Draw Distance Discussion

[Crow]

AFAIK, currently the draw distance is capped in the RoF engine at 8500m. However, the average naked eye sees an angular resolution of about 4 arcminutes, which corresponds to about 1.2 m per 1 km. If we look at the size of a medium bomber like the He-111, whose wingspan is 22.6 m, it should be visible from approximately 18.8 km away, a whole 10 km further than the furthest distance possible in RoF. This just isn't realistic.

 

This has larger implications than just realism though because aerial combat has a very important emphasis on spotting and retaining sight of the enemy. If aircraft are unable to be spotted until they are much closer than in reality, combat will suffer from much more spotty and random engagements. Protecting locations from incoming bombers or protecting bombers from incoming fighters for example, would be much more difficult and perhaps impossible in some scenarios. In multiplayer, this is likely to cause a lack of action where there would otherwise be action taking place. This could lead to long, boring multiplayer sessions or MP missions which are less interesting than they otherwise should be.

 

What do you think? I'd like to see a system where a single pixel is displayed at this proper distance where the aircraft would first be visible based on its size and then grow from there, but failing that, I think most WWII aircraft are going to be visible at 10+ km, so at least lets start it there.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I was thinking about this myself only the other day as I cycled home from work. I was looking at a series of power pylons (Not exactly known for being very shiny) and how obvious, and white against the greyer sky they appeared. The closer pylons, by contrast, not highlighted by the suns rays, not only seemed further away, but surprisingly, far more difficult to spot against the grey sky background.

[FlatSpinMan]

Cycling home from work is great for that kind of thinking.

 

Realistic detection distances would be great. The dot would at least mark it from a long way off. May be hard to judge range and type until the current distance though.

[SCG_Neun]

I think this is a very important concern and needs to be looked at and improved if possible.  Of course reduced simulated visibility, lighting, clouds,  and the like are going to come into play, but the parameters under so called perfect visibility should include greater distance recognition.  I know the world of computer simulations has it's limitations, but if this can be improved on.....I'd really like to  see it.  Right now, we are told to reduce the resolution on our systems to help spot enemy aircraft, I'd like to see something implemented that advises us just the opposite....The finer the res.....the better.....But alas....I don't know squat about such things......

[Crow]

Well the simulation already simulates contrast, clouds, and other obscuration so that stuff is taken care of in game. It will still be just as hard to see that dot against a dark background as it is in real life.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I always liked how RoF did the plane spotting and keeping eye on them and also up close in dogfight. I mean the contrast and stuff. You could lose the target, but planes did not just disappear.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

ROF draw distance and LOD system is the best ive seen in a flight sim, just how much better it can get im not sure. It doesn't draw dots, it draws the aircraft at any visible range

[AX2]

The aircraft camouflage is  unuseful.? The Camouflage works only  for low fly?

Looking at the sky...

a gray painted aircraft can be seen just as easy as  painted green aircraft ?

Some camouflages were painted  only to hide your aircraft in the sky. ( would be good to have that )

[SCG_Neun]

Furbs you are right.  I don't know why I got sidetracked....but my comments about visibility were based on Cliffs of Dover and not ROF.  I have a terrible time spotting aircraft in COD.  ROF is better for sure in this area.

[SYN_Speck]

Thanks for clarifying that, JagdNeun. I haven't heard of anyone turning down their resolution in ROF in order to ID aircraft more easily, and was wondering if you had. I know it was common practice in IL2 but the rendering in ROF is much better.

[FuriousMeow]

Icons make up for the lack of proper visibility and scaling. Always have been and always will while the monitor and resolution exist in the sim world.

 

So there's the answer to getting accurate realism - icons.

 

Not dots that are visible 18K away because CAVU is the way of the world at all times, because those don't add realism they are just another way to make up for the technology we currently have.

 

So dots are just as realistic as icons, and if made an option server side - fine. But an always on feature, no thanks.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[BSS214Plane-Eater]

Another thing to keep in mind is that depth perception is a huge factor in picking out objects at a distance, especially when they're in motion against the background.  Looking down from say, 3000m, a well camoflagued plane 1000m off the deck that would be virtually invisble in a monoscopic view will suddenly pop out in stereoscopy.  I'm thinking OculusRift and other 3D goggles here.

