Jump to content
[TLC]YIPPEE

How the current contact visibility negatively impact tactics in BOX

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

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. 

 

Yes CloD has it working differant way, 14km by default, and your able to adjust it to max 25km if you wont, most servers used it at max distance.

 

And what i liked there is that you were able to adjust distances for icons also, frend and enemy separate, so you could have all kined of options.

 

it would be nice if they can alow atleast 14-15km here insted 9,5km, and if perforance impact is concern they could have 9.5km that is now as default and give players and servers option like in CloD to use higher on their own risk if they wont (server contrled).

 

I have no big problems spotting contacts inside the bubble but its just to small, and fined recognising airplanes is easyer here at bigger distances then in CloD for example, but radious of 9,5km limits way i play for sure compared to CloD.

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG13_opcode said:

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.

Some of them might be earnestly in the wrong. But I suspect that often the motive for defending a sim is due to the fact that people do not like to notice the flaws in something they otherwise enjoy. It diminishes the illusion, and if a person does not see hope that it will get fixed, they might be inclined to rationalize flaws. I think you would find that if the vision system were fixed tomorrow, that many of the naysayers would not be making threads like this one to get it reversed. 

 

Im glad you bring up the bomber issue as I do not fly bombers much and hadnt noticed that. It further reinforces my point that this issue greatly alters the tactical environment to be less realistic and historically accurate. 

 

I watched a track today of myself flying in the WoL server and discovered that a enemy fighter was flying below me (I was at 4,000m) and I failed to observe it for about 5 minutes despite circling directly above and scanning that exact bit a terrain. Its not the first time I've seen this. 

 

A majority of real world tactics cannot even been done effectively in BOX right now due to vision alone. Forget BnZ, most wingman tactics are futile in this game right now. Anything approaching proper tactical spacing and formation puts people in a position to lose their wingman even outside of combat. The amount of focus needed to keep track of your friendlies makes it impossible to do anything else. And when combat starts you might as well forget you had a wingman, outside of extremely strict follow the leader tactics. High and Low covers are also problematic due to visual constraints. Essentially anything outside of 800m gets absurdly risky. 

 

The bottom line is that the current vision system shoehorns everyone into knife fighting if they want to be able to see the enemy long enough to kill him. 

19 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

Yes CloD has it working differant way, 14km by default, and your able to adjust it to max 25km if you wont, most servers used it at max distance.

 

And what i liked there is that you were able to adjust distances for icons also, frend and enemy separate, so you could have all kined of options.

 

it would be nice if they can alow atleast 14-15km here insted 9,5km, and if perforance impact is concern they could have 9.5km that is now as default and give players and servers option like in CloD to use higher on their own risk if they wont (server contrled).

 

I have no big problems spotting contacts inside the bubble but its just to small, and fined recognising airplanes is easyer here at bigger distances then in CloD for example, but radious of 9,5km limits way i play for sure compared to CloD.

The issue inside of the bubble is the difficulty of spotting. In Clod I can take my eyes off a contact within 2km and easily find it again under most circumstances. In BOX everything blends in so well that its easy to lose contacts that are that close without having to been unreasonably glued to it. 

 

Im not sure I understand the performance limit issue. There are games from the early 2000s that did LOD adjustments or even smart scaling. Much of BOX's issues are with contrast, which could be solved at least in part just by programming the texture lod to change to a extreme offset color at a certain distance when viewed under a certain FOV. For example, a dark green plane just turns black. Reason for doing this being that with our current limit on color gamut, the best way to compensate would be to exaggerate the color difference when the plane is too far away for things like paint scheme to matter cosmetically. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your talking only about making contact easyer to track inside of 9,5km bubble by adjusting stuff like contrast and so on... then yes it should have no effect on performance.

I was thinking about performace impact when your making that 9.5km bubble bigger, to 14km for example, then you would see more objects rendered in your bubble and that would make negative inpact on performance.

 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I fly in VR, and VR is amazing but you can’t see well enough to pass a driving test, never mind fly as a fighter pilot. So I fly with icons on, as IMO it’s more realistic than without. However what I’d *really* like is an option for some kind of more realistic icons, such as the kind described by Wulfe. Such icons should appear at more realistic ranges, be occluded by the plane and clouds, allow identification at a realistic range but not before, represent distance more approximately, and so on. 

