Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. On 7/27/2018 at 3:03 PM, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

    The three conjugated system who regulated the inlet manifold pressure of the DB-601 and DB-605 engines series were the same for all.
    The manifold pressure still the same from sea level to the compressor ceiling altitude. 
    The ram air pressure, do not affect to manifold pressure until the compressor ceiling (rated altitude), because ram air was taken prior to the compressor. 
    The compressor speed is regulated in accordance with manifold pressure. If the ram air pressure increase the manifold pressure, the boost control, and the compressor speed control, will reduce the compressor speed for compensating the final manifold pressure.
    A.T.A means "Absolute Atmospheres", it is not in reference to exterior pressure of the system.

    The exaggerated ram air influence in manifold pressure of the G-14 in game, is clearly a big bug.

    Db-601&DB-605 engines_power_control.jpg

    im not saying there isnt a bug, just that a non-AS model cant hold 1.7 ata to 6.8km. More like 4.5


  2. On 5/3/2018 at 6:38 AM, ZachariasX said:

    If the solution is that simple, they could up the max rating on all planes? Especially the Allison engines? I used the Spit just as an example.

     

    It would be rather a zero sum game then, probably against ulterior motives of some.

     

    No one wants the max rating of all planes. This discussion is about time limits at approved ratings, not allowing higher boost. These are completely different subjects.

    On 5/3/2018 at 11:44 AM, JaffaCake said:

    How difficult is it to understand that the 1-minute that the devs somehow found is NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT? and has nothing to do with how one would model the engine??!

     

    As long as devs use the WEP time specified in manual to translate it into some constants for their engine model, this thread would still stand, purely based on the fact that 1-minute time limit did not exist in manuals for bf109-fonwards.

     

     

    completely irrelevant. Game claims accuracy, they are inaccurate here. Lets nerf yak's turn rate because its really good too!

     

     

    Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why 1-minute time limit sucks, but why it exists in the first place as 1 minute.

     

     

     

    Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why timers are bad, or other aircraft. Discussion is precisely about the fact that devs use WEP manual time as guideline. They are using wrong guideline for 109

     

     

    The timer on 109 is EXACTLY a problem. It does not match the manuals, unlike most other aircraft.

     

     

     

    Irrelevant. We aren't talking about cheating timer or extending it. We are discussing that 1-minute timer on bf109-fonwards does not exist in the manuals, which are used as guidelines by the devs to set w./e limitations they do

     

     

     

     

    Irrelevant. We are discussing that w/e the model parameters the devs use, they use the manual WEP time as guideline to "how long can this engine last in WEP", w/e the actual time, the guideline used is wrong.

     

     

     

     

    The question is SPECIFICALLY that the guideline manual timing used by the devs is apparently wrong. Nothing to do with engine model or other aircraft.

    Discussing other planes and if time limits are a good idea is completely relevant despite how much you want to shoehorn it out of the discussion. If we are asking the question," what is the proper limit," than it is entirely logical to question if the limits are even reasonable in the first place. And due to that discussion of other planes comes into play

    On 5/3/2018 at 10:44 AM, Alastair_S1D said:

    I amy have a solution to this issue. Whether it can be implemented in game is another issue entirely.

     

    The devs introduce a "wear" mechanic.

    An engine at 100% is new

    An engine at 0% needs overhaul.

    Now we know most guys in IL2 probably don't fly the same aircraft for more than a few hours at a time so making 100 hours between 100% - 0% is unrealistic except for the very few number of top 10 pilots that don't die and crash when looking at WoL stats. Maybe 10 hours or so but the number isn't the issue. 

     

    However lets say the game uses a 10 hour TBO "wear" mechanic. A pilot that flies his plane by the book gets 10 hours of life out of it. A pilot that runs his engine at emergency power for longer than the manual states wears his engine out at an exponential rate. It can also be said that a new engine could run say 5 mins of WEP without much risk of failure while a zero time or near "TBO" engine might likely break if you run WEP for too long. Adding a bit of randomness into the mix. Also zero time engines can still be flown. But at risk to the pilot and airframe due to engine failure.

     

    This can also lead to another mechanic. War Assets or something like that. Where a squadron has an amount of war assets or resources at its disposal. This can be applied for SP and MP. To overhaul an worn engine that uses the above stated "wear" mechanic costs assets and resources. You can earn assets/resources by killing hostile AC's and objectives.