[nynek]

Crow

That visibility stuff is very tricky. On my weather channel they are always providing visibility distance and that change every day. In Vancouver I can clearly see Mount Baker in US  during cold winter days.

During the summer forget it. I think in any given circumstances pure geometry will loose to real world experience.

Edited September 12, 2013 by nynek

[Crow]

ROF draw distance and LOD system is the best ive seen in a flight sim, just how much better it can get im not sure. It doesn't draw dots, it draws the aircraft at any visible range

It can get better by drawing things starting at an appropriate distance based on their size. Right now objects with a dimension bigger than about 10m are going to show up later than they would in real life.

 

 

Icons make up for the lack of proper visibility and scaling. Always have been and always will while the monitor and resolution exist in the sim world.

 

So there's the answer to getting accurate realism - icons.

 

Not dots that are visible 18K away because CAVU is the way of the world at all times, because those don't add realism they are just another way to make up for the technology we currently have.

 

So dots are just as realistic as icons, and if made an option server side - fine. But an always on feature, no thanks.

Icons are in no way realistic or as realistic as dots. That's simply absurd on the face of it. They are a handicap and a significant one. Aircraft in real life aren't any easier to spot than on a monitor. If anything they are easier to see on a monitor.

 

 

Crow

That visibility stuff is very tricky. On my weather channel they are always providing visibility distance and that change every day. In Vancouver I can clearly see Mount Baker in US  during cold winter days.

During the summer forget it. I think in any given circumstances pure geometry will loose to real world experience.

Visibility on CAVOK days is over 5 statute miles, which corresponds to about 8km. In most parts of the world and on most days the visibility is actually greater than 10 statute miles or 16 km at the surface. As a pilot, I can tell you that the visibility can easily be 20 or 30 statute miles once you are above the haze layer (where 99% of WWII aircraft are flying). Even so, there is no reason why visibility can't be a parameter set in the game which influences draw distances.

 

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that depth perception is a huge factor in picking out objects at a distance, especially when they're in motion against the background.  Looking down from say, 3000m, a well camoflagued plane 1000m off the deck that would be virtually invisble in a monoscopic view will suddenly pop out in stereoscopy.  I'm thinking OculusRift and other 3D goggles here.

Airplanes may pop out better, but I would actually pin that on your peripheral vision being better at spotting motion. Depth perception in humans rapidly diminishes beyond about 20m.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Crow

[nynek]

Crow

I stand corrected.

Variable visibility parameter in the game agree but hardcoded to the set weather.

[SYN_Vander]

In RoF we already have the Handley Page and Gotha in the game. I assume they are of the same size if not bigger than an He-111? I have never seen any problem with visibility distance for those planes in a mission. They do not suddenly "pop-up", but they are definitely easier to spot than a fighter (as they should be). Try to spot an airliner in the sky from 18 km away IRL, you'll have a hard time doing that!

Edited September 12, 2013 by SYN_Vander

[Crow]

In RoF we already have the Handley Page and Gotha in the game. I assume they are of the same size if not bigger than an He-111? I have never seen any problem with visibility distance for those planes in a mission. They do not suddenly "pop-up", but they are definitely easier to spot than a fighter (as they should be). Try to spot an airliner in the sky from 18 km away IRL, you'll have a hard time doing that!

I didn't say anything about popping up. I said if the draw distance is only 8500m they are appearing well after they would actually be seen by the naked eye. A person should see a Handley Page at about 40km if the conditions are good enough. 20km is probably a more realistic difference based on normal visibility distances near the surface.

 

As far as airliners at 18km, I spot them all the time. You just have to know where to look. I fly for a living...

Edited September 12, 2013 by Crow

[=LD=Stache]

This reminds me of the discussion about  visibillity on the Warthunder  "full real" section.

