What is with the rendering distance?

[Y-29.Silky]

Is it just me, or is the horizontal rendering terribly short?

 

Even with the gamma in the config file set, there's been multiple instances when a friend and I would meet at a certain location at 3-4000m for a dogfight and end up spending the first minutes at the AO just looking for each other. One example, he was directly over Spartanovka and I was about 6.7-7km North of Spartanovka, that's only two of those little boxes away, I could clearly see Spartanovka, but we couldn't see each other until we all of a sudden "appeared" out of nowhere when we got closer. It's been my experience for a couple months now, despite a full server, flying around for 20 minutes not seeing a thing, until someone magically appears on my screen. Same thing goes for contrails, someone would say contrails at 2 o'clock, I won't see anything until I get closer. At that altitude especially contrails are hard to see for me due to the 1 inch thick streak across my screen that's brighter than the gates of heaven.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yes draw distance is not enough for ww2 speeds, i just had sortie where i observed to friendly's on zoom, whole shape of planes was clearly visible when one then second just disappeared...

IMHO planes should be visible to size of dot when view on full zoom when it finally fade out.

[SCG_Neun]

This is my story as well..

[AbortedMan]

Also, the terrain blurriness is back (on high settings, haven't tried ultra)

[SYN_Vander]

What do you mean with " gamma"? If you set view distance to max in config, the planes should be visible around 7 km or further away. Usually, they are only a dot then, unless you are zoomed in all the way.

 

EDIT: sorry, I thought I was in RoF forum! Please ignore my post....

Edited December 27, 2015 by SYN_Vander

[TP_Jacko]

10 Km is the clip distance in game for any aircraft. In good conditions you can just spot a fighter size aircraft, the He-111 will clearly pop in and out of view at 10 Km. Its useful for mission builders to know as you can spawn stuff 10km+ away and you know they can't be spotted. But I posted a bug report on it as it needs to be improved for larger aircraft.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

But I posted a bug report on it as it needs to be improved for larger aircraft.

It needs to be improved for any aircraft. You might not find a fighter when he is 20km away, but if you know where he is (due to a contrail for example) you can definitely see him. Yesterday i made a test again, looking for planes and contrails in the air. I can easily see contrails until 60° to the horizon. That's at least 40km. 

Especially the contrail visibility in game is way way way to short

[TP_Jacko]

Hi Manu, The contrails part is new to me maybe because they raised the height contrails become visible in the summer. I have a feeling that anything in a 10 Km radius gets chopped. Contrails and smoke included

 

I am guessing your test in the air was in a real aircraft

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Hi Manu, The contrails part is new to me maybe because they raised the height contrails become visible in the summer. I have a feeling that anything in a 10 Km radius gets chopped. Contrails and smoke included

 

I am guessing your test in the air was in a real aircraft

 

Yep, they get indeed chopped unfortunately..

no, to be honest. I was just outside, watching airliners flying their ways, watching their contrails, and analyzing what i can see. I learned, that i can see even each engine clearly..not only when they are straight above me (10km), even when they kept flying for a few minutes away (around 15km away from my point of view). I didn't see a "dot", i could still clearly see their shape, and even their engines (which are smaller then a WW2 fighter).

So at least when you are looking from the lower side, the range you can see aircraft is way way more then 10km.

I know from my real life flying, that it's of course way harder to spot (small) aircraft when they are flying lower then you, and blending into the landscape. But that of course has nothing to do with the "rendering" of your eye.

[Dakpilot]

Old news, relevant to most games /genres, there could be all contrails visible on map and draw distance to 20km

 

then watch all new 'performance is terrible' 'wont run on my machine' threads crop up

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Old news, relevant to most games /genres, there could be all contrails visible on map and draw distance to 20km

 

then watch all new 'performance is terrible' 'wont run on my machine' threads crop up

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Put it into the options, and all good, everyone can adjust them to his rig. But then of course all the people with weak rigs would start whining.

[Dakpilot]

This is a big problem, if people with better hardware were able to have longer distance spotting, it would make MP a bit of a joke

 

There needs to be fairness some how, personally i like how some options are locked even though performance sapping, glad you cant turn off trees for example

 

going way off topic, sorry

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Lusekofte]

I agree, if this game will be depending on how good hardware you got it will be emptied pretty fast. Flying a bomber and very seldom get escort . I would not fly this game if some hardcore gamer find me at 40 km every time and those helping me including me see him at 10 Km . 

In COD you got those choosing TV´s instead of screens to be able to spot earlier, and going down in quality. And it works, those who spot first are normally those who win

[Willy__]

 

 

In COD you got those choosing TV´s instead of screens to be able to spot earlier, and going down in quality. And it works, those who spot first are normally those who win

 

LMAO I remember that bs, people would choose lower resolutions and lower graphics just because it was easier to spot.     