     

    So flying your aircraft with throttles at the firewall would end up costing you/your team/squadron more resources as you reach that TBO/ Wear level mark at a faster rate. Also crashing or loosing your aircraft and pilots will also cost resources so reduces YOLO tactics as well and rewards good tactical and careful flying. A team or group that reaches 0 resources looses the match or resources are re-genned over time but at a slow rate. So this may get rid of  "gamers" firewalling their engines for the duration of the flight and also those pilots in WoL or more lax servers that like to crash their bombers after the bombing run just so that they can avoid the return trip and get back on the target quickly again in a new plane. 

     

    This I think solves a number of issues.

    *The timer can remain for WEP especially in the case of worn engines.

    *Engines can be run above their time limits (especially newer ones) without damaging the engine albiet at increased wear rate, and the chance of random destruction at high power settings for high time engines.

    *Overhauling worn engines costs assets or resources or whatever. Heck we can call it an ingame currency for all I care.

    *Assets/Resources can be earned by completing objectives and shooting down enemy fighters.

    *War Asset management can change the gameplay dynamic of both SP career mode and MP matches. As one needs to watch how quickly resources are consumed. Airframe and engine conservation become key, which makes for better flying and tactics and maybe even more realistic air combat.

     

    This is a suggestion. Maybe not a perfect one. But I came up with it while mulling over the topic. Whether or not it is feasible to incorporate it into the game or even if it can is another issue entirely.

    I realize this is a constructive suggestion but the most obvious issue here would be how to implement this in a dogfight server like berloga.

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  3. 22 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

     

     

    You desire better engine model that reflects the reality in a better way.

     

    The topic at hand is bf109-specific WEP time issue, which is present either with more complex engine model, or the current simplistic one.

     

    The main raised issue of the thread is NOT the complexity of the engine model, but the fact that currently the bf109 engine on WEP incorrectly breaks at 1-minute time, which is nowhere to be found in the engine manuals, and further contradicted by 5-minute factory testing and some pictures of the timers on the aircraft.

     

     

    Whether or not we change the engine model, it will not affect the "use of the manual-specified WEP time to somehow model engine deterioration with time at WEP".

     

    Which is why I think its good to focus on the key point of this thread, instead of diluting it with other suggestions / hopes / improvements. We are discussing an ERROR in the values used to model the engine for a specific aircraft..

     

     

    As for your suggestions regarding engine - I completely agree, and it warrants a separate thread, as it applies to every aircraft, not just 109.

    It is not off topic because the issue that makes the 109 this way is a issue that affects all the engines in the game. The broader issue is the subject of the thread by extension. That is why we have been talking about it for the last 12 pages. 


  4. 1 hour ago, JaffaCake said:

    Fumes, its quite understandable that engines would not  read the manuals and self-destruct the moment the specified timer is exhausted. But please could we focus on actually getting something done immediately? And specifically for this thread, it would be getting the devs to adjust the current time limit on the 109 emergency timer.

     

    Yes it would mean we would still have the timer, whatever the value, but at least the aircraft won't be flying nerfed most of the time.

     

    After we manage to persuade devs that their information on 109 wep time was wrong and get it corrected we can start arguing for a better engine model, which would affect ALL aircraft, not just 109. And in hindsight, such a discussion should not be part of this thread, as it is indeed generic to all aircraft.

    I dont see why these are mutually exclusive, or how my last post is preventing their discussion. I literally reiterated my desires like 1 post ago. 


  5. Since were posting anecdotes, Ill post one that has a little more relevance and is alot more revealing. 
    
    
    When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer,
    the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters
    were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely.  When you actually
    went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up
    past 3000 rpm.  And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you
    remembered to throttle back.  You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or
    more."

     

    Note the important bit here that it was the POLICY of his unit to do this. Were the time-limits of engines actually based on preventing kaboom, then this would have been impossible. 


  6. Since we sort of got spun around a bit, Ill reiterate my desire for the game:

     

    -Emergency power in current and future BOX titles should be unlimited without damage (this does not just apply to German planes). Exceptions to this rule would have to be supported by some specific evidence. Airplanes that require injection of some form would be limited to however long their injection mixture tank lasts. 

     

    -1.42ata in BOX should be implemented on a case by case basis. F model should be unlimited. G serious should have 1.42ata as a modification that can be controlled by the scenario designer depending on the intended date span of the scenario. 

