Draw Distance Discussion

[Heywooood]

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.

right - so the artificial FOV on a monitor vs the R/L FOV in the the cockpit of a R/L plane is the problem

and the cure for most appears to be some method of either enlarging the object or causing the sim to 'report' the object sooner or labeling the object at what would subjectively be its most distant point relative to the player/pilot

to offset that innate FOV problem...

 

for offline players, the AI can be set to ignore opposing forces until they can be 'seen' - but - online players need assurance that no one player has an advantage over another - or - that they can see enemy aircraft on their monitors with R/L detail (which cannot be replicated realistically given the natural difference between a real world view and a monitor view.)

 

so some sort of compromise view or cheat is required

 

pilots look for glinting sunlight, contrails, shadows on the clouds or on the ground to assist with detection

weather, temperature, altitude, humidity, time of day and other factors can support or mitigate these somewhat - but maybe the answer lies in some combination of 'enhancements'  

but I still say they should be optional to the user as a setting

[Requiem]

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.

^^ Pretty much this. Spotting aircraft visually goes out to around 6-7nm as in Manu's earlier picture, but spotting out that far can be difficult depending on the conditions. Quantitatively I don't know how much difference you would see in an aircraft larger than a fighter, but I think the compromise RoF made by allowing you to reduce your FOV (ala zooming) is great because it simulates you concentrating to visually scan a particular piece of airspace. Plus once you have an aircraft in sight you can easily identify it based on its silhouette when its closer while maintaining the lower FOV.

 

Once you implement good technique it becomes second nature trying to find contacts and identify friend from foe. RoF (and I expect BoS) handle this game aspect much better than other sims out there.

[Heywooood]

@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

BRO - its spelled no one not 'noone'

 

these are the reasons why 'to date' all combat flight simulations offer maps, map icons, enemy / friendly icons etc...because until now - this problem has been unsolvable

there is a real world difference between the real world and a PC monitor as you know - so the question here is - have these BoS developers thought of a way to re-invent the wheel

 

the focus being on finding the enemy before he finds you - which is more of a problem for competitve gaming than not

 

you are saying the answer hasn't been found because NO ONE has tried to find it or the developers of flight sims don't know its a problem...

I am saying they DO know its a problem but there is no better solution than the ones already in place...icons, target lock view, etc...

Going further to artificially compensate for the problem (R/L FOV vs PC monitor FOV) basically to do the same things as icons on or reduced resolutions simply so an 'ace' pilot can say he flies with those options 'off'

is somewhat redundant and counterproductive....whats the difference?

 

but lets do keep talking in a civil manner about this - it definitely kills time

[SKG51_robtek]

Shouldn't the sim try to simulate the normal FoV, normally a fighter pilot scans the sky with his Mk1 eyeball and a FoV > 130° and can detect other planes much further away, especially if they are moving across his FoV.

By zooming you are loosing the big picture and it is easy to loose SA.

When reflections come into play the detection distance is even greater.

I am NOT talking about enhancements or possibilities that a normal pilot at that time didn't have.

Edited September 14, 2013 by robtek

[Heywooood]

exactly

[Crow]

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

Very simple arithmetic. 22.6 [m] / 1.2 [m/km] ~ 18.8 km

 

It's a very, very idealized number I know, but it was to illustrate that there are scenarios where 8.5km just isn't going to cut it from a realism standpoint. There are a variety of angles where the He-111 is visible from over 8.5 km.

 

 

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.

I don't even understand why you care about what I'm saying. I don't want icons removed from the game, you can have them if you want. I won't be playing with them however.

 

 

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.

I'm actually okay with this. It's a workaround to the fact that we have monitors and pixels instead of a full 160+ degree field of view. It's actually very similar to what I'm proposing (see why below).

 

 

Shouldn't the sim try to simulate the normal FoV, normally a fighter pilot scans the sky with his Mk1 eyeball and a FoV > 130° and can detect other planes much further away, especially if they are moving across his FoV.

By zooming you are loosing the big picture and it is easy to loose SA.

When reflections come into play the detection distance is even greater.

I am NOT talking about enhancements or possibilities that a normal pilot at that time didn't have.

