Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 151 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Because these toes need stepping on good and hard. I am sick and tired of having my options limited by the shrieks of "not fair" from elements of the MP fraternity.

 

Or perhaps "we" should decide what resolution everyone must use while we are at it? And who is this "we" anyway?

 

This whole attitude is unacceptable. It already almost killed the game for SP - now that the corpse shows signs of resurrection the last thing we need is to allow MP to dictate to SP how we should play our game.

 

If the team can come up with some server based visibility limit, fine by me. Let the "we" who are MP based thrash that out the rules of their Hunger Games. But there is no possible justification for nerfing SP just to shut up a few MP whiners.

 

I am only flying MP, but i still fully agree with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that so many are fine with such a low viewdistance in a game that trys to simulate planes and stuff, even those who are ok with a further viewrange talk about a few kilometers or just a cylinder instead of a sphere, sry i dont agree.

 

If i could decide how the viewrange change, i would say give us the biggest slider in graphics options history, so long that it reaches from left to right on a 4k screen and make every pixel on that slider count and on top of that shape the slider as an middlefinger. :)

 

Joke aside, i wish that we get minimum double the range, both viewdistance and renderdistance on a slider that is lockable for servers so that everyone can be happy.

Ah of course we also need more graphic options so we can choose what feature to reduce to get high enough fps at max range and i dont mean editing inis and stuff, just a nice menu with all the stuff we know and are familiar with for the past 20 years or so in pc gaming, the current presets and lack of other options are backward.

 

To be honest im thankful for this discussion, it looks like that the devs are aware and are looking to improve it, thats atleast what i read out of jasons post idk.

I gained many unused fps that i could spend, i dont need more then 60, for good vision i would be fine to go down to 40 fps if needed.

 

The devs made a nice complex and overal good looking game and with so much love to detail its just a waste not having good view distances, its like a veil, you cant fully see the beauty behind the veil but you know its there, its just because a few cant handle this beauty and go berserk or so that automatically all are restricted to see the beauty. :o

 

I paid already for bok so im not one of those who got bos for sale and demanding stuff so dont count me on there side i just want to ban the veil hehe.

Im even fine when nothing changes but then i would not buy any other addon and just stop playing maybe, its the third addon in the making and we still have laughable viewrange and yeah of course, the game does so much right, thats the reason i still play even with that veil that i dont like.

 

The sky and ground are part of the sim like FMs, DMs, AIs and so on, it deserves the same kind of attention like all the other stuff people constantly fighting over, why is there not much interest for changes, i mean a few km here and a bit less haze there is nothing, it just shifts it a bit further.

 

I dont understand why BoX is going this way, going backward in viewrange and not forward, i mean even 46 has longer distances it seems and look at DCS, its not ugly its wunderfull looking same for CloD, maybe it is the engine itself but i dont think so, that would mean its the wrong engine for the job and we never get an improvement but thats not the case it seems.

 

If it is because of this game is mainly played by russians, what i not really believe but somebody said something like this, who have bad PCs and the devs dont want to kick them out through better viewdistances i gonna quit, this means we potentially never get any improvement, the devs would get less money because they would allways compromise technological advances with the same excuse and fall behind the competition, your luck in this case would be maybe a lack of competition but with a lower playerbase.

 

But like i said, i dont believe that, it might have something to do with money making, maybe the devs dont see the overall improvment in viewrange as a selling point, not like new planes or maps, so they dont want to invest time and money into such things and im sry if it sounds offending and i apologise if im wrong, i just dont know what the real reason behind that is but better not tell me.

 

If the real reason is somewhere between and if we dont get visual improvements because of people cant afford a gaming pc then i have to apologise and stop paying, i see often the word unfair adventage but i paid for good hardware and im not a rich guy, i gave money into the industry and because many people do that we are where we are, imagine a world with still amigas because nobody can pay the prices for new stuff, the new stuff would simply vanish and no progression were made.

 

Im glad that there are people pushing technologie even if i cant afford it like VR at the moment, this will give the maker a good reason to stick with it and make it better and maybe cheaper so i and many others can have the wonderfull experience using VR in the future, i didnt test it and i will not till i have my own because if i test it now, im sure i will stop eating to spare enough money for VR and loose my girlfriend then, btw how is porn in VR. ;)

 

I dont know how i ended here now, what is the topic, ah devdiary discussion, im so sry here are some poisitve feedback, nice pics and good game. :D

 

edit: oh shit that text im sry but im sure most people will not read it so yeah!

