Jump to content

[TLC]YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]YIPPEE


  1. 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 2

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.


  5. 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

  6. 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.


  7. 3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    or get your eyes checked

    or get a better monitor

    or stop screwing up your graphic settings by following some silly advice on the forum

    Here we are again with more condescension designed to deflect the obvious facts of the matter. 

     

    4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Change yourself to match the game because the game won’t change to match you.

    Heaven forbid that this game ever changes one day Sharpe, you might just have to change to adapt! I remember years back you made this same nonsense argument and lo and behold, the devs have made some changes to help the spotting. You must be having a hard time.


  8. 1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

    but I doubt many of them involve spotting at 30 miles. 

    Which I have not been arguing for, and you know this. This is called moving the goalposts.

     

    1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

    others just don't appear to have spotting within 10k

    No I have tremendous problems with people who are disingenuous about their experience, or assume facts into their experience because they cant analyze data in a way that accounts for various factors. Or people who might be playing the game with extraordinary hardware and cant understand that others do not.

     

    4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    The reality is, a lot of people who like realism in flight simulation aren't going to go along with the Alternate vision system that addresses -your- problems by giving everyone Uberviz.

    And based on a certain poll, the opposite is also true. So your point is moot.


  9. 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    One of the guys I've been flying IL-2 with lately is an active duty fighter pilot, and believe me, the subject of visibility both in game and real world has been quite a hot topic.  He says that Expert vis is much closer to reality than Alternative and prefers it. 

    What a coincidence. Because one of people I fly with is also an active duty fighter pilot, and one of his biggest grips is how crap the spotting in this game is. And I will, all 829 additional examples to boot.

     

    And another fighter pilot on this forum @busdriverhas also commented on how spotting in this game is immensely frustrating compared to real life. Airplanes 1.5km away should not be disappearing into the ground 75% of the time.


  10. 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Taking your subjective opinion and presenting it as "fact" isn't fooling anyone.

    It doesnt need to because it is not subjective opinion. It is a point of fact that keeping track of anything in il2 under 10km is considerably more difficult than it is in reality and that the typical player with non-extraordinary display hardware cannot see contacts with any degree of SA. Contacts in il2 are routinely for all intensive purposes invisible when they should not be. And I have already posted a number of screenshots and a video as non-subjective evidence.

    • Upvote 2

  11. 7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    can generally see planes within 10km, sometimes a little farther, depending on the background.

    No, in il2 you spot 1 of ten planes that are actually there at that range.

     

    8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Sometimes it's hard.  That's realistic. 

    No it is not, at least not relative to this game.

     

    8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    argue that someone being able to routinely spot -you- or the knife-fight that you are in at 20 or 40k is quite dangerous to your health too

    And you would be wrong in point of fact.  If you spot a contact in il2 at 40km your odds of reaching this target before it is killed, or you lose track of it are minuscule compared to the tactical relevance of a contact at 6-10km.

    20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    27. Basic methods of spotting enemy aircrafts:
    - the visual observation - the aircraft can be spotted as a dot at a distance 3000 - 5000 m, a group of bombers at a distance up to 7000 m"

    If you actually read the book, this is a general pilots handbook and not a technical study of spotting. Given that this was based on "the general combat experience" one does wonder how they even tabulated this figure.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1

  12. 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

    Sorry but it seems like you either have inadequate hardware or lack skills at seeing contacts. Aircraft at this distance are easy enough to follow. 

    No they are not. And I have already posted empirical evidence to support this. And this is not a skill. Scanning technique can be a skill, but this has to do with the limits of the actual sensor available. In il2 everything blends into everything so well that you will never see more than 1/4th of the contacts 90% of the time. And you wont be able to keep track of even one unless that is all you are doing.

    • Upvote 2

  13. 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.


  14. 30 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    "dot"

    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.


  15. 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.


  16. 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.


  17. 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

  18. 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.

    image.png

     

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

     

     

    Now you see them

    unknown.png

     

    Now you dont

    unknown.png

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  19. 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?

    1440p

×
×
  • Create New...