Edited by Tomsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tomsk said:

amazing but you can’t see well enough to pass a driving test, never mind fly as a fighter pilot

Same here with a small 2D display :rolleyes:

If I want to see what I see in RL, icons are the way to go. I fly in custom difficulty with everything unticked except the object icons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/03/2018 at 6:33 PM, 77.CountZero said:

I have no big problems spotting contacts inside the bubble but its just to small, and fined recognising airplanes is easyer here at bigger distances then in CloD for example, but radious of 9,5km limits way i play for sure compared to CloD.

 

This is the thing for me right here.

 

I don't think labels will be any more or less realistic and are largely irrelevant to me in multiplayer because, CountZero says, the problem isn't spotting within the bubble.

 

The problem is the bubble is just way too small.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a just as big an issue inside the bubble. Airplanes just vanish all the time. Good luck trying to do any coordinated tactics. Nothing other than follow the leader is effective without using map cheese. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 12:25 AM, Fumes said:

There is a just as big an issue inside the bubble. Airplanes just vanish all the time. Good luck trying to do any coordinated tactics. Nothing other than follow the leader is effective without using map cheese. 

 

I was wrong

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

Exactly, I really don't see a more realistic way to handle this beside icons designed to make themselves apparent in the same way/at the same times they would for real pilots. The huge benefit of this is not initial contact spotting but being able to track and work with wingmen during a protracted fight. 

I totally agree but Im not sure icons are a good idea. The problem with icons is that even with a system like ww2 online, they provide too much info too fast. Our current system has the opposite problem. There are non-icon solutions to the problem as well. Scaling and contrast adjustments, in addition to the change in render distance. 

 

With regards to scaling I dont just mean smart scaling like BMS. BMS enlarges the whole plane at range. At medium distances, this is perfect, but it doesnt fix our contrast or profile issues. At 2km and less, there needs to be contrast adjustments (such as making entire plane black for example, unless its being zoomed in on) and Lod adjustments. What I mean by lod adjustments is that the lod need to change between a certain range scale (say 800-2km) where certain portions of the plane are exaggerated by lods. For example, at 800m and high aspect, the wings should thicken so that the planes profile can be better seen. Other examples would be airplanes having their distinct profile aspect exaggerated at certain distances: exaggerated elliptical wings, or radial engine cowlings etc. 

 

Btw all of this has been done before, alot it by games in the early 2000s. So its neither technically difficult or taxing. Or novel. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 2:57 PM, Fumes said:

I totally agree but Im not sure icons are a good idea. The problem with icons is that even with a system like ww2 online, they provide too much info too fast. Our current system has the opposite problem. There are non-icon solutions to the problem as well. Scaling and contrast adjustments, in addition to the change in render distance. 

 

With regards to scaling I dont just mean smart scaling like BMS. BMS enlarges the whole plane at range. At medium distances, this is perfect, but it doesnt fix our contrast or profile issues. At 2km and less, there needs to be contrast adjustments (such as making entire plane black for example, unless its being zoomed in on) and Lod adjustments. What I mean by lod adjustments is that the lod need to change between a certain range scale (say 800-2km) where certain portions of the plane are exaggerated by lods. For example, at 800m and high aspect, the wings should thicken so that the planes profile can be better seen. Other examples would be airplanes having their distinct profile aspect exaggerated at certain distances: exaggerated elliptical wings, or radial engine cowlings etc. 

 

Btw all of this has been done before, alot it by games in the early 2000s. So its neither technically difficult or taxing. Or novel. 

 

I was wrong. 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are either complaining that sims aren't real enough or they complain that they want things done to the sim to make it more arcadish. I'm a real life pilot. Over 500 hours of flight time. I've owned two airplanes. I'm just saying that I think that I have enough experience to have an opinion on this.

    I've been in a landing pattern where the tower is telling me, "You are number three behind the white Cherokee." I answer, "Okay...looking..." But I can't find him! "Tower, I cannot locate my traffic." They finally have to say, "He is at your ten o'clock." Finally I see him.