     

    -If possible, complex engine failures should be added at a future date. Any added failures should be due to pilot error of some kind. No RNG. No Timers. Limits should still be removed in the mean time since WEP usage will still be unlimited for all intensive purposes even if we do get complex engine management. 

     

    -Power settings of planes without MP regulators like the P-40 will have to work on some other system entirely. An effort will need to be made to determine the max safe power and implement engine damage above that. If a precise estimate can not be made some semi-arbitrary but reasonable power setting will have to be established.  

     

     

     

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 2

  7. 9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

     

    Better monitors help. As long as we do not have the same FOV as a RL pilot we will always have a peripheral vision problem (although I suspect that people sometimes under-estimate the constricting effect of wearing goggles). But they can certainly help with definition and contrast.

     

    Yes I did watch the scaling demos. I simply expect that you will get objections to such a system in BoS. For instance, with my monitor (TV) size and distance, normally zoomed objects subtend about the same angle as in RL: so fully zoomed look much larger  I do not want them to be bigger. (Easy enough to check if you know the diameter of  one of the cockpit instruments). I do want better contrast and light effects: ironically RoF already had some of that with it's reflections. So there is clearly room for improvement but that does not mean that what may work for you should be imposed on everyone else.

     

    Finally I would just add that while you obviously find it extremely annoying when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you, you had better get used to it. No-one has to either buzz-off or agree with you just because you are the OP. If you find a particular poster especially annoying I suggest use of the "ignore" function might be better for your blood pressure. 

     

     

     

     

    [Edited]

     

    You really need to loose the snark.

    • Haha 1

  8. 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    If you can’t tell. Then why use it? 

    If you can tell. Then it will look awful. 

    Thats why it’s a bad idea. 

    This doesnt make any damn sense. 

     

    You cant tell the plane is BEING SCALED. You DO see the benefit in game because the planes are easier to spot. What you cant see if some strangely huge airplanes etc. It is the process you cant see, not the results. 

     

     


  9. Clearly you have not flown BMS. And in fact, the OPPOSITE is obvious. Have you not ever noticed that the relative size of object in a drawing depends on their distance? At ranges where the airplane is scaled up, you are too far away to TELL. Because it is a matter of PERSPECTIVE. Once you get closer it scales back and you CANT notice the difference in size. 

     

    How do you know they know about it? And if if they do, there could be a dozen different reasons they didn't implement it that have got nothing to do with them thinking its unrealistic or looks bad. IL2 does not have ALOT of things. MOST games do not have ALOT of things. Their omission is not evidence of a negative opinion. There are alot of things that went into this game that have been changed from the beginning, so the idea that it is not currently implemented means it wont ever be or that the devs do not like it is a NON SEQUITUR. 

     

    This has got nothing to do with the old games. This has to do with a deficiency in IL2. The only reason the old games are being brought up, which I said before, was to make the point that solutions to these issues are already AVAILABLE. Meaning that 1C would not necessarily have to invent them from scratch and would have basis for whatever they made themselves.

     

    Come off it. 


  10. 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    By the very definition of what it’s doing. If it doesn’t change the size of objects enough to be noticeable then why use it?

    if the change in size is noticeable then that’s going to look awful. If scaling was such a great idea 1CGS would be using it already. But they don’t. Because the effect looks terrible. The video examples don’t show the aircraft in relation to ground objects where the odd size reveals itself. 

    WUT. 

     

    Saying that if it makes a size change = must look bad is A NON SEQUITUR. That literally MAKES NO SENSE. In what way does it look bad? You cant even tell its doing it unless you make a comparison vid. Its completely seamless. 

     

    What is 1CGS God now? 1CGS not doing something does not mean that its not a good idea. That comment is so asinine. 

     

    The aircraft dont look strange compared to ground objects. Because of their relative distance at long range, they look the correct size. If you get closer, they scale and you cant notice. Its literally impossible to notice. THIS IS NOT DCS IMPOSTERS. 

    • Upvote 1

  11. 11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

    They’re never going to adopt this scaling business, because:

    1. It looks really awful. 

    2. Players will want it adjustable and that will fragment multiplayer, which is sparse already. 

    How on earth does it look awful? Where are you even getting that from? Both those videos I posted showed a very natural scaling. If you didnt know it was on you would not know it was there. You keep saying this [Edited] but it doesnt make any more sense from repetition. 

