Jump to content
[TLC]YIPPEE

How the current contact visibility negatively impact tactics in BOX

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Many people here are not fortunate to have flown 1000's of hours and have a lot of experience of very busy airspace .

 

My argument is not that 10K vis is OK

 

however quoting that a cessna is visible at 28k in a landing pattern is projecting a very wrong impression

 

I am aware of  the example I showed, in my quote the nature of the test was shown as a real world example of visibility as a counter to the above bad example

 

I am aware of the need for contrails flak etc.etc. at further distance, nowhere have I said 10k is perfect, I think you are arguing at cross purposes,  :)  but I do feel that the current tech limitation of 10k is not the game ending issue some are making out

 

soon there will be massive changes to terrain distance view, as progress is made I am sure there will also be object view distance and 'contrast' improvements, but currently I don't feel the sky is falling as it reflects my experience in many/most situations, and everyone has the same limitations/dificulties

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmers always look to me like the owner of the "The Goose that laid the Golden Eggs"....

 

Never satisfied, never really able to benefit from what is given, knowing not only that it's unique ( IL-2 is what I find to be a UNIQUE flight simulation game, in all aspects, from FDM to graphics, damage model... ) and i's in dynamic - DYNAMIC like no other that I know... - development.

 

As Dakpilot points out, with 37 yrs flying IRL in my case, and very very attentive to "targets" ( since I am a glider pilot ), most should really have the chance to fly a real aircraft before using their arguments....

Edited by jcomm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmers always look to me like the owner of the "The Goose that laid the Golden Eggs"....

 

Never satisfied, never really able to benefit from what is given, knowing not only that it's unique ( IL-2 is what I find to be a UNIQUE flight simulation game, in all aspects, from FDM to graphics, damage model... ) and i's in dynamics - DYNAMIC like no other that I know... - development.

 

As Dakpilot points out, with 37 yrs flying IRL in my case, and very very attentive to "targets" ( since I am a glider pilot ), most should really have the chance to fly a real aircraft before using their arguments....

What you rather meaninglessly said here was "Il2 is the best, so we shouldn't ever criticize it"

 

Deflection at its finest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you rather meaninglessly said here was "Il2 is the best, so we shouldn't ever criticize it"

 

Deflection at its finest. 

 

 

You are looking for argument and statements where there are none

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Model Enlargement Impostors works if this feature was not removed

 

yNzzfFz.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were searching for gliders from the airfield as well when we were on radio duty. Even with perfect vision it is much harder at 3-5km range than it is at 10km in IL-2.

 

People complain, call weird examples (Nevada 28km BS, you compare that continental desert to Europe's atmosphere?? This is not Afghanistan). But have no idea. Just assume stuff.

 

Spotting range for aircraft should stay the same and not change. Spotting/rendering range for ground targets can increase however.

 

And please, reduce the size of tracers at range. We are not playing Star Wars.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And please, reduce the size of tracers at range. We are not playing Star Wars.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the rendering could be done from further distance than the current 10 km by gradually bringing the plane into view when the player looks at the direction of the aircraft long enough.

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.

I don't know details but for me in multiplayer environment other aircrafts are just vectors, FM calculations are done in clients. You can see this exactly when you approach dogfight on even horizon and you can easily see how information about aircrafts is transferred - in beginning they move like UFO - completely not obeying Newton's physics, then when you are closer it's start looking normal. So bottle neck is not FM calculation ( except rare occasion on SP - spawning to much planes any where or to much information if dozen aircrafts close to each other in MP) but the net code handling increased amount of precise information of moving objects and algorithm who and when should see each other's. Just moving 10 km barrier without time spend at major net-code revision we would have hiccups from time to time and that would be worse than 10 km visibility limit. Edited by 307_Tomcat

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 devs mentioned they wanted to do something like that, but as we haven't seen an announcement that they had implemented that, I assume they haven't done it. I interpret the announcement you linked as meaning that they improved their physics code so that it requires half as many steps to provide the same error margin.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Whether you render an AI or not, you need to run its physics -simplified or detailed-, meaning you can't use the excuse of AI quality to justify rendering cuts. Moreover, with level-of-detail, the cost of rendering a model good enough for visualization at 10km is extremely small, and it only gets smaller the further out you go.