    It's hard to see other airplanes up there. And they aren't even camouflaged! It's easier in the game. Start doing things to make it even easier and you might as well just go and play Ace Combat.

Why do you think 90% of fighter pilots that were shot down never saw the guy who got them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^this

I think over the years, graphic aids like icons and scaling have convinced players that it’s supposed to be easy to see other aircraft. 

Those aids all had their origin in a time of 10” 400x600 displays. Today’s screens don’t need them but they’re still there. 

It’s also possible that in the attempt to “fix” the problem, players have messed up their graphic settings and made the situation worse. I can see other aircraft in this and other sims very well. IL-2 here and RoF are outstanding in this regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

People are either complaining that sims aren't real enough or they complain that they want things done to the sim to make it more arcadish. I'm a real life pilot. Over 500 hours of flight time. I've owned two airplanes. I'm just saying that I think that I have enough experience to have an opinion on this.

    I've been in a landing pattern where the tower is telling me, "You are number three behind the white Cherokee." I answer, "Okay...looking..." But I can't find him! "Tower, I cannot locate my traffic." They finally have to say, "He is at your ten o'clock." Finally I see him.

    It's hard to see other airplanes up there. And they aren't even camouflaged! It's easier in the game. Start doing things to make it even easier and you might as well just go and play Ace Combat.

Why do you think 90% of fighter pilots that were shot down never saw the guy who got them? 

I have had many conversations with other pilots, including one on here in this thread, and they had different opinions. That opinion can also be found in airforce publications on the subject which I posted in this thread. 

 

But I think you are also missing how BOX differs. If I tell you someone is at there 10 o clock like you said, in BOX, you STILL wont see them. You can be looking right at a contact in Box at relatively short range and not see them. In BOX it is nearly totally impractical to execute tactical ideas that were fundamental to the real world due to this. 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

^this

I think over the years, graphic aids like icons and scaling have convinced players that it’s supposed to be easy to see other aircraft. 

Those aids all had their origin in a time of 10” 400x600 displays. Today’s screens don’t need them but they’re still there. 

It’s also possible that in the attempt to “fix” the problem, players have messed up their graphic settings and made the situation worse. I can see other aircraft in this and other sims very well. IL-2 here and RoF are outstanding in this regard. 

A modern computer screen is still nowhere close to a human eye. This isnt a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. 

 

Also the definition of "Easy to spot" is relative. The point is that in BOX is it unrealistically difficult under certain conditions. Not that it should be "Easy" in a general sense. I quit playing games with icons because that was TOO easy. In BOX it is incorrectly hard. 

 

I have seen aircraft above and below in real life, from another plane. They "stand out" far more than they do in BOX. You can make out details better, etc. In Box they just blend into everything, and are tiny by comparison. 

 

This issue is not just for flight sims. If you think vision in video games in general compared favorably to real life. You are flat out wrong. I have made posts on other forums for mil sim shooters as well, and there I have used my real world job experience as part of my argument. I can tell you for a absolute fact that spotting a infantryman at 1000m is FAR FAR FAR easier in the real world than it is in almost any shooter. Vision in real life is simply better. Period. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree about the ground objects. Tanks, trucks...etc...I can't see 'em. I take hits from flak and turn to try and take out the offending gun, but all I see are tracers coming at me. When going after ground targets I like things like bridges. Now, bridges, I can see with no problem! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fumes said:

Vision in real life is simply better. Period. 

No doubt. I’m referring to other flight sim games. The only game I experienced such bad visibility problems where I couldn’t play it was vanilla Cliffs of Dover. DCS used to be rather mediocre but the new v2.5 is very good. By comparison RoF and BoX have always been top notch IMO. 

The original topic here was the 10km rendering range for the aircraft. That is what it is. But the graphic quality here is quite good. I can see and identify other aircraft in BoX very well. Well enough for any gameplay purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

No doubt. I’m referring to other flight sim games. The only game I experienced such bad visibility problems where I couldn’t play it was vanilla Cliffs of Dover. DCS used to be rather mediocre but the new v2.5 is very good. By comparison RoF and BoX have always been top notch IMO. 

The original topic here was the 10km rendering range for the aircraft. That is what it is. But the graphic quality here is quite good. I can see and identify other aircraft in BoX very well. Well enough for any gameplay purposes. 

