Jump to content
YIPPEE

How the current contact visibility negatively impact tactics in BOX

Recommended Posts

Not at all, and it is also not that simple. The size of a rendered object depends entirely on the angle it represents in the field of view. Now if that angle is large enough to fill one pixel sufficiently, it will be drawn. This means lower pixel resolution at similar field of view will just raise the bar for an object to qualify for being drawn as a pixel.

 

In other words: Decreasing resolution decreases range at with you can see objects. Lower resolution is like bad eyes. The worse your vision is, the closer a given object hast to be for you being able to see it.

 

However: A simulator has requirements to meet. One of these is spotting range. If you draw a pixel at the same range on low resolution than at high resolution, then that pixel is too large, de facto increasing the size of your object. Say, a 10 meter plane draws one pixel on a 1440p screen, it would draw 1/2 pixel at 720p (in the same FoV) and consequently not be drawn. If you force draw it, it gets to be twice the size. This means your 10 m plane is de facto now a 20 m plane.

 

The advantage of low resolution lies now in the distances that are between maximal draw distances of the 720p and the 1440p screen. Objects in this range appear larger on the lower res screen and give that oen an advantage.

 

If you draw planes as sprites with several pixels in size and do not scale them, then you are just increasing the same problem.

 

The main issue is only in the competitive nature of a MP sim. Naturally, we do see objects in the sky with exaggerated size. What we see is entirely made up by the brain, it is not a camera like picture. We stitch together a reality that our senses deem plausible and that reperesents the environment in a useful (not entirely truthful) way. Important objects are enlarged to make them clearly present. That helps you to stay alive.

 

Now, how how we humans see things is entirely different from just rendering a perspective, and should a game (I think it should) try to reproduce that, the following factors come into play. I start with an example.

 

The Japanese  sunstet paintings show our skewd perception in a beautiful way. Look at the size of the sun. Do you think it is entirely implausible?

gg70720433.jpg

Take the same scene with a photo camera and a normal lens. The sun will be a dot in size.*) And you will clearly recognize it as a dot on a printed photograph, as the cognitive effect of magnifying objects is not present there.

 

This requiries a renderer to exaggerate far objects as well should it be the intention to resemble human vision. If it does so, it either scales the objects at distance or it replaces them by sprites. If you do not scale the sprites to remain proportionate to the field of view rather than adhering to their actual pixel size, we see what voided observed as well.

 

In consequence, if we ask from a renderer to mimick human eyesight to give us player the view we would have in a cockpit rather than plain "reality", it not only requires individual objects to be of exaggearted size, but also that they "pop up" instead of gradually appearing when entering detectable range.

 

Why must they pop up, something that is frowned upon reading through threads like these?

 

The answer is that you only have clear vision at the very center of your eyesight. This is a very small area. Next to that sharp spot, you have a much larger area, in wich you are absolutely blind (the visual nerve). In this spot you are "seeing" just what seems plausible to be there, filling essentially a large black spot. All the rest is a area of much reduced clarity. What the eye is good for however is detecting moving objects throughout its field of view. The brain takes as little information from the eye as possible, basically the sharp center drawing a collage of what you think you are seeing, plus it notices change in your field of view, making you focus immediately on such loctations. This change, for example caused by a moving object will statistically occur most likely (about 99%) outside of where you have clear vision.

 

As stated above, reduced resolution of your field of view (lesser vision) will decrese detection range. So if you notice something moving at your peripheral vision and you immediately look at it directly, it will be way inside detection range of your sharp central vision. An object just "popped up" and by directly looking at it, you can keep the bearing for qiet some time even when the said object is moving away from you.

 

This is also why you cannot spot reliably as far as you can track an object. It is impossible by nature. Our eyes are not made for that. Propper scanning just increases detection range, but it wil never reach the range of your clear vision. Although some people here have a hard time understanding that, it is a fact of life.

 

 

 

*) I can say that because in order to take such a picture, you would require at least roughly a 600 mm focus lense for your full frame camera to get that impression. That is not commonly done as distances make things very impractical. Compare this by taking a 50 mm normal lens.