 

 

 

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.

Not really. The volume increases with the cube of the radius, which isn't exponential. x3 isn't ex. And in any case, we aren't rendering molecules of air, but planes. Especially in SP, if I make a mission with 16 planes, then that's the upper bound of what the game will have to render.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know details but for me in multiplayer environment other aircrafts are just vectors, FM calculations are done in clients. You can see this exactly when you approach dogfight on even horizon and you can easily see how information about aircrafts is transferred - in beginning they move like UFO - completely not obeying Newton's physics, then when you are closer it's start looking normal. So bottle neck is not FM calculation ( except rare occasion on SP - spawning to much planes any where or to much information if dozen aircrafts close to each other in MP) but the net code handling increased amount of precise information of moving objects and algorithm who and when should see each other's. Just moving 10 km barrier without time spend at major net-code revision we would have hiccups from time to time and that would be worse than 10 km visibility limit.

 

This is my conclusion also, that the 10km range is to do with netcode and not AI. After all, as coconut says, it makes no sense that the distance the AI transitions to a simplified flight model need to have much to do with the visual draw distance. The netcode, however, has to transmit position and status updates for every aircraft in the player's bubble. There are things that could be done, for example you could transmit much less information for aircraft outside a certain distance, but this adds complexity and I can see a straight forward implementation would be to just say the player can only see so far.

 

In the end, personally, I'm less bothered by the draw distance than the difficulty of spotting and identification in VR. I agree with the statement that flying in VR is probably most realistic with icons of some kind. It would be nice to have more options for configuring those icons: how big they are, how far away they are rendered, how the opacity changes, when they change colour, whether distance is numbers or something like a small bar on the icon, whether text is rendered or not, whether they are rendered over the cockpit or not. That way people would be able to make icon settings that they feel are realistic, this could all be configured from a config file somewhere, no need to develop any UI. Such settings could be communicated from server to client, and enforced on the client's computer, ensuring server admins can set icons up the way they'd like, this is what happens in DCS.

 

Such a change would add a lot of flexibility to the kinds of things that are possible with IL BoX ... and it honestly shouldn't take more than a few days to implement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the reason why icons are not customizable is that, given the relatively low multiplayer numbers, too many available options would lead to excessive fragmentation of the multiplayer scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Nice deflection mate, but your point is mute considering how the human eye even as a baby is attracted instantly to any sort of movement across our field of vision. I wouldn't be surprised if you could spot a DC3 moving left to right across the field of vision from more then double the distance. If you are so insistent on using one extreme to justify the short spotting sphere, why don't you use the other extreme. You can spot contrailing aircraft from hundreds of km away, yet in the game, you spot them when they are basically right on top of you allowing no time to prepare. You should be able to spot smoking aircraft from 10s of km away, this is really relevant only to damaged aircraft currently, but if we ever get a IL-2 that includes a jet aircraft. Most military jet aircraft until F-15,16 smoked as if they were running on coal.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the reason why icons are not customizable is that, given the relatively low multiplayer numbers, too many available options would lead to excessive fragmentation of the multiplayer scene.

 

This is maybe an argument for the MP scene, although DCS's WWII MP gets even smaller numbers and the community isn't split by this at all (incidentally most DCS servers do run with icons, albeit very limited ones). But this is a really poor argument for those of us that also like flying SP, where honestly I should be able to setup it up however I like.

