Jump to content
[TLC]YIPPEE

How the current contact visibility negatively impact tactics in BOX

Recommended Posts

nope, it would only distract players from playing. You forget this a game after all. There are no consequences to your personal well being, hence the risk taking element is increased ten or 100 fold. What's the point of playing a game if you have to behave yourself like in real life. Real life is boring and full of risks. Here if lucky I'm able to shoot someone down regardless what happens to me.

 

Even in the current form this game requires a steep learning curve if you want to score some kills.

 

Unless you're talking about TAW specifically. It's almost like you want to have a separate game just for TAW purposes. :)

 


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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Not about hardware limitation. DCS at the moment has a 22km visibility range and my i7 does not even break a sweat, the same with BOX. And in both I could basically play two games at the same time. Reports of GPU performance in DCS are due to optimization, since there are people with GTX 770s playing fine and others with GTX 1080s with problems. 

 

I'm not sure what's the compromise BOX have, but it all indicates they could push the range if they work on it. And the GPU market is going in leaps and bounds.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the part you say "despite the belief that they should be able to see everything", it is misinformation or lack of knowledge from you part and it is understandable. You should read a thread on visibility in another forum and you are going to see professional and military pilots and controllers talking about visibility, and on this regard DCS is ahead on the game. Regarding sun reflection and volume, close spotting over forest and dark patches is still missing in both games, but I think Kuban already has sun reflection on par with ROF.

 

One thing is to say that improvements will come with time; another is to say that people who ask for reasonable improvements are wrong. They are two opposite sentences and the latter could not be further from the truth.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about hardware limitation. DCS at the moment has a 22km visibility range and my i7 does not even break a sweat, the same with BOX. And in both I could basically play two games at the same time. Reports of GPU performance in DCS are due to optimization, since there are people with GTX 770s playing fine and others with GTX 1080s with problems.

 

I'm not sure what's the compromise BOX have, but it all indicates they could push the range if they work on it. And the GPU market is going in leaps and bounds.

A big difference between IL-2 and DCS is that IL-2 uses the advanced flight model for all aircraft, player and AI. DCS uses it just for the player. I’m sure there’s a host of other differences too. As far as I know DCS has a very large range for generating radar returns. Farther than 22km. But it’s a different engine with different strengths. No point in comparing sims like that.

And of course it’s a hardware limitation. What other reason would there be for limiting the range.

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read a thread on visibility in another forum and you are going to see professional and military pilots and controllers talking about visibility, and on this regard DCS is ahead on the game.

People in DCS complain extensively about visibility. It’s a constant topic across all these sims because icons and aids such as “smart scaling” have convinced players over the years that seeing other aircraft is supposed to be easy. Despite all accounts to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About spotting target on ground , I think all simulators get it wrong. It is something wrong about the size and visability of everything. The rendering of them might be a problem for the developers. I have these things in mind when I am traveling and try to see how far away a car can be seen. It is quite far away when I can start to "aim" at it and the size of the object is not getting noticeable bigger very quick. They all got it wrong, and I guess they know it, and I think they would have done something about it if it was easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with spotting in computergames is that it is highly dependent on graphics settings and HW. With my current setup I can see planes above me and below me rather well, sometimes even see them pop out of visibility range when fully zoomed out.

What I read about air combat tactics suggests that losing sight of your enemy was something that happend rather often and from my personal flight experience I can say that in many conditions spotting a plane is quite hard, even when they are full white and its summer. Often when I was at the airfield this year there were scenes when multiple persons on the ground tried to find a glider somewhere in the sky. They were usually 2-5 km out and it wasn't as easy as people tend to think, not at a glance. And the wingspans of these gliders exceed the wingspans of most WWII fighters by factor 1.5.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about hardware limitation. DCS at the moment has a 22km visibility range and my i7 does not even break a sweat, the same with BOX. And in both I could basically play two games at the same time. Reports of GPU performance in DCS are due to optimization, since there are people with GTX 770s playing fine and others with GTX 1080s with problems. 