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that so many are fine with such a low viewdistance in a game that trys to simulate planes and stuff, even those who are ok with a further viewrange talk about a few kilometers or just a cylinder instead of a sphere, sry i dont agree.

 

If i could decide how the viewrange change, i would say give us the biggest slider in graphics options history, so long that it reaches from left to right on a 4k screen and make every pixel on that slider count and on top of that shape the slider as an middlefinger. :)

 

Joke aside, i wish that we get minimum double the range, both viewdistance and renderdistance on a slider that is lockable for servers so that everyone can be happy.

Ah of course we also need more graphic options so we can choose what feature to reduce to get high enough fps at max range and i dont mean editing inis and stuff, just a nice menu with all the stuff we know and are familiar with for the past 20 years or so in pc gaming, the current presets and lack of other options are backward.

 

To be honest im thankful for this discussion, it looks like that the devs are aware and are looking to improve it, thats atleast what i read out of jasons post idk.

I gained many unused fps that i could spend, i dont need more then 60, for good vision i would be fine to go down to 40 fps if needed.

 

The devs made a nice complex and overal good looking game and with so much love to detail its just a waste not having good view distances, its like a veil, you cant fully see the beauty behind the veil but you know its there, its just because a few cant handle this beauty and go berserk or so that automatically all are restricted to see the beauty. :o

 

I paid already for bok so im not one of those who got bos for sale and demanding stuff so dont count me on there side i just want to ban the veil hehe.

Im even fine when nothing changes but then i would not buy any other addon and just stop playing maybe, its the third addon in the making and we still have laughable viewrange and yeah of course, the game does so much right, thats the reason i still play even with that veil that i dont like.

 

The sky and ground are part of the sim like FMs, DMs, AIs and so on, it deserves the same kind of attention like all the other stuff people constantly fighting over, why is there not much interest for changes, i mean a few km here and a bit less haze there is nothing, it just shifts it a bit further.

 

I dont understand why BoX is going this way, going backward in viewrange and not forward, i mean even 46 has longer distances it seems and look at DCS, its not ugly its wunderfull looking same for CloD, maybe it is the engine itself but i dont think so, that would mean its the wrong engine for the job and we never get an improvement but thats not the case it seems.

 

If it is because of this game is mainly played by russians, what i not really believe but somebody said something like this, who have bad PCs and the devs dont want to kick them out through better viewdistances i gonna quit, this means we potentially never get any improvement, the devs would get less money because they would allways compromise technological advances with the same excuse and fall behind the competition, your luck in this case would be maybe a lack of competition but with a lower playerbase.

 

But like i said, i dont believe that, it might have something to do with money making, maybe the devs dont see the overall improvment in viewrange as a selling point, not like new planes or maps, so they dont want to invest time and money into such things and im sry if it sounds offending and i apologise if im wrong, i just dont know what the real reason behind that is but better not tell me.

 

If the real reason is somewhere between and if we dont get visual improvements because of people cant afford a gaming pc then i have to apologise and stop paying, i see often the word unfair adventage but i paid for good hardware and im not a rich guy, i gave money into the industry and because many people do that we are where we are, imagine a world with still amigas because nobody can pay the prices for new stuff, the new stuff would simply vanish and no progression were made.

 

Im glad that there are people pushing technologie even if i cant afford it like VR at the moment, this will give the maker a good reason to stick with it and make it better and maybe cheaper so i and many others can have the wonderfull experience using VR in the future, i didnt test it and i will not till i have my own because if i test it now, im sure i will stop eating to spare enough money for VR and loose my girlfriend then, btw how is porn in VR. ;)

 

I dont know how i ended here now, what is the topic, ah devdiary discussion, im so sry here are some poisitve feedback, nice pics and good game. :D

 

edit: oh shit that text im sry but im sure most people will not read it so yeah!

 

40 FPS is not an acceptable target in 2017, for many reasons, a few have mentioned this figure....and seem to think it is fine, this is a standard that is no longer even accepted on consoles, let alone performance relevant for VR

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are mixing two issues here: Draw distance for ground objects one one hand and for planes on the other hand.