 

I have a horrible time spotting planes over there , a couple of guys keep saying it is realistic and ok like it is ,but all i can see is that all the dogfighting happens at real low levels ( deck to 1 km)  and it is al individual  turnfights,not what i would call WW2 style airfighting and i do not want to offend the WWI pilots in here,but if spotting is so hard that it makes coordinated flying as a squad and B&Z  or energy fighting  impossible,  i would prefer using some sort of  icon (or artificial enhancement :reflection ect,ect) over spot the dot anytime.

 

just my 0.02$

[Heywooood]

ok - this topic right here is a prime example of gamers wanting to 'shape' reality to fit 'competition' and I am against it.

 

Vision and visual acuity is vital to a fighter pilot, especially in the years before radar and long range HD camera technologies made it into the cockpit

 

The pilots in WWII had to have good vision AND the ability to see and discern movement at long range with the unaided Mk1 eyeball -

'We' on the other hand (or at least a great many of us)  - do not have that ability...we have average eyesight (if we're lucky)

 

so to 'even things up' a bit...some visual aids are requested by the members of our community less interested in reality than keeping score.

 

my advice ? 

developers: dont change a thing - continue to offer visual aids to gamers as an 'option' in the difficulty settings as you already do (instead of labels just make the LOD's cartoonishly big for them that wants em)

gamer online pilots: wear glasses and sit close to your monitor if you want to compete under 'realistic' settings

 

RoF has the best ranged LOD I have ever seen in a simulator....I don't want that to change

[FuriousMeow]

Icons are in no way realistic or as realistic as dots. That's simply absurd on the face of it. They are a handicap and a significant one. Aircraft in real life aren't any easier to spot than on a monitor. If anything they are easier to see on a monitor.

 

Sorry you feel that way. Dots are just as unrealstic, because in order for them to display - they will typically show through objects like clouds or haze and assume a perfect unlimited visual range with the sun always noon high.

 

So exactly, aircraft are easier to spot on a monitor, going CAVU constantly is the only way we're getting this optimal viewing distance that has been arrived at.

 

In addition to scaling limitations, a plane on a 17" crt vs 32" IPS vs 48" LCD will all look different/buklier/etc. A dot will also vary in sizes due to the viewing devices' DPP.

 

Funny though, icons are unrealistic because they show what can't be seen due to technological limitations in addition to everyone not always having better than perfect vision and constantly perfect atmospheric conditions.

 

And yet there are other threads here about artificially limiting visual capability based on perhiperals, vibration, or manuevering that causes movement of the entire visual scape.

Edited September 12, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Volkoff]

In RoF we already have the Handley Page and Gotha in the game. I assume they are of the same size if not bigger than an He-111? I have never seen any problem with visibility distance for those planes in a mission. They do not suddenly "pop-up", but they are definitely easier to spot than a fighter (as they should be). Try to spot an airliner in the sky from 18 km away IRL, you'll have a hard time doing that!

 

+1 I am quite satisfied with the maximum view distance in Rise of Flight. Hey, if the view distance can be improved upon in IL2 BOS, great, but I would not be sad if the maximum view distance remains the same, as in ROF, when I start playing IL2 BOS. The ROF approach to view distance is the best I have ever seen in a flight sim.

 

 MJ

Edited September 12, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[SYN_Vander]

I didn't say anything about popping up. I said if the draw distance is only 8500m they are appearing well after they would actually be seen by the naked eye. A person should see a Handley Page at about 40km if the conditions are good enough. 20km is probably a more realistic difference based on normal visibility distances near the surface.

 

As far as airliners at 18km, I spot them all the time. You just have to know where to look. I fly for a living...

 

You have good eyes then, other pilots told me it was not as easy as you'd think. I guess it makes a lot of difference if you know where to look.

 

There is one difference with RoF which makes your point very valid (from a game play perspective): Air speeds of the aircraft in WW2 are much higher. In RoF, if you spot an aircraft at 8 km, it might as well be on the moon because it will take several minutes before you would actually be in guns range. In BoS this will be very different.

[Crow]

You have good eyes then, other pilots told me it was not as easy as you'd think. I guess it makes a lot of difference if you know where to look.

