Jump to content
Ace_Pilto

10km aircraft render range and why it is unacceptable.

Recommended Posts

And as long as this is impossible, give us SP guys a damn slider to choose how much performance we want to sacrifice for longer viewranges.

 

Yeah exactly, MP is in just as much need of a fix for this too but in the mean time, it's no skin off the anyone's nose if the SP crowd get a slider.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I know you are on the same wavelength, maybe just missed Klaus' way of expressing it.   I did not mean that you found it a difficult concept!   It is the "must be same for everyone" brigade that get up my nose, particularly since what they mean is "must be the same as me".

 

 

Yes that was slightly witless on my part haha. And I couldn't agree more, I think that argument is more at home in the console world.

Edited by TheDaow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete fallacy promulgated largely by MP-focused people, disregarding the vast majority of SP players. 

 

Oh, I forgot single player... But we the multiplayer crownd cannot be hostage of the SP crowd either. I don't see why the fuss about it. If they cannot make a slide for everyone and every taste (I'm not sure if it is complex to do it), they should set for a reasonble range, a range that can be playable for a 'simulator'. The way it stands now, it is unacceptable like the OP posted.

 

Geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bite: though not ideal, outside some specific situations the render distance isn't that big of a deal.

 

Also the developers have repeatedly stated that after each update to graphics or performance they test increased render distances but performance is unacceptably poor. This is likely less about gameplay and more about QA and PR - namely preventing some bad reviews by idiots who set draw distance beyond their rig, which if the devs are correct would apply to most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because the vast majority of users aren't in the forums and will never be, and a lot of them are idiots. 1CGS have endured a few very damaging PR disasters caused by said idiots, its understandable that they won't take major risks for little gain.

 

The game, as it is, is playable. Some aspects aren't ideal but it's better to bring up the render distance once the time is right and the engine is optimised than to rush it now. They want to improve the engine, make it prperlymuse multiple threads and all that, but patience is necessary.

Edited by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot single player... But we the multiplayer crownd cannot be hostage of the SP crowd either.

Following the same logic I could say 'we the SP crowd cannot be held hostage by the MP crowd either'. Please consider that we all are in the same boot, and we all have paid the same amount of money for this game, and we all want the same level of fun, although we have different preferences and you have an equipment which costs three times more than mine.Peace, brother :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the same logic I could say 'we the SP crowd cannot be held hostage by the MP crowd either'. Please consider that we all are in the same boot, and we all have paid the same amount of money for this game, and we all want the same level of fun, although we have different preferences and you have an equipment which costs three times more than mine.Peace, brother :)

 

I'm doing some tests with ROF and you only start to see a difference in aircraft spotting from the slide 50% and down. They seem to appear about 8-9km down. And the slide difference is not that glaring unless you bring it to 20-10%. I always played ROF with the slide on 100% and I never had a compromise since my HD 6870, which nowadays is a dinosaur. Hence why I never thought about visibility slides for aircraft.

 

My understanding is that aircraft spotting is not that taxiing (after all you are going to have 80-100 players max, not even that in SP I assume), but terrain and ground objects, which is why I suggested a slide for terrain and objects. Which is what we have in the other sim in the market. I gotta do some tests, but it does not seem to affect aircraft.

 

Neither side (multiplayer / SP) can claim anything, but on the lack of slides for everyone (the idea sounds a bit silly I have to admit) a compromise has to be made taking into consideration it is a simulator in this day and age, 2017. Aren't people taking that iL-2 1946 had long range visibility? If they had made a decent range, I bet no SP would be complaining. People would take it for granted.

 

Look at the video below, posted by 72sq_Savinio on this thread. An aircraft pops up like an UFO and it has shape and everything. As the OP mentioned, it wasn't necessary for ROF because the aircrafts are much slower, but for a WWII sim?

 

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot single player... But we the multiplayer crownd cannot be hostage of the SP crowd either. I don't see why the fuss about it. If they cannot make a slide for everyone and every taste (I'm not sure if it is complex to do it), they should set for a reasonble range, a range that can be playable for a 'simulator'. The way it stands now, it is unacceptable like the OP posted.

 

Geez.