Edited by Tomsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice deflection mate, but your point is mute considering how the human eye even as a baby is attracted instantly to any sort of movement across our field of vision. I wouldn't be surprised if you could spot a DC3 moving left to right across the field of vision from more then double the distance. If you are so insistent on using one extreme to justify the short spotting sphere, why don't you use the other extreme. You can spot contrailing aircraft from hundreds of km away, yet in the game, you spot them when they are basically right on top of you allowing no time to prepare. You should be able to spot smoking aircraft from 10s of km away, this is really relevant only to damaged aircraft currently, but if we ever get a IL-2 that includes a jet aircraft. Most military jet aircraft until F-15,16 smoked as if they were running on coal.

Yes, not being able to see contrails across the entire map is not how it should be. But human spotting capabilities are not exaclty as you describe it.

 

First of all, it would require the you are focused to infinite while watching out in the blue. This can be trained. If you are used to work on a computer monitor, your resting focus is not at infinite and this makes you blind as a mole except when you are constantly seeking a focus at the horizon. So much for the average real world spoting ability.

 

Second, the eye does indeed catch movement, but this requires rapid movement. Planes at 10 km range are too slow in angular velocity to make you catch them by that effect. Spoting planes by movement are typically in a situation of AIRPROX. Besides at far distance, they are very small and the resolution in peripheral sight is only a fraction of that in the center. You still need to be able to see an object in order to notice their movement.

 

Being able to spot something is not equal with being able to see something.

 

Also, nobody said that there is a 10 km bubble „because you cannot see farther“. It is a technical compromise based on what we have now as sim engine, that allows the gameplay to function in most cases without having inacceptable side effects. The real argument would be: „I think stutters in MP are tolerable as long as I get 20 km range for objects to appear.“

 

So the discussion of „how far I can see a plane“ doesn‘t help here. But it obviously makes some people state funny claims like being able to spot GA aircraft over 25 km or so.

 

What is way more important than spoting planes at 20 km range is that there are plenty of objects that you must see at that or even greather range in order for gameplay to function, like ships or factories. You not only can see them farther than 10 km, you must see them farther for propper gameplay. Right now, level bombing would be a sucide run if you set a decent number of heavy AAA next to it, as 4500 meters is a convenient shooting range for those. There is a reason why the 8th AF flew at 20k ft. altitude. If they flew at 12k ft., the Flak gunners would have said „please, more!“.

 

Also the limited resolution in VR impairs basic gameplay, suitable icons are needed. This is an issue right now for the general gameplay in all situations.

 

Thus, as long as it is routine to surprise people by shooting them in the back on WoL (et. al.), there are bigger problems than popping up in 10 km range.

 

And yes, it will be great when finally ALL objects on the entire map could be processed and the player visual bubble could be adjusted according to weather/humidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs mentioned they wanted to do something like that, but as we haven't seen an announcement that they had implemented that, I assume they haven't done it. I interpret the announcement you linked as meaning that they improved their physics code so that it requires half as many steps to provide the same error margin.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Whether you render an AI or not, you need to run its physics -simplified or detailed-, meaning you can't use the excuse of AI quality to justify rendering cuts. Moreover, with level-of-detail, the cost of rendering a model good enough for visualization at 10km is extremely small, and it only gets smaller the further out you go.

 

 

This is my conclusion also, that the 10km range is to do with netcode and not AI. After all, as coconut says, it makes no sense that the distance the AI transitions to a simplified flight model need to have much to do with the visual draw distance. The netcode, however, has to transmit position and status updates for every aircraft in the player's bubble. There are things that could be done, for example you could transmit much less information for aircraft outside a certain distance, but this adds complexity and I can see a straight forward implementation would be to just say the player can only see so far.

 

That's interesting, because I saw a post saying that they were working on a new netcode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have more options for configuring those icons: how big they are, how far away they are rendered, how the opacity changes, when they change colour, whether distance is numbers or something like a small bar on the icon, whether text is rendered or not, whether they are rendered over the cockpit or not. That way people would be able to make icon settings that they feel are realistic, this could all be configured from a config file somewhere, no need to develop any UI. Such settings could be communicated from server to client, and enforced on the client's computer, ensuring server admins can set icons up the way they'd like, this is what happens in DCS.