     

    And your second point is just a [Edited] assumption on your part. Do you read the devs and players minds? Scaling is not adjustable in BMS. DCS imposters were no scaling, and your impression of them seems to informing your opinion. And the DCS imposters was a horrible implementation of an attempted fix. 

     

    Ditch the battery Mr. Conrad. 


  12. 36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Again. It’s really simple. You can adapt yourself to a game but you can’t change the game to adapt to you. So if you decide the positives are worthwhile. Then learn to deal with what this game does and how it works. 

    Or I could not, and I could try to improve the game by pointing out flaws and making suggestions to fix it. The game is wrong and should be fixed. Its really quite simple. 

    • Upvote 1

  13. 19 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

    There’s about zero chance that IL-2S is going to adopt scaling. Because it looks really super awkward. The video linked about mentions that in BMS it’s applied at a 1.5x factor to close targets under about 5 miles. 

    So Fumes, you’ve got a choice:

    Adapt yourself to the game because you can change yourself to match the game but you can’t change the game to match you. 

    Habits you’ve acquired playing other simulations might not be appropriate for this one. 

     

    The reference to real military simulators is interesting but ting but not quite relevant. Pro simulators are meant to train, not to entertain. They don’t need fancy entertainment level graphics and gameplay. And that paper was written very long ago in terms of how far display technology has advanced since 2003. I can only imagine what tech these use today. 

    [Edited] You dont have any idea what the devs are going to do. And scaling doesnt look awkward at all. I am beginning to think that you are either just a troll or blind, because some of your comments on what looks bad or how scaling functions in various games are simply bogus or smell of you just making crap up. 

     

    [Edited]

     

    "So with smart scaling enabled, and Seeing the monitor from proper(diagonal x 1.5) distant, F-16 1.0miles away in BMS looks just as same size in RL."

     

    When seeing monitor from its diagonal x 1.5 distance its always 35 hFOV in your sight as a rule. So who has a different size monitor can get same result when he/she follows this rule.

     

    Clearly you are unqualified to comment further as you cant even interpret basic sentences. Although I think it is more likely you just saw what you wanted or outright lied. 

    • Haha 1

  14. On 4/20/2018 at 8:55 AM, unreasonable said:

     

    I found with ROF that there was a very clear choice - if you have anti-aliasing and super-sampling on  the landscape looks lovely but you could lose sight of your own wingmen a couple of hundred yards behind if they were lower than you. Or you could turn both these off and planes stood out much more clearly: but annoyingly pixilated. I always went for the beauty.

     

    Given that there is a fair bit that players can do in game to change contrast individually based on their own hardware (and wetware) I would not be in favour of some global fix that artificially increased the size or radically changed the colour of planes.  I still remember how silly EAW planes looked once they had landed, dwarfing the hangers....

     

    I do miss the reflections off wings from RoF and I seem to remember another old game that had a rather nice "sun glint off glass" effect (just a quick flash of a white pixel or two IIRC) that would give the occasional hint that there was something in the distance. MiG Alley?

     

    So perhaps there is some creative idea that could help with this issue: but I suspect that it is very low on the priority list. Longer term, very large monitors/TVs in Ultra HD help considerably as they reduce the need for anti-aliasing.  (At least mine does :))

    Unreasonable, you can have a global fix without the things you worry about. 

     

    You talked about peoples personal adjustments not being equal. So what though? Everyone's hardware and configs will always be different almost regardless of what you do. There is little relative player difference if we are all blind vs if we can all see well. People will have advantages regardless. The man on 4k 65inch TV is already ahead of everyone. 

     

    Second, I dont know what you are assuming such a narrow view of scaling. You do realize that scaling does not require things to be massive when they should not be? Have you ever tried Falcon BMS? This is not a problem. For the life of me I do not understand why you would outright assume it has to be implemented in such a bad manner. 

     

    Monitors are not the solution. The game should be designed to work on everyone's system, and even monitor improvements for the foreseen next 5 years will not get us past the deficit between human vision and displays/graphics engines. A 8K HDR 50 inch screen is still not there yet. And even if it were, such scaling options can be adjusted to scale with peoples systems. You can write the systems such that it adjusts itself based on the resolution the player is using obviously. 