The thing is that For MP, you already get a huge advantage when you set your quality to lowest. The tree render(lack of) makes spotting below you a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that For MP, you already get a huge advantage when you set your quality to lowest. The tree render(lack of) makes spotting below you a lot easier.

 

But this is not related to visibility range.

 

This is another problem that simulators seem to have a hard time to deal with / or to consider working with. As it was said in another forum, a real life pilot said that looking down is so easy, that the aircraft is often well lit, opposed to what we have in simulators, when the aircraft and the ground have the same contrast and they invariably merge / disappear (from the exception of helicopters over cities in RL according to an air force pilot, who said that they are virtually impossible to spot).

 

Playing Kuban map on WOL, the ocean seems to be like a black hole. Any aircraft going below you tend to disappear in the dark blue of the sea (at least this is experience that I have been having after playing Kuban a few times). ROF also had problems with aircraft below you, but we had the advantage that they were often lit by the sun, even if you were 3-4km above (the classic wings lit against the sun down over the deck). I have not seen it in BOX. Once in a while I see some glare, but in general aircraft becomes AWOL against the ground no matter the angle (summer maps). The recent patch with shadows gave objects more contrast and it soooo much better that it became playable for me, but aircraft still does not reflect the sun like they did in ROF.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... aircraft still does not reflect the sun like they did in ROF.

 

I wonder if they tried to make this work in BoS (perhaps could explain why the BoS skins seem so much shinier/reflective compared to the RoF ones at similar alpha channel settings), but for some reason it didn't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not because in RoF it was caused by using the Bloom effect, not a genuine reflection?  Which I used to turn off anyway since it creates horrible effects on your own aircraft, but I can see how it would help in spotting.  IIRC it was dropped from BoS because it is a horrible old technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not because in RoF it was caused by using the Bloom effect, not a genuine reflection? Which I used to turn off anyway since it creates horrible effects on your own aircraft, but I can see how it would help in spotting. IIRC it was dropped from BoS because it is a horrible old technology.

How ? It's old ad-hoc communication method on great distances - shinning mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bite: though not ideal, outside some specific situations the render distance isn't that big of a deal.

.

Excuse me ,but situation awareness is one of most important aspect in combat, not that big of deal for you because you don't have it tested I'm risking to say that bigger render distance would significantly impact yours flying.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me ,but situation awareness is one of most important aspect in combat, not that big of deal for you because you don't have it tested I'm risking to say that bigger render distance would significantly impact yours flying.

Not the case. I've been playing flight simulators since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat and while all of them have had different rendering distances I can count on one hand the times the 10km limit played a number on me in Il-2.

 

One of the few things I'm actually really good at in this game is spotting aircraft, and 99% of the time I am not only the first one to spot a contact in my group but I also do it before the enemy does. Good S.A. shouldn't rely only on visual clues, so long as you study the map and take note of likely enemy activity routes and altitudes the enemy will be exactly where you predict them to be and you'll see them right there when you pass that area.

 

This is a matter of opinion and personal experience but I've always been able to plot a good bounce or avoid one, and most of the time spotting happens well within 10km.

 

The main problem with the render distance is ground attack, namely level bombing.

Edited by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the case. I've been playing flight simulators since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat and while all of them have had different rendering distances I can count on one hand the times the 10km limit played a number on me in Il-2.

 

One of the few things I'm actually really good at in this game is spotting aircraft, and 99% of the time I am not only the first one to spot a contact in my group but I also do it before the enemy does. Good S.A. shouldn't rely only on visual clues, so long as you study the map and take note of likely enemy activity routes and altitudes the enemy will be exactly where you predict them to be and you'll see them right there when you pass that area.

 

This is a matter of opinion and personal experience but I've always been able to plot a good bounce or avoid one, and most of the time spotting happens well within 10km.

 

The main problem with the render distance is ground attack, namely level bombing.

Well at 10km contacts are composed from dozen of pixels and they suddenly vanish in the air. SA without visual confirmation is not SA. Many times I observed enemy curved path then he flew behind invent horizon and disappeared, now i have to guessing from which direction he show up again and when or if he is the same guy. My time to reaction is significantly reduced because I have to face other possibilities over and over again. I could hold my mental image of situation awareness more efficient with higher render distances. With fighters going 500+ kph , 10km distance is just minute +. In Rise of flight fastest planes were traveling 200kph at sea level.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not because in RoF it was caused by using the Bloom effect, not a genuine reflection? 