 

 

I will not lose my time discussing it. It is simple and anyone that worked on anything similar know it. The inferior limit of the renderization  angle is the only relevant situation. As soon as the angular size of the object is smaller than  a pixel (and that  happens for fighters BEFORE 10 km when using a wide angle of view in game) The  rendered size will be at most one pixel. The smaller that pixel is in real world, the harder for your eyes to see it.

 

It is a classic  limiting factor in  any and all flight sims. Some cheat by  keeping the plane larger than it should be when they  get closer to that limit, but that  has other side effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the Doom and Quake tournaments, where players would cut down their graphic settings that much that only semi-textured, phong-shaded surfaces remained, making it impossible to hide as there were no more "shadows".

 

The standard player skins during most (and still is ) QW tourney's was full bright texture. Max washout textures were not used to see players in shadows or in no light areas.

 

It is true it became standard pretty quickly to use bright skins all around to better see opponents in quake1, and use washed out textures to declutter what was going on in quake3. Doom 3 had the mechanic, that you could hide in dark corners, and restricted the use of bright skins and graphics settings in most tournaments, but it hadn't a big or long lasting competitive scene (only like 1 or 2 bigger tournaments). 

 

 

thebusdriver, on 27 Nov 2017 - 03:54, said:

I guess here's my problem with the entire realism debate:

 

Everyone agrees that BoS needs more players.

 

Yet many if not most people here seem convinced that the appropriate course of action is to make the game even more difficult for new sticks. 

[...]

as well as making manual engine management *optional*, would attract more players. 

[...]

 

 

There is a more important parallel with the Quake franchise though, which offers a crucial lesson! 

When the popularity of the Quake franchise began to crumble, the scene thought: well, quake is the epitomy of e-sports it has the highest skill cap and the steepest learning curve and therefore produces the most interesting matches on a professional level, because of just how good you could become at the game and, because of all the tools you had available to foster a unique playing style. 

So how is it possible, that the popularity, despite being the 'best' First Person Shooter, crumbled so rapidly, they asked. And they believed to have found their answer: It is just too complicated and noob-unfriendly. So they tried to make everything easier in order to attract more people to the genre.

 

The most recent installment of the franchise: Quake Champion, tried to be in the legacy of Quake, but at the same time cater to the masses, by making everything easier, what ended up happening of course, was that they alienated old players, which were drawn to the very demanding gameplay of earlier quakes, and failed to attract new players, because there just isn't a market for competitive FPS-titles besides Counter-Strike. They ended up making a title which neither satisfied the needs of more experienced players, but still too demanding and weird for newer players. 

 

The same with War Thunder: You cannot have arcade players and Simulator-Players, because those two groups expect completely different things. 

 

I guess here's my problem with the entire realism debate:

 

Everyone agrees that BoS needs more players.

 

Yet many if not most people here seem convinced that the appropriate course of action is to make the game even more difficult for new sticks. 

[...]

as well as making manual engine management *optional*, would attract more players. 

[...]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The smaller that pixel is in real world, the harder for your eyes to see it.

But that pixel will be there before a lower res screen draws any pixel. Once it does, the object will be larger than one pixel at the high res screenand of similar size as in the low res screen.

 

the effect posted here:

gOikMx8.gif

 

has nothing to do with what I understand you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is that you only have clear vision at the very center of your eyesight. This is a very small area. Next to that sharp spot, you have a much larger area, in wich you are absolutely blind (the visual nerve). In this spot you are "seeing" just what seems plausible to be there, filling essentially a large black spot. All the rest is a area of much reduced clarity. What the eye is good for however is detecting moving objects throughout its field of view. The brain takes as little information from the eye as possible, basically the sharp center drawing a collage of what you think you are seeing, plus it notices change in your field of view, making you focus immediately on such loctations. This change, for example caused by a moving object will statistically occur most likely (about 99%) outside of where you have clear vision.

 

As stated above, reduced resolution of your field of view (lesser vision) will decrese detection range. So if you notice something moving at your peripheral vision and you immediately look at it directly, it will be way inside detection range of your sharp central vision. An object just "popped up" and by directly looking at it, you can keep the bearing for qiet some time even when the said object is moving away from you.