 

There is one difference with RoF which makes your point very valid (from a game play perspective): Air speeds of the aircraft in WW2 are much higher. In RoF, if you spot an aircraft at 8 km, it might as well be on the moon because it will take several minutes before you would actually be in guns range. In BoS this will be very different.

There is a very big difference between just scanning the sky and randomly picking out an aircraft and looking for an aircraft that you know exactly where it is and what it looks like. The player would still have to find that single pixel amongst all of the other noise on the screen, so it wouldn't be easy, but at least you would have a tiny chance of spotting the aircraft early. The point is not whether it is hard or easy, but whether it is possible at all--and it is. Which is why the player should be given the chance to spot it at least.

 

 

Sorry you feel that way. Dots are just as unrealstic, because in order for them to display - they will typically show through objects like clouds or haze and assume a perfect unlimited visual range with the sun always noon high.

 

So exactly, aircraft are easier to spot on a monitor, going CAVU constantly is the only way we're getting this optimal viewing distance that has been arrived at.

 

In addition to scaling limitations, a plane on a 17" crt vs 32" IPS vs 48" LCD will all look different/buklier/etc. A dot will also vary in sizes due to the viewing devices' DPP.

 

Funny though, icons are unrealistic because they show what can't be seen due to technological limitations in addition to everyone not always having better than perfect vision and constantly perfect atmospheric conditions.

 

And yet there are other threads here about artificially limiting visual capability based on perhiperals, vibration, or manuevering that causes movement of the entire visual scape.

You're not playing simulations if dots are showing through clouds and haze. That's poor game design and not at all what I'm suggesting. Icons are unrealistic because they show the location of the aircraft in a much more pronounced way than any real life scenario. As far as pixels per inch, the game can easily be designed to show a different number of pixels depending on resolution (2x2 instead of 1x1 on large resolutions for instance).

 

 

ok - this topic right here is a prime example of gamers wanting to 'shape' reality to fit 'competition' and I am against it.

 

Vision and visual acuity is vital to a fighter pilot, especially in the years before radar and long range HD camera technologies made it into the cockpit

 

The pilots in WWII had to have good vision AND the ability to see and discern movement at long range with the unaided Mk1 eyeball -

'We' on the other hand (or at least a great many of us)  - do not have that ability...we have average eyesight (if we're lucky)

 

so to 'even things up' a bit...some visual aids are requested by the members of our community less interested in reality than keeping score.

 

my advice ? 

developers: dont change a thing - continue to offer visual aids to gamers as an 'option' in the difficulty settings as you already do (instead of labels just make the LOD's cartoonishly big for them that wants em)

gamer online pilots: wear glasses and sit close to your monitor if you want to compete under 'realistic' settings

 

RoF has the best ranged LOD I have ever seen in a simulator....I don't want that to change

"Shaping reality" is wanting aircraft to appear at the nominal distance an average human eye would see them, but icons and large LODs is somehow not? I don't think you are following the point of the argument here. I'm not asking devs to remove any aids or difficulty options and I'm NOT asking them to make the game harder. In fact, I'm asking them to make spotting a very tiny bit EASIER by increasing the distance at which the smallest LOD appears.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Crow

[Heywooood]

right - alter the reality to fit the needs of a game player or segment of the community

 

Do you fly RoF ?

 

the LOD at a distance is what it needs to be - you can spot the spot just fine, especially if it moves laterally to you own position, since we track motion better than a stationary object normally

 

to enhance or modify that ranged LOD to accomodate a segment of the community over a realistic approach would be a mistake - make the enhanced LOD's optional is fine...but change it fundamentally? no

 

I don't think I missed the point at all my brother - you ARE asking them to make the game unrealistically easier...from a gamer perspective, from a point scoring perspective, from a competitive perspective -

[FuriousMeow]

You're not playing simulations if dots are showing through clouds and haze. That's poor game design and not at all what I'm suggesting. Icons are unrealistic because they show the location of the aircraft in a much more pronounced way than any real life scenario. As far as pixels per inch, the game can easily be designed to show a different number of pixels depending on resolution (2x2 instead of 1x1 on large resolutions for instance).