 

I expect that longer draw distance for ground objects would affect FPS. There are thousands of small objects in towns, trees in forests... Raise the radius and you can expect to raise the number of objects to render quadratically.

 

Longer draw distance for planes should not affect FPS significantly. At 10km and beyond even the largest planes at the biggest zoom level are little more than a few pixels. Also, raising the sphere radius does not lead to a cubic increase in the number of planes. This would be true if the air was uniformly filled with planes, but that's not the case. It's sparsely "filled" with at most 84 planes, which in theory can already be visible all at once in the 10km sphere today.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean im fine with 40 fps you misunderstood me, i mean that i would go down to 40 when there is no other way to get more range, i did exactly that in all the ArmA titles i played, 30-35 fps felt so bad but with 1k viewdistance it was a even shitier experience then playing it with 35 fps, the good thing was i had the options and thats a good thing, having no or less options is bad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would of course be the best: high draw distance for planes (~20km set maybe) and a slider for ground targets rendering.

 

Or multiple sliders - settings for different classes. For instance, the draw distance you need realistically to simulate spotting is far more for shipping than for tanks. Obviously the way items are rendered makes them easier or harder to spot, but I would think that the cut off range for rendering should relate to an item's aspect - ie very large items like ships need not have the same rendering distance as tanks. Fighters need not have the same rendering distance as bombers.

 

Grouping objects in this way and giving them separate rendering distance sliders would reduce the FPS hit to a degree, and allow people to "spend" their FPS as they wish on the particular area of game play that they think needs the boost.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is with the overall short viewdistance, that famous hazebubble, are you fine with that or why do i read all the time people talking much about renderdistance of objects but not on terrain?

I cant take this anymore, it looks like crab forget about the 10k renderbubble for a second and lets talk the damn terrain, people saying to me things like "Yeah 40 fps is a 1998 benchmark" but short render distances are like 40 fps, a thing of the past, how old is 1946, i guess we could say the same, yeah 10k render and maybe 30k low res texture viewdistance is a 2000 benchmark in this genre.

 

Most games these days are just graphic benchmarks, better looking but the same game as the 6 titles before, sure there are still gems out there, games like "the last of us" and many more that are AAA titles and i really enjoy but most games are just good looking, IL2 on the other hand is a game that already has much more in it then graphics, it is so good that its time to invest a little bit for more viewrange.

 

So pls, i beg you devs dont give us just a little increase of dots in the air, pls give us the whole package and let us choose how many fps are ok for us and dont hear on people saying we dont need that or its unfair, its unfair to not have the option in the first place, if you find its unfair too then make it offline only and we can have both, a good ballanced compromise where onliners can have there even playingfield (which is an illusion) and we offliners can have fun with a most deserved view to the horizon and can finally enjoy the beautyful image this game can offer.

 

If that is to much to ask then i dont know what the hell im still doing here, money is already paid so yeah, no loss if you decide otherwise but the future will look different if you keep slapping us offliners in the face with horrible AI and low viewrange and that what you call a campaign, we understand that we are not the focus but we are many and we have money, we dont care about ballance in mp, we dont care if a few people have fun online when the offline expirience is just bad compared to other sims, i know we got a little AI tweak and we will get a campaign but lets be honest, you gave us a middlefinger for so long time now and clearly are focused on mp and thats ok when you have enough people playing your game online but i bet the most customers are offliners, you know best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@30725

I agree with you Ishtaru that the view distance, however you mention it to objects or terrain would be better. Although I glad that the game does not rely just on it's graphics. Its a decent game, just needs some style tweaks ;) I type that like it's incredibly easy. I doubt it is.

 

plane-window-photography-2.jpg?resize=60

 

As for offline I think the Campaign mode will be far better - it sounds like what I've been wanting since launch. I don't mind the current campaign, but the new one sounds like it will have more immersion and you'll feel like your actions will matter. Who knows.

 

 

EDIT -

post-19-0-47564600-1489169676_thumb.jpg

 

Even with the technical limitations I think the map looks pretty good. Certainly nice to have some height to play in down there.