 

This is also why you cannot spot reliably as far as you can track an object. It is impossible by nature. Our eyes are not made for that. Propper scanning just increases detection range, but it wil never reach the range of your clear vision. Although some people here have a hard time understanding that, it is a fact of life.

 

That is exactly why I keep insisting that to really optimize VR we should have fixed foveated rendering. It makes no sense to render with the same resolution the whole 110 degrees FOV of an HMD, when our eyes are capable of real visual acuity only in the smaller area of the fovea.

As soon as we perceive something moving outside this area we generally move our whole head (not just our eyes) in the direction of the moving object.

 

 

640px-Field_of_view.svg.png

Edited by Nibbio
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly why I keep insisting that to really optimize VR we should have fixed foveated rendering. It makes no sense to render with the same resolution the whole 110 degrees FOV of an HMD, when our eyes are capable of real visual acuity only in the smaller area of the fovea.

As soon as we perceive something moving outside this area we generally move our whole head (not just our eyes) in the direction of the moving object.

 

 

640px-Field_of_view.svg.png

 

Isnt that in development for the next VR devices? Much higher resolution where your eye is looking and lower outside, overall this would increase sharpness immensely while still keeping performance low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt that in development for the next VR devices? Much higher resolution where your eye is looking and lower outside, overall this would increase sharpness immensely while still keeping performance low.

I hope so. You need precise eye tracking for that. But we have that for the better photocameras to set the focus, why not for VR HMD's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt that in development for the next VR devices? Much higher resolution where your eye is looking and lower outside, overall this would increase sharpness immensely while still keeping performance low.

 

Foveated rendering requires eye tracking, and must be of course implemented in new hardware.

However here I'm talking about fixed foveated rendering, which does not require eye tracking, since it's fixed, and could be implemented in software with the current HMDs.

As a matter of fact it has already be implemented in games (Batman Arkham VR, see here http://support.wbgames.com/link/portal/24022/24028/Article/1487/Batman-Arkham-VR-PC-Graphics-Options).

 

For example, we already have dynamic resolution in BOX, but it applies indiscriminately to the whole FOV (and therefore almost nobody uses it).

Dynamic resolution could instead be applied ONLY to the far-peripheral area of the HMD, allowing for much greater performance at full resolution in the central area, where it matters.

 

Batman-PD-200-fix-fov-1.jpg

Edited by Nibbio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don‘t see the point in fixed foceated rendering for a flightsim. For scanning, you look around a lot with only moving your eyes. Impossible to look backwards with a fixed arrangement.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don‘t see the point in fixed foceated rendering for a flightsim. For scanning, you look around a lot with only moving your eyes. Impossible to look backwards with a fixed arrangement.

 

Read carefully what I propose, fixed foveated rendering would kick in only when performance drops below acceptable levels, which is when ASW generally kicks in, if activated.

This is generally not when checking six, but for example when closely following a smoking bandit, and trying to shoot through a warped gunsight.

 

What would you prefer, a slightly blurred peripheral vision, or a warped and wiggly gunsight? :cool:

 

Good performance in VR comes with compromises, and this would be a real step forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read carefully what I propose, fixed foveated rendering would kick in only when performance drops below acceptable levels, which is when ASW generally kicks in, if activated.

This is generally not when checking six, but for example when closely following a smoking bandit, and trying to shoot through a warped gunsight.

 

What would you prefer, a slightly blurred peripheral vision, or a warped and wiggly gunsight? :cool:

 

Good performance in VR comes with compromises, and this would be a real step forward.

I like the idea very much, as I do not see much point in rendering thing that I cannot see using computing ressources that I don‘t have.

 

My issue with it not beeing perfectly aligned is that you will see that your peripheral vision is blurred when you don‘t keep the fov precisely matched to your eye. I don‘t think it would be accepted by players. It‘s only ok to have bad vision as long as you don‘t see it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is not actually with how difficult it is or isn't to spot something that's visible somewhere out there in the sky.