[II./JG77_Manu*]

This is a big problem, if people with better hardware were able to have longer distance spotting, it would make MP a bit of a joke

 

There needs to be fairness some how, personally i like how some options are locked even though performance sapping, glad you cant turn off trees for example

 

going way off topic, sorry

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Strange. In Arma3, a game/simulation with probably 1000x as many players, and seriously taken competitions, you can adjust it. I remember once in multiplayer i was driving in a tank as gunner, my spotter kept giving me enemy positions, and i just couldn't see them. Finally (after quite a while) i discovered that my draw distance was not enough. Went into the options menu, increased it to max, and toned down the graphics quality, to keep a good performance. Nothing wrong with that. You just can't have everything at once, when your rig isn't poweful enough.

 

Because a few can't afford a proper graphics card, and don't want to have anything worse in their game, not even the "eyecandy graphics" that are not relevant for the game, the rest has to suffer. Well that's right.

I am glad that 95% of the games make this different.

Btw i got my graphics card two years ago for 180 bucks second hand, and i can run BosBom easily maxed out. That's less money then the software for those two moduls.

Edited December 27, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

DCS does solve that issue quite elegantly with an option that does not drain much ressources. Infact some people found it workign too well and use reduced settings due to feeling "guilty" for "unrealistic visibility" over there.

 

Not that it matters here whats going on there, but the "powerfull machines must not be advantaged" arguments are getting old. One day sby turns up with a crappy laptop and complains everybody can spot him better due to flying with higher screen resultions, what than? Force people to fly with low resultion because it's giving too much advantage over some individuals?

 

The Arma 3 example is quite well, I can not set view range higher than 3km in this game without endless struttering. As result I effectively can't fly jets and barely combat helos in MP. Do I complain about other people having computers that can use higher view ranges than me ingame? No.

 

It's not only the aircraft display range that's bugging me in BoS but objects in general. If you fly level bombing missions high up at 4+km it's very difficult to bomb stuff because objects get displayed just right before you got to drop your bombs.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

It is great that you can run BoS maxed out on a 180 buck card, but if other people could run at twice the draw distance with twice the card, and you were unable would you still be so happy?

 

In a CFS there has to be some parity or MP is pointless, better spotting/view distance is a bigger advantage than 10/20kmh better top speed...would you be happy for some to get a better performing aircraft for more money?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It is great that you can run BoS maxed out on a 180 buck card, but if other people could run at twice the draw distance with twice the card, and you were unable would you still be so happy?

 

In a CFS there has to be some parity or MP is pointless, better spotting/view distance is a bigger advantage than 10/20kmh better top speed...would you be happy for some to get a better performing aircraft for more money?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Funny you say that because I had serious performence issues prior the last update....

 

And to answer your question, I wouldn't bother an increased draw distance much. As said for aircrafts there are formence friendly technics with markers as used by DCS, for buildings, ground vehicles ect there may be a similar system. The only real performence hungry feauture that comes with increased draw distance is terrain / terrain textures. Later has been modified by the comunity for a long time already and no one complained about it nor felt it gave unfair advantages in combat.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[II./JG77_Manu*]

It is great that you can run BoS maxed out on a 180 buck card, but if other people could run at twice the draw distance with twice the card, and you were unable would you still be so happy?

 

In a CFS there has to be some parity or MP is pointless, better spotting/view distance is a bigger advantage than 10/20kmh better top speed...would you be happy for some to get a better performing aircraft for more money?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Can you actually read everything i was writing? I would max out my draw distance, and would tone done the other graphics. If the other graphics are at minimum, and it would still be buggy (what i am sure would not happen), i'd tone down my visibility, and go for a better graphics card as soon as i can. i'd definitely not complain.

Same is with flight stick gear. Is it pointless to go into multiplayer with a TM Hotas X and without TrackIr? According to you yes. Having proper pedals and a Warhog + TrackIR gives you an advantage over the Hotas X without TrackIR uncomparable to the visibility difference. Way more significant. Is anybody complaining there? I don't see it. 

And proper flight sim gear is definitely more expensive then a proper graphics card.

Kinda moot all your propositions.

If any game would have had this approach, we would still play Pong.

Edited December 27, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[VBF-12_Snake9]

There is no fair. I have an older buddy who loves to fly. His old eyes can barely spot me beside him. Fairness in graphics does not exist. Fairness in hardware does not exist. Fairness in life does not exist. Options hurt no one.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Yeah, saying there should be fairness is kinda moot when you have people with $30 setups fighting $500+ setups. I don't see why people with i7 6700K & 2x Titan X should be held back by potato computer with Pentium Dual Core & GTX 460.

Edited December 27, 2015 by RoflSeal

[Jade_Monkey]

Yeah, saying there should be fairness is kinda moot when you have people with $30 setups fighting $500+ setups. I don't see why people with i7 6700K & 2x Titan X should be held back by potato computer with Pentium Dual Core & GTX 460.