 

Nope, never used bloom. it is too corny for my taste. It is just reflection, which happens so seldon in BOX that you can consider yourself lucky to see glares.

 

Not the case. I've been playing flight simulators since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat and while all of them have had different rendering distances I can count on one hand the times the 10km limit played a number on me in Il-2.

 

One of the few things I'm actually really good at in this game is spotting aircraft, and 99% of the time I am not only the first one to spot a contact in my group but I also do it before the enemy does. Good S.A. shouldn't rely only on visual clues, so long as you study the map and take note of likely enemy activity routes and altitudes the enemy will be exactly where you predict them to be and you'll see them right there when you pass that area.

 

This is a matter of opinion and personal experience but I've always been able to plot a good bounce or avoid one, and most of the time spotting happens well within 10km.

 

The main problem with the render distance is ground attack, namely level bombing.

 

What I think is this, you do not mind having limited visibility, but that's a personal matter of yours. It does not mean the problem does not exist. It's the same thing you get into a router brand topic -- where people are complaining that the router has a very limited range for that model bracket -- and you post saying that your house has one bedroom and you are OK with a subpar range. Kind of off-topic, off-point don't you agree? It empties the topic and it does not help anyone.

 

The topic was created with relevance. The problem exists, several people are bothered by this, and it is not on par with current technology or with a WWII sim. Other older simulators have greater visibility, the current competitor has greater visibility, and the Pacific map that is supposed to be released will have serious problems of visibility, as was mentioned. Multiplayer is seriously harmed by this, and the list does not end.

 

People are trying to improve things, because it seems they imported the old range that was used in ROF and it is not working as it should for a WWII simulator. In my view, any help and suggestions are appreciated. We are not asking for a new shade of grass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lucas is right at times you dont see the foe but you visualize him with your minds eye

 

thats why i think the blind shooting with the 190 artificially blocked view is just great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is simply no reson to assume the devs wouldn‘t give us farther draw distances if that was so easy. We have to wait for a more thorough overhaul of the core sim engine (and higher system spec requirements) for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is simply no reson to assume the devs wouldn‘t give us farther draw distances if that was so easy.

 

This may not be related to being easy or not, but because they imported the ROF range and probably did not think it was necessary to rework distances, or that they did not realized that the ROF formula was too tight of a shoe to fit in a WWII sim.

 

Who knows what goes on? Aircraft might not be related to terrain, and the change might be just a matter of addressing the issue and adapting. *The terrain / objects could be dealt as a separate issue.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Look at the video below, posted by 72sq_Savinio on this thread. An aircraft pops up like an UFO and it has shape and everything. As the OP mentioned, it wasn't necessary for ROF because the aircrafts are much slower, but for a WWII sim?

 

 

Wow I had heard people complain about aircraft just popping into existence fully formed and thought they were exaggerating because I had never experienced it but that example is stunning.   I am still confused though because I see aircraft as dots long before they are close enough to even tell a fighter from a light bomber on full zoom yet he sees a plane appear at only slight zoom. Why does that  aircraft just appear at close range?   Could it be that we are seeing some other effect in action?   Lag?  I know some sims will only draw a certain number of aircraft in view at any one time eg you are in the middle of 20 aircraft but the game pretends there are only 16 and makes 4 invisible.  Does BoX do that?

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I had heard people complain about aircraft just popping into existence fully formed and thought they were exaggerating because I had never experienced it but that example is stunning. I am still confused though because I see aircraft as dots long before they are close enough to even tell a fighter from a light bomber on full zoom yet he sees a plane appear at only slight zoom. Why does that aircraft just appear at close range? Could it be that we are seeing some other effect in action? Lag? I know some sims will only draw a certain number of aircraft in view at any one time eg you are in the middle of 20 aircraft but the game pretends there are only 16 and makes 4 invisible. Does BoX do that?