     

    Scaling is as direct a solution as there is. The increased size of the objects in a scaling system is not some arbitrary number. It is done specifically to try to proportionally compensate for the displays/engines deficits. And it need not involve skyscraper sized tanks or planes that are too big. Unreasonable, did you even watch the scaling demos I posted. 

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

     

    "Does the potential application of this technique disappear as technology erases the display resolution hurdle? Arguably, the answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. As discussed earlier, even when newer technology does eliminate the need for such a “work-around” solution, the cost of such technology can often still be prohibitive. Justifying this expense is especially difficult in instances where the current hardware is capable of accomplishing the majority of the necessary tasks. There may be no need to replace a good, and otherwise competent, system just to accomplish a few “visually difficult” tasks. Furthermore, whether it is flying-squadron-level “low-fidelity” flight trainers or a scaled-down portable version of a video game, there has always been the market for lower cost, more portable versions of otherwise expensive simulations. Therefore, until even the least expensive, most portable displays can provide more detail than the human eye needs, this type of visual performance-enhancing method should be useful"

     

    "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."


  15. How are we back to discussing the ticking engine go boom timer. Good Lord people. The engine limits were not written with engine go boom in mind. It has nothing to do with it, so discussing at what time the the engine go boom is a non sequitur.

     

    I agree with the concept of working coefficient, but you guys need to apply this to all thoughts regarding a boom time. Nobody who is sane would approve a engine power setting that is within minutes of engine destruction, for the precise reasons you guys are pointing out regarding 1 min. 

     

    There is good reason that we do not have a SINGLE document that lists a engine go boom time, and all the evidence we do have is for extremely long test runs (like the 7.5 hour ones I linked for the 38, 47, and 51). 

     

    That reason, is that engine go boom is not a time related concern at officially approved boost ratings. The time restrictions are there EXCLUSIVELY to ensure a certain operational life of the engine. That life, depending on the plane and conditions, is something like 50-200 hours. 

     

    That is why it is so bogus for this conversation to revolve around "what time" should we implement. The only reason we are discussing TIME, is because for some reasons we cant extrude our brains out of the manual residue. 

    • Thanks 7

  16. 55 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

    Not so sure if that table is all too helpful. What I get from this table is that detection range for aircraft is 7 to 10 km roughly at lower altitudes (as we have it in the sim for any altitude) plus they say that good vision correlates with good contrast.

     

    As base, they seem use such a chart to match their for their lab rats against:

    contrast-sensitivity-clinical-assessment

     

    It is indeed old news  (proven by an old chart) that visual acuity strongly correlates with contrast senstityity. This is why almost none of you are ever confronted with a visitech chart, unless you develop some sort of glaucoma.

     

    But I don't think any of this is an issue with what we have in the sim here. I think we have "the problem" (i don't think it's so bad, but you can always improve) because the 3D engine is actually telling the truth, plus it makes things nice. Here, as example:

     

    planes.jpg

     

    You can see that in fact those Ju-52 are very dark, as they should, but the 4xAA blends them in the sky to remove boundary artifacts, those "stairs". What it does is defacto blend the oject in the background, the best camouflage tactic you can have. In the blue sky, there is still contrast left and you can see it, but as soon as you get over forest, a plane lit by sunlight shuld be much brighter than the irregular background, always maintaining a good contrast. Under clouds however the aircraft should indeed be very, very hard to spot.

     

    Adding a glare spite might help, but it would still be a crutch. The simulator has an absolute contrast for the whole scene, and not relative for the FoV you are looking at. It will be a challenge adjusting contrast according to FoV in the sim.

    My solution to the contrast system would be for the devs to implement a color offset. If combined with something similar to the smart scaling I showed above, it would solve 90% of the problem. A color offset would simply be that the colors of the planes shift  to extreme values based on their orientation to the player and the players distance and FOV. So right now in game a Yak1 or 109 that flys over trees a mere 1km away can just vanish due the contrast issue were discussing. The offset would shift the plane to some color extreme enough from the background to compensate for the limitations of our displays. For example, a green plane over a brown set of trees turns black. Unless I have been misinformed, CLOD currently does this. The effect would have to be tied to the players camera with regard to FOV, since you dont still want a black plane if your zoomed in on it etc. How would you feel about that? In addition to something that scales planes up. 