 

I'm not sure what's the compromise BOX have, but it all indicates they could push the range if they work on it. And the GPU market is going in leaps and bounds.

 

1, Il2 isn't DCS it's not the same engine

 

2, visibility in DCS is absolute garbage and arguably worse than Il2 even with its distance limitations.

Edited by Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, Il2 isn't DCS it's not the same engine

 

2, visibility in DCS is absolute garbage and arguably worse than Il2 even with its distance limitations.

 

The OP is talking about visibility range, and indeed goes to 22km aproximately on DCS. In my post I also talk about "visibility range". You got a bit confused there. 

 

And you are talking about hardware limitations, and I'm giving you an example os simulator that has twice the visibility range with the same hardware the current marked has. You also got a bit confused there. We are not talking about the same thing.

 

A big difference between IL-2 and DCS is that IL-2 uses the advanced flight model for all aircraft, player and AI. DCS uses it just for the player. I’m sure there’s a host of other differences too. As far as I know DCS has a very large range for generating radar returns. Farther than 22km. But it’s a different engine with different strengths. No point in comparing sims like that.

And of course it’s a hardware limitation. What other reason would there be for limiting the range.

 

Exactly what I said before: I don't know the compromises they did with BOX, but we have a simulator in the market with twice the range, so it can be done. Therefore it is not a hardware limitation. It might be an engine or compromise limitations in BOX, but not related to hardware *in general. And I suppose halfway in between 10 and 22km would be better than the 10km we have now.

 

And no, the visibility range is too short. It does not mean we have to see everything, but if real life pilots are seeing a Cesna approach the landing at 15nm (28km), is because people can see it. And then there is sun reflection, volume compensation so that we don't lose a target that we are chasing when it crosses a forest patch and so son. And just because one person has bad sight does not mean the whole gaming community has to play by the same standards. Set a common standard and let people adapt according to experience and combat awareness. Otherwise you are talking about simulating the sight of a novice, and it ends up being an attempt to dumb down the game. And who wants to see planes popping out on the screen or cross half combat front and miss the action in the air just because "they were out of our rendering bubble"?

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DCS had a 10 km player bubble, then the game would really be in a problematic state. Jets fly much faster than prop planes and often enough at altitudes where you indeed can spot planes even beyond 25 km. Some of these planes are large, and they produce contrails that make them even more visible. No wonder ED had to dumb them down do get headroom for the other processes of the game.

 

The Russian skirmish we have takes place mainly below 3000 meters and in an athmosphere that often enough sets a limit itself down low. So far we have nicer clouds in IL-2 but no real weather to speak of. If we had that, 10 km would become more acceptable if at least some important objects could be rendered at farther range. Having „haze“ is not the same as having atmosphere. Down low, I guess we probably see farther in IL-2 than you would in real life. Then again, the steppe should be less humid. But on other maps...

 

I would directly compare DCS and IL-2 only if DCS had a comparable damage model and same plane physics for player and AI.

 

But again, I can only say that according to my experience, in real life most people that can see things over far, far distances are nowhere nearly as good when you have them in an aircraft. They will see things over far distances still, but if they can *reliably* see an aircraft on collision course farther than 1 km, then they are very good.

 

But of course having a larger bubble would be good. Maybe once the devs go Vulcan/DX12 and multithread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A big difference between IL-2 and DCS is that IL-2 uses the advanced flight model for all aircraft, player and AI

That's also true of AIs that are 10km away and beyond, and that argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

 

 

And of course it’s a hardware limitation. What other reason would there be for limiting the range.

Software could be the reason, obviously.

Edited by coconut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case people are interested, here's some resolution comparisons.

- Real life: the human eye can resolve detail with a resolution of 0.6 arc minutes, there's plenty of sources for that number. This corresponds to 100 pixels per degree.

- 2K Monitor: a 2K monitor is 2560 pixels horizontal, usually about 75 degrees FOV, so it's 34 pixels per degree.

- VR: current generation VR headsets are (at best) 1200 pixels covering 110 degrees FOV, so it's 11 pixels per degree.