 

The main issue I have, is the many times when I was looking at empty airspace, and all the sudden, one or more (usually a group) of aircraft materialized there well inside of the supposed minimum 10km range. 

These could be clearly seen popping into existence, where before there was nothing.  Their apparent sizes several pixels across, just as they pierce through the "event horizon" and finally become visible.

 

 

I have been trying to record this to verify the many claims of this same and related phenomena, yet it appears may not be a network issue as much as a graphical one.

 

 All tracks so far recorded feature contacts appearing at ranges between 8 and 9.5km.  I have not been able to capture any appearances closer than 8.2km as of yet.  But there have been many occasions in which I saw very close "pop ins" and sadly was not recording to find out their distances later.  

 

I have indeed, however, confirmed beyond a doubt that there is in fact a clear variation to contact appearance distances.  10km is a best-case "maximum" scenario.  Yet the majority of contacts appear at ranges closer to 9km.

 

 

Nevertheless I do still believe many times contacts still appear at ranges of 7km and less.  Others have claimed this as well.

 

But while I have not managed yet to capture any such extreme events on track,  it would still not do to dismiss these claims upon what track recordings show. 

If the problem is indeed graphical, then a contact which had remained invisible at the time of recording might just as easily appear normally in a track.  This is my main suspicion at present.

 

 

Tests must surely be performed to determine whether or not contacts can indeed remain invisible within the prescribed 10km range.  There are too many accounts of this happening for us to safely dismiss that possibility. We can't all simply suck at spotting.  I do not recall contacts being as elusive in CloD either, in well over a thousand hours of MP experience there.

Do you mean something like this?

2_19km_Recorded_Track.png

Screenshots are showing the exact same situation when viewing a recorded track.

Is the rendering the same when viewing tracks as it is when flying? If it is, the game is unplayable.

 

Edit: the plane is not in the cloud :)

Edited by LLv34_Temuri
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this thread and it has some very good discussion. I'd like to post my study from 2016 on simulator aircraft visibility here:

 

http://coshacks.blogspot.fi/2016/03/why-icons-are-needed-in-combat-flight.html

 

I recently bought BoS and tried playing it in VR, but it's completely unrealistic without icons.

Yeah, too many people seem obsessed with the idea that what you can see on a monitor is representative of what you can see in real life.

 

I get that icons are disruptive.  I really do.  Especially the terrible way they're implemented in BoX.

 

What's equally disruptive to me is to be diving into a fight and watching an aircraft 1km away from me, that's moving at 400kph+ disappear because he happened to cross over from steppe to forest.  That's bonkers.  We're talking about aircraft that are ~30ft long and ~30ft wide, with the larger single-engine ones having wingspans approaching or exceeding 40', and being over 30' long.

 

I'd urge the developers to take a look at how icons are done in World War II Online - https://youtu.be/d0h7700zX2E?t=1996 Yes, the graphics are old and bad, ignore that.  Look at how the icons work.  They fade in as you look at an aircraft.  As you approach it, the icon starts to give you more detail - going red or blue - and as you get even closer, it gives more info - identifying the airframe, for example (ie, "spit9").

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is problem with objects (vehicles column, artillery) visibility. Many times on RandomExpert or TAW i was flying circles above targets at 4-5 K alt and objects were not visible without zoom. I made screen shots and videos - could post later if any interest.

The best one is huge massive cargo ship that suddenly pops into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my resolution is 4096x2160 and I don't see anything until 2.0 out, any ideas to fix this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my resolution is 4096x2160 and I don't see anything until 2.0 out, any ideas to fix this?

 

Get rid of any graphics filtering settings in your nvidia game profile, also turn of HDR and SSAO, reduce gamma and or screen brightness. Check that 'sharpen' filter ingame is on. Planes going straight at you are hard to catch, almost always.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellas, is there consensus on what settings make for easier aircraft spotting?  Calibrating and turning down the brightness on my monitor helped a little, but I find I still lose aircraft against the trees, even at really close range and sometimes even if I'm supposed to be in formation with them.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellas, is there consensus on what settings make for easier aircraft spotting? 