Edited by deleted@30725

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe 3 issues. In my opinion it is the destroyable ground objects that need the longer visibility the most. I could very much live with the towns and trees ' popping ' in somewhere shorter. Yes this wouldn't be ideal but at least you can line up for a nice long bomb run.

 

Yep..destroyable assets and aircraft should be upped primarily. But i still don't see the big problem about the terrain as well. Clod - which some people deem "outdated" - manages it just fine to render the terrain, trees, and buildings even on long distance, without any performance problems. With a less potent engine.

"Saving performance" is a cheap excuse, nothing else.

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

Clod - which some people deem "outdated" - manages it just fine to render the terrain, trees, and buildings even on long distance, without any performance problems. With a less potent engine.

 

 

-snip-

 

Yeah, exactly. A less potent engine. Less dynamic modeling in atmospherics, cloud rendering, light rendering, object physics, etc, etc, etc.

 

Stop being so [edited] nonconstructive - saving performance is a valid reason, not an excuse as you've spun it.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, exactly. A less potent engine. Less dynamic modeling in atmospherics, cloud rendering, light rendering, object physics, etc, etc, etc.

 

Stop being so bitchy and nonconstructive - saving performance is a valid reason, not an excuse as you've spun it.

Less dynamic modeling in atmospherics has nothing to do with graphics.

Less cloud rendering, less light rendering, but it still looks hell of a lot better then BoX during flight, cockpit aside. It's also a lot more "usuable" (bombing, formation flight, etc) I guess that happens when you don't prioritize in the right way.

Apart from that, BoX is very very easy on the graphics card anyway, as soon as you got some bombers or AI planes around, the processor is the issue, not the graphics card. I can't see how an additional draw/renderdistance would go harder on the processor. And like plenty of people already mentioned, it doesn't make sense to support 10+ year old PCs for a modern game. Especially if this leads to the modern game being worse in certain aspects then 10+ year old games.

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less dynamic modeling in atmospherics has nothing to do with graphics.

Less cloud rendering, less light rendering, but it still looks hell of a lot better then BoX during flight, cockpit aside. It's also a lot more "usuable" (bombing, formation flight, etc) I guess that happens when you don't prioritize in the right way.

Apart from that, BoX is very very easy on the graphics card anyway, as soon as you got some bombers or AI planes around, the processor is the issue, not the graphics card. I can't see how an additional draw/renderdistance would go harder on the processor. And like plenty of people already mentioned, it doesn't make sense to support 10+ year old PCs for a modern game. Especially if this leads to the modern game being worse in certain aspects then 10+ year old games.

 

All instances of engine load have everything to do with all instances of performance.

 

And I'm sorry but the lighting/cloud engine in Cliffs simply doesn't compare... It's entirely static, non-atmospheric and generally doesn't look that great. Hence why TFS is still developing a dynamic lighting engine.

 

And I'm not surprised that you don't understand how engine render distance affects CPU load. Better yet, explain to me why it wouldn't have an affect on CPU load? Cliffs definitely doesn't have the same CPU load factor considering how AI flight models are processed and the lack of a dynamic flight engine (purely table-based, on the rails flight experience). When you're not simulating half of the simulation features that another simulation is simulating you're going to see less of a load.

 

At least we agree on one thing - support/design around legacy hardware needs to end but it's entirely supposition on your part that this has anything to do with it. Didn't you say that BOX is "very very easy on the graphics card anyway"?

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As someone who has flown in and around the NTTR for quite some time here are my comments on what you see in that video compared to the Kuban screenshots

 

1.  Visibility and spotting are totally dependent on Humidity or other atmospherics.  The haze you see on the US East Coast affecting spotting IRL at long distances, something you are less likely to have in the desert, is high humidity. Water in the air, water with dust particles in fact.  

 

2.  Even given the average 10-15% humidity of the high desert the clarity in the DCS video is a bit on the unrealistic side for my experience.  It feels more like a sim, where as BoS feels more like real life to me.  Sure, you can have a day where after a high pressure system blows through and the temps drop and winds die down you can see forever, but that isn't EVERY day in the NTTR.  Atmospheric blowing dust can be just as bad as high humidity and haze.

 

3.  Generally I think BoS get the atmospherics right more than any other sim, and as frustrating as it seems at times I think their lighting as it affects spotting is pretty darn good too.  I wouldn't change much.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All instances of engine load have everything to do with all instances of performance.