The original topic of this thread was not the 10km render. In fact, it was excluded as the topic. 

 

As for other flight sims, DCS 2.5 spotting is trash. Utter and complete trash. It got slightly better after 2.5 but spotting before that was not mediocre, it was pitiful. Contacts beyond a mile away in DCS simply vanished. They still do for the most part in 2.5. 

 

BOX is considerably better than either DCS version, but is still not as good as it needs to be. Contacts against the ground blend in a order of magnitude too well in BOX, even under perfect weather conditions. They are too small in general. They are too small in profile. 

 

And this isnt really about whether current spotting allows you to play. It about it it allows you to play correctly, when it comes to real world tactics. Spotting at the moment inhibits most real world group tactics, and it significantly alters they way BnZ is done. The current environment reduces the practical level of SA a player can achieve to a unrealistically low amount, which alters the games tactical nature compared to the real world for the negative. 

Edited by Fumes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are complaints about this issue in every flight sim. I can’t relate because I can see contacts clearly. I can see my wingman in DCS even at the wide FOV 6 miles away and other aircraft definitely don’t vanish at a mile.

i just tried the Normandy map online and it was very very easy to spot and keep track of other aircraft, really well done. 

So I don’t know what’s different. But somebody is doing something wrong for sure. 

Theres only so much that can be done in any of these sims. One thing that might really help would be adopting the wider color gamut and HDR that’s in the new Ultra HD spec. 

Yeah I guess that was another thread about the 10km. But that was a thread where people complain the game isn’t rendering planes 6 miles away and other people complain they disappear at a mile. It’s hard to know what’s wrong without knowing the hardware. 

In DCS some endless complaints come from people with sub-1080p displays. There’s the problem. 

Yes I’m running a 4K screen. Then there’s a thread on DCS complaining 4K makes it harder for them to see. Which is not true either. 

Theres not much of a solution for this, it’s a topic without end. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

There are complaints about this issue in every flight sim. I can’t relate because I can see contacts clearly. I can see my wingman in DCS even at the wide FOV 6 miles away and other aircraft definitely don’t vanish at a mile.

i just tried the Normandy map online and it was very very easy to spot and keep track of other aircraft, really well done. 

So I don’t know what’s different. But somebody is doing something wrong for sure. 

Theres only so much that can be done in any of these sims. One thing that might really help would be adopting the wider color gamut and HDR that’s in the new Ultra HD spec. 

Yeah I guess that was another thread about the 10km. But that was a thread where people complain the game isn’t rendering planes 6 miles away and other people complain they disappear at a mile. It’s hard to know what’s wrong without knowing the hardware. 

In DCS some endless complaints come from people with sub-1080p displays. There’s the problem. 

Yes I’m running a 4K screen. Then there’s a thread on DCS complaining 4K makes it harder for them to see. Which is not true either. 

Theres not much of a solution for this, it’s a topic without end. 

I have run 4k displays as well. You can rarely see a contact in DCS at 6nm. Sometimes they pop in for no reason at 20. In DCS the spotting within 1-1.5miles garbage. Planes blend into everything. The normandy map is like all the other DCS maps. Any airplane against the ground practically disappears at ranges where it should not. 

 

There are plenty of solutions to this issue. There is actually quite alot of research done about this issue for this specific purpose. You can use scaling, LOD adjustments and scaling, Contrast modifiers, larger render ranges. Etc etc etc etc etc. 

 

This isnt a subjective issue. 

 

-Computer monitors, objectively, do not render airplanes the right size. 

-Computer monitors, objectively, do not render at the same resolving power as the eye. 

-Computer monitors, objectively, do not render the same contrast as the eye receives. 

 

It is literally IMPOSSIBLE for a game to have "correct" vision without special mechanics to make it thus. It is not a matter of opinion. This is WHY you have these complaints in every sim as you said. The newer sims have invested all there time and energy into fancy shaders and havent done diddly to aide in correcting vision issues. What is more, as graphics have progressed these problems have gotten WORSE, not better. 