 

The trouble with customizable icons is players wouldn’t be able to agree what they should be like exactly and there aren’t enough players online to provide different servers for everyone’s preference. The most popular servers in any flight sim I’ve seen always run icons off. So there’s no point to having custom ones. In single player you can just switch them on and off with the key if that’s what you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's a shame that we need to use zoom for view. I very much doubt most pilots had a pair of binos around their neck, but I would be totally lost in BoX without the aid of zoom.

 

Bingo...

 

When in an aircraft, I find things obviously to be much clearer when looking down at the ground, not as 'blurry' (at least until I take my glasses off - lol).   There is a 'crispness' in real life that you just don't get in the sim - until perhaps video cards can get us to that level.

 

I think there are 2 visibility topics:

 

1.  the 'when a dot appears', the range of that dot.   This is rather easy to tweak as the 'size' 'distance' and 'darkness' are the main variables

2.  the range in which the dot becomes the aircraft itself.

 

Often times I have no issues finding the dot itself, and for the most part even tracking that dot.   It's when the dot becomes the aircraft is when it gets tough - due to the ratio size of the aircraft to monitor size.  Also, the contrast isn't very good.   Even with camo, when your that close, and your eyes are on it - it shouldn't be lost so easily - it's different when your focused and you see it vs. just happened to spot an aircraft against the trees.

 

Personally, and it would be difficult for sure, I'd like to see 'zoom' be removed - just default view period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Model Enlargement Impostors works if this feature was not removed

 

yNzzfFz.gif

 

This is definitely a pet peave of mine.   Gamer will game the game - we all know that - and it's crazy that those running a 'higher res' are put at a disadvantage - at the price of missing out on the awesome graphics the game has it is clearly more beneficial to play in 'blurry fuzzy mode'. 

 

The high the res, the more difficult it is to distinguish..

 

That said, time to lower my res and have blurry eye syndrome after an hour :)

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.

 

well done.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Model Enlargement Impostors works if this feature was not removed

This imposter system in DCS was a big fail. Please let’s not go there with IL-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visibility improves with less air density, it's the air that's causing light distortions.  Once you pass 5000 feet half the atmosphere is left behind, along with most of the major distortions it causes.  The thinner the air, the better and further the ability to see.  It's easy to see stars at mid day cruising near 40K, if you bother to look up for them.  Anything up at altitude in the clear blue with you will stand out like a sore thumb, sharp undistorted object against a blurred lower atmosphere, easy spotting.

 

Not the same story down low.  There is no one universal fits all setting, some guys can spot naturally and rarely ever miss, some don't.  If you have multi crewed aircraft, you're odds go up the more eyes you have.   

 

What no one could ever do is track multiple flyers scattered well over 180 degrees all simultaneously, especially behind their 3 - 9 line and beat them at their own game, yet we see that in games all the time.  There is no comparison with using your eyes actively in the real world, verses scanning information fed via a moving 2D picture, your not actively looking for that, it's fed on a flatterplatter. 

 

VR may some day compare, but currently the res is too horrid.       

 

Cone shaped bubble would be sort of a cure, the higher you go the wider the bubble goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real solution for this issue is right around the corner, the new standards for UHD video.

- Higher resolution displays, 4K or even higher

- Wider color spectrum

- 10-bit color depth, displaying 1 billion colors instead of the current 16.7 million

- High Dynamic Range

 

These standards are already in place for current 4K + HDR TVs and disc players, streaming services. Consoles and games for the PS4 and Xbox One X have this. PC gaming seems to be behind the curve here in adopting this new standard, although the 9 and 10 Series Nvidia cards support it.