Try these ones:

 

Ingame:

- HDR off

- SSAO off

- sharpen filter on

- landscape filter blurred

- 4x AA

- gamma 0.8-0.9

 

Nvidia profile:

- gamma correction off

- negative lod bias clamp

- all filtering options (anisotropy, triliar, etc) off

 

think that was it..

Of course make sure your monitor is color calibrated.

 
Edited by LLv34_Temuri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my resolution is 4096x2160 and I don't see anything until 2.0 out, any ideas to fix this?

Any chance switching to your native resolution might help? Got older 55" LG B6V myself and spotting is surely further than 2km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main things are to get the 10km range extended. Add some more vfx like reflections.... and try implement a way that the one pixel zone thing can be made better by weighing up the advantages and disadvantages.

 

One thing that I have not seen mentioned in this thread is that they are making the metal look more realistic so maybe that might add a reflective effect.

 

Also for the love of God add some options for icons such as max range, colour transition range, transparency, arrows or not, colour(Red and blue or all grey),text or not and have an option for them not to be visible through the cockpit. This is needed for the people that want a harder experience but do not want to play full real for whatever reason. I have been asking for this since day one but I always get some snotty hardcore player saying just go full real....

 

I really think they should not go ahead with BoBP and all the other new ventures (don't get me wrong i want them) until they have sorted out a load of these small but important features that would truly make this a polished game. There are so many little things that are starting to build up in a negative way such as bad gui, net code, limmited QMB, external FMB, gunners sounds disapearing every other round, scoring system, this thread and much more..... that it is detracting from the experience imo.

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There are so many little things that are starting to build up in a negative way such as bad gui, net code, limmited QMB, external FMB, gunners sounds disapearing every other round, scoring system, this thread and much more..... that it is detracting from the experience imo.

 

Fixing just those will not get another paying client. Improvements can only be made by delivering new content. Else, they had to put us on an "Adobe like" subscription model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think they should not go ahead with BoBP and all the other new ventures (don't get me wrong i want them) until they have sorted out a load of these small but important features that would truly make this a polished game. There are so many little things that are starting to build up in a negative way such as bad gui, net code, limmited QMB, external FMB, gunners sounds disapearing every other round, scoring system, this thread and much more..... that it is detracting from the experience imo.

Fixing just those will not get another paying client. Improvements can only be made by delivering new content. Else, they had to put us on an "Adobe like" subscription model.

If I recall correctly, BoBo isn't going to see a final release for something like 18 months at an outside estimate.

That gives a load of time to fix some of the outstanding issues identified above.

 

Over the last six months or so, we've seen a load of new features added that have pushed the sim forward (extended view range, rain effects, new cloud, updated maps, co-op mode, improved flight models etc) that have been developed alongside the new contract for BoK and have been phased in or will be released along with the Kuban launch.

 

This way, when we get BoK in a few weeks the sim will be full of new features which should turn heads and attract new players as well as positive reviews, and finally shake off the less-than-entirely-auspicious reputation that the state of BoS at launch garnered.

 

Now, with the lead-in time for BoBo, maybe this same dev time and resource could be used to go back and shore up the cracks that have been bypassed by the relentless forward motion of development. Some of the things mentioned above; multiplayer stability and reliability, changes to both mission builders, a bit more flair in terms of visual presentation, an overhaul of engine time limit modelling, better AI... things that would improve on what we already have rather than racing ahead and adding more new elements.

And up to 18 months in the upcoming dev cycle should be loads of time to reinforce all these elements and make the sim stronger moving into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixing just those will not get another paying client. Improvements can only be made by delivering new content. Else, they had to put us on an "Adobe like" subscription model.

 

But they cannot sit on it and never fix it. It is a two way road. They gained a lot of momentum with the last patch (and I mean a lot) and it was mainly because of fixes that weren't being paid. I only bought Kuban because of that. In fact I bought it in the same day i tested the new patch. Otherwise I would simply shelf BOX (I was simply not standing the back then stick responses, lack of visibility, lack of reflection and so-so cockpits without the new shadows). So in fact these (amazing) fixes are being well rewarded with money and I think they came in the nick of time to pave some road for the new modules that were announced. I bought BOBP as well and I'm buying other collectibles by ear, because I have been fooled before.