  17. 7 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

     

     

    This is the obvious outcome of WEPping continuously - 100% radiator that actually makes you less aerodynamically efficient than if you flew on combat with 15% rads....

    The cooling systems of most ww2 planes are not going to have a problem with WEP, or even higher boosts than WEP. The cooling system was not designed with such a small tolerance. When mustang units switched to 150 octane 72/75in of boost (a gain to 200bhp) test results showed massive gains in both level speed and climb rate. It takes alot of time to test both of those, meaning you would have to run WEP for long periods. The business of the rads being inadequate is only relevant for badly designed cooling (yak1) or games like War Thunder or il2 46. Where you might see a deficiency is in the most extreme maneuvers only. You wouldn't have any issue if just flying in straight lines or doing turning fights. Where you might see issues are something like a 50deg of flaps 109mph turn for 5 minutes or something. Or repeated hammerheads at WEP. In general flight you would not see a problem. 


  18. 19 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

    Are they really? Why would they be? Why shouldn't the 3D engine of the sim draw to scale? The human vision and perception enlarges objects to a great degree if you are looking at them "in the real world". Having a good picture of important details (hungry lions) keep you alive. Comparing a photo with real life perception reveals impressive differences. The famous "big red sun" in Japanese drawings is testament of that. Drawn to scale, it should be a dot. The magnification process doesn't work when you are looking at a screen.

     

    I have no idea if that woudl work when using VR gear. Would be a neat experiment though.

     

    I'm not challenging your finding here, i just didn't notice such so far.

     

    I would say that depends a bit on the weather (when comparing to RL), but the reduced contrast a screen offers compared to the real world is big indeed. Thus I like the reflections (often mentioned by Seawolf in these threads) that we have in RoF a lot. Also the on and off nature of the glare drastically facilitates spotting. So I hear you. It's just that there are other requirements that make RL spoting difficult that are absent form spotting on a monitor. Thus for me it is just a different sport. Eventually, you should have SA such that you don't need to constantly eyeball the aircraft for knowing where it is.

     

     

    That coming from someone like you, I belive hat. You are far, far more trained to maintain a propper lookout. Not only that, you are much more experienced that you can fly the plane subconsiously and channel your efforts in actually looking outside. I did fly with someone that shares a similar resume. He easily kept track of things I had a hard time spotting in the first place. This is the moment when you leave the aircraft and think to yourself whether you not better quit flying. Then there are others that make you question the purpose of windows. (And you feel like Chuck Yeager again.)

     

    But for having the same SA in a game, I find you have to start from scratch with practising.

     

    My original rant above was mainly expressing my anger because people do not look outside for various reasons. And then accidents happen. And that does happen to people you know. And it happens where you fly. And you may say, how could they be so stupid?, that would never happen to me. When we in fact create circumstances that very much so encourage accidents. When I look at the statistics, I find two main groups of pilots at risk. One are the rookies. They bend metal, get hurt, sometimes die. The other group are the Experten. They just know where the mountain is and where it is not. Even if there's a huge cloud. Then you scratch them off a rock. When self confidence overcomes humleness, you live dangerously. I related this to the discussion as this is like saying "of course I always see ALL aircraft around me". And I say, great, if you can. You keep not only yourself safe, but the others too. But I'm not banking on you seeing me. Humbelness prompts you to look again.

     

    I usually see my assailant when I get shot down. When hell breaks loose, I look back, and there he is. :)

     

    VR at some point in the furture might solve most of these issues. But to do that its going to need to drive an order of magnitude better resolution. 

     

    In the mean time I think the magnification problem can be solved with either smart scaling, or dynamic LODs. In my definition, dynamic lod differ in that they do not scale the entire plane but change the size of certain things depending on the perspective of the players camera, such as thickening wings when the airplane is about 1km away and in a narrow profile. Or exaggerating feature that would be noticeable IRL, like elliptical wings. 

     

    The contrast problem can be solved with dynamic adjustments as well. Shading aircraft with more extreme off colors, depending on players perspective. Since we dont have the same contrast from a monitor, the solution is to use larger color differences. I am told CLOD does this. And I agree that reflections help alot with this as well. 

     

    Btw here is an example of smart scaling. 

     

     

    An example of lod adjustment in profile. Illustrative, not necessarily intended to demonstrate how it should be implemented precisely. 

    unknown.png

     

×
×
  • Create New...