 

Resolution improved over time, but so did the complexity of graphics. Contrary to popular perception, more advanced graphics (lighting shaders etc), generally do not give good results in the realism department when it comes to spotting objects. Every graphical operation in a game is an abstraction. This is why you seen a silver sheen in some games, because the lighting system was optimized for a certain range and doesnt function well outside of it. This is why this has gotten worse, not better, as graphics have improved. The image complexity has increased far more in the last 20 years than the resolving and contrast has. The result is a less clear image, and at the same time flight sim devs have completely dropped the ball. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people have trouble with this and some don’t. Why that’s the case I have no idea. All I know is I can see the stuff on my screen that others claim they can’t. Aircraft never just vanish in front of me unless I actually lose sight of them. I’m not doing anything special at all with graphics, they’re all set on defaults although maximum, including the Nvidia CP which is all at default. 

The DCS discussion is a bit off topic here, there are tons of things they’ve done and tried to do and reasons why. It’s all in lengthily threads over there. These are different game engines that have a different aim from one another. Discussions like this just run their course with no solution because for the most part nobody knows the hardware players are using and players don’t understand the limitations or goals of the game engine. So it’s not really much point to keep it going. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Some people have trouble with this and some don’t. Why that’s the case I have no idea. All I know is I can see the stuff on my screen that others claim they can’t. Aircraft never just vanish in front of me unless I actually lose sight of them. I’m not doing anything special at all with graphics, they’re all set on defaults although maximum, including the Nvidia CP which is all at default. 

The DCS discussion is a bit off topic here, there are tons of things they’ve done and tried to do and reasons why. It’s all in lengthily threads over there. These are different game engines that have a different aim from one another. Discussions like this just run their course with no solution because for the most part nobody knows the hardware players are using and players don’t understand the limitations or goals of the game engine. So it’s not really much point to keep it going. 

 

It might be due to your 4K monitor and you have to admit it is a big change compared to a full HD monitor. My IPS 2560X1080p monitor (Philips 298P4QJEB) has a very good image and I do have problems. Way more on DCS and still on BOX.

 

The other factor is that most people don't know what they get. If you start to research and do tests, you start to understand what you are getting. For example, I started to test the maps and looks like Kuban has a pretty good reflection (sun glare on wings and fuselage), similar to what we have in ROF. The older maps seem to don't have it and it is pretty difficult to see a wing glare on cammo skins. Right there it shows that you are missing something, yet you are saying spotting is fine, when it clearly is not. So these things are deceiving.

 

So part of the problem is that people does not even know that there is a problem. This might be due to different standards and knowledge. Who has some knowledge in arts or design will pick these anomalies faster than people who don't know the difference of contrast, shadow, etc. DCS crew might be lacking someone on this field, because they have a serious problem in spotting and the issue is extensively discussed over there. I for example quit playing DCS because of that. It is unplayable.

 

I just quit with my testing in BOX, so I can't affirm that Kuban has a different (improved) reflection, but people can take a look on these things. And Kuban seem to have a problem with aircraft blending with the ocean depending on the angle. I have been researching the subject (spotting) for a long time and there are a lot of people complaining, many of them real life pilots with several accounts of how things should look.

 

And like I said, there is the standard issue. Some people don't mind the lack of some features, other do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

It might be due to your 4K monitor and you have to admit it is a big change compared to a full HD monitor.

 

I felt that I was very able to spot objects in 1080p as well. Actually the chief attributes that help spotting are size and contrast. Neither of which is improved by 4K. There are threads over on DCS claiming that 4K makes spotting worse :blink: I don’t really agree. 

But what the extra resolution does help is identifying and even reading tail numbers and being able to read all the tiny text in the cockpit without zooming in. Even in 1080p though BoX did a nice job of rendering the aircraft silhouette and the ability to ID other aircraft is and was very good. Same with RoF. In 1080p I could count the wing struts to ID or discern the shape of the fuselage from head on. 

DCS 2.5 does get reflections now on the WWII planes which used to be rendered matte in 1.5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I felt that I was very able to spot objects in 1080p as well. Actually the chief attributes that help spotting are size and contrast. Neither of which is improved by 4K. There are threads over on DCS claiming that 4K makes spotting worse :blink: I don’t really agree. 