 

So I think they could extend the visibility (DCS is currently at 20-22km), work on reflection -- I mentioned in another post that Kuban seems to have a similar reflection of ROF, but all other maps are mostly nonexistent. I have to check on that. Work on the netcode and these things.

 

This is a common mistake made by companies or ventures -- that fixes are just ballast, a burden. The ones that understand the concept of 'quality brings money' are the ones that break through. I reckon it is not an easy balance (to allocate money proportionally to fixes and new paid features) and it requires some remarkable people to pull it through, but it happens. 

 

They seem to have been listening recently. Let's see what comes out of it. 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They listen most of the time, but they lack manpower. Look what we got in the past year, you described it yourself. I hope they will be able to acquire additional programmers and do more 'housekeeping' and improving existing stuff too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They listen most of the time, but they lack manpower. Look what we got in the past year, you described it yourself. I hope they will be able to acquire additional programmers and do more 'housekeeping' and improving existing stuff too.

 

I'm not that into BOX, but I read somewhere (IIRC a blog that is regarded here) that there was a change in the company and they are turning it around big time, so perhaps it is not only about manpower, but managing it properly. So far it is looking good and they are pulling ahead of the competition with it, but there are still some very important fixes to make, then I just hope that they are working on it the way they can and that these fixes will come eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they cannot sit on it and never fix it. It is a two way road. They gained a lot of momentum with the last patch (and I mean a lot) and it was mainly because of fixes that weren't being paid. I only bought Kuban because of that. In fact I bought it in the same day i tested the new patch. Otherwise I would simply shelf BOX (I was simply not standing the back then stick responses, lack of visibility, lack of reflection and so-so cockpits without the new shadows). So in fact these (amazing) fixes are being well rewarded with money and I think they came in the nick of time to pave some road for the new modules that were announced. I bought BOBP as well and I'm buying other collectibles by ear, because I have been fooled before.

 

So I think they could extend the visibility (DCS is currently at 20-22km), work on reflection -- I mentioned in another post that Kuban seems to have a similar reflection of ROF, but all other maps are mostly nonexistent. I have to check on that. Work on the netcode and these things.

 

This is a common mistake made by companies or ventures -- that fixes are just ballast, a burden. The ones that understand the concept of 'quality brings money' are the ones that break through. I reckon it is not an easy balance (to allocate money proportionally to fixes and new paid features) and it requires some remarkable people to pull it through, but it happens. 

 

Agree completely. I'm super excited about BoBP, and I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on it ... but even more important to me than that release is that they fix the existing stuff a bit. Improve the visibility (gives us more options too!), make improvements to the AI, improve performance, and so on. 

 

I've been really pleased to see recently that quite a lot of these concerns do seem to be being addressed, and the dev team are not just churning out more content. Quality does indeed bring money, and improvements to the engine and the platform improve the quality of all the content; that which has been released and that to be released. It's that quality that really sells the product ... not an extra pack of planes and a new map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When I pilot performs a bounce, it is nearly suicidal to stick around for more than 1-2 passes on a single bandit. (even worse if there is more than one initial contact)

 

Apart from the visibility issues, in a real life battle, with multiple a/c around, I strongly doubt whether any fighter would be able to single out one enemy aircraft - especially when it's down low - to make more than one pass. When in a fighter, one pass would be perfect, high speed move in, shoot, do damage, and up - up and away. Ideally, there'd be a wingman with you, and when lucky, he may also get a shot in. After pulling out, check your surroundings. When it's safe, try and find a target, could be the same one, but chances for that are low. The a/c being attacked would probably not try and keep flying at the same level and direction, it would try and do some evasive action after the initial attack... 

 

I really doubt whether back in them days, a fighter pilot would be focussed on one single enemy aircraft, as in go in for the kill, and keep going for it. "Finish him off".