 

And I'm sorry but the lighting/cloud engine in Cliffs simply doesn't compare... It's entirely static, non-atmospheric and generally doesn't look that great. Hence why TFS is still developing a dynamic lighting engine.

 

And I'm not surprised that you don't understand how engine render distance affects CPU load. Better yet, explain to me why it wouldn't have an affect on CPU load? Cliffs definitely doesn't have the same CPU load factor considering how AI flight models are processed and the lack of a dynamic flight engine (purely table-based, on the rails flight experience). When you're not simulating half of the simulation features that another simulation is simulating you're going to see less of a load.

 

At least we agree on one thing - support/design around legacy hardware needs to end but it's entirely supposition on your part that this has anything to do with it. Didn't you say that BOX is "very very easy on the graphics card anyway"?

 

Well, the clouds in BoX are not a particular looker either, with aircraft becoming aliased tiles when you follow them into the clouds even on highest AA. Cliffs has it's own issues, no question, but it shows that it's possible to create vast landscape rendering and object distance with very reasonable performance. Landscape render distance doesn't change CPU load "what so ever" (meaning less then 1%), and aircraft are not just being stopped to be computed by the CPU when they vanis out of the 9,5km render distance either.

Yes BoX is very easy on graphics card, so no reason why to not up the level a little in that respect (graphical).

 

 

As someone who has flown in and around the NTTR for quite some time here are my comments on what you see in that video compared to the Kuban screenshots

 

1.  Visibility and spotting are totally dependent on Humidity or other atmospherics.  The haze you see on the US East Coast affecting spotting IRL at long distances, something you are less likely to have in the desert, is high humidity. Water in the air, water with dust particles in fact.  

 

2.  Even given the average 10-15% humidity of the high desert the clarity in the DCS video is a bit on the unrealistic side for my experience.  It feels more like a sim, where as BoS feels more like real life to me.  Sure, you can have a day where after a high pressure system blows through and the temps drop and winds die down you can see forever, but that isn't EVERY day in the NTTR.  Atmospheric blowing dust can be just as bad as high humidity and haze.

 

3.  Generally I think BoS get the atmospherics right more than any other sim, and as frustrating as it seems at times I think their lighting as it affects spotting is pretty darn good too.  I wouldn't change much.

 

1. There is no haze at 10km or higher. Haze is close to the ground, nowhere else. There is no high humidity at high alt as well. Haze is bound to low alt only. No matter where on the planet you are.

 

2. I would watch the following video, and then access the situation once again. NTTR couldn't get much closer to real life. When you are flying at 12k in BoS (higher not possible), you are surrounded by cotton wool only. It can't be any more unrealistic then that. When you are at 12k in real life, your visibility distance is 1000km or more..and if it's only the top of a cloud layer you are seeing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0

 

Or in a more humid climate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr3RDLDs0fg

Of course there is haze at a certain distance, but you see more then 100km clear on every side..no cotton wool

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great, manu* tries to tell real pilot who has actually flown around NTTR what it should look like at various altitudes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great, manu* tries to tell real pilot who has actually flown around NTTR what it should look like at various altitudes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Is he a real pilot? I understood it that he has flown in DCS NTTR.

Anyway, there are enough real life videos out there to compare with NTTR/DCS 2.0 and higher. And i guess TheElf was refering to flying at lower altitude. Around 3-4km, BoS rendering is comparable to certain (hazy) real life conditions. 

But at 12k+, it definitely is not, i don't have to be a pilot to notice that. It's enough to fly regularly, and check the videos that are out there. And to know aerodynamical physics.

But Dakpilot jumping into a discussion just to dismiss certain points, that's really nothing new. Well done, once again  :rolleyes:

 

One more video which shows the exact same altitude (at the beginning) like the NTTR video i posted, over the (quite humid) area of New Zealand. Visibility distance and haze (or rather the lack of it apart from the far horizon) are pretty much the same like in the NTTR vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emN3pxqkl68

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the whole 2nd vid manu postet, man thats a nice pilot, he asked the guy to take control and copy the left and right roll he did before, or did i misunderstood him, anyway, thx for posting. :)

 

Do anyone know what that thing is that comes down from the canopy at 21:46min, looks dangerous if you make a crashlanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's pretty clear that you don't really care about the opinions of anybody else.