Not to nitpick, but to hopefully explain for the benefit of others: the detailed/focused cone of vision is only about 10 degrees. When designing a flight sim, there's a balance that has to be struck between the ability of the focused vision to see detail at a significant distance with high acuity and the ability of the peripheral vision to see movement. 90+% of human vision is bad at detail, but really good at movement. You have to be able to give a player both to get close to realism in the vision department. I don't disagree with your conclusion though.

 

I actually preferred the way IL-2 drew dots because in a way it gave you benefits of an idealized focused cone of vision while still allowing the player to have a wide FOV and reap the benefits of our natural perception of motion. It really was the best of both worlds.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Crow

[FuriousMeow]

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

 

At that range you aren't spotting a formation of He111s. You are seeing a bunch of planes. So it doesn't matter if they have escorts or not, because they could be your planes bro.

 

You'll know what type of aircraft they are when their silhouette is definable, and that's going to be much closer than 8000meters.

I don't even understand why you care about what I'm saying. I don't want icons removed from the game, you can have them if you want. I won't be playing with them however.

 

I already stated I don't fly with icons, and nor have I ever inferred they would be removed. I think that the sheer mention of icons makes you feel superior and therefore if they are mentioned they are beneath you. Icons, however, are just like your dots that display beyond the draw distance of the sim world - a crutch that is unrealistic with the sim world's visibility.

 

I care what you are saying because a dot at ranges beyond the draw distance will be bigger or smaller based on the DPP of the display device. Additionally, they have to display beyond the draw distance of the entire world - therefore they show beyond the distance of the horizon fog/haze.

Edited September 15, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Crow]

At that range you aren't spotting a formation of He111s. You are seeing a bunch of planes. So it doesn't matter if they have escorts or not, because they could be your planes bro.

 

You'll know what type of aircraft they are when their silhouette is definable, and that's going to be much closer than 8000meters.

 

I already stated I don't fly with icons, and nor have I ever inferred they would be removed. I think that the sheer mention of icons makes you feel superior and therefore if they are mentioned they are beneath you. Icons, however, are just like your dots that display beyond the draw distance of the sim world - a crutch that is unrealistic with the sim world's visibility.

 

I care what you are saying because a dot at ranges beyond the draw distance will be bigger or smaller based on the DPP of the display device. Additionally, they have to display beyond the draw distance of the entire world - therefore they show beyond the distance of the horizon fog/haze.

I've been playing flight sims for 20+ years and I've been a real life pilot for 10 years. I've moved beyond those sorts of aids. I'm not interested in icons in the slightest and haven't used them in a decade or so and that's just personal preference. I don't so much look down on those that play with icons as I just recognize it's no longer an interesting concept to me and hasn't been for a long, long time.

 

As for the last paragraph, you are purporting that there are 0 workarounds for this. I disagree having seen IL-2: 1946 work just fine with aircraft draw distances of up to 25km. Beyond that, I'd say that peripherals will always exist that make people better at games than others. Already TrackIR, high-end joysticks, rudder pedals, 3 screens, etc. all provide players with an advantage for money. My guess is that the change I'm proposing has a tiny impact on competition compared to the acquisition of these other devices. Getting a specific monitor/resolution combo to get that last 10% of pixel pitch increase is probably the least cost-effective thing you could possibly do to improve your competitiveness.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Crow

[=LD=Stache]

My biggest fear is that "realistic" gets translated into no enhancement of visibility at all!, and we end up with something horrific like FRB mode in warthunder .

 

where spotting is so hard (impossible)  that everyone is flying on the deck and watching the friendly ack trying get a fix on the enemy dots against the sky and in the AAA clouds  ( strangely enough you can spot them at 10 km distance but once you are on top of them ...forget it) .

 

In addition it is also  impossible to keep your own squad together and using  altitude as a main ACM asset (energy= life) is  just putting yourself at a huge disadvantage.

 

In the end fighting boils down to 1 on1 turnfights at 100m of the deck and below, and that is not a "realistic " simulation of WW2 air combat .................but it is what you end up with of you sacrefice everything to "no enhancement" rule and forget that monitors cannot simulate the MKI eyeball.