 

DPP is not just based on resolution. Different types of display devices have different sized physical pixels. HDMI TVs display larger pixels than an IPS monitor.

Edited September 13, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[VeryOldMan]

ok - this topic right here is a prime example of gamers wanting to 'shape' reality to fit 'competition' and I am against it.

 

Vision and visual acuity is vital to a fighter pilot, especially in the years before radar and long range HD camera technologies made it into the cockpit

 

The pilots in WWII had to have good vision AND the ability to see and discern movement at long range with the unaided Mk1 eyeball -

'We' on the other hand (or at least a great many of us)  - do not have that ability...we have average eyesight (if we're lucky)

 

so to 'even things up' a bit...some visual aids are requested by the members of our community less interested in reality than keeping score.

 

my advice ? 

developers: dont change a thing - continue to offer visual aids to gamers as an 'option' in the difficulty settings as you already do (instead of labels just make the LOD's cartoonishly big for them that wants em)

gamer online pilots: wear glasses and sit close to your monitor if you want to compete under 'realistic' settings

 

RoF has the best ranged LOD I have ever seen in a simulator....I don't want that to change

 

 

I don't think you grasp the issue.  Those same pilots that in real life coudl see a plance at those distances will NOT be able to see them in the computer. Because even the best monitor has a  fraction of your eyes resolution at it focal zone.   Real life  you can see thigns that would be smaller than a single pixel in your monitor.

 

In other words, what you defend is NOT REALISTIC!!!   THe  games are unrealisticallY HARD To spot, in fact IMPOSSIBLE.   Without  these tricks  a monitor will show ZERO signs of a plane that in real life you could  perceive.

Edited September 13, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[Heywooood]

so you did the math?

 

what is the pixels dimension relative to an object in the distance?

on who's monitor and at what virtual distance is a pixel equal to a P-51? or a Pe-2?

 

you want that pixel to turn black sooner than it does now to give you more time to react to an object in the distance?

how much sooner? is your soon enough going to equal the next fellers? depends on his eyes doesnt it? so whats next?

 

How about we set 'pixel activation' on a slider so the half blind guy in Chicago can get as many 'kills' as a well sighted feller in Spain

 

sure - pixels on a slider - why not

keep everything 'fair'

[6S.Manu]

There are two main issues with PC sim's visibility, IMO.

 

1) screen resolution and no simulation of the many human eye capabilities (focus on moving objects ect.).

2) unrealistic FOV because of limited size of the screen, so actually the objects are rendered smaller with high FOV values and normal (or bigger) with the small FOV (the famous Zoom).

 

There are guys who want the real on-screen size of the plane (but small FOV offer a unrealistic scan issue as you see only a minimal slice of what a real pilot can see, you're looking through a porthole) while there are other guys who use icons to solve that problem: they simulate the pilot visibility, and not the user one.

 

I agree with the latter and strongly disagree with the former. IMO icons are a good way to simulate aerial warfare but only with the addition of dynamic pop-out of the contacts: you see what the pilot can see, so the icon/models are displayed only if it would be realistically visible. I understand that real pilots don't see colored icons on the sky, but can we agree that they can retrieve more infos on the contact than us (just you think about the usage of the plane's number to recognize a teammate... it's impossible in game, but in real life they did it)

 

I suggest you to look at this document

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83007395/Visual-Search-in-Air-Combat

 

And this is my suggestion to the developers following the data in that doc, to render the sim way more realistic.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/767-thread-gather-your-suggestions/?p=21162

 

 

Regarding target's distance:

Edited September 13, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Heywooood]

it never gets old - the "low resolution" exploit, "trim on a slider" etc...

 

best move for developers might be to make to completely different GUI with a different set of settings for online players vs those available to offline players

 

this way some fidelity toward reality could be maintained for the offline crowd and the online competitors can rig the views, the resolution, the LOD's any way they want - and it wont affect the rest of us.

 

we got chartz for everything now...