 

To get an idea of what that looks like, in terms of being able to resolve fine details, here's an example:

 

H09BCna.png

 

Note that I'm being quite generous to the 2K monitor and VR here as I'm running them (effectively) at 3x and 9x super sampling respectively.

 

In short, lack of resolution is a real issue due to the technology. Also, in case someone without VR would like to experience what's that's like, playing the game in 800x600 gives very similar pixels per degree.

Edited by Tomsk
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What universe are people spotting a cessna at 28km in the "landing pattern"

 

 

You are not seeing a cessna or even a larger aircraft at Krugersdorp from Lanseria in johannesburg

 

Or From Kinshasa Ndjili  to  Brazzaville even on the clearest day

 

Some real world examples that anyone can do

 

go on google earth find your local airport find and locate one 28k's away try it for yourself on the clearest best vis day, or even an airfield 28k's from your house

 

 

It is hard enough spotting aircraft in your own pattern at 10k

 

Or simply Go on google earth and look down from an alt of 15 miles now think of a cessna sized dot on the ground.

 

 

There are many scientific studies regarding aircraft visibility which go into great detail

 

however this less sophisticated real world study is revealing

 

 

"Howell carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. "

 

 (Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's 10 km visibility range would be extended in the future , I can bet for that. It's not acceptable in competitive environment and fool players and hinder tactics. Same goes for ground objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What universe are people spotting a cessna at 28km in the "landing pattern"

 

 

You are not seeing a cessna or even a larger aircraft at Krugersdorp from Lanseria in johannesburg

 

Or From Kinshasa Ndjili  to  Brazzaville even on the clearest day

 

Some real world examples that anyone can do

 

go on google earth find your local airport find and locate one 28k's away try it for yourself on the clearest best vis day, or even an airfield 28k's from your house

 

 

It is hard enough spotting aircraft in your own pattern at 10k

 

Or simply Go on google earth and look down from an alt of 15 miles now think of a cessna sized dot on the ground.

 

 

There are many scientific studies regarding aircraft visibility which go into great detail

 

however this less sophisticated real world study is revealing

 

 

"Howell carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. "

 

 (Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Not that this is normal or representative of what is typical, but Chris Fahey once told me that when he flew F-16's he spotted a F-15 at 25nm. Verified on Radar. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in DCS complain extensively about visibility. It’s a constant topic across all these sims because icons and aids such as “smart scaling” have convinced players over the years that seeing other aircraft is supposed to be easy. Despite all accounts to the contrary.

People in DCS complain about vision because vision in DCS is utterly and preposterously unlike real life. That game is a mockery of what vision should be. 

 

"Smart Scaling," and other features to improve vision are there because it is a fact that your computer screen in not as good as your eyes. That feature and others are based on mountains of data that allowed those features to be made. 

 

 

People who complain about this crap complain because it has a serous unrealistic effect on tactics in these games. It also makes the game overly tedious and boring, on top of being unrealistic. People who DO NOT complain about this stuff are either ignorant of the facts or the stereotypical "religion of XXX flight sim". They will defend it at all costs because any indication that important aspects of theyre beloved pet simulator not being correct is damaging to their immersion and self image as a virtual red baron. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that this is normal or representative of what is typical, but Chris Fahey once told me that when he flew F-16's he spotted a F-15 at 25nm. Verified on Radar. 

 

I'm sure he did, probably about +30,000ft on a crisp nevada day, and an F-15 is about 3 times the size of a Yak

 

But there would be many times he did not, trouble with screen/game tech is that it would be more than likely that if it was made so you were able to spot at 25m (as an example) this would be an always repeatable situation

 

Taking the study of average DC-3 detection range of between 5.5-8.7km there has to be a realistic balance

 

There is obviously room for improvement, but using outier evidence such as this or cessna's at 28k does nothing to help the argument or general perception, try looking at an aircraft (or even a similar sized landmark) at an actual verified 28k you will understand

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But there would be many times he did not, trouble with screen/game tech is that it would be more than likely that if it was made so you were able to spot at 25m (as an example) this would be an always repeatable situation

 

Nahh, not really. We already have a situation where people complain about contact pop-up at 10km, and at the same time other (or maybe even the same) complain about visibility issues at short ranges. Just because you increase the pop-up distance doesn't make it so that everything becomes easy to spot at that distance. It's actually two distinct problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nahh, not really. We already have a situation where people complain about contact pop-up at 10km, and at the same time other (or maybe even the same) complain about visibility issues at short ranges. Just because you increase the pop-up distance doesn't make it so that everything becomes easy to spot at that distance. It's actually two distinct problems.