 

Agree. Fair =/= everybody the same.

 

Otherwise we would end up with the minimum requirements for everyone, max resolution 900x600 and only 30 fps cap to make sure everyone is running the game equally, so it´s "FAIR".

[Lusekofte]

Yeah, saying there should be fairness is kinda moot when you have people with $30 setups fighting $500+ setups. I don't see why people with i7 6700K & 2x Titan X should be held back by potato computer with Pentium Dual Core & GTX 460.

 

 

Can you honestly say we can afford loosing those with potato hardware . You wanna fight against AI for the duration? This has been discussed since the origin of pc games. I myself can afford a titan, but I pass. I do this more of recreation. When this totally turn into a FPS game or war thunder like I do something else. But progress in these cases should be done over time, not right away. You need to let people adapt into the thought and willingness to invest in right hardware. For some it is a month pay. We can hardly fill one server a day and you want to reduce it to a quarter of that. Smart move I say.

 

I slightly lost my interest already, this is a kids game , not a simulator. It could have been something good . But the way it plays out in servers it just is not a game for the duration. Dogfight one and one is boring in the long run, and those doing it is always the one leaving first. It is only that much fun for so long.

 

But I really love some of those Russian planes, that is the one thing still doing it for me

Edited December 27, 2015 by LuseKofte

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Yeah, saying there should be fairness is kinda moot when you have people with $30 setups fighting $500+ setups. I don't see why people with i7 6700K & 2x Titan X should be held back by potato computer with Pentium Dual Core & GTX 460.

Thing is, that a rather weak Rig is enough for BoS. I get 60 fps or more with my graphics card worth around ~140€ on Ultra. Double the rendering distance for planes, contrails, buildings and "ground stuff" and i am pretty sure i can still run it at least on high with 60fps+. So it's really no big deal

 

For some it is a month pay. We can hardly fill one server a day and you want to reduce it to a quarter of that. Smart move I say

Come on, that's nonsense, and you know that. Probably 80% in here has a Rig, that can easily run this game on high/ultra. A month pay? LOL. Show me a country where 150 bucks is a month pay. I know there are, unfortunately. But those people are definitely not into flight sims. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Can you honestly say we can afford loosing those with potato hardware . You wanna fight against AI for the duration? This has been discussed since the origin of pc games. I myself can afford a titan, but I pass. I do this more of recreation. When this totally turn into a FPS game or war thunder like I do something else. But progress in these cases should be done over time, not right away. You need to let people adapt into the thought and willingness to invest in right hardware. For some it is a month pay. We can hardly fill one server a day and you want to reduce it to a quarter of that. Smart move I say

How will having the option to increase view distance should your PC allow it loose the lower end players?

[[CPT]milopugdog]

Hopped in an He-111 to check out what you are talking about. 

Climbed to 3000m to try to bomb a train station. The building didn't spawn until it was too late to adjust. 

I then went from a tight end to a wide receiver when a MiG-3, and La-5 decided to say hello while I was trying to go for a second pass. 

[Lusekofte]

If you divide the players into those spotting at 40 km and those at 10 You will see the end of 3/4 of the players of today. That is making a lot of difference and it will no longer be the skills of the pilot that tells the outcome of the battle

Hopped in an He-111 to check out what you are talking about. 

Climbed to 3000m to try to bomb a train station. The building didn't spawn until it was too late to adjust. 

I then went from a tight end to a wide receiver when a MiG-3, and La-5 decided to say hello while I was trying to go for a second pass. 

You are wrong my friend or you have wrong settings in your thereign ini. But in order to level bomb, witch I do in heavy cloud cover you need to take notice of the landscape and figure out where the target is. This is reality and Historical. Levelbombing in daylight required a lot of recon pictures and a huge photo . a detailed IP (initial point. You cannot bomb without a flight plan no matter how good your rendering is. All targets, well almost all are close to other buildings. I level bomb at 5 k with no problem what so ever, except those bloody high flying 109 that is

Edited December 27, 2015 by LuseKofte

[Dakpilot]

 I don't see why people with i7 6700K & 2x Titan X should be held back by potato computer with Pentium Dual Core & GTX 460.

 

Its not a matter of holding people back, you simply will not have a player base if this is the equipment you need to be able to spot other players at a similar render distance, and people with mid range setups can only see 10km versus 2X titans being able to see 20km

 

No other CFS has worked this way

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If you divide the players into those spotting at 40 km and those at 10 You will see the end of 3/4 of the players of today. That is making a lot of difference and it will no longer be the skills of the pilot that tells the outcome of the battle

Gosh how i love such populist nonsense, just to scare some people.

1. of all noone is talking about 40km. Rather 20km. 40km maybe for the contrails, and only the contrails. But that's not so important.

