10km aircraft render range and why it is unacceptable.

[SeaW0lf]

We'll have to wait and see what makes a difference, but it is borderline cosmetics in the sense that object spotting and reflection is way more determinant for combat (realism) and I think Kuban had more haze than the current maps. Perhaps they overdid it fearing fps drops because of the mountains. I'm OK with it and the new version looks gorgeous, but they are furnishing the house before building the roof so to speak. If they can get to the roof eventually (sooner than later) I am fine.

 

What I want to see is if the more contrasted landscape will negatively affect aircraft spotting against the ground, just like we have on the other sim on the market, when ground and aircraft have the same contrast and we see literally nothing below the horizon line (and they seem to don't care about it).

 

They have to think it through and I hope they do it right, because right now BOS is playable, but far from ideal. If the new patch make it worse...

[ZachariasX]

I do share your desire for reflections etc.

 

Just saying, we will get something unexpected that is undoubtably a huge step forward for the sim. That is cool. And we will get more given the track record of the devs. At least as long as we keep on buying their offerings.

[56RAF_Roblex]

There are parts of an airfield that are parts of the landscape, these render sooner from what I could gather. You should be able to see those. Runways are not objects but ground texture. Same as cities.

 

Fair point.  I seem to do most of my flying from grass airfields and forgot some have runways :-)   You will still need to be familiar with where the hangars and fuel dumps etc will pop up though as that still wont happen until 9.5Km.

[SeaW0lf]

This is what I love about ROF. I was patrolling the front at roughly 13.000ft and saw a squadron of D.VIIs and two-seaters crossing the mud. The sun was in the right position (I think north of the print, perpendicular in the sky) and the Fokkers were appearing and disappearing according to the wings position in relation to the sun. I followed them until they got into a furball.

 

In the first print, I could see them even in max panoramic. Even the smaller dots are clearly perceivable in flight, since they were moving.

 

 

In the second print, some others appeared, but it is not related to the zoom, but because they were all reflecting the sun.

 

 

All of them had camo wings like mine (I got closer). These are features that make me forget that I'm flying a simulator. I just hope they port ROF to Flying Circus right, with proper lighting and reflection.

Edited February 12, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[SharpeXB]

Yeah the reflections in RoF are really great.

[Balu0_Allies]

I'm new to IL-2 and first thing I noticed is that the time a object is rendered I'm already in combat situation. The rendering range is so too small. If I'm at 6km Alt I can't even spot huge ships in the water in time, and lets not even mention aircraft. 

The current range should be at least doubled Imho. 

 

my 2c

 

 

[JG27*Kornezov]

SeaW0lf

The visibility example seems right in RoF. Since the last visual update flying on full real servers has changed. I had a longue pause and now I find  it is almost impossible, to have a complete picture of the situation. No complete picture = no tactics. If you see one contact you need to try focus exclusively on it, with great pain. Even keeping contact with wingmen is difficult. 

That kind of  visuals does not favor interesting fights. Maybe for that reason the change of DM, faced a favorable acceptance, even if it is highly questionnable. The new DM reduces the probability to be immeditaly shot down by an undetected ennemy. As there are no strong sound effects sometimes you do not even know you are taking damage LOL.

So regarding gameplay everything is connected.

Some claim that using 4 K monitors with high refresh rates supported by powerfull video cards they spot perfectly, while others don't and that is bringing an edge.
But this is not the gameplay that would favor the arrival of new players and would be financially friendly for the developpers.
As for me the game of flying for long minutes straining the eyes for having fights for a small fraction of that time is not my cup of tea. You can join on the servers with icons, there is one that is EU official but it is very unstable lately.
 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by JG27_Kornezov

[SeaW0lf]

42 minutes ago, JG27_Kornezov said:

SeaW0lf

 

The visibility example seems right in RoF. Since the last visual update flying on full real servers has changed. It is almost impossible, to have a complete picture of the situation. If you see one contact you need to try focus exclusively on it, with great pain. Even keeping contact with wingmen is difficult. 

That kind of  settings does not favor interesting fights. For that reason the change of DM, faced a favorable acceptance, even if it is highly questionnable. The new DM reduce the probability to be immeditaly shot down by an undetected ennemy. As there are no sound effects sometimes you do not even know you are taking damage LOL.

So regarding gameplay everything is connected.