Edited September 15, 2013 by LD-Stache

[leitmotiv]

To me IL2 1946 system is not so good as it promotes "lower resolution bigger dots = easier to spot dots", max distance when dot (airplane no mather what type) appears in IL2 1946 game, on max number for dot range that is 25, is 16.6km. On default dot range which is no.12, max distance dot appears first time is 8km. On fullreal servers that have dot range on no.25 for me its better to play as i beleve ~16 km is realistic and good distance in game to start seeing airplane dot (usealy one spots airplane around 12 or 13 km its hard to see it exactly on 16.6km no matter the resolution), in IL2 1946 default no.12 with max range of only 8km  is just to short for ww2 airplanes it seams like airplane just appeared from nowhere.

 

hope BoS will have better system, I didnt play much with RoF to see whats the max distances but its much easier to spot airplanes below you then in IL2 1946.

 

In WT in so called FRB i had no problems seeing dots of airplanes from far away or recognising airplanes, in WT to me it seamed easier to spot airplane then in IL2 CloD before TF patch or maybe same as in IL2 UP3 version, in IL2 HSFX6 verson is harder to spot contacts then in UP3 or in original 4.12. 

[6S.Manu]

I'm going a little OT, but think about ships and tanks.

In IL2 and CloD you see dots at 15km at sea level and most of the time you mistake them for planes: instead they are actually ships but nothing is telling you that, even if at far distance a pilot should already know it. How will this work in BoS?

And the same for the tanks: in real life tanks would move and try to hide from bombers. I'm not asking for an advanced tank AI who maneuvers against bombers (but ships should maneuver against torpedoes... and this should be easier to develop): I'm asking that the tanks COULD hide but from altitude the landscape is too flat as the green stuff is less detailed. But still a tank under some big trees, one with the right camo or under the shadow of a big building should not be easily spottable by the pilot.

Because of this, IMO, the sim should filter what the pilot can see calculating the variables who influence target visibility. Are you hunting for tank in that area? Stay there, keep looking for some minutes and finally, if you're lucky, you can see you target. But you need time fully focusing you SA on that task.

Just as any other game where you need scouts: in the "combat mission" series, you easily see a platoon running on field, but you keep missing the one crawling ahead, until it pops out at few meters from you.

IMO minimalist icons are still the more realistic way to simulate real visibility: you can still use a toggle key to use them during the flight

Using this kind of icons and implementing a "locking" method to that contact (by key as "next/previous contact" or positioning the center of your view on it by mouse/TiR) we could zoom on the contact without the issue of precision that we are used to suffer with the zoom function. I hate zooming with the TiR since it's never precise (camera keeps stuttering) and sometimes completely lose the contact.

For example:

1) you're flying in normal mode (no icons). A nice looking flight sim, but not a "combat" one.

 

2) you press the icon key and here there is the contacts visible to the pilots (probably under the trees or between the bushes there are tanks that you can't see). It appears the green locking circle on the center of the screen for TiR guys, or simply it's a target selector for causal gamers. You see ships at the distance. Unknown contact should be of a different color/icons.

 

3) you center the green circle on a contact and press the Zoom key: while it's pressed you see the target in a realistic size in the center of the screen (you need only 2 seconds to ID it... so you can leave the button). The camera is locked to that contact, it does not stutter.

 

I've used raw images, of course...

 

Think about a dogfight: you see two dots fighting but you don't know who's the pilot: just focus on one of them and press a key, and here it appears the plane so you can ID it, and talk to its pilot.

Edited September 15, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[leitmotiv]

For that server host just turns icons ON, and people who like this play on them but i like servers with icons OFF for players that dont like icons there should be some solution also

Edited September 15, 2013 by Yaklover

[6S.Manu]

For that server host just turns icons ON, and people who like this play on them but i like servers with icons OFF for players that dont like icons there should be some solution also

 

Sadly I can't think to a solution in this case. No icons server will have this issue until the release of really high definition screens (4000x3000? still not enough in my opinion).

Edited September 15, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Crow]

Rather than derail this thread, it would be nice to put the discussion on icons in another thread. Increasing the maximum draw distance of the smallest LOD over RoF's 8.5km is all this thread is really about.

[6S.Manu]

Rather than derail this thread, it would be nice to put the discussion on icons in another thread. Increasing the maximum draw distance of the smallest LOD over RoF's 8.5km is all this thread is really about.

 

My fault, but don't we all agree with that? 

[Heywooood]

yes we do - the problem is that half the posters in this thread don't understand that.