But what the extra resolution does help is identifying and even reading tail numbers and being able to read all the tiny text in the cockpit without zooming in. Even in 1080p though BoX did a nice job of rendering the aircraft silhouette and the ability to ID other aircraft is and was very good. Same with RoF. In 1080p I could count the wing struts to ID or discern the shape of the fuselage from head on. 

DCS 2.5 does get reflections now on the WWII planes which used to be rendered matte in 1.5. 

 

But you still did not know that the older BOX maps have near to none reflection while Kuban seems to have a different reflection, which then makes your observation just your standard, not what really can be considered accurate or reasonably accurate.

 

Because then it is kind of irrelevant. You just have a more forgiving expectation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m curious what your comparison is to BoX and DCS, which sim are you holding up as a better example? Because these and I suppose the revamped Cliffs of Dover are the only current games in this genre. If you go back to 1946 or BMS these games contain such legacy features like smart scaling and “dots” or whatever that are out of place today. They were originally meant for small low res CRT monitors. 

Those solutions don’t work today or are really awkward. DCS just tried this model scaling thing that flopped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m curious what your comparison is to BoX and DCS, which sim are you holding up as a better example? Because these and I suppose the revamped Cliffs of Dover are the only current games in this genre. If you go back to 1946 or BMS these games contain such legacy features like smart scaling and “dots” or whatever that are out of place today. They were originally meant for small low res CRT monitors. 

Those solutions don’t work today or are really awkward. DCS just tried this model scaling thing that flopped. 

You dont know what you are talking about. Smart scaling isnt just meant for low res monitors. All of these solutions still work as well. Clod uses some of them, which is why its vision is more or less spot on. 

 

And as for DCS, DCS did NOT use scaling. DCS tried to use an imposter system which failed because it was horrendously implemented. It didnt fix the vision issues and caused contacts to be visible at random ranges. It also allowed for alot of player cheating more or less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 12:51 AM, Poochnboo said:

People are either complaining that sims aren't real enough or they complain that they want things done to the sim to make it more arcadish. I'm a real life pilot. Over 500 hours of flight time. I've owned two airplanes. I'm just saying that I think that I have enough experience to have an opinion on this.

    I've been in a landing pattern where the tower is telling me, "You are number three behind the white Cherokee." I answer, "Okay...looking..." But I can't find him! "Tower, I cannot locate my traffic." They finally have to say, "He is at your ten o'clock." Finally I see him.

    It's hard to see other airplanes up there. And they aren't even camouflaged! It's easier in the game. Start doing things to make it even easier and you might as well just go and play Ace Combat.

Why do you think 90% of fighter pilots that were shot down never saw the guy who got them? 

 

This must be the tenth or twentieth time an experienced real life pilot has posted in one of these threads that spotting other aircraft in the air is not easy.

 

And then have their opinion shot down by those who don't actually fly but know better anyway:rolleyes:

 

  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fumes said:

And as for DCS, DCS did NOT use scaling. DCS tried to use an imposter system which failed because it was horrendously implemented. 

Yes it was different. But it still represented distant objects out of scale which didn’t work. That’s basically what smart scaling does. 

Or if there’s a difference nobody has been able to explain it that I’ve seen. And yeah smart scaling is a feature from back in the day of 10” CRTs. Flight “sims” back then had Atari level graphics :( so nobody cared how awful that looked. 

The DCS discussions are best left to that forum, but they’re dead there because the feature didn’t work. It has been discussed to death there by now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes it was different. But it still represented distant objects out of scale which didn’t work. That’s basically what smart scaling does. 

Or if there’s a difference nobody has been able to explain it that I’ve seen. And yeah smart scaling is a feature from back in the day of 10” CRTs. Flight “sims” back then had Atari level graphics :( so nobody cared how awful that looked. 

The DCS discussions are best left to that forum, but they’re dead there because the feature didn’t work. It has been discussed to death there by now. 

The problem with the DCS imposters was that they had too much blend applied and they didnt work right in general.

 

Smart scaling is a general approach to fixing the problem, and it is just as applicable to modern monitors as it was then. Smart scaling is still in use on falcon BMS, which never had "atari graphics" BMS arrived around 2003 and the latest version still uses scaling, and it works fantastically. 