Some claim that using 4 K monitors with high refresh rates they spot perfectly, while others don't and that is bringing an edge.
But this is not the gameplay that would favor the arrival of new players and would be financially friendly for the developpers.

 

 

Yeah. In these last missions in Flying Circus it was clear that whatever was below me was basically stealth, especially on Kuban green forests. You can still see planes below you in the Lapino map, but the shapes are faded against the background, even at close distance.

 

There was a furball in the Kuban map in a patch of forest surrounded by mountains. It looked like a green bowl. I was a couple kilometers away and I could only see the tracers. I saw some glimpse of aircraft a few times, but just a shine here and there. When I got closer, I estimate five to six aircraft swirling around, but even when I was on top of the action I could only see them in brief instants. And I have a good IPS monitor, Philips 298P4QJEB, with an amazing image. I'm using the game settings on high, shadows in max and this and that. It was virtually impossible to engage the lasting planes, since I could not see shite. And my current monitor settings works just fine in ROF (for years).

 

The other day I found a video on YouTube and analyzing it I saw the shadow, volume of the object (a jet). In the cutout you can see that the jet has a shadow. I could clearly follow it against the ground (the link is broken). I can only imagine the visibility they have from the cockpit. I would assume that it is virtually impossible to lose track of a WWI aircraft in combat, which does not seem to happen here. I'm no programmer, but I imagine some sort of artifice should be used to give volume to it or contrast in comparison with the background. Because even in ROF we have moments when the aircraft go AWOL at close distance. But at least we have those amazing moments when you spot aircraft down below on the deck. 

 

 

 

It is really hard to engage a plane in BOX if you are above a patch of forest. I can only imagine when the Flying Circus map arrives, because it has lots of green in it. So in my view the BOX engine is not as advanced as the ROF one, at least not regarding spotting, rendering objects and reflection. At this point I'm all good though. I don't expect much. But of course these things hurt the multiplayer crowd badly, which is a pity. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well same problems is with spotting targets  above , higher they go they better blend with  the sky . ROF is much better in spotting contacts. There is no colors banding  and  sky textures are clear in ROF plus planes do reflect sun more uniformly, in Il2  sometimes sky look like image with low bit rate. Il2 spotting is great when you look at contact against suny side (contact is black) but bad in other way - they don't reflect sun enough or in similar way polished/glass objects do. In contrast you can spot contact below against terrain from very far away without zoom - they appear as light colored shapes, but when you come closer  they switch lod  and begin  very hard to find  again and track against terrain.

Edited January 14, 2019 by 307_Tomcat

[19//Moach]

18 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

I would assume that it is virtually impossible to lose track of a WWI aircraft in combat, which does not seem to happen here.

 

Funny thing, last few times I was in an airplane, I tested this out and discovered two things very relevant to this discussion:

 

1:  It is indeed very hard to FIND an aircraft flying by itself at any range larger than 10km.

 

I experimented by searching the sky as if for enemies from a 737-800 passenger window. This is not an ideal observation platform, despite my very sharp (fighter pilot grade) eyesight. The lighting difference between inside and outside an airliner window is too great, and this greatly reduces spotting proficiency.

 

 

2:  Once you do find and airplane, it is almost impossible to lose track of it again.  

 

More than one time, having located a plane I then tracked it visually as far as I could possibly make out any clue of its position.  I estimated distances based on our known altitude of 35k feet, which roughly means any object on the ground at a 45 degree angle from the plane is some 15km away. From this relationship, and the known size of the other aircraft (which I could clearly identify as it passed close) I could then continue to observe and easily locate the "enemy" even at ranges in excess of 30km. 

 

 

Knowing where to look made all the difference, and then finding the plane a second time there was very easy. I had deliberately interrupted my tracking at times, looking back inside the cabin and trying to find the plane again.  Yet there it was, every time. This persisted until the aircraft was so small it became physically impossible to distinguish it from the clouds below. 