 

After all, is Elf even a pilot? 

 

Well i have shown enough videos to prove my point by now, i guess. Everyone can check and validate it himself...but i guess that's not todays trend. More like blindly following fake news without even caring for the truth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i have shown enough videos to prove my point by now, i guess. Everyone can check and validate it himself...but i guess that's not todays trend. More like blindly following fake news without even caring for the truth 

 

Haaaa. OK.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It dosent matter if he is a real pilot when he only flys low altitude ingame, ask him to go higher and hear what he would say then, the problem is not just low alt viewrange its the high alt that looks completely ridicoules in my opinion.

 

I cant imagine that in real life we just have a perfect dusty sphere around us which blocks our view in all directions and that the ground gets completely blocked if you are high enough, i dont talk about space here where you can not see through clouds our clouds in general.

 

It must be my imagination when i think that i can look furhter in real life then in BoX without getting my view completely blocked by dust at 10k for objects and maybe 30-40k for landscape, the videos posted and others i saw are not indicating that im crazy, yeah there is haze but its not comparable to what i can see ingame and its most of the time much further then ingame depends on the weather conditions and other things, BoX has most of the time the same viewrange and nothing dynamic like in real life.

 

I dont think that i have a particular good vision, i dont wear glasses but im sure my vision could be better if i go to the doctor and i also think that real pilots have good vision especially in the military so i really struggle with what Elf said about his impression of the viewrange in BoX, sry for that but i try.

 

And i feel i have to say sorry to TheElf, i was disrespectful eralier in this thread and he responded without any anger so my deepest apology to you sir. ;)

 

Dammit, i mixed something up here, i wasnt disrespectful to TheElf, it was in another thread, just to let you know.

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It dosent matter if he is a real pilot when he only flys low altitude ingame, ask him to go higher and hear what he would say then, the problem is not just low alt viewrange its the high alt that looks completely ridicoules in my opinion.

 

I cant imagine that in real life we just have a perfect dusty sphere around us which blocks our view in all directions and that the ground gets completely blocked if you are high enough, i dont talk about space here where you can not see through clouds our clouds in general.

 

It must be my imagination when i think that i can look furhter in real life then in BoX without getting my view completely blocked by dust at 10k for objects and maybe 30-40k for landscape, the videos posted and others i saw are not indicating that im crazy, yeah there is haze but its not comparable to what i can see ingame and its most of the time much further then ingame depends on the weather conditions and other things, BoX has most of the time the same viewrange and nothing dynamic like in real life.

 

I dont think that i have a particular good vision, i dont wear glasses but im sure my vision could be better if i go to the doctor and i also think that real pilots have good vision especially in the military so i really struggle with what Elf said about his impression of the viewrange in BoX, sry for that but i try.

 

And i feel i have to say sorry to TheElf, i was disrespectful eralier in this thread and he responded without any anger so my deepest apology to you sir. ;)

 

Dammit, i mixed something up here, i wasnt disrespectful to TheElf, it was in another thread, just to let you know.

 

Most of the amusement is because ELF's comments are about the DCS NTTR vid, (posted by Manu*) an area that Mr Elf is quite familiar with IRL, then the response saying ELF does not really understand and is wrong.

 

come on, it is rather funny  ;)

 

the only comments made by ELF about BoS view distance are saying that the atmospherics are, in his experience more right than wrong, but all the info is already in the posts above...

 

I will add that in many thousands of hours of flying, at different altitudes, the days of clear visibility are actually very rare, with BoS giving a fair (of course elements of view distance do need to be improved) example of immersion for 95% of what I remember, I have also debated here several times with people telling me how wrong I am about RL experience spotting aircraft, but that is how it goes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the hazy look of BoX is realistic?

 

I think I'm going to view the opinion of someone who has actually flown at NTTR much more favorably than I would view yours. Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the amusement is because ELF's comments are about the DCS NTTR vid, (posted by Manu*) an area that Mr Elf is quite familiar with IRL, then the response saying ELF does not really understand and is wrong.

 

come on, it is rather funny  ;)

 

the only comments made by ELF about BoS view distance are saying that the atmospherics are, in his experience more right than wrong, but all the info is already in the posts above...