 

While this is true, those experiencing pop up at 10k are experiencing things as intended and will repeatedly get pop up at that distance ( or 28 km) as designed

 

Others are experiencing things in a sub optimal situation (be it screen or settings) and this is indeed a distinct different problem for whatever reason

 

anyway  :) my only real input here is that real 28 km spotting range (in my personal experience) is not something that should be considered to be average or normal 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is true, those experiencing pop up at 10k are experiencing things as intended and will repeatedly get pop up at that distance ( or 28 km) as designed

 

Others are experiencing things in a sub optimal situation (be it screen or settings) and this is indeed a distinct different problem for whatever reason

 

anyway  :) my only real input here is that real 28 km spotting range (in my personal experience) is not something that should be considered to be average or normal 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

I also do not think 28km should be the average distance of single contact spotting etc. 

 

 

However the issue with the shorter 10km max distance is that at that 10km distance the contact appears as though a contact twice that distance would appear, since it doesnt render at all above that. So instead of having some chance of seeing something over 10km, you got nada, and the 10km contact is harder to see than it should be. 

 

Although my original post wasnt so much about max view range as much as my issues with contact vision well within combat useful ranges. Anywhere from 3nm to 800m. Contacts in this range are too hard to spot. Original post etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And you are talking about hardware limitations, and I'm giving you an example os simulator that has twice the visibility range with the same hardware the current marked has. You also got a bit confused there. We are not talking about the same thing.

 

The software is different and puts heavier strain on the same hardware? How is it interesting what DCS does when it's not comparable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DCS had a 10 km player bubble, then the game would really be in a problematic state. Jets fly much faster than prop planes and often enough at altitudes where you indeed can spot planes even beyond 25 km. 

 

Well, the 262 is coming, and then we are going to have an even bigger problem than we have now. And to be honest, after this stint in BOX I'm starting to miss a better visibility range in ROF as well. In some missions with a Sun low in the sky and no clouds you can see aircraft gathering at the other side of the mud and you see them popping in or out, and by the terrain you understand that they are doing that too soon. The other day I went for a free flight in DCS (the current visibility makes it unplayable) and the visibility range is liberating. Like putting aside a tight shoe and getting a pair of nice fitting like a glove sneakers. In ROF you can get by, although it is unrealistic. But not for WWII. It is a heavy compromise. And like I said, the 262 is coming. Perhaps this is an indication that they are extending the visibility range. We can only hope.

 

Today's 10 km visibility range would be extended in the future , I can bet for that. It's not acceptable in competitive environment and fool players and hinder tactics. Same goes for ground objects.

 

I agree 100%. I really do hope they are working on it.

 

I also do not think 28km should be the average distance of single contact spotting etc. 

 

This is out of context. I never said 28km should be the average contact range. I said people can see to that distance, so it is not unrealistic to extend the visibility range beyond 10km, which some people are augmenting that "should be difficult" in a generic way. 

 

You also have to understand that it does not only involve aircraft or ground objects, but flak as well. In ROF flak is as present in game play as the aircraft themselves. Back then they communicated with the pilots in the air with flak. People spotted aircraft by flak, and although in WWII they had radios, people still spotted aircraft by flak.

 

We are getting Operation Bodenplatte, right? The Thunderbolts that took off from Y29 (50°56′51″N 005°35′26″E ), captained by Lowell Smith, spotted flak to the north over an airfield designated Y32 (51°08′08″N 005°47′00″E). It was one of the German attack waves. That's a minimum of 20km right there.