Planes are poping and disappearing always

at the same range -9,5 km. Regaldes of game mode (single player or multiplayer) or their numbers, no other effect, no lag. This is what we all could experience there is no special condition.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes are poping and disappearing always

at the same range -9,5 km. Regaldes of game mode (single player or multiplayer) or their numbers, no other effect, no lag. This is what we all could experience there is no special condition.

 

I was asking about the video which is being quoted as an example of the issue.

 

Firstly, the aircraft in the image are not 9.5km away whatever those numbers say.   Note: This has lost some clarity in conversion to JPG.  In the video you can see what aircraft they are.

ac9_511.jpg

For those who don't work in metric, we are talking over 31,000ft!   If you are on the ground and a fighter is flying overhead at that altitude without a vapour trail you will not be able to ID it.     You probably wont even be able find it.

 

Secondly nobody has answered why it is we see 'dots' at extreme distance if the plane is not rendered until it is a clearly recognisable aircraft.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When big h111 will disappear at range >9,5 km he is composed with dozen of pixel (dots), fighter is smaller but always have also dozen of pixels especially at high resolution monitors. This is at full zoom, at "normal" or default zoom it's smaller but still it's not one dot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For those who don't work in metric, we are talking over 31,000ft!   If you are on the ground and a fighter is flying overhead at that altitude without a vapour trail you will not be able to ID it.     You probably wont even be able find it.

 

<snip

 

Not sure why you think the distances are incorrect. I have taken the aircraft at 8.59 km, since it has the clearest outline, and then scaled up the pixels crudely. On this picture you get the outline at 134m.  Seems ball park right.

 

 

post-15424-0-69848800-1506782165_thumb.jpg

 

 

I think the finding part is the key. I often keep tracks for film making experiments and I often see in the track, using the original head position view, distant planes on the screen that I did not notice until much later during the actual mission. This is not using any HUD. 

 

When you have a lot to do flying, navigating, in formation etc, you simply miss a great deal of what actually appears on your screen. There is a suspension bridge about 8kms from my apartment, and depending on the visibility I can often make out individual vehicles on it easily. But that is because I know exactly where it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There is a suspension bridge about 8kms from my apartment, and depending on the visibility I can often make out individual vehicles on it easily. But that is because I know exactly where it is.

 

OK.  I believe you and If you can see cars at 8km then I will concede you might be able to see aircraft at 9.5km  but it still seems a very long way.  When I played CLoD,  31,000ft was about as high as anyone flew (ignoring people pushing to 35, 000ft to test what is possible but almost falling out of the sky ;) )   It was just accepted by everyone though that anyone at 31,000ft was never going to be able to see a plane on the ground. Perhaps that says more about BoX graphics being muchs better than CLoDs than anything else  :unsure:

 There is a suspension bridge about 8kms from my apartment, and depending on the visibility I can often make out individual vehicles on it easily. But that is because I know exactly where it is.

 

OK.  I believe you and If you can see cars at 8km then I will concede you might be able to see aircraft at 9.5km  but it still seems a very long way.  When I played CLoD,  31,000ft was about as high as anyone flew (ignoring people pushing to 35, 000ft to test what is possible but almost falling out of the sky ;) )   It was just accepted by everyone though that anyone at 31,000ft was never going to be able to see a plane on the ground. Perhaps that says more about BoX graphics being muchs better than CLoDs than anything else  :unsure:     In my flying days I could easily lose sight from the ground of a plane at just 2000ft in the circuit. :-D but that comes down to a distinction we always ignore in these discussions ie the range at which the human eye can theoretically see a fighter is way further than the range at which a person can be expected to see a fighter he did not know was there.  You touched on this when you said "But that is because I know exactly where it is."   but my comment is probably irrelevant as this thread is mostly about spotting ground targets when we do know where they should be.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember an episode of Dogfight history channel serie where that famous israeli pilot, i forget his name sorry (but best one ! confirmed 17 kills in career and 1st ranked since jet pilots) explained they have made test with radar mesures and evalued his sight at 38km per clear blue sky... ^^ (and his nickname was "falcon's eye" or something like that, need to check back that episode, but i am sure of the 38km distance & confirmed by radar)

 

so, yeah, even if we are not speaking about jets here, definatly, 10km range is a bit short... (15to20km should be in average capacity of pilots and the realist limit to have)

 

but, matter of 3D & performance too !

if we can see fighters with double the distance than we have now, its also the case for ground details logicaly... and then, FPS & our pcs could suffer... :P :/

 

but agreed about the principle of course, its too short in flight sims.