2. of all nothing is gonna be divided

3. even if the draw distance is enhanced, it doesn't mean that you will be able to spot them. In fact, the only case, where you will be able to spot planes further then 10km away, is when they are contrailing. Otherwise it's very unlikely, that you'll see them before they enter the "old" 10km draw distance.

4. we are also talking about ground stuff, which right no can't even bombed properly from higher altitudes. But of course, it will break the game for some players, if the opponent bomber can actually see what they are bombing from high alt 

5. of all..if you worsen your textures or overall graphics a little, it has no negative effect for your fps what so ever, when the draw distance is enhanced. So no one who can play it now, maybe apart from the people who play it on low (under 5% i guess), wouldn't be able to play it then!

And now skip the nonsense please.

[Lusekofte]

Come on, that's nonsense, and you know that. Probably 80% in here has a Rig, that can easily run this game on high/ultra. A month pay? LOL. Show me a country where 150 bucks is a month pay. I know there are, unfortunately. But those people are definitely not into flight sims. 

I do not know where you are from, but people have lost their jobs, they have other priorities and if you want to have a economical difference that have so much inpact as rendering of planes you will find I am right. I rather say make the rendering possible without people have to buy a Titan GPU 

The fact is , this game engine probably have limitations in this regard. I do not know, but we all have witnessed the difficulties the developers had to get this far

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Its not a matter of holding people back, you simply will not have a player base if this is the equipment you need to be able to spot other players at a similar render distance, and people with mid range setups can only see 10km versus 2X titans being able to see 20km

 

No other CFS has worked this way

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Now you can play it with a 80€ laptop graphics card, but when you double the draw distance you need 2 titans. Sure, seems plausible 

 

Apart from the obvious trifle.

In Arma3 i enhanced my visibility by 5x! Not double, x5! In order to keep the same fps, i had to go from very high graphical settings to medium. Just to put it into perspective

Edited December 27, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

Do you really think if it was possible to double the render distance and still get decent FPS for most, that it would not have been done?

 

Really?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Lusekofte]

Well I disagree with you, but as I said . I have lost quite a lot of interest what so ever, not because of the hardware nor the Software. More the way it is used. I belong to the old IL 2 community witch was given the finger by the developers right from the start. They wanted none of those being in the community for ages. They wanted WT players and new folks.

And I register that is what they got. And I can live with that perfectly.

I do not want to scare people off, I am just saying, making a sim that need newest computer hardware is excluding a lot of people. And it is not many with interest enough to invest these money. It is the thing that killed COD from the start, there was just to few having the right hardware

Edited December 27, 2015 by LuseKofte

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Do you really think if it was possible to double the render distance and still get decent FPS for most, that it would not have been done?

 

Really?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Check the second section of my edited post...

Of course this is another engine. If the BoS engine is capable of, i don't know. But possible? Definitely yes

[[CPT]milopugdog]

 

You are wrong my friend or you have wrong settings in your thereign ini. But in order to level bomb, witch I do in heavy cloud cover you need to take notice of the landscape and figure out where the target is. This is reality and Historical. Levelbombing in daylight required a lot of recon pictures and a huge photo . a detailed IP (initial point. You cannot bomb without a flight plan no matter how good your rendering is. All targets, well almost all are close to other buildings. I level bomb at 5 k with no problem what so ever, except those bloody high flying 109 that is

I think it's a little ballsy to say I'm wrong. I always will set a run up to the target, giving myself time to adjust my bombsite. I can't remember with the Pe-2, but I always use the view option to center on the target. I could see the treeline that the target was at, but since it's location was marked only with a icon on the map, I only knew the general vicinity. Is it my fault the buildings (hangars, factories, fuel dumps)  pop into view before I can adjust my plane for specifics? Maybe it was just my lack of detail, but I wasn't a mile off target; only enough to not attempt a drop. 

[Fidelity]

Render distance for ground targets is much too low. I have to line up with geographic features until the target finally pops into sight.

 

This is a limitation of the engine, not of the hardware. 777 has set the bar artificially low. Hopefully they will raise it at some point as they continue to streamline the game.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Just a reminder that Han has stated that they are aware of this and they are still considering what is the best way to deal with it, the main contender being upgrading the engine to 4-core/DX12 standards but this of course takes time. Other alternatives, he said, were making other aircraft fly with a simpler FM but the team didn't see this as a step forward and thus it was disfavoured.

 

In other words: they know; they're working on it.

[Czar66]

To clear one thing out: It's not the world draw range issue, is aircraft draw range. It's not heavy on hardware resources.

 

Aircrafts DO pop in WAAAAY closer than the scenery draw range.

[Fidelity]

It is both. All targets have low draw distances; whether ground or airborne.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Drawing just the aircraft out to 20K would not reduce performance that much. You're being silly now.