Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE

  1. 3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    You know the example you’re citing isn’t from WWII. The aircraft is a T-38 which is 50% longer than a 109. 46’ vs 30’. Depending on the aspect that aircraft presents a significantly larger profile than the fighters in IL-2GB

    Weird, I hear the sound of finger nails scraping the bottom of a barrel....


    Every single ww2 fighter has slightly different proportions. A T-38 is perfectly adequate as an analogue to a general ww2 fighter. Significantly larger my ass.

    1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    Why are you in 3rd person?

    This if anything, only helps the spotting since there is no glass or reflections.  So my case is conservative.


    2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Do you fly arcade style?

    This is a track


    2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    And this external viewpoint distorts the perceived distance to the target.

    You completely made this up and it has no basis in fact.

    3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Am I not supposed to see the obviously visible targets in the second screenshot? They would be easily seen when they’re moving. Like they’re easy to see in your video. Are those supposed to be hard to see? What is this supposed to demonstrate?

    And this is where you are outright lying or your display setup or eyesight is extraordinary, all 3 of which invalidate your case. I showed this video to about 10 different people before I posted it here and not a single person could see the contacts you are claiming you see. In some cases the pixels are technically visible but the spot is not even remotely practical.

  2. 30 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:


    A dot in the real world is not 1 or 2 pixels. This is also a generic description that you are reading alot into, and it describes the general appearance, not it size or clarity etc.


    31 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    "Expert" spotting option is in the ballpark, while the one that is routinely allowing some players to spot at 25 k and beyond is way out there, and not realistic, according to the reference that you yourself cite.

    Nope. Notice this is the average detection distance. Not the maximum spotting distance. These pilots were on average, with factors like workload playing their role, spotting contacts around 6nm away. A 6nm spot in il2 is an extreme spot. The average spotting distance in il2 would be closer to 2-4km, with the occasional spot beyond this.


    33 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    but we're doing simulation here, aren't we?

    Yes, which is why alot of other simulators did alot of things (like scaling) to fix these problems.


    34 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    one option is clearly the more realistic and less gamey of the two.

    Yes, alternate. Because seeing someone 40km away just looks bad (and is generally wrong), and not seeing someone at 6km kills you. Expert spotting is so bad that it is hard to fly realistic formation spacing. Making use of a top cover is nearly impossible due to it being impractical to keep track of anything from any range over 2km.


    35 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    doable depending on the background

    Doable is not what matters here. As I have shown from screenshots and videos, planes in il2 blend into the background so well that the players is impaired to a non-realistic degree. It is not realistic that entire formations of bombers can fly under a group of planes staring right at them and make it though, or that only one of them is seen.

  3. 4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    I can definitely see aircraft in this game at under 10k.

    Right, so we are going to continue with the intentional gas lighting I see.


    3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

    Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. 

    This was my original statement you reacted. Notice the key words "too hard." No where to do i say it is impossible to spot aircraft at 10km.


    3 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

    rcraft under 10km are easy enough to see... realistically.


    2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

    can see targets at that range just fine.

    These are your two responses to me. You know full well that we are talking about how hard it is to see things under 10km, not IF they can be seen. But you clearly are choosing to switch to claiming I said it was impossible when I called you on it.


    Cut the crap.

  4. 1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

    I can see targets at that range just fine.

    No you cant. Not unless you are playing on a massive display, have extraordinary human eyesight compared to the average healthy human, or are redefining the word "fine" to mean something entirely outside the range of definitions a rational person would use.


    1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

    The best improvement IL-2 could make for visibility would be this

    HDR would help, but its long past the time you quite the BS of how modern displays are just fine and all we need is some HDR to solve all our problems. It is a counter factual. This is a easily researched subject which you are for some reason disinclined to acknowledge the facts regarding. Moreover, it is also a point of fact that HDR displays are not all that common, especially among PC's at the moment. Additionally, suggesting we all need to change our hardware to fix this issue is beyond absurd. It also requires software changes for the display to make the maximum difference. The differences between real world spotting also go beyond the contrast improvements HDR would bring. Humans see in binocular vision with a much wider fov than you get with a PC game. Objects appear much larger than they do on screens. Therefore some kind of scaling or other adjustment is needed to compensate for this. There are also innumerable other factors, including things like glint which the devs have done a good job of adding.