 

the draw distance they want is not possible without some kind of icon - whether you call it an icon or you call it a very large dot makes zero difference - its the same thing, all your talking about is changing the representation of the icon

so egotistical types wont be 'ashamed' about flying with *gasp* icons ON

Edited September 15, 2013 by Heywooood

[Heywooood]

I'm going a little OT, but think about ships and tanks.

 

In IL2 and CloD you see dots at 15km at sea level and most of the time you mistake them for planes: instead they are actually ships but nothing is telling you that, even if at far distance a pilot should already know it. How will this work in BoS?

 

And the same for the tanks: in real life tanks would move and try to hide from bombers. I'm not asking for an advanced tank AI who maneuvers against bombers (but ships should maneuver against torpedoes... and this should be easier to develop): I'm asking that the tanks COULD hide but from altitude the landscape is too flat as the green stuff is less detailed. But still a tank under some big trees, one with the right camo or under the shadow of a big building should not be easily spottable by the pilot.

 

Because of this, IMO, the sim should filter what the pilot can see calculating the variables who influence target visibility. Are you hunting for tank in that area? Stay there, keep looking for some minutes and finally, if you're lucky, you can see you target. But you need time fully focusing you SA on that task.

 

Just as any other game where you need scouts: in the "combat mission" series, you easily see a platoon running on field, but you keep missing the one crawling ahead, until it pops out at few meters from you.

 

IMO minimalist icons are still the more realistic way to simulate real visibility: you can still use a toggle key to use them during the flight

 

Using this kind of icons and implementing a "locking" method to that contact (by key as "next/previous contact" or positioning the center of your view on it by mouse/TiR) we could zoom on the contact without the issue of precision that we are used to suffer with the zoom function. I hate zooming with the TiR since it's never precise (camera keeps stuttering) and sometimes completely lose the contact.

 

For example:

 

1) you're flying in normal mode (no icons). A nice looking flight sim, but not a "combat" one.

 

2) you press the icon key and here there is the contacts visible to the pilots (probably under the trees or between the bushes there are tanks that you can't see). It appears the green locking circle on the center of the screen for TiR guys, or simply it's a target selector for causal gamers. You see ships at the distance. Unknown contact should be of a different color/icons.

 

3) you center the green circle on a contact and press the Zoom key: while it's pressed you see the target in a realistic size in the center of the screen (you need only 2 seconds to ID it... so you can leave the button). The camera is locked to that contact, it does not stutter.

 

I've used raw images, of course...

 

Think about a dogfight: you see two dots fighting but you don't know who's the pilot: just focus on one of them and press a key, and here it appears the plane so you can ID it, and talk to its pilot.

this idea is similar to one I had considered - it has merit

especially if none of it was to occur automatically...the user must be aware of the views and incorporate them...set up either the keyboard or the J/S to utilize the target view focus for a momentary closeup for SA and ident FF at longer range than current in simulation and more respectful to real world visual acuity 

[=LD=Stache]

yes we do - the problem is that half the posters in this thread don't understand that.

 

the draw distance they want is not possible without some kind of icon - whether you call it an icon or you call it a very large dot makes zero difference - its the same thing, all your talking about is changing the representation of the icon

so egotistical types wont be 'ashamed' about flying with *gasp* icons ON

the most egoistical comments in threads  i've seen have seen in any flight combat forum,  have been posters that wanted *gasp* icons OFF ,(and i do not want ïcons" just  a good representation so coordinated flying in a squad and  spotting enemy planes is possible ,leaving enough room for suprising bogeys but also enabeling pilots to use altitude to their advantage without giving them a huge spotting penalty).

 

but Crows right i do not intend to derail this thread.

[Sokol1]

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

 

Remember when Oleg did this in some patch, around 2003/4?

 

You seem a big black dots at huge distances ~25km... Fortunately in the next patch it was fixed. 

 

Sokol1

[Crow]

My fault, but don't we all agree with that? 

Apparently not? I'm as surprised as you, but a handful of people seem to have reacted very negatively to my suggestion.

[Heywooood]

the most egoistical comments in threads  i've seen have seen in any flight combat forum,  have been posters that wanted *gasp* icons OFF ,(and i do not want ïcons" just  a good representation so coordinated flying in a squad and  spotting enemy planes is possible ,leaving enough room for suprising bogeys but also enabeling pilots to use altitude to their advantage without giving them a huge spotting penalty).

