds eye" image. The 4-7nm average detection range just happens to coincide with the area where the fixations are coming closer and just before the 2.5nm and below peripheral zone where virtually anything should be detected in short order.

     

    image.thumb.png.7631cc5f912ca994655d6bab5906583d.pngimage.png.0889318c92c348853e4d27da3f2fcde9.png


  6. 2 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    aircraft at 8km is next to impossible unless the lighting is right and you know where to look.

    This is pure bs. I've already posted several documents showing this range is about the average distance combat pilots aquire small aircraft. Furthermore Ive posted videos of me spotting small aircraft on the deck from 38000ft. 

     

    Inside of 2-3 miles most contacts should be spotted because this is I side the peripheral detection zone. The fovea can pick out targets mi h further out. If cued by say a radar, people have been known to spot contacts as far away as 25nm. Uncued, contacts are generally discovered anywhere from 4-7 miles. 

     


  7. 1 hour ago, Majakowski said:

    So this is just selective realism. We take only those aspects of realism that fit our role or view.

    No. Games that attempt to be simulations are trying to model discrete elements of the real world. How players use those tools is by definition, not part of simulation. It is the opposite of simulation to alter parts of the game that are attempting to model the real world because players do not behave like the real world. It is also not simulation to alter accurate models because not everything is modeled.

                If you want a player to have to deal with a part of reality, it has to be modeled. If you cannot model that aspect reality practically, that is not an legitimate rational for modeling other aspects of the simulation poorly on purpose in an attempt to skew the model.

    1 hour ago, Majakowski said:

    What you advocate for is a sandbox

    No what I advocate for is not modeling a hammer as a wrench just because we cant model the sandbox perfectly too. On the other hand, what you are advocating for is a not at all subtle totally partisan agenda to alter the game in a total nonsensical way just to suit bomber pilots.

     

    1 hour ago, Majakowski said:

    I think your strive for realism wouldn't survive the first night mission or mission with completely overcast sky or precipitation, icing conditions, random malfunction of systems, modeling of sabotage and bad material qualities, fogging of canopy, technical failures due to inexperienced maintenance crew and so on.

    And this is the bit of the post where you list a bunch of irrelevant items as a form of ad hominem because you know your rational is invalid.


  8. 3 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

    some people are perfectly happy to make life easier for themselves with little regard to increased difficulty for others types of pilots.

    Hint: Harder for some and easier for others is a completely irrelevant metric in this conversation.

     

    4 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

    As for realism, the "normal" setting is far more realistic than the "alternative" viewing setting based on my on real life flying experience and the technical papers I've read on this topic (c.f., original thread on this issue....fortunately, the IL-2 developers agree with me strongly)

    No one on the alt is better side of this is arguing that it does not have issues. Rather than the improvements it brings to spotting in general are more realistic than the almost totally meaningless ability to see things at absurd ranges. Also, who gives a hootin hell if the developers agree with you lol.

     

    5 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

    Things getting smaller or invisible when zooming (read: applying binoculars) is only realistic when applying them backwards.

    In the game you do not have realistic vision in zoom. In real life, you eyeballs do this for you, and it makes more sense to have scaling maxed out either at highest FOV or constant at all FOVs. The fact that you find "smaller when i zoom" counter intuitive is not at rational argument for realis

     

    7 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

    Yeah that sounds like a solution that absolutely would be totally realistic.

    There is no solution that is totally realistic. Sometimes you can implement mechanics to add to the game, but its never reasonable in a simulation to alter the specific realism of the game due to the way players play the game. You give a player realistic tools, and see what they make of them. Btw, seeing what they make of them, is what we call "playing" a game.


  9. 52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

    Tell me how realistic it is to fly around as a lone fighter pilot disregarding even the runway when taking of.

    I wait, probably forever, to hear a rational explanation of how this is relevant.

     

    52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

    forced by circumstance to fly alone

    Completely immaterial. If you want a solution so this, you should advocate for things that dont make every other aspect of the game take a huge step backwards. Other games for example, had solutions like giving large bombers two AI wing men that bombed and fired in sync with the human leader.

     

    52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

    I have never met a fighter guy here that pointed out how unrealistic it is that every fighter flies his lone wulf mission into the nearest fracas. But when it comes to bombers they shall please operate in groups.

    It is not reasonable to intentionally alter the spotting to be less realistic to intentionally benefit some aspect of the game. The best any simulation can do model everything as close to reality as possible and then let the cookie crumble as it will. Short of a total simulation of reality, the game will always exist in a game environment and this will always alter the relationships between various parts.

     

    • Like 1

  10. 24 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

    I sincerely believe that almost all of people calling for the alternative system are not considering the viewpoint of a dedicated bomber pilot who would rather go undetected as much as possible and I think this is something that should be considered by the KOTA admins.  I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that medium bomber usage would go significantly down with the adoptions of the alternative viewing system.  Is this what the KOTA admins want?

    Well I give you this, at least your transparent. But this the most absurd case anyone has made for non-alt so far. "help me I need people to not see me so i can unrealistically fly my airliner sized plane to an objective all alone."