    7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    It isn’t condescending to tell you want my experience is.

    What a bunch of rubbish. You told us to go play angry birds. Insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you should go play arcade games is clearly an intended slight. It is also incidentally narcissistic and suggests that people who like phone games are lesser in their taste.

  5. Just now, SharpeXB said:

    rcraft under 10km are easy enough to see... realistically.

    This is pure BS. Its such rubbish that I no longer think you are arguing in good faith.


    3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    If that’s not enough then perhaps it’s time to give it up and play Angry Birds. 

    Yes condescend when you dont have an argument.


    3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    And don’t use still images to try and make a point. Targets are moving and easier seen because of that. 

    Yes moving is easier. But still images are still valid if the target should have been seen even when still. And that 110 wasnt visible even when moving. he would flicker in and out of existence for long period and was able to make an attack run without any of the escorting 109s seeing him. his tracer fire erupted from mid air. And I also posted a video.

    • Like 1

  6. 4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    The poll simply shows a 50/50 split between players who prefer “realistic” vs “fun”

    Some of us think realistic IS fun 

    And some of you think anything that is harder is more realistic. Alt spotting makes spotting above 25km too easy. Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. Seeing a plane 40km away has a far less significant effect on tactics than not seeing it under 10. Spotting things over 40km just looks stupid, missing them under 10km gets you dead.



    Find the 110. Image taken from 4km with expert spotting.



    Now you see them



    Now you dont



    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  7. 12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    I'm sure you have seen this post?

    Yes and its wrong, at least with regards to how most people perceive. . I fly routinely with someone who flys combat jets for a living and their number one grips is spotting. I can also pile air force testing and other documents show this to not be the case for the majority of people. For example the mean spotting distance of a t-38 was determined between 67 pilots to be 4-5 miles. It also is not correct to analyze human vision with minute of angle in that fasion. hint: humans have binocular vision and the "image" you see is brain generated. There is tons of research on this.


    Regarding the furball we may just have to agree to disagree, because all of the people I fly with have been saying exactly the opposite of your group. Personally I think you should consider that its not the frequency of furballs but rather your observation of them that has increased.


    Ill take you up on PM

    5 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    What resolution did you take these screenshot s at?


  8. 1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    It really seems to have benefited VR users no end but there are many other players who are reporting a very much worse experience with alternative visibility on.

    Alt vis is only worse in that it allows spotting at extreme ranges. But this is not as detrimental as not seeing them in close. At the ranges people complain about regarding alt-vis (>25km) the plane is so far away that its almost certainly not going to be a factor. It will be dead or gone before you get there. Most of the time.


    3 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    but if you dare zoom or even as they close distance with you they disappear.

    This could be fixed but i dont get why this is seen as a huge problem. Max fov is needed anyhow to dogfight worth a hoot. Why does anyone need to zoom in on a plane 10 miles away? You could argue that having scaling aggressive the greater the fov is better than being able to double up the effect with zoom.


    5 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    What I have noticed over the last week or so is  some servers are turning into airquakes

    This has always been this way. Always. The difference now is that with alt-vis you can actually have enough SA to avoid the furball. Before, and with expert, you end up in the furball whether u want to or not, and never see more than 25% of the people in it. I cant tell you how many times I have watched replay tracks or tacviews and there were dozens of planes we were looking right at we never saw. Not even at long ranges. It is more absurd I have loitered 10,000-15,000ft above and airbase and have entire groups take off without notice even through we had multiple people eyeballing it. It is equally bonkers that I can have entire formations of attack planes the size of a Pe-2 fly into and objective and drop all their bombs and the explosions are the first thing a group of 4 109s at 10000ft ever sees. This is without a doubt a worse problem than seeing a group of planes 40km away who will most likely not ever catch up to. With alt-vis it has been less of a furball than ever before. You can spot furballs and assess the situation instead of flying into it by accident. People are flying higher than ever before, just like was done IRL. Alt-vis encourages hit and run tactics more than expert. Expert promotes hugging your target because otherwise you never see him again.

    • Upvote 3

  9. 29 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    hese picture examples of spotting never go to full screen when I click them.  It's kind of an invalid point - at least for me - to use them as examples.  

    Yes, because reducing the amount of area you search makes it harder....🙄


    29 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    I was spotting planes reflecting sunlight 15-20km away on the deck while I was at 10,000ft and most "dull" planes around 8-10km, co-altitude on the Rhineland map yesterday and getting similar results from Kuban and Stalingrad.