 

If you take this approach you start to understand the real limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for BoBP, the Me-262 was used mostly as low flying recce plane. Near the Channel and below 3000 meters, you seldom have 10 km sight. Especially in winter. So it is not that unrealistic. Just check weather reports of those airports now, and see what the average weather conditions actually are. In fact back then, weather was so bad that Allied recon planes couldn‘t operate properly making the entire German offensive in the Ardennes possible. So in context of the mud skirmish we will be getting, the game limits are not that bad. We will definitely be flying in way too good weather in the game on average.

 

Once B-17 and the 8th AF become an option for the IL-2 series, the required changes to the sim engine should enable at least a 20 km bubble. Not seeing a bomber stream over 30 km at 6000 meters would indeed be bad. But that is far our of what the game engine can do presently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for BoBP, the Me-262 was used mostly as low flying recce plane. Near the Channel and below 3000 meters, you seldom have 10 km sight. Especially in winter. So it is not that unrealistic. Just check weather reports of those airports now, and see what the average weather conditions actually are. In fact back then, weather was so bad that Allied recon planes couldn‘t operate properly making the entire German offensive in the Ardennes possible. So in context of the mud skirmish we will be getting, the game limits are not that bad. We will definitely be flying in way too good weather in the game on average.

 

Once B-17 and the 8th AF become an option for the IL-2 series, the required changes to the sim engine should enable at least a 20 km bubble. Not seeing a bomber stream over 30 km at 6000 meters would indeed be bad. But that is far our of what the game engine can do presently.

 

You are missing the point and being biased. "We are going to have the 262". We are going to have a problem regardless if BOBP was overcastted or not. People are going to make different missions and you can't force people to be restrained to a one day window of operation. 

 

And flak and aircraft spotting is already a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We‘re not going to have the 262?

 

What/where is my bias? That weather is more than cloud layers?

 

I just said that that the scenario we are getting is featuring conditions more in line to what we are having. The entire IL-2 world always grew around a mudfest, and that is the scenario with Bodenplatte. There things are mostly ok enough to have fun playing. I also said that if you are making a different scenario, you run into problems. I am not restraing anyone to do anything. Do as you please. And if the devs give us a 30 km bubble, I‘d be most happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being bias by using a one day window of operation to defend the lack of visibility range. We are not only buying BOBP and we are not only gonna play "the BOBP" operation. People already make all kinds of missions with all kinds of maps and when the new modules come, people will continue to make all kinds of missions. And we already have contrails (a lot) in the eastern front. And flak spotting with the current 10km bubble is already a problem. So yes, you are trying to fit everyone in the same one day window of BOBP. And when I cited pilots seeing flak 20km away, it was during Operation Bodenplatte.  But this is just coincidence. It could be any airfield of the war, in any day, weather or in any time.

 

It is more reasonable to say that you don't bother with what we currently have.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defending the lack of visibility range? You mean a player bubble restricted to 10 km? Why would I do that? More is better, sure. I never said otherwise. But I don‘t think it is a fiendish scheme us not having a larger bubble. But one would assume we would have to give up functionality that we have now to have a larger bubble and maintaining the same performance of the sim. I‘m not sure if I‘d be ready to do so.

 

If you think that we could have the event horizon pushed further back at no cost, then ok.

 

I wrote a couple of posts what I think would be required for that. And this is basically going DX12/Vulcan and full multithread. And quadcores would then be dogs to run the sim.

 

So yes, on this we might differ. But I can assure you, I‘d be as happy as you if we had things mended according to your suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What universe are people spotting a cessna at 28km in the "landing pattern"

 

 

You are not seeing a cessna or even a larger aircraft at Krugersdorp from Lanseria in johannesburg

 

Or From Kinshasa Ndjili  to  Brazzaville even on the clearest day

 

Some real world examples that anyone can do

 

go on google earth find your local airport find and locate one 28k's away try it for yourself on the clearest best vis day, or even an airfield 28k's from your house

 

 

It is hard enough spotting aircraft in your own pattern at 10k

 

Or simply Go on google earth and look down from an alt of 15 miles now think of a cessna sized dot on the ground.

A human eye can spot a lit candle, in the dark, at 10km.