 

HDR development info from Nvidia

https://developer.nvidia.com/high-dynamic-range-display-development

 

Games which support HDR

https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5BCategory:Games-5D-5D-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::true-5D-5D-20OR-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::hackable-5D-5D/-3FDeveloped-20by/-3FPublished-20by/-3FRelease-20date/-3FAvailable-20on/-3Fhigh_dynamic_range/format%3Dtemplate/limit%3D100/template%3DFeature-2Frow/introtemplate%3DFeature-2Fintro/outrotemplate%3DFeature-2Foutro

 

HDR monitor

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UD99-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor

 

This is the best way a flight sim like IL-2 can tackle this issue and it’s the way all future video is headed.

This is partial solution in this particular case (10km limit) For sure something to look for in the future, and our game need to have built in support for HDR, if I remember correctly HDR was adding significant input lag to display - still is? Anyway not that significant issue for this genre due for fps. Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, if I remember correctly HDR was adding significant input lag to display - still is? Anyway not that significant issue for this genre due for fps.

It’s confusing but the video quality HDR is not the same thing as the game graphic setting. They’re completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s confusing but the video quality HDR is not the same thing as the game graphic setting. They’re completely different.

I know, you misunderstand me, I watched several month ago a video about HDR enabled games and they measure input lag with off/on HDR and it was big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, you misunderstand me, I watched several month ago a video about HDR enabled games and they measure input lag with off/on HDR and it was big difference.

All the newest consoles have HDR so I doubt it’s an issue. This is just video signal quality. Simply passed through a compatible display. Any TV when used as a PC monitor can have input lag because TVs typically have extra image processing that monitors don’t. Many TVs have a “game mode” to eliminate extra processing. The lag depends on the TV

This test doesn’t show any difference between 4K/60 and 4K/60 + HDR

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless this is a thread about the 10km spotting limit this is actually a threat about settings.

 

I've messed with my settings for days and I can pick green a/c out of the forest now. I've gone from 30 FPS to solid 60 FPS. Micro stutters to dead smooth all on the same rig.

 

However, spotting is still difficult but you can see them moving. The camouflage is incredibly effective.

 

My complaint is the 10km limit. Other than that good job Devs. You have really made this game something special. I have done a 180 turn on this development. Very happy customer.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, that isn’t the case.

 

Isn't there a post saying that they are working on a new netcode that can handle 6 times more traffic? I think there is. I just hope that they are working on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a post saying that they are working on a new netcode that can handle 6 times more traffic? I think there is. I just hope that they are working on it.

 

I asked about the dserver performance and netcode improvements in the last TS event. Reply was to ”see what feedback coop will bring”, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. Online pilots are anyway a fraction of the amount of people who buy the game, so it’s understandable that netcode isn’t top priority. The team is also rather small, so it’s a resourcing issue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked about the dserver performance and netcode improvements in the last TS event. Reply was to ”see what feedback coop will bring”, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. Online pilots are anyway a fraction of the amount of people who buy the game, so it’s understandable that netcode isn’t top priority. The team is also rather small, so it’s a resourcing issue too.

 

I understand, 'but' if one thing is linked to another, and another and so on, netcode becomes a priority and these things lingers for years kind of getting under people skins. I hear about netcode and online performance since ROF, then on DCS and now on BOX. And multiplayer is the thermometer of a simulator nowadays. People push for tweaks and FM changes and the whole brand benefits from it / single players included. If there was only SP, we would not be near where we are today, not by a mile and a half. It has to have some balance. They don't have to release a new netcode asap, but if indeed hinders online performance (people have to determine where comes from the stuttering in furballs sometimes, if it is a server problem, ping, netcode and son on), if it limits visibility range and if it makes our experience while gaming unpleasant sometimes, they should work on it so that it can be released one day (the sooner the better).

 

And to be honest, a decade old games have a better visibility range. It does not sound reasonable the talk that we have to wait 5-10 years for 'new hardware and software' to be released and become staple in the market. We have it now, we had it for more than a decade. The ideal is that they are working on it. To suppose that they are not is the oddball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 10 km bubble is really something that could be reviewed indeed. I feel IL-2 1946 had better visibility management (even if the dots in distance seemed a bit too obvious).