 

but Crows right i do not intend to derail this thread.

right - we agree - ego gets in the way of proper use of icons that represent aircraft spotting at more realistic long range

 

except where you then say you 'do not want icons' (ego) just a 'good representation (?) so..spotting enemy planes is possible'  (icons)  or rather larger dots or earlier reporting of otherwise invisible (due to ditance rendering on a monitor vs real world) dots that we just wont ever call 'icons' - even if thats what they are...

Edited September 15, 2013 by Heywooood

[Heywooood]

Remember when Oleg did this in some patch, around 2003/4?

 

You seem a big black dots at huge distances ~25km... Fortunately in the next patch it was fixed. 

 

Sokol1

this is what I remember - and it was horrible

hoping to avoid it happening again altogether

[6S.Manu]

Apparently not? I'm as surprised as you, but a handful of people seem to have reacted very negatively to my suggestion.

 

I think we all understand your suggestion and we agree that model should be rendered at the correct range; medium bomber as the he111 should be rendered at more that 12km if we are looking at them from their 3-9, or 23km if we see they belly, 17km they are in a 45° turn.

The problem is that even if they render the models at the realistic range in our current screens they will be a pixel for most of the time because of the FoV we are using. Look at the images I posted before about model size at different FoVs. 

 

You could use high FoVs to simulate the higher human one (180°) since we are looking through a small window (our screen) and still render the models in their real size but I fear the resulting image is going to be worser than the one filled by a bunch of colored labels since those models are going to block your sight and probably where will be a lot of overlapping (two He111 in formation will be rendered as a He111-Z, since the world coords are linked to the current FoV while the size is going to be independent). If you are going to use these "normalized" 3D models as ships, think about an harbor: ships will be too big and will overlap each other and with the harbor itself.

 

For this point the discussion went to icons, since in these days it's impossible to represent contact in a realistic way; it's a technological limit. Lets say that the rendering distance of the objects you pointed out is one single aspect in a bigger issue.

 

If I've misunderstood part of the discussion, I blame my broken English: forgive me.

Edited September 15, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Crow]

My response would be that they probably would only be a pixel at that distance. 4 arcminutes is not a large arc. Rendering them as a single pixel at first is probably pretty accurate for that distance. There's no reason to normalize sizes across FoV like you're suggesting. Aircraft shouldn't be easy to spot at those ranges, just possible. Currently in RoF it is an impossibility because the game has an absolute limit on rendering objects of 8.5 km. I'm asking to increase that distance to something where large aircraft would have a chance (even though it would be small) of being spotted at long range. If you find the spotting personally difficult, then icons are there to assist you, but I don't think these ideas are intrinsically linked. The LOD renders should be representing as close to realism as possible with things like icons being aids for those that want them.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Crow

[Kaenzdhi]

 The LOD renders should be representing as close to realism as possible with things like icons being aids for those that want them.

^^ this.

[Tektolnes]

For a single aircraft I think around 10km should be the max for visibility for fighters and then a bit more for bombers. For bomber groups in formation this visible range should be extended - this would reflect how WW2 pilots reported that it was easier to spot these large groups at range. I'm sure there were pilots back then who could spot planes at greater distances but your average pilot couldn't. If ROF currently only goes out to 8.5km then this should definitely be extended a bit for BOS.

[von_Tom]

What we think and what is real might be completely different anyway.  There are examples of WW2 pilots spotting aircraft 10 miles away, but stand on the ground and look up at an airliner contrail, try to see the plane, then imagine a plane 1/4 of the size and whether or not you could see it.  The airliner might be at 30,000ft (5.7 miles).  Some might see it, some might not.  Atmospheric issues at ground level really will not help of course.  Only rarely have I seen a star when there has been a blue sky (and I've tried looking for them), but Sakai writes in Samurai that he and his colleagues practised seeing them to help vision.  At altitude pilots have commented that they could not see an aircraft 100ft away because they'd lost focus and perspective.

 

I bet only a few of us have the excellent visual acuity that some WW2 pilots had.  I bet only a small percentage of us have eyes as young as theirs were then.  Plus we don't have the incentive to see something that might be very nasty to us.