 

source here: 

Edited by kilen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be ready having your view distance reduced with athmosphere? (Not: clouds)

 

So, in first person shooters if you toggle "run", your character should do somewhat faster than 10 m/s, because that's how fast they run in championships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be ready having your view distance reduced with athmosphere? (Not: clouds)

 

So, in first person shooters if you toggle "run", your character should do somewhat faster than 10 m/s, because that's how fast they run in championships?

 

sorry but, your exemple is wrong.

in fps games, we dont ask u to do a 100m race at olympic games, no need to run that fast (specialy if we take count of equipment, weapons, etc of soldier u roleplay).

 

+50% until double the present 10km render distance here seems necessary if we speak about realism, 15to20km average its for fighter pilots, wich means high sight & 10/10 for both eyes ! :P lol

 

but of course, it also means the first shadow of plane comes at 15km, and only a pixel at 20km... no more.

 

the issue for me is about everything around, clouds designs, ground designs, etc...

graphic card couldnt follow or we need only all to play with HQ pcs, wich is against policy of gaming, even flight sims.

so, about realism i would have, seems sensed (not 40km, this pilot at 38km is an exception, but 20km seems fine).

about reality & practice, i think its not reasonable and we need to do with 10km range... :/

Edited by kilen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I‘d be most happy if draw distances could be increased. In clear, dry sky high up you can see objects very far. You should also see ground objects from much farther, all points as discussed.

 

And I congratulate all of you eagle eyes. In the real world I would be happy if everybody could spot reliably over 1 km distance. And I don‘t mean spotting the aircraft „over there“, but the one they’re about to run into.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I congratulate all of you eagle eyes. In the real world I would be happy if everybody could spot reliably over 1 km distance. And I don‘t mean spotting the aircraft „over there“, but the one they’re about to run into.

 

absolutly agreed ! :D (and perso am not fighter pilot unfortunatly, i dont have 10/10 anymore) ;) lol

Edited by kilen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the visibility range, but reflection and rendering. The new patch introduced new shadows and it improved a lot for me, but aircraft in general still does not have a good contrast against the ground or even against the sky. ROF was much better on this regard because it reflected the sun much better. It was common to spot aircraft 3k below you because the wing would lit up against the sun, an aspect that some RL pilots say they lit up frequently. I have been searching lots of aircraft videos and in general the reflection and contrast with the ground is much better than what we have in game. Like when I was flying the Kuban on WOL. Aircraft simply go AWOL below you above the ocean, which would be impossible in a RL scenario.

 

It is not just the 9.5k limitation, but a whole approach of rendering and reflection. DCS is simply lost on this, virtually unplayable. BOX has an edge with the new shadows, but reflection and contrast against the background in general is subpar. 

 

I'm interested in this and I might do some comparison tests with ROF (I did some and the difference is glaring), but I don't have much spare time and honestly these things should be a given.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sun reflections on the aircraft can indeed make an aircraft visible over many kilometers. As for other contrast, in real life that depends on the weather/athmosphere. Down low, visibility can be less than 1 km, but up there in the clean air, with good eyesight you can see very far.

 

I am not good at spotting in the game. I mean, it is ok with BoX, but DCS, there I have significant problems as well. Especially over Vegas you should have a crisp view. But others seem to do much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing with RoF is tricky. It is an old game, and some of the ground textures are very simple, meaning that shapes above them stand out well. On the other hand, I could sometimes be just a few hundred feet above an RFC brown doped plane over the no-man's-land texture, and all I would be able to see is the exhaust fumes!

 

Camouflage does work, after all. The worst I can remember was the old IL-2 1946 when the devs chose exactly the same shade of blue for a clear sky as the Soviet planes had on their undersides, meaning that they would disappear from sight while still in easy gun range!