 

You seem to think that all these features are somehow linked only to very old displays. This is nonsense. Our displays have improved, but nowhere near enough to reflect reality. You could have a 8k 27in screen and you would still need adjustments. 

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

This must be the tenth or twentieth time an experienced real life pilot has posted in one of these threads that spotting other aircraft in the air is not easy.

 

And then have their opinion shot down by those who don't actually fly but know better anyway:rolleyes:

 

  

Because we have had other pilots and documents contradict it. Including one in this thread. Most of the other anecdotes were from glider people, and one of the two pilot in this thread that agree with its premise, came out and said that glider spotting is not the same. 

Edited by Fumes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  I can see the foot stamping now.....yawn........

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fumes said:

Smart scaling is a general approach to fixing the problem, and it is just as applicable to modern monitors as it was then. Smart scaling is still in use on falcon BMS, which never had "atari graphics" BMS arrived around 2003 and the latest version still uses scaling, and it works fantastically. 

As far as I know BMS was the only sim to use this. So it’s not a “general approach” it’s a feature that one game decided to use. It doesn’t make that the right solution for all sims into eternity. And DCS could not use a system that scaled up its LOD models (it affects the radar in game) which was why they used sprites or imposters. The result to the player is basically the same. You’re seeing tanks on the ground the size of skyscrapers. BoX will never adopt something as silly as that. 

And yeah... 2003 is the dark ages of gaming, the era of small square low res CRTs  :o:

 

Smart scaling is a solution from the past. The solution for the future is like this

 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

As far as I know BMS was the only sim to use this. So it’s not a “general approach” it’s a feature that one game decided to use. It doesn’t make that the right solution for all sims into eternity. And DCS could not use a system that scaled up its LOD models (it affects the radar in game) which was why they used sprites or imposters. The result to the player is basically the same. You’re seeing tanks on the ground the size of skyscrapers. BoX will never adopt something as silly as that. 

And yeah... 2003 is the dark ages of gaming, the era of small square low res CRTs  :o:

 

Smart scaling is a solution from the past. The solution for the future is like this

 

Nope. 

 

BMS has the most comprehensive scaling, its not the only game to enlarge things. Clod does its own things to achieve the same effect. The DCS system didnt work because it was badly implemented. You never see giant tanks in BMS. Like most things that ED does, it was done like shit. 

 

2003 was the initial release. It is still in use as of 2018. The newest Clod has lots of its own non-HDR solutions, and it is very recent as of the last release. And I am going to say this one more time: it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that scaling or similar things are needed in flight sims to make up for the lack of resolution and screen size. That is NOT a debatable aspect of this. You can argue for a different specific method, but in order to make up for resolution and screen size/FOV, you MUST alter the image in some fashion. 

Scaling up the general size of the object, and changing or exaggerating Lods is ONE part of the solution. I did not say it was the only one. Until we are all playing on movie theatre sized screens at 32K, then Scaling will be needed. Or until VR operates at real world Res and FOV. Scaling and Lod adjustment will not, FACTUALLY, be obsolete until that happens. 

 

S

 

Contrast improvements, which include newer HDR tech, are ALSO a part of the solution. You need BOTH things to make a decent abstraction that is tactically adequate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt IL-2 is ever going to use smart scaling so this is all moot. What would happen with this feature is players would also demand for it to be user adjustable just like DCS did. Then it would get switched off in mp and nobody would use it. Then it would get removed just like DCS did. 

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

You never see giant tanks in BMS.

Of course you would. How is smart scaling “scaling” if it’s not drawing objects larger than they should be? Even a tank that’s 3 pixels in size, at too great a distance is effectively the size of a skyscraper. That’s the same thing DCS was trying to do and the effect was ridiculous. The ground targets, being seen directly against other objects for scale, made this awkwardly apparent. The only difference between smart scaling and “Model Enlargement” in DCS was the use of a 2D sprite instead of an oversized LOD model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I doubt IL-2 is ever going to use smart scaling so this is all moot. What would happen with this feature is players would also demand for it to be user adjustable just like DCS did. Then it would get switched off in mp and nobody would use it. Then it would get removed just like DCS did. 