 

I can calculate the range at which it became impossible to see by simple math - the other plane crossed us in the opposite direction, and we can conservatively estimate our ground speed as 800km/h (discounting the lateral component of our not-perfectly-parallel tracks) - times two of course, our relative speed was around 1600km/h.  I tracked the airplane for a period of no less than one and a half minutes after our nearest crossing. (1600km/60mins) *1.5mins = 40km

 

Note also that lighting conditions were such that the plane being observed did not at any time "blink" with reflected sunlight.  Yet it would have required intentional disregarding on my part if I were to lose track of it once spotted.  Once something is seen, it is very difficult to "unsee"

 

Yes, an airliner is much bigger than a fighter plane, of course  - Yet that was an a320, which is not much larger than a WW2 bomber. (smaller than some) - I would have expected a figher-sized contact to remain visible for at least half that range however. As the human eye tracks objects, not pixels, and the apparent size of a thing being observed does not have a direct 1:1 relation to its effective visibility

 

 

This simple experiment served to satisfy me beyond all doubt that spotting in this sim is indeed very greatly impaired.  The difficulty in initial location may be excused as logical enough, yes, as it is also a factor in reality.   Yet the complete inability to maintain track of a known object at ranges beyond 10km is quite simply absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by 19//Moach

[Leon_Portier]

@19//Moach

Interesting, with your second point being impossible losing your track of once spotted crafts, would that work if your craft would be maneuvering?

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Leon_Portier said:

Interesting, with your second point being impossible losing your track of once spotted crafts, would that work if your craft would be maneuvering?

 

In real life things are different. You can track a dog in a hill a mile away, even if you turn your back a few times to sip some coffee. I imagine our retina has gazillion more resolution than a monitor, plus we are spotting in real life, 3D at its finest, and with the Sun as an ally.

 

Then port this to a dogfight with aircrafts measuring from 7 to 10 meters, wingspan and all, in a radius of let's say 500m, and they go AWOL (in front of your eyes) because you are dogfighting above a forest? I don't think so. People could test it (the ones with real aircraft), but I imagine we already know the answer.

 

They should come up with a solution to solve this, even because we have ROF as a proof that spotting can work in a monitor (people say that CloD is also good). I would not say ROF is perfect, but it is good enough to allow for game-play. At the moment, BOX forces you to fly low (to spot people above you), which is something that might make Oswald Boelcke turn in his grave.

Edited January 15, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[II./JG77_Manu*]

3 hours ago, 19//Moach said:

 

Funny thing, last few times I was in an airplane, I tested this out and discovered two things very relevant to this discussion:

 

1:  It is indeed very hard to FIND an aircraft flying by itself at any range larger than 10km.

 

I experimented by searching the sky as if for enemies from a 737-800 passenger window. This is not an ideal observation platform, despite my very sharp (fighter pilot grade) eyesight. The lighting difference between inside and outside an airliner window is too great, and this greatly reduces spotting proficiency.

 

 

2:  Once you do find and airplane, it is almost impossible to lose track of it again.  

 

More than one time, having located a plane I then tracked it visually as far as I could possibly make out any clue of its position.  I estimated distances based on our known altitude of 35k feet, which roughly means any object on the ground at a 45 degree angle from the plane is some 15km away. From this relationship, and the known size of the other aircraft (which I could clearly identify as it passed close) I could then continue to observe and easily locate the "enemy" even at ranges in excess of 30km. 

 

 

Knowing where to look made all the difference, and then finding the plane a second time there was very easy. I had deliberately interrupted my tracking at times, looking back inside the cabin and trying to find the plane again.  Yet there it was, every time. This persisted until the aircraft was so small it became physically impossible to distinguish it from the clouds below. 

 

I can calculate the range at which it became impossible to see by simple math - the other plane crossed us in the opposite direction, and we can conservatively estimate our ground speed as 800km/h (discounting the lateral component of our not-perfectly-parallel tracks) - times two of course, our relative speed was around 1600km/h.  I tracked the airplane for a period of no less than one and a half minutes after our nearest crossing. (1600km/60mins) *1.5mins = 40km

 

Note also that lighting conditions were such that the plane being observed did not at any time "blink" with reflected sunlight.  Yet it would have required intentional disregarding on my part if I were to lose track of it once spotted.  Once something is seen, it is very difficult to "unsee"

 

Yes, an airliner is much bigger than a fighter plane, of course  - Yet that was an a320, which is not much larger than a WW2 bomber. (smaller than some) - I would have expected a figher-sized contact to remain visible for at least half that range however. As the human eye tracks objects, not pixels, and the apparent size of a thing being observed does not have a direct 1:1 relation to its effective visibility

 

 

This simple experiment served to satisfy me beyond all doubt that spotting in this sim is indeed very greatly impaired.  The difficulty in initial location may be excused as logical enough, yes, as it is also a factor in reality.   Yet the complete inability to maintain track of a known object at ranges beyond 10km is quite simply absurd.