     

    It appears we have run into the bomber lobbyists. You guys should start a super PAC


  11. 3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Yeah the paper is for a Dr of Philosophy. How does that make any sense? Because the guy was probably a video gamer and apparently nobody cares what a Dr of Philosophy writes their thesis about.  

    The Doctor of Philosophy, (PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil.) is a degree a person gets from a university by finishing a doctorate program. In many areas of study, the PhD/DPhil is the highest degree that a person can earn (this is called the "terminal degree").

     

    Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems.

     

    "He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems."

     

    I have no words.


  12. 6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    The “paper” is some video gamer philosophy major’s idea for video games disguised as research.

    Ad hominem.

    Argument from authority.

    Misunderstanding of the actual content of the paper.

    No specific argument as to how any of the it is wrong.

     

    Sharpe you have been going at this one for years and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence posted yet. I am still waiting for you to provide some specific reason as to how any of the calculations or rationals in that paper are wrong.

     

    "gamer"

     

    image.thumb.png.1d35c6d8d6b88aead17a214aa19b7b3d.png

    Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems.

     

    Thats "dr. gamer" to you


  13. 10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    if you don't understand the importance of ultra-long range spotting, then you clearly don't have a great understanding of air combat. 

    Please, where is the specific explanation of how spotting a contact at 40km is worse than missing it at 10 or 6. Still waiting.

     

    11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Also, you are putting forth as a given that shorter range spotting is seriously flawed and that it should be much easier.  I've repeatedly said that it could probably be improved or tweaked to better account for the limitations of viewing on a computer screen, but frankly I don't accept your assertion that it is that far off of reality. 

    It is, because this is in the peripheral zone of vision. I would love to hear the rational on how non-scaling rendering of ANY object in a video game could possibly be even close to reality considering the huge differences in effect resolution, contrast, lighting etc. It isnt just a given that this is the case, your point of view is materially impossible.


  14. 16 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

     

    So, does this "alternate" setting give better spotting in close? Just curious.

    Yes it does. Close being everything from 5-15km. Then there is a shift at close range where the affect is less noticeable or not there.

    12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    The paper is this bullshit study done by a video gamer for a philosophy degree.

    So no criticism of the actual content then. Gotcha.

     

    13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    You people have screwed yourselves up playing BMS with this stuff which is why you have so much trouble here.

    more baseless ad hominem

     

    14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    The video displays are 2003 technology and totally irrelevant to a game like this today. It was based upon a very specific display.

    Clearly you didnt read it very carefully.


  15. 3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km?  No?  Then I guess Alternate vision isn't realistic.  Sorry.  That's really what it comes down to.  What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon server, but doesn't want to admit it.

    It really is pretty flabbergasting the degree to which you can shift goalposts and ignore the present arguments as they are given. You ability to pretend like you dont understand what Im saying is astounding. And you wonder how I find you disingenuous.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1

  16. Just now, SeaSerpent said:

    Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km?

    Never argued it was. And you know this.

     

    1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Sorry.  That's really what it comes down to.  What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon server, but doesn't want to admit it.

    Yes, completely ignore the points I made about which one is worse since since both are wrong. I will wait until you actually try to explain to me how it is better to sacrifice better spotting in close because I can see something at ranges that are so far away they do not matter.

    • Upvote 1

  17. 2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Like a 2x factor at 3 miles or something.

    There is a paper on this that explains why this is correct.

     

    2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    I’m not going to argue about how wrong this is.

    This is because you dont have any data to back your position up. Your argument all these years has been "HDR solves all problems that dont exist"

    • Upvote 1

  18. 4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    experience in this game are simply not as accurate, true, or relevant as your own.

    No I am asserting through specific empirical evidence that other people are pretty bad at recounting their own in game experiences. Most people put alot of assumptions in their supposed observations.

     

    5 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    You even reject the math that demonstrates that "Expert" is closer to reality

    If by math, you mean the 1 minute of angle thing....you should know this is false. Only a single eye sees at this minute of angle. But you have TWO. With two eyes most people can achieve around 0.3-0.5 minute of angle. there are also other factors at play that enhance vision. Your brain builds a picture that is more than the sum of the parts.

     

    7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    and you even cite sources which you claim support your argument, but really seem like a great endorsement of "Expert" vis settings, not Alternate.

    No rational interpretation of what I posted is an endorsement of the current expert settings.

     

    9 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    It doesn't make you any more correct. 

    how very defensive.

     

    10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Just vehemently disagree that addressing that going all-out in the opposite direction is an appropriate alternative. 

    Well I haven't heard a single argument yet that explains how the improvements to spotting at closer ranges outweighs the rather meaningless ability to spot someone at extreme distances. Im waiting.


  19. 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    I have MANY problems spotting within 10 kilometers in the game.

    good than we agree.

     

    2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    easy.

    This is a meaningless term.

     

    3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    small object against various backgrounds can be difficult.

    Not as difficult as it is in the game, not even close. We even had another real pilot who started a thread not long ago on one of the issues regarding planes blending into trees.

    • Upvote 1

  20. 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    Aces High is ancient

    Whatever this has to do with anything....

     

     

    1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    BMS has this silly scaling that makes the targets twice their size

    No it makes them the correct size. There is a difference. Weird how all the "hard core" players in the BMS community dont seem to have a problem with it.

×
×
  • Create New...