 

25nm is 46km.  Nobody here is saying that you should be able to see a Yak-3 at 46km.  But we are saying:

 

1.  You should be able to more easily see it when it's close, especially against terrain.

2.  You should be able to see it beyond 10km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A human eye can spot a lit candle, in the dark, at 10km.

 

25nm is 46km.  Nobody here is saying that you should be able to see a Yak-3 at 46km.  But we are saying:

 

1.  You should be able to more easily see it when it's close, especially against terrain.

2.  You should be able to see it beyond 10km.

 

No-where did I even mention 25nm.

 

But 15m/28k is certainly mentioned

 

 

And no, the visibility range is too short. It does not mean we have to see everything, but if real life pilots are seeing a Cesna approach the landing at 15nm (28km), is because people can see it. And then there is sun reflection, volume compensation so that we don't lose a target that we are chasing when it crosses a forest patch and so son. And just because one person has bad sight does not mean the whole gaming community has to play by the same standards. Set a common standard and let people adapt according to experience and combat awareness. Otherwise you are talking about simulating the sight of a novice, and it ends up being an attempt to dumb down the game. And who wants to see planes popping out on the screen or cross half combat front and miss the action in the air just because "they were out of our rendering bubble"?

 

hence my post,

 

and as much as I agree that vis is needed/very desirable for many aspects beyond 10k bubble (although Jason has explained a number of times tech/hardware/performance reasons for difficulties in this)

 

I still stand by my earlier post, backed up by R/L experience

 

"There are many scientific studies regarding aircraft visibility which go into great detail

 

however this less sophisticated real world study is revealing

 

"Howell carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (Douglas DC-3, wingspan 29M) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. "

 

 (Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)"

 
 it seems I am in a minority of what my expectations are, in all but a rare perfect condition circumstances
 
Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 approaching on a collision course

Key words.

A vehicle approaching on a collision course is not moving across your visual field and just gets bigger in the same spot in the sky

Human eye on the other hands is much better at responding to movement across your visual field.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Key words.

A vehicle approaching on a collision course is not moving across your visual field and just gets bigger in the same spot in the sky

Human eye on the other hands is much better at responding to movement across your visual field.

 

 

"The conspicuity of present-day transport aircraft was determined by measuring in daytime flight the distances at which pilots of one aircraft became aware of another DC-3 aircraft, normally painted and normally equipped, as it approached from various angles on courses which would result in collisions. "

 

(Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The conspicuity of present-day transport aircraft was determined by measuring in daytime flight the distances at which pilots of one aircraft became aware of another DC-3 aircraft, normally painted and normally equipped, as it approached from various angles on courses which would result in collisions. "

 

(Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

You can collide from many angles. Relative movement in the sky still stays zero due to constant bearing

 

 

DP9r1Du.png

 

 

Your source is only relevant to one situation, and it is the most difficult one in terms of spotting an aircraft

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your source is only relevant to one situation, and it is the most difficult one in terms of spotting an aircraft

 

Well we can back and forth on this, but as a real world test I personally still find it  relevant, it is still a pretty big machine being first noticed, by experienced real world pilots, on the lookout, spotting at average 6-9Km  range

 

You can go back to my post #30 on the first page to see more of my perspective on this subject

 

I think my point of view is pretty much said if you read all my posts, not much more to add  :)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well an increase in render distance and reflections would be very welcome for me, for the realism part thats about it though, spotting is fairly good compared with RL otherwise.

 

Add costum icons for people who want more awareness.

 

Also: the most dangerous planes are the ones going at you as they have the least relative motion and without graphics filters these show ok in BoX IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn’t there already an improvement made to this game in terms of the numbers of aircraft that can be modeled at once? The limit described in one of the Devs post is indeed the flight modeling. Some suggestions were making distant aircraft use s simple fm etc.

it’s been discussed by the team before.

Here’s the announcement

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12826-game-updates/?p=437657

“2. AI controlled planes physics calculations were optimized. There can be more than twice the number of AI planes in a mission with the same level of physics performance”

 

And the limit is indeed what hardware is capable of. CPUs can only handle so much. If you expand the bubble beyond 10km that just means the same number of aircraft the game can handle spread out in an exponentially larger volume.