 

In other words, regardless of this discussion it is never going to be perfect.  Charts and graphs, and pictures of settings etc will never replicate real world experience.

 

Chill

 

Hood

[6S.Manu]

My response would be that they probably would only be a pixel at that distance. 4 arcminutes is not a large arc. Rendering them as a single pixel at first is probably pretty accurate for that distance. There's no reason to normalize sizes across FoV like you're suggesting. Aircraft shouldn't be easy to spot at those ranges, just possible. Currently in RoF it is an impossibility because the game has an absolute limit on rendering objects of 8.5 km. I'm asking to increase that distance to something where large aircraft would have a chance (even though it would be small) of being spotted at long range. If you find the spotting personally difficult, then icons are there to assist you, but I don't think these ideas are intrinsically linked. The LOD renders should be representing as close to realism as possible with things like icons being aids for those that want them.

 

I understand: so you don't care about target IDing but only about target spotting. All right.

 

 

For a single aircraft I think around 10km should be the max for visibility for fighters and then a bit more for bombers. For bomber groups in formation this visible range should be extended - this would reflect how WW2 pilots reported that it was easier to spot these large groups at range. I'm sure there were pilots back then who could spot planes at greater distances but your average pilot couldn't. If ROF currently only goes out to 8.5km then this should definitely be extended a bit for BOS.

 

Large formations are easily spottable since at that range human visual acuity is really narrow, so you need to be lucky while scanning the sector to see a single aircraft: a large formation occupies more air space, and so spotting is easier (you spot one, then you see them all).

 

Probably a good pilot could scan the sky better than an average one, but I think the latter wasn't a short-sighted guy: in a test, pilots informed about a contact in a limited area has shown the detection range is increased by 3 times. Maybe the former was more experienced and knew what location he need to fly in (a newbie spotting plane against the sun for example is not going to see anything).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005594

 

You know, together with the rendering range suggestion of Crow, I would like this could be developed as priority in a cfs.

 

Edited September 16, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[VeryOldMan]

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

 

 

You can miss them,  but  at same time you can miss them at long range too much in a computer game.  I think  Icons are not the way, but more subtle enhancements of the contrast of a very small airplane at the distance. Something that makes easier to perceive there is something there, but  would make you narrow your FOV   for a more detailed inspection,  not some  visual cue like an icon that becomes the thing in the sky (replacing the plane  as the focus).

 

With  techniques akin to HDR (post processing of the color range)  you can  do this type of enhancements, so they are  sublte but present, but they  are costly perfromance wise.

[Graawl]

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

 

I totally agree with your way of describing how icons should pop !

[Crow]

I understand: so you don't care about target IDing but only about target spotting. All right.

I care about target identification, but perhaps not the same way that you do. I want as much realism as the sim can offer in this area. Identification of aircraft was difficult until the basic features of the aircraft could be discerned (such as shape of wings/tail/etc) and that doesn't occur until relatively close as some pictures further up in the thread illustrate. I like that because it gives me an idea of what WWII pilots actually had to go through. The difficulty of keeping track of friend and foe in a dogfight is an incredible challenge and I welcome the chance to relive the same challenges that those real pilots had to endure.

[FuriousMeow]

You want planes to be visible beyond the visual limits of the visual in-game world. It requires drawing them beyond the game world, so those dots have to display beyond the horizon haze used in the game world.

 

I've also been playing these games for 20+ years, and had some flight time - but really the latter doesn't apply to the former because it's still a game.

 

You want real world visbility in a game that is restricted by technological visibility ranges. In order to display those dots at the ranges you want - they now have to be visible beyond the horizon haze. There is no way around it. Additionally, those dots won't be recognizable - you won't be able to identify any plane until their LoD is fairly defined.

 

And that's why icons and the dots you want are one in the same, they are visible beyond the in game world visibility distance and to make up for technological limits - so now they are just a gimmick.

Edited September 16, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Crow]

You want planes to be visible beyond the visual limits of the visual in-game world. It requires drawing them beyond the game world, so those dots have to display beyond the horizon haze used in the game world.

 

I've also been playing these games for 20+ years, and had some flight time - but really the latter doesn't apply to the former because it's still a game.