 

BtW - I agree with the above poster - thats what the enemy aircraft icons are for...to simulate the better visual acuity you would have in R'L vs on a monitor with a limited or skewed FOV 

so don't change anything else as we already have an answer for those who complain they cant see the enemy until its too late...causing them to lose points or bragging rights or WTF ever

[6S.Manu]

I can agree with those that are against icons since they really stand out on the screen: you look at your 6 and in a few seconds here it's the enemy with the big label. Ambushes are really difficult in this situation (as using the magic F6 key)

 

It's because of this that we need a way to make the pilot working hard to see the enemy; the "user" must not be forced to struggle with his own eyes as it's now in the full switch servers ( talking about hardcore modes and difficulty settings "hard does not mean realistic"), but he has to know how to search the enemy in the right locations and the icons will instantly pop out . Simply he has to focus the camera on different areas of the sky and after some time he will be able to see something, like the real pilots do. A real pilot searching a contact in an air space where he's sure of the its presence (he's been informed by the radio, for example), he's quickly going to spot him and at far distance (I read this in a document about the danger of air collisions between civil planes). 

 

I think that WW2 air warfare was mostly a war of pilots: you don't win the battle only because of your plane or your ability with the stick.. you win it because of tactics and being in the right spot of the sky is just a good part of the victory (for example with the sun behind you).

 

If we want to talk about camos: they are not magical skins who render the plane invisible.

Here there is an interesting document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/168052051/GUIDE-TO-AIRCRAFT-IN-FLIGHT-CAMOUFLAGE

Edited September 14, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[FuriousMeow]

I don't play with icons, but the fact is that they are utilized due to limitations of technology.

 

Maybe if icons scaled with distance, that would be akin to the dots that are placed out there.

 

In order for dots to work beyond the draw distance, that means they must be visible beyond the haze along the horizon because that's the draw distance limit for the world. Which means they will show through all haze, including the dawn mist.

[Heywooood]

cant we just agree that its possible to miss seeing an enemy plane in the sky - that sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you?

 

in reality it happened alot....

 

I'd rather admit that and be ok with getting bounced or being lucky and bouncing some other poor slob, than to make the simulator look wonky with giant dots floating around BVR

[6S.Manu]

cant we just agree that its possible to miss seeing an enemy plane in the sky - that sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you?

 

in reality it happened alot....

 

I'd rather admit that and be ok with getting bounced or being lucky and bouncing some other poor slob, than to make the simulator look wonky with giant dots floating around BVR

 

Partially, Heywooood.

 

Talking about IL2, my problem is that is really easy to spot a plane flying many kms above you but it almost impossible to see a contact passing 3kms under you or above very detailed landscapes.

 

So you find yourself flying over clouds to see the contrast but as the contact exits the cloud area then it disappears (and eye's tracking capability it's totally ignored).

 

It's not about being bounced since I'm not scanning around my plane: it's because I'm constantly building SA, looking around as a paranoiac, and still I miss that guy under me while it should be easily visible.

 

Of course If I'm tired and make a mistake, I'm going to be killed anyway, as they did in RL. But in this case is not a pilot's fault: it's an limit of the sim that should be fixed. 

 

You put yourself in the right position and still you get spotted in no time by lower planes.

 

 

And what about flying in a squad and entering in a dogfight all you have is a bunch of dots chasing themselves? On comms it's all a "which one are you?" since you can't instantly recognize a teammate at 1km.

[DD_Arthur]

 

 

 

And what about flying in a squad and entering in a dogfight all you have is a bunch of dots chasing themselves? On comms it's all a "which one are you?" since you can't instantly recognize a teammate at 1km.

 

 

 Manu have you tried the RoF demo? I thought you had.  This isn't IL2 @Maddox Games.  This is IL2 @777Studios. There ain't going to be any "dots".  You will see aeroplanes.

[SKG51_robtek]

 Manu have you tried the RoF demo? I thought you had.  This isn't IL2 @Maddox Games.  This is IL2 @777Studios. There ain't going to be any "dots".  You will see aeroplanes.

They might be drawn as aeroplanes, but they will still appear as dots or maybe blobs at this distance because of the monitor resolution.

You must be clairvoyant to recognize your teammate at this distance without tags.