 

Was it Mig Alley that had a "distant reflection off the canopy" mechanic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROF and BOX share the same engine and they are not that different, as we can see in the prints below (both games with graphics maxed out). BOX is a bit shaded because of the haze, which seems to be way pronounced than ROF -- which funnily enough should help aircraft spotting, since the background is paler than a metal aircraft.

 

Reflection still makes a difference in ROF, as shown. Those 5 white dots are Bristols (roughly the size of a WWII fighter) with green camouflage reflecting the sun. Spads with desert camo and all sorts of aircraft and painting also lit up. They disappear against the ground as well, but the fact they have a better reflection rendering makes a huge difference in combat, especially against multiple aircraft.

 

The BOX print has aircraft in them, but I can't see it. I took a few prints with aircraft in them and they all seem to be empty. I could faintly see them in game because they were moving, but it is not easy, especially over dark patches of ground, when they go AWOL even at a relatively close distance. Both prints are at similar altitude.

 

M64jpRb.jpg

 

I did no extensive tests, but I notice the following. In BOX, with camo paintings, the aircraft are pretty much pale and will not lit up in any condition. I seldom see some sort of glare on my IPS monitor (2560X1080p).

 

Like the videos below, where we see camo paiting being lit up:

 

https://youtu.be/kY_stGJn6Bs?t=2m21s

https://youtu.be/JptY35hkc-w?t=1m44s

https://youtu.be/kY_stGJn6Bs?t=6m29s

 

The camo works as they should in ROF as well, but the sun reflection on metal has to be also a given in BOX. And we are not even talking about contrast against the ground, as I mentioned the haze. Like I said, the new shadow improved the conditions a lot, but it is still not quite there with ROF (At the moment I would say a far cry from ROF, but I could be wrong due to the distances). And with WWII aircraft, when the dogfight radius is way bigger than with WWI crates (when you can virtually rub wings with the foe), visibility turns into a critical feature to be able to play. 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also my impression. While at close range, the planes are shiny in sunlight, at distance the effect quickly fades and they turn into an object of almost similar brightness as the scenery. DCS is especially bad with that. The smaller the aircraft gets, the more the contrast (even in its own shape, like upper or under side) gets „anti–aliased away“. This effect plays at very short ranges already. Glare is the thing you see farthest in an object.

 

Normally, a plane creates tremendous contrast versus the sky, even if you paint it sky blue. Here I do get the impression that at distace we get some sky blue pixels vs. a sky blue sky, when in fact the plane should turn almost black, having bright sky (or light clouds) as background.

 

It appears to me that the current engine does not produce the dynamic contrast you get with your eyes.

 

Maybe I should do a test setting planes at different distances to check for glare distance, but so far i didn‘t bother with the mission builder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new graphics in that link do not affect the 10km restriction :-(

At least you can see airfields and cities over way longer distance, even though the objects still have the restriction. I'm sure it will help a lot for level bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really good that they're doing it, because the haze really was overdone, but in terms of game play, it's a secondary improvement. It may help in something (perhaps contrast in between the aircraft and the ground? Or will be the opposite?), but they need to work on visibility and reflection. I wonder why they did not import the ROF reflection parameters to BOS, which the former works significantly better in-game.

 

These cosmetic measures enhance the experience, but they are still cosmetics. And it does not mean much to compare to DCS because DCS simply has no light rendering and reflection at the moment on aricraft / objects? (they are virtually unplayable). And not long ago (Kuban patch) BOS was on the same boat.

 

I know that cosmetics sell (initially), but the developers need to go for the crux eventually.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not just cosmetics. You see some things from much farther than before. So at least, we get some increase in visibility. If you are bombing an airfield, you can see that now from a more plausible distance and line up you attack run. To aim for a specific building is much easier then as this one will „pop up“ in a distance that allows you for correcting the aim. I think this is a big deal. Besides getting a much more convincing view of the scenery.

 

We just got one of the things that we feel are important. Next issue comes next. Besides, unless they overhaul their entire rendering engine and go multithread, many further things we ask for come at the expens of other things. They just can‘t fullfill all our requests and deliver that at 10 fps.

 

They iproving rendering like that at the cost of little fps is a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...