    Yes so have I. But its rare and you miss tons of them that should not have been missed. It is wildly inconsistent, which means its bad.


    31 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    I'm pretty sure that (like has been told to me) it's an issue with resolution equalization among various devices. 

    Yes this is part of the issue. Doesnt change that alt-spotting is the better option for the time being.

  10. image.thumb.png.e4442be60303adc8cf0c44def99ab458.pngFind the 111, 2km appox. Btw I know the range because the person flying the bomber was in comms with me. In order to find them at all they had to tell me their exact grid. I knew my altitude and theirs. There is some slant range but not much. In some cases there was none once i got over him.

  11. Just now, =RvE=Windmills said:

    Visibility in 'expert' is highly dependent on zoom. If you don't zoom then you can easily lose contacts at close'ish distance. There's a gap in visibility that is very noticeable and where its very hard to spot planes that should be visible.


    I am honestly not sure why people love this so much, it has issues just like alternate. But there's always the crowd that associates higher difficulty with more realism for some reason.

    yeah if you zoom it it helps a bit, but then I have to fly around looking through a straw with my face smashed agaisnt the glass

    • Upvote 1

  12. 1 minute ago, Alonzo said:


    Do you have Sharpen enabled? What other graphics settings are you using? For the VR players, we've learned that Sharpen is absolutely critical, must be enabled, and that too much AA blurs the plane a lot. HDR helps, but you have to turn off Bloom in the config file.

    Yes I have sharpen but it got stripped from the screenshot. I was escorting this 111 and we routinely kept losing him. On most occasions if I had not known exactly where to look I would have lost him. My wing man car verify this, as he could almost never see him without me guiding him to it.

    3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:


    Do you have Sharpen enabled? What other graphics settings are you using? For the VR players, we've learned that Sharpen is absolutely critical, must be enabled, and that too much AA blurs the plane a lot. HDR helps, but you have to turn off Bloom in the config file.

    I also have video of this I can share later. he is slightly easier to see but it still makes the point. he is constantly going in and out of blending it. This was happening constantly.


  13. 3 hours ago, Talon_ said:


    We've been running "normal/expert/hard" spotting for about 4 hours now to varying feedback.

    please put it back, it is horrendous. alt-spotting was much better. My friends and I flew just a bit ago and quit after one sortie. Please it was much better before.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 4

  14. P-38 was a very agile fighter contrary to pop-opinion. Its poor agility rep was earned from pilot anecdote when the USAAF was cutting its teeth for the first time. It has huge Fowler flaps and will out turn anything int he game that is not the spitfire.

  15. Those screenshots showing the 70km spots make my point. Those dots are almost impossible to see, and they are so far away that it is virtually tactically irrelevant. By the time you flew over there that plane would likely be dead, rtb, or you even more likely you would lose track of it before you arrived.


    However with alt-spotting on contacts from 25km and under have quite realistic spotting, and this is critical not only for general spotting but for being able to cruise at higher altitude and still be relevant. Moreover spotting at 70km is probably not impossible, just much rarer than we see in game. Overall this is a huge improvement to the game and I very much appreciate the devs adding it.


    The point being is that alt-spotting is the more tactically realistic and fun of the two options. Neither is perfect.


    Moreover: The spotting issue in this game that has not been fixed really is the sub 3nm spotting. The glint effect has certainly helps with spotting close targets against the ground, but in general the sub 3nm spotting is unrealistically poor. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that under 6km there is not scaling at all. There might not be any under 6km. It is the spotting at 6km  (3.5miles) and below that needs fixed more than anything else really. There is far much planes blending into the ground even when you are staring right at them. And there needs to be some scaling at these ranges because everything is too small, particularly in profile.



    • Upvote 1

  16. 17 minutes ago, Panthera said:

     where'as the 109's real advantage comes with power on where prop wash is energizing the inner wing section allowing it to match the outer slatted section in lift generation and thus providing for a significant net gain in lift.

    The big assumption here is that the increase to the inner wing would match the outer slatted section. Additionally this is not the conclusion that the dcs devs, holtzauge, or the il2 devs came to. There is an entire thread on the dcs forums explaining why the slats on the 109 do not provide this big benefit.

  • Create New...