 

I made similar tests, but from the ground, looking up to airliners. Where I tested this was more then 100km away from the next airport, so I guess it's safe to assume that airliners were at their cruising altitude (at least 10km).

When they were passing above me, I could see even details like their engines and the shape of their elevators (>10km distance), so ID'ing between intercontinental and smaller airliners easily possible from 10km. 

Then I presumed to look at them, and I could even see them some 50km away. (easily calculable with Pythagorean theorem and an expected speed of at least 850kp true air speed). Of course the contrails helped to find them, but it was still possible to see the aircraft itself at that distance. 

It's a shame that there are some people still trying to persuade you that you won't see aircraft further away then 10km....

 

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, 19//Moach said:

Once something is seen, it is very difficult to "unsee"

Here, almost all first hand accounts of combat pilots disagree with you. If they share one line, then it is the line that cobat pilots suddendly would find themselves in an empty sky during combat once they lost initial track of their adversary.

 

It is easy to maintain situational awareness (that is what it comes down to) for steady moving objects. If they are on a changing trajectory, things change.

 

Spotting is an aquired ability. Sharp eyed people can be blind as bats when it comes to looking out of a cockpit, especially when öoad them with a task other than just spoting.

 

If it comes to spoting alone, I remember well how different a hundred sharp eved MANPAD soldiers can be in that department and how much training helps them to not literally get run over by a chopper before they can use their thingy.

 

Also, combat is not tracking one aircraft. It is tracking many aircraft. I can tell you just being in the same thermal with ten other gliders, it is very hard to see all ten of them, even though they are seemingly at arms lenght. Seeing only nine might seem like many but nr.10 can still kill you.

 

Spoting has less to with eyesight or distace as such. Eyesight is just a prerequisite. Sames as good weather. And the background. And contrast. If you‘re harping about how far you could do that. But I know few people that can see other GA sized aircraft over 10 km. They sit next to you on the cockpit, you tell them to keep a sharp look out. Keeps them busy as well. And they are usually blind as bats. Seeing one, two... but not the others. There‘s a glint, they see, they turn the other way, then agian... now no sun... lost sight.

 

But yes, the sim should render AC further, but spoting is and remains hard.

 

EDIT: Your theoretcal maximum is roughly 40 km distance for a full 10 meter object to match "1 Pixel" of your eyes sweet spot in the center. This is a very small area. Right next to it is an area of cmparable size where you are absolutely blind. In the rest, you have a fraction of the reslution in the center area. It brings the upside that combining pixels do much enhance "framerate" at which you are seeing. this helps detecting moving things provided they are large enough to be detected by the impaired resolution. This means, should you be lucky to see a 10 m object 20 km away, and you look away while that one moves, changing bearing, you will have a hard time finding it again, as your peripheral vision cannot detect it and the part that can is as small as a keyhole.

 

Absolute distance is no real argument, I can see much farther than all of you, judging from your examples. I can see the moon. This means I can see 384'000 km. Too big, so doesn't count? Well I can see the Polar Star as well. That is 4'000'000'000'000'0000 km. And much smaller than a 10 m object 40 km away. Did someone say contrast? (darn, I just LOVE that RoF glare )

Edited January 15, 2019 by ZachariasX

[SeaW0lf]

19 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Also, combat is not tracking one aircraft. It is tracking many aircraft. I can tell you just being in the same thermal with ten other gliders, it is very hard to see all ten of them, even though they are seemingly at arms lenght. Seeing only nine might seem like many but nr.10 can still kill you.

 

We are not talking about multitasking. This is up to the player, pilot, and people get used to awareness with time and practice. And if you get jumped by ten planes and get shot down, don't beat yourself too much 

 

What we are talking is that from the 10 gliders in the same thermal, you can't see none of them, or just glimpses of it, just because of the terrain below. Then you have a real problem. Or else the pilot has bad sighting or a few decades outdated prescription glasses, but then it is not our fault. 

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Or else the pilot has bad sighting

Never count on the other seeing you and you'll live.