 

You want real world visbility in a game that is restricted by technological visibility ranges. In order to display those dots at the ranges you want - they now have to be visible beyond the horizon haze. There is no way around it. Additionally, those dots won't be recognizable - you won't be able to identify any plane until their LoD is fairly defined.

 

And that's why icons and the dots you want are one in the same, they are visible beyond the in game world visibility distance and to make up for technological limits - so now they are just a gimmick.

I've answered all of these points twice over in my previous replies. I suggest you re-read my previous posts as they adequately address your concerns.

 

What you're saying is a perversion of my statements, completely inaccurate, and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how previous flight sims have handled this issue to date. Please stop misleading people with inaccurate information especially when it comes to what I have said. I am no longer responding to posts of this nature as they are the equivalent of trolling at this point.

[FuriousMeow]

I deleted my post, doesn't matter.

 

Fact is, you can't display beyond the draw distance of the software without it displaying beyond the rudimentary boundaries - like terrain horizon fog, that's the end of the visual world for the software and therefore should be the end of visilibity. Anything beyond that has to be displayed at all times beyond that render.

 

I only brought up icons because they are to enhance the limitations of draw distance, just the same way as dots will.

 

I will play with neither given the choice.

Edited September 17, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[III/JG11_Tiger]

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...

This is another problem "you just have to know where to look" if you give realistic veiwing distances you would be advantaged compared to real life as you only need to scan the space on your monitor in real life obviously you have to find that dot somewhere in the vast skies

[6S.Manu]

This is another problem "you just have to know where to look" if you give realistic veiwing distances you would be advantaged compared to real life as you only need to scan the space on your monitor in real life obviously you have to find that dot somewhere in the vast skies

 

That's the reason the rendering of the contacts should be dynamic and not fixed as it's on every flight sim.

Edited September 17, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Mac_Messer]

Surely there is a workaround for this issue. You just enable unidentified icons (colored white for example) so the pilot knows that there is an aircraft there. Which type and side wouldn`t be presented. So if we agree that a human eye will easily spot a bomber from 10km then such icon should appear at that distance. Icon sizes and colors are perfectly managable. It surely can be made in such a way that I fly with minimal icons on and yet my windshield doesn`t resemble a friggin HUD.

[von_Tom]

An easier option.  Leave it at whatever the developers arrange it for.  Accept that some will see dots sooner than others because of their setup or colour calibration etc.  If a lower resolution helps those that really want an advantage at the expense of graphical goodness then so be it.  Also accept that draw distance changes will not improve a person's ability and that in a closed pit environement everyone will get bounced at some stage.

 

Simples

 

Hood

[Crow]

This is another problem "you just have to know where to look" if you give realistic veiwing distances you would be advantaged compared to real life as you only need to scan the space on your monitor in real life obviously you have to find that dot somewhere in the vast skies

Wait, what? You're saying that aircraft can't appear somewhere that isn't on the monitor? I don't get it. You still have to scan the same sky and your vision still only contains a cone of about 10 degrees of focused vision. I can tell you that I still scan the sky in segments on my monitor as you would in real life because it's the only way to guarantee you will see contacts.

 

If you're saying what i think you are, then you're really referring to the fact that FoV on a monitor is larger than real life for the same window. To this I would say that monitors severely limit our peripheral vision, so large FoVs are a sort of a balancing mechanism for that limitation. I think everything to do with vision on a monitor is a compromise, but that's just the nature of monitors and pixels. For those that "get it," the discussion here is really about what compromises are we willing to accept and what compromises we aren't with respect to realism.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Crow

[VeryOldMan]

I deleted my post, doesn't matter.

 

Fact is, you can't display beyond the draw distance of the software without it displaying beyond the rudimentary boundaries - like terrain horizon fog, that's the end of the visual world for the software and therefore should be the end of visilibity. Anything beyond that has to be displayed at all times beyond that render.

 

I only brought up icons because they are to enhance the limitations of draw distance, just the same way as dots will.

 

I will play with neither given the choice.

 

 

Draw distance is not related to rudimentary  boundaries. Is simply a fixed distance beyond  wich there is no draw command for that object, it simple  ceases to be in the  render loop.  

 

You can   go around that,  issue is that it  overlaps the boundaries of graphic systems,  it reaches the physics  , and network code as well.