Comparisons to DCS don’t take into account the strengths and weaknesses of each engine. They both do certain things well but comparing them isn’t useful. DCS focusing on modern combat with its long range sensors models objects a hundred miles away. There’s no “limit” as I understand it. One trade off is that all the AI planes in DCS use a simple FM. A 10km bubble in modern air combat would be nuts because that’s point blank range for those weapons. WWII doesn’t have that problem. For up close and personal dogfights like BoX and RoF giving the AI the same advanced FM is a pretty good thing, but a trade off is limiting their numbers. You can’t have it all.

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the big problems in this sim is the lack of contrast between the aircraft and other objects, be it ground or sky.

I routinely lose an aircraft that I'm escorting while flying right beside it, they just blend in to well and don't give you that visual cue that the eye needs to lock on to.

 

Also you really should not have to tweak your gamma in game so low just to be able see someone in time to take action.

Lack of contrast and 10 K bubble just don't work very well when dealing with monitors of different grades and resolution.

 

IL2 had a 24 K limit and I found over the years that the most popular servers ran a 20 to 24 k view limit in the server settings. 

This setting seemed to satisfy your ability to see and react and works well with team tactics. 

 

We just need to be able to see in the computer environment, with all the view limitations imposed by monitors and graphic hardware, we will never get as good as the eye can see in daylight or at extended ranges.

 

Making it better will only help the game get bigger!

 

I remember days where you could not get into a server on hyper lobby because they were all full, that was 50 server slots set at 52 players, that's the direction you want to go as a developer and as a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think something like the following would be the solution:

 

-at least 17km render distance. 

 

-All aircraft over a certain range are rendered as only black instead of with camo etc. 

 

-Aircraft from 800m-1.5km should have LOD mechanics that do things to slightly exaggerate the airframe (such as thickening the wings LOD when head on or tail on when being viewed from under a certain zoom level)

 

-General smart scaling applied at long range.                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No-where did I even mention 25nm.

 

But 15m/28k is certainly mentioned

 

 

hence my post,

 

and as much as I agree that vis is needed/very desirable for many aspects beyond 10k bubble (although Jason has explained a number of times tech/hardware/performance reasons for difficulties in this)

 

I still stand by my earlier post, backed up by R/L experience

 

"There are many scientific studies regarding aircraft visibility which go into great detail

 

however this less sophisticated real world study is revealing

 

"Howell carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (Douglas DC-3, wingspan 29M) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. "

 

 (Howell WD (1957) Determination of daytime conspicuity of transport aircraft)"

 
 it seems I am in a minority of what my expectations are, in all but a rare perfect condition circumstances
 
Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

Your argument that 10km is OK is flawed.

 

First because the test you mentioned was made only with aircraft in collision course at the same level with a very limited profile. So they are not taking into account planes coming from below or above, and you can spot a plane below, reflecting the sun or not or even against the ocean much further than the average mentioned in the research. And even in BOX it is not easy to spot a plane coming at the same altitude in collision route. Witch corroborates that a greater visibility range would still make people see incoming aircraft at lower distances than the max distance, just like your test shows.

 

The other aspect is that you are forgetting that we have flak and contrails in-game (and during the war as well). So flak and contrails gets in the same bag as incoming low profile aircraft in collision route? We are all in the same 10km bubble? Incoming crash course, contrails, planes reflecting wings below, solid objects against the ocean, over the ocean, flak and whatnot, and everything ceases to exist after 10km?

 

The impression is that you are mistaking the spotting of incoming low profile aircraft with general spotting.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also true of AIs that are 10km away and beyond, and that argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yeah, I couldn't give a [Edited] about what flight model a plane that's not even visible to me uses. To get good performance, you need to be "cheating" where it's feasible. The same goes for the netcode in this sim. I really don't give a [Edited] if the netcode "syncs everything, while in other sims it doesn't", when it results in the lag and warping we so easily have.

Edited by Bearcat

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...