 

For sure, I know how it works in game, I tend to go for the (satisfying) kill too - not specifically for BoX as my cockpit time is limited there. This stuff gets me 'killed' often :)

 

Definition in air combat: To be focussed on one single target is fatal.

 

The better tactics is to swoop in, do some damage, get out of danger, move to safety, and only when it's safe enough, go in again...  

(Popular quote from the DangerDogz when asked/told about this is: "Yeah, but where's the fun in that?')

 

We áre recruiting! (http://dangerdogz.com)

Edited by DD-FT-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the visibility issues, in a real life battle, with multiple a/c around, I strongly doubt whether any fighter would be able to single out one enemy aircraft - especially when it's down low - to make more than one pass. When in a fighter, one pass would be perfect, high speed move in, shoot, do damage, and up - up and away. Ideally, there'd be a wingman with you, and when lucky, he may also get a shot in. After pulling out, check your surroundings. When it's safe, try and find a target, could be the same one, but chances for that are low. The a/c being attacked would probably not try and keep flying at the same level and direction, it would try and do some evasive action after the initial attack... 

 

I really doubt whether back in them days, a fighter pilot would be focussed on one single enemy aircraft, as in go in for the kill, and keep going for it. "Finish him off".

 

For sure, I know how it works in game, I tend to go for the (satisfying) kill too - not specifically for BoX as my cockpit time is limited there. This stuff gets me 'killed' often :)

 

Definition in air combat: To be focussed on one single target is fatal.

 

The better tactics is to swoop in, do some damage, get out of danger, move to safety, and only when it's safe enough, go in again...  

(Popular quote from the DangerDogz when asked/told about this is: "Yeah, but where's the fun in that?')

 

We áre recruiting! (http://dangerdogz.com)

 

I don't know what the argument is, but it does not mean that visibility is secondary. And there are accounts of intricate / chase dogfights told by real pilots on YouTube (I don't have WWII books). Then if they did chase some planes to kill or to be killed, and I assume it was not that uncommon, we have to have a proper rendering to spot them. And you could be bouncing a plane in BOX and he momentaqrely crosses a forrest patch, then it becomes "where is Wally?". On this regard BOX is much superior to DCS, but I'm back flying ROF and I'm back to the high altitude sweeps and often seeing enemies down below reflecting the sun on their wings -- which to me was an impossibility in BOX. Like I said, I saw that sort of reflection on Kuban in single player. Stalingrad does not have it. But I have to spare some time and really test all the maps and see how the rendering of sun reflection are in each of them.

 

Perhaps Kuban is using a new code / rendering. 

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the argument is, but it does not mean that visibility is secondary. And there are accounts of intricate / chase dogfights told by real pilots on YouTube (I don't have WWII books). Then if they did chase some planes to kill or to be killed, and I assume it was not that uncommon, we have to have a proper rendering to spot them. And you could be bouncing a plane in BOX and he momentaqrely crosses a forrest patch, then it becomes "where is Wally?". On this regard BOX is much superior to DCS, but I'm back flying ROF and I'm back to the high altitude sweeps and often seeing enemies down below reflecting the sun on their wings -- which to me was an impossibility in BOX. Like I said, I saw that sort of reflection on Kuban in single player. Stalingrad does not have it. But I have to spare some time and really test all the maps and see how the rendering of sun reflection are in each of them.

 

Perhaps Kuban is using a new code / rendering. 

 

Not sure I was trying to argue :), I just wanted to add that in the situation pictured, where an attacker is bouncing a target (the way I interpret it, it would be like a 109/190 attacking an IL2 - out of a bunch of them - possibly being escorted - multiple a/c around ), I do not see this being a dogfight: not a kill or be killed situation - the attacker is bouncing - he's got the initiative and the energy. I really doubt that in such a situation the attacker would want to go in for multiple sweeps on one singled out target, let alone be able to.

 

(I have not been pil2oting BoX sufficiently to comment on differences in spotting anything down low on the different maps. As for visuals I have experienced: I do remember seeing flak gun's tracers shooting at me, hitting me, and me unable to see and kill them as they were cleverly hidden between buildings and trees...)