Edited September 14, 2013 by robtek

[JG26Hans_J_Marseille]

ok - this topic right here is a prime example of gamers wanting to 'shape' reality to fit 'competition' and I am against it.

 

Vision and visual acuity is vital to a fighter pilot, especially in the years before radar and long range HD camera technologies made it into the cockpit

 

The pilots in WWII had to have good vision AND the ability to see and discern movement at long range with the unaided Mk1 eyeball -

'We' on the other hand (or at least a great many of us)  - do not have that ability...we have average eyesight (if we're lucky)

 

so to 'even things up' a bit...some visual aids are requested by the members of our community less interested in reality than keeping score.

 

my advice ? 

developers: dont change a thing - continue to offer visual aids to gamers as an 'option' in the difficulty settings as you already do (instead of labels just make the LOD's cartoonishly big for them that wants em)

gamer online pilots: wear glasses and sit close to your monitor if you want to compete under 'realistic' settings

 

RoF has the best ranged LOD I have ever seen in a simulator....I don't want that to change

 

 

right - alter the reality to fit the needs of a game player or segment of the community

 

Do you fly RoF ?

 

the LOD at a distance is what it needs to be - you can spot the spot just fine, especially if it moves laterally to you own position, since we track motion better than a stationary object normally

 

to enhance or modify that ranged LOD to accomodate a segment of the community over a realistic approach would be a mistake - make the enhanced LOD's optional is fine...but change it fundamentally? no

 

I don't think I missed the point at all my brother - you ARE asking them to make the game unrealistically easier...from a gamer perspective, from a point scoring perspective, from a competitive perspective -

 

 

so you did the math?

 

what is the pixels dimension relative to an object in the distance?

on who's monitor and at what virtual distance is a pixel equal to a P-51? or a Pe-2?

 

you want that pixel to turn black sooner than it does now to give you more time to react to an object in the distance?

how much sooner? is your soon enough going to equal the next fellers? depends on his eyes doesnt it? so whats next?

 

How about we set 'pixel activation' on a slider so the half blind guy in Chicago can get as many 'kills' as a well sighted feller in Spain

 

sure - pixels on a slider - why not

keep everything 'fair'

 

@Heywoood, Bro, pls do NOT derail this discussion to the old as simworld, Icons Pro/Con - issue !!!

 

The OP, was NEVER speaking about this, you seem to completly misunderstanding him...

 

He was just speaking about the limitation in RoF where Planes, no matter of which size, gets drawned at 8.500m at maximum !!! This is the artificial limit in the game code !!! (btw. i didnt knew about this by myself)

 

He was just arising the viable question, IF the game engine gonna take this, that it should be possible by the coding that you COULD see BIG HUGE planes like Bombers earlier than those 8.500m like some people could maybe do it in reality, if you are able find the small pixel on your monitor same as when you try to spot a fighter at such distance !!!

The only difference should be that this small pixel should get drawn from farther away than this artificially limited range because the Plane is much bigger and could be seen from farther away ... nothing else he was speaking about !!!

 

 

Me too like to know this from the Developers how this will get handled here because i agree to @Syn_Vander (btw. thanks to you Folks for your excellent Server in RoF !S) that the speeds here in BoS are significantly higher as in RoF where it may not hinder that you cant see even a massive Gotha farther away than from 8.500m (even when you should see it farther away...) because of the low speeds over there !!!

 

But here in BoS it may make a big difference if you spot a formation of He111s only at an ARTIFICIAL limit of 8.500m or at 20.000m as the OP pointed out... this doesnt mean that you WILL see it from farther away, he just meant that it should be POSSIBLE if you are looking at the right point !!

If you spot the formation farther away than you can spot the escorts and ofc the escorts can spot YOU, you can get yourself in a favorable position BEFORE both Fighter Groups can spot each other

 

 

Again, pls @Heywoood, noone was talking about Icons or some crap like this, he just spoke about the possible detection distance

Edited September 14, 2013 by JG26Hans_J_Marseille

[Matt]

 

You must be clairvoyant to recognize your teammate at this distance without tags.