 

I will add that in many thousands of hours of flying, at different altitudes, the days of clear visibility are actually very rare, with BoS giving a fair (of course elements of view distance do need to be improved) example of immersion for 95% of what I remember, I have also debated here several times with people telling me how wrong I am about RL experience spotting aircraft, but that is how it goes

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

There are enough videos out there as proof. For any knowledgable person they are not even necessary. Humidity at 10k is about 1% compared to the ground humidity. Any person with higher education should know that, at least in engineering/science. I thought pilots should know that too? But again...for all other people, there are hundreds of videos out there showcasing the visibility distance at various altitudes and climate zones. No matter if you flew 10 or 10 million hours, you can talk bollocks all day long, when videos prove otherwise, a sensible person should rather inform himself viewing them, then just blindly listen to a pilot.

It's actually quite ironic that you claim this stuff, when there is enough evidence 1 minute away to show that you are wrong. Just shows that also pilots talk nonsense regarding these things..thanks for that Dakpilot. 

 

Or do you have a video showcasing haze at 12km altitude? Limiting your view distance to 40km or less? If yes, then i take gladly back what i said..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are enough videos out there as proof. For any knowledgable person they are not even necessary. Humidity at 10k is about 1% compared to the ground humidity. Any person with higher education should know that, at least in engineering/science. I thought pilots should know that too? But again...for all other people, there are hundreds of videos out there showcasing the visibility distance at various altitudes and climate zones. No matter if you flew 10 or 10 million hours, you can talk bollocks all day long, when videos prove otherwise, a sensible person should rather inform himself viewing them, then just blindly listen to a pilot.

It's actually quite ironic that you claim this stuff, when there is enough evidence 1 minute away to show that you are wrong. Just shows that also pilots talk nonsense regarding these things..thanks for that Dakpilot. 

 

Or do you have a video showcasing haze at 12km altitude? Limiting your view distance to 40km or less? If yes, then i take gladly back what i said..

 

I don't spend a lot of time in BoS flying at 40,000 ft, however most of my flying in BoS gives me good 'immersion' compared to what I experienced IRL, it is as simple and as complicated as that

 

Since you stopped complaining about FW190 A3 FM all you seem to do now is go on about how much better CLoD and DCS are than 'BoX' obviously this sim does not really satisfy your needs, which is fine there are many choices and preferences..but it does get a bit boring

 

There are many issues with BoS/digital nature engine but from a real world business and price/performance point alongside considering what a comparative small studio/team can provide in a certain cost/timeframe it does a fair job

 

just as with FW 190 FM, patience is rewarded, and many improvements have already come, and are continuing to come, with far less patience needed than many other platforms.

 

In the meantime I am sure some can put up with all the "nonsense" I talk, if not they are sure to tell me  :) nothing is perfect and constructive criticism is always good

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep talking Dak. Your posts are those of a grown up man. Kind of rare on this forum ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only flown around 1km - 1.5km IRL in a glider. At that height, the game seems to mimic the atmosphere very well, and that includes view distance/haziness.

 

Above that, I don't have an opinion. I'll have to watch these videos when I get the chance and see what I think about altitudes higher than 1.5km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

come on, it is rather funny ;)

 

Indeed kind of but i agree when he says that just being a real pilot dosent mean you cant be wrong on anything but yeah its hard to argue against a pilot on such topics, i cant really tell, my expirience being in the air for real is very low but it was a really nice view outside the window, nothing like BoS and thats why i have a hard time believing when there are also videos that looks like i can see much further then ingame.

 

What i also have a problem with is the representation of the horizon, i find it not sharp enough and of course you already know that i also dont like the hazebubble, the thing is when more then one pilot agree and saying its best representated in BoS, how can i be sure to have the right idea how it should look, i kind of struggle, what if i am wrong.

 

But still i would really like to see a viewrange increase, maybe not so much as i  wanted before, doubling is maybe to much but we really need more high alt range especially for ground targets and i also think that more renderrange for planes would not hurt performance wise, maybe the devs already try out some things without telling us and will surprise us in the next patches, i can be patient. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kibler Elf?

 

I have no idea WTF a "Kibler" is, but I know a few Keeblers in good standing.

I think you just knowingly lied in public about the nature and origins of certain elf blood lines.

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...