Edited by DD-FT-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUst please do not catter to the marketing departments.. do not call taht HDR. HDR was a walking STICK to ameliorate the LACK of 10 bit depth.

Not sure what you mean. Check the link for a definition of HDR video, it’s not marketing speak or the same thing as the HDR on the game menu.

Consoles such as the PS4 and Xbox One S and X already use this. I think the 9 and 10 Series Nvidia GPUs will provide HDR when connected to a compatible display. The game needs to support HDR10 or DolbyVision as well.

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing here though is that we have a situation where higher realism actually yields more accessible game play. There is a strange neurosis in the simulator community where "harder and more complex" = "more realistic." 

 

If we had more realistic vision mechanics in game, people would be able to see contacts farther, faster, and more clearly against clutter. This would make the game "easier" in that regard and therefore more accessible. The current system makes spotting much harder than in real life, resulting in a unnecessary level of difficulty. 

The current combination of unrealistic contrast, 10km limit, and incorrect size scaling at range and aspect results in a situation where they player cannot build a reasonable level of SA around which to plan their tactics. This is why the main tactical issue in game right now is that even diligent pilots who do their best to keep and maintain SA and disengage from unfavorable situations cannot do so right now. If you stick around for more than one pass on a bandit you are playing with fire even if you are working with a team and constantly trying to update you SA picture. 

 

If this got changed it would instantly make the game more accessible regardless of peoples flying style. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they cannot sit on it and never fix it. It is a two way road. They gained a lot of momentum with the last patch (and I mean a lot) and it was mainly because of fixes that weren't being paid. I only bought Kuban because of that. In fact I bought it in the same day i tested the new patch. Otherwise I would simply shelf BOX (I was simply not standing the back then stick responses, lack of visibility, lack of reflection and so-so cockpits without the new shadows). So in fact these (amazing) fixes are being well rewarded with money and I think they came in the nick of time to pave some road for the new modules that were announced. I bought BOBP as well and I'm buying other collectibles by ear, because I have been fooled before.

 

So I think they could extend the visibility (DCS is currently at 20-22km), work on reflection -- I mentioned in another post that Kuban seems to have a similar reflection of ROF, but all other maps are mostly nonexistent. I have to check on that. Work on the netcode and these things.

 

This is a common mistake made by companies or ventures -- that fixes are just ballast, a burden. The ones that understand the concept of 'quality brings money' are the ones that break through. I reckon it is not an easy balance (to allocate money proportionally to fixes and new paid features) and it requires some remarkable people to pull it through, but it happens.

 

They seem to have been listening recently. Let's see what comes out of it.

 

I was not talking about a reason why they would never fix someting. It was the contrary, the nessecity to provide new content in order to be able to pay the wages needed for „housekeeping“. I find it amazng how dilligent the devs are overall.

 

How easy things are to fix, one had to know how deeply buried the respecive piece of code is. I don‘t know, so I can‘t comment.

 

Regarding a 20 km player bubble, I would expect the devs having provided such if it wasn‘t at a bad trade off. Keep in mind, on a single threaded program, ANY added functionality comes at an expense of FPS. It is the only buffer you have for spare CPU overhead. Right now, the game can ensure the bare minimum for VR. You take away more computing ressources, you either cannot substain the FPS or keep up the „real world clock“ to at least real time.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So

 

1. Devs will continue to develop

 

2. Distance of contact is a current limitation of hardware and software

 

3. As hardware and software allows the range may or may not be extended

 

4. Nothing will mimic real life where the vast majority of downed pilots didn’t see what got them

 

5. People will still get bounced despite the belief that they should be able to see everything

 

Job done

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So

 

1. Devs will continue to develop

 

2. Distance of contact is a current limitation of hardware and software

 

3. As hardware and software allows the range may or may not be extended

 

4. Nothing will mimic real life where the vast majority of downed pilots didn’t see what got them

 

5. People will still get bounced despite the belief that they should be able to see everything

 

Job done

 

von Tom

 

Well.....yeah basically, thats about it :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...