 

And you could do that in real life? ID the number of the plane (or other feature which your wingman has) at 1km distance? I doubt anyone could ID the plane (as in who's flying the plane, not the planetype itself) from above, behind, or below that plane in question. Maybe from the side, but from 1 km distance, that would still be a bit questionable imho. Icons don't care from what direction you're looking at the plane, so i really don't see how icons can be just as realistic as dots (not saying that dots are realistic in the first place).

 

Anyway, the OP would only like an increase in rendering distance of planetypes in BoS. I've tested it yesterday in RoF, placed a Gotha bomber as AI and flew away from it, with incons activated. Unfortunately, the icons disappear after a set distance (i think 3 km?), so i couldn't figure out, at what distance the plane would disappear. But in any case, we'll probably be able to see how it works in BoS in a few weeks or so.

[6S.Manu]

Manu have you tried the RoF demo? I thought you had.  This isn't IL2 @Maddox Games.  This is IL2 @777Studios. There ain't going to be any "dots".  You will see aeroplanes.

 

I own RoF and I've bought many additional planes. Recognition of teammates is far easier than in IL2 also since the plane are slow and so the dogfight stays in the same area longer (with 10 seconds at 200km/h against 10 seconds at 400km/h for example, the distance between teammates is doubled).

 

Still the problem is there, even if there are not Dots but 3D models.

 

Some time ago with the help of my teammate Tamat we made an experiment about FoV using 3D Studio Max, as Tamat is a professional 3D modeller (he's the author of a Swordfish for IL2-1946... don't know if it's still the one included into the TD patches).

 

On a 22" screen we measured the size of the rendered plane in pixel (with a base resolution of 1920x1080) placing the 3D model of a 109 and setting the world units to have the real size in meters; then with the internal camera of the application we took some pictures at different distance from the target with the camera set to be similar to the human eye (for size, not FOV: as I'm not an expert IIRC it was FoV 39).

 

These are the result with the 3D Studio camera using the "human eye" camera (copy&paste of a 109 in a background image using the size in pixels of the 109 in the 3D studio original picture, at correct distance): 

 

While this is the result of the in game FoV 70 (the normal one):

 

 

As you see a 3D model at 2Km is barely visible with FoV 70 (a bunch of pixels), while it's recognizable in real life.

Note how the model is reproduced as a single pixel (call it dot or 3d model) at 3km while its silhouette should be visible at 4km.

 

The expected slant range for the side view of a 109 should be 6.6km.

 

To ID the planes by their number, ingame it's impossible even at 300m...and at 1km you can't recognize the detail of the plane (in IL2 we are used to ID them by the wing shape), while in RL at 1km you can still ID the plane.

 

The 8.5km limit of the game is really too small IMO: we should ID heavy bombers and most of the twin engined plane at more than 12km if they are showing us their belly.

 

The problem is that at that distance the pilot needs to work hard on the scanning procedure to spot it, since:

 

 

PS: Crow, how did you get that "18.8km" for the He111?

 

Icons don't care from what direction you're looking at the plane, so i really don't see how icons can be just as realistic as dots (not saying that dots are realistic in the first place).

 

That's the reason they should appear and disappear depending on many variables as silhouette (front, side, belly), sun, contrast with the landscape, haze and difference in speed between you and the contact, and some others. If the plane should be visible, then show me an icon.

 

Seeing icons through the clouds is BS, as seeing them on the sun: but it's also BS not to be able to track a moving plane 3km under you.

Edited September 14, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[SKG51_robtek]

One solution, imo, would be to artificially enlarge the planes, which are farther away, to create a virtual FoV (regarding the plane-size) of 39° while using a more realistic FoV as 90° or 110°, so one can actually identify planes further away.

One problem would be, though, that the larger planes would create larger sight-shadows behind them.

[ImPeRaToR]

For identification you can reduce your FOV, for example in ROF I have it on my toe brakes as there is no need for them. Makes for very fluent and intuitive FOV changes and you can easily ID friendly aircraft, especially if they have special personal skins. One of the reasons Les Hellequins had so many of them.