Jump to content

ZachariasX

Founders [premium]
  • Content count

    1461
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

416 Excellent

About ZachariasX

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

239 profile views
  1. I doubt that a color offset actually does help here. I took some screenshots in Lightroom and played with the sliders and I find that in fact reducing contrast makes the planes more visible, as they start to get their own color instead of blending in the ground clutter. But the effect being marginal. What I think helps more is reducing the Antialiasing on the planes to make them maintain a hard contour vs the background. Clouds are precessed at a different rate currently, and maybe this would be a way for planes as well. HOWEVER, the planes would get noticeably pixelated. This might not go well with other peoples taste, as seen in the case where planes get pixelated boundaries in front of clouds. I'm also not convinced that object enlargement is the way to go. Spotting on a two dimensional screen makes a lot of things easier (no need to focus to infinite where you can't see anything) as well as you have zoom. Just take a screenshot and play with the color adjustment sliders and see how much you can gain by that. I find that to be shockingly little. The glare effect however is different from that, as it also enlarges to object besides discoloring it. This is as it is in the real world.
  2. 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: 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: 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.
  3. maybe your wingman was in fact inside the cloud, you jus thought that the vloud bitmap looked farer back. We don't have clouds as volumes in the sim. There is no way to get near them, they are just scaled cardboard in front of you. I guess in VR this spacial artifact is even more prominent than on a monitor. Still, it's working as intended.
  4. 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.
  5. Probleme beim Login

    Update 3.002
  6. Even when not distracted, in the real world, it is my experience that people most often fall drastically short of what they are theoretically capable of. Take a simmer along in an aircraft and occasionally ask him how many aircraft he sees and where. You get a very low figure usually. Truth is in the real world, even a pilot "looking out" too often fails to see the aircraft he's about to run into. These are actually the most difficult ones to spot, as they mainatin constant bearing. And you are aware that it takes two participants for an accident. You cannot count on both being distracted or not knowing what they are supposed to be looking for. They are even told on the radio what to look for. In addition they (two of them!) are told *where* to look for and yet they still don't see them at arms lenght. It is ok taking the theoretical maximum as "normal baseline" for a sim, otherwise you'd put on some sort of restriction. To be clear, I am not against the sim showing planes up to 20 km or so (high up where it's dry). That is a wholly different argument and I'd be the last to be against a larger player bubble. What I was trying to say is that a common argument in these forums in the form "I can always spot any plane over 15 km" is more often than not a total lie to oneself. Even higher ranges have been postulated in this forum. So I say, good for you if you can. Others can't. Regular mid air collisions tell a different story. And calling the casualties "distracted" or any other form of stupid doesn't help. Also that attitude may well kill you when you are sitting in a real aircraft. But if you truly can see them all, and I do believe some maybe can, then I am impressed. And your mother will be happy too as it keeps you alive. The sim should definitely see far. A real world person often enough sees as far as their dash. Just don't take them as grounds for far sightedness.
  7. DD today?

    Same here...
  8. Probleme beim Login

    Bei mir heisst es jetzt "Please update your game". Ich habe BoX nicht auf Steam. Kommt wirklich ein update? Der launcher gibt sich da unbeeindruckt und zeigt kein update an.
  9. Spin behaviour

    It should depend on how the plane is loaded if it exits the spin on his own. Most aircraft should exit a spin by releasing the controls, unless you do something against that, namely put weight in the tail. Post stall behaviour is not trivial to script and will hardly be accurate, unless you can match specific behavior to an actual plane. So I would never expect post stall departures to be really accurate in such a sim, but it's a start if they are plausible. Also, there is no way that you have an i AC with a wrong CoG due to improper loading. This means you have always the most benign of all possible ways to get back control.
  10. Slow motion Career mode

    Just tried it on my rig. On the 7900X @4.7 and a 1080, on Kuban with everything set to dense, it runs smooth and I can accellerate time to ~120%. What I did notice is that on the taskmanager, running the career sowed me different CPU loads than just running single missions. I get more diverse (and heavyier total) load on my 10 cores than just one core on 100% and another at maybe 20% when running quick mission. Does carreer span more threads to load units? It would maybe explain the much smoother experience I have the game running on the extra cores. I noticed that loading a mission uses all cores vailable, shortening loading times on the 10 core 7900X during normal gameplay compared to the otherwise somewhat similarish 4770k @4.4. So far on the 7900X I only got occasionally stutters in career when some mission info is shown. But not during normal flight. I'l try to get more specifics on this.
  11. DCS news

    The smoke effects are really, really good! Wow.
  12. Just as a reminder for anyone saying that they can spot reliably > 15 km distance. It is good if you can, because most of the others, they can't. This is real world spotting too, again it happened, just now: at EDTY (Schwäbisch Hall). Collision in the pattern for landing. Both pilots dead. RIP. Just for the record, compared to air combat tournament standards, the average pilot sucks at spotting. It is amazing how many things you find you have to do other than looking out the window. You rely on the other seeing you, your mom won't be happy. "Spotting" is not "seeing". Workload is very bad for spotting. Little flying practse is also bad for spotting. Being used to stare at your effin' phone is bad for spotting...
×