Of course you would. How is smart scaling “scaling” if it’s not drawing objects larger than they should be? Even a tank that’s 3 pixels in size, at too great a distance is effectively the size of a skyscraper. That’s the same thing DCS was trying to do and the effect was ridiculous. The ground targets, being seen directly against other objects for scale, made this awkwardly apparent. The only difference between smart scaling and “Model Enlargement” in DCS was the use of a 2D sprite instead of an oversized LOD model. 

Of course you would? Have you even played BMS? This is just the most absurd comment I have seen in this thread. I am telling you: tanks in BMS are not skyscraper sized. The end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

This must be the tenth or twentieth time an experienced real life pilot has posted in one of these threads that spotting other aircraft in the air is not easy.

 

Perhaps you are taking accounts of inexperienced pilots or people with bad sighting? The post below is a pretty common occurence.

 

On 02/01/2018 at 5:28 PM, EC.5/25.Corsair said:

On the RL comparison.. being both a light piston aircraft and a glider flyer (...) 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corsair, as far as I know, flys in southern France, where air is very clear, about the clearest you can have in Europe. This means you can see FAR. North of the Alps, you don‘t have half of the visibility usually.

 

So you‘re really comparing here to the theoretical maximum of sighting range.

 

So again: Air is not fully transparent. Its tranparency depends on weather. This, and not „the resolution of the eye“ (which one?) limits usually your sighting distance unless you are flying above the weather. In the sim, we don‘t have weather. There is no air. There‘s just more or less clouds and shrouded horizon. For us lawn mowers in BoX, this is really a cheat.

 

What we certainly are missing is dynamic range of bright and dark, as you mention in the case of reflections on the aircraft. 

 

And it is great that Corsair is that good at spotting, it will keep him alive. Most other folks are great at seeing things, but they have a hard time seeing the aircraft they are about to run into.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on... I'll disregard your post because it is silly. 

 

And it is not only him -- there are several other real life pilots (mind you that not everyone here lives in one single spot in the world) saying that spotting is not really a big deal if you know what you are doing. This especially in BOX, where we can't see further than 9.5km anyway. IIRC, a squadron spotted flak indicating the first German wave in the bodenplatte battle some 15km away. Not to mention reflection, which is paramount.

 

Perhaps with the new BOX versions things were ironed out, perhaps DCS 2.5 has better spotting (not until Normandy 2.0), but this is why many of us are posting here and asking for improvement -- to give feedback for the devs to look into it and fix whatever they think needs to be fixed. And guess what? They do that pretty often, so I don't see what's the problem.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeaW0lf said:

Come on... I'll disregard your post because it is silly. 

Read my post and you see that i was not really contradicting your points.

 

In short I said that you that *in the right conditions* can easily see very far, especially given the right cues.

 

3 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

there are several other real life pilots (mind you that not everyone here lives in one single spot in the world) saying that spotting is not really a big deal if you know what you are doing.

This I find a useless statement on its own as spotting is indeed an issue for many. Even for some that say that they "see everything". Plane midair crashes tell that story. You don't do yourself a favor by cherry picking statements.

 

The point is more, that it may (as I understand is your rationale, is it?) be desirable to use the theoretical maximum of spotting to be incorporated in the sim, as spotting in the sim is still a challenge enough. So there is no reason at all for *intentionally* reducing the max. line of sight. In my musing above I mentioned that there might be situations where you want to have a reduced max. line of sight. It is calles "weather". See here, from the current weather in London:

1.jpg

Would you want to see objects, say over 20 km range?  Just to understand you correctly, when for instance flying at 500 m altitude, would you want to see an object at the same altitude over 20 km? You would not scale the maximum vision acording to athmospheric conditions? Did i understand you correctly here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it again it and seems you were saying "but he lives in a place where the conditions are optimal for spotting". Anyway, we come both from ROF and I know that you appreciate the spotting / reflection we have there (it amazes me to this day how trilling it is to spot a plane shining its wing under the sun at the right angle some thousands feet below). So I might have interpreted it wrong. My apologies.

 

But the 20+ km quote is of flak, which is very important, although DCS has a 12nm range in my monitor and I don't think it is farfetched if the conditions are optimal, when the aircraft is above the horizon line. It can be done a compromise, but 9.5km is an extremely tight shoe for WWII. Now that we are aware of it