 

Lot of people quoting DCS here too, but it's honestly far from being an example in this regard. Falcon BMS and its 'smart scaling' option tackles the issue is a much better way with slightly resizing the objects at distance. A smart scaling distance threshold can be set to avoid undesirable scaling effect at short distance which can bother formation flying, among other.

 

Some reading on the technology and its employment in BMS:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

https://www.bmsforum.org/forum/showthread.php?26572-g_fSmartScalingThreshold&highlight=smart+scaling (requires BMS account)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of people quoting DCS here too, but it's honestly far from being an example in this regard. 

 

I personally don't mention DCS as the optimal solution (never intended to), but that it exists, and I don't think the dots are glaring or stand out in this case. So I much rather have it than a 10km bubble.

 

DCS is virtually unplayable right now for WWII due to the way aircraft is rendered against the ground, due to lack of contrast / shadows, lack of sun reflection in general and whatnot, but we can say it has more than twice the visibility range of BOX and it works. And these solutions for greater visibility exists for more than a decade, so I think people mention DCS as a way of saying "it can be done and has been done for years now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, DCS offers a solution among other. I was just pointing out that other simulators feature visibility settings at distance that are much more satisfactory (I have around 1000+ hours in multi on BMS, about 300 ish in DCS.. and for me, BMS has a much better technical solution with smart scaling).

 

On the RL comparison.. being both a light piston aircraft and a glider flyer, the comparison with glider visibility is not a good one. Indeed, they can be hard to spot, depending on the background, luminosity and reflection, but they are not representative of typical real life aircraft spotting (i.e other than glider). I usually fly in a rather crowded airspace (an international airport and three airbases within a 40 km radius), and spotting is not much of an issue with good scanning technique; with the most influential factor in spotting being the relative motion between you and the contact.

Edited by EC5/25_Corsair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the RL comparison.. being both a light piston aircraft and a glider flyer, the comparison with glider visibility is not a good one. Indeed, they can be hard to spot, depending on the background, luminosity and reflection, but they are not representative of typical real life aircraft spotting (i.e other than glider). I usually fly in a rather crowded airspace (an international airport and three airbases within a 40 km radius), and spotting is not much of an issue with good scanning technique.

 

Thanks for the feedback. After a few months studying all kinds of videos, from WWII footage to GoPro cockpit cams, and accounts, I would expect a similar experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping 3.0 would fix the vision to some extent with the new lighting, but not so much. It does seem a bit better, with aircraft reflections being alot more apparent, but it has a long way to go in my opinion. 

 

This is the single biggest issue in game right now. Whatever flight model debates are to be had, if the vision is borked, its all for naught. As it stands right now, the current game is largely a RNG machine since the poor vision makes maintaining SA a complete crap shoot. Its more or less impossible to do proper BnZ.

 

The only semi-guaranteed way to avoid death as a BnZ fighter is to never make more than one pass, following said first pass up with a complete egress from the battle space. Any attempt to stick around for more than one pass is a total crap shoot since situational awareness is a crap shoot. This forces players trying to use real world tactics to either be completely ineffective (due to having no staying power), or engage in a moronic dogfights. 

 

The solution to this problem would be LOD adjustments and contrast enhancements. The LOD needs to alter itself between say 800m-2km such that key aircraft point are more distinct. (such as high aspect planes having their wings thickened etc).  In addition color rendering should be changed so that aircraft switch to a exaggerated color at range to compensate for insufficient monitor contrast. For example, all dark paint jobs go completely black over a certain distance unless being viewed under a certain FOV. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was flying Clod today a noticed that the vision in that game is absolutely stellar. Contacts are clear and easy to make out. Whatever they did in that game needs to come to BOX. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real killer is that bombers can't see what they're hitting from altitude, which means you have stupid stuff like He-111s divebombing on the deck and then wondering why noboby wants to escort....

 

This is still a big issue, and I don't understand why certain usual suspects are in here trying to minimize or attacking people who believe that this negatively impacts gameplay in a big way.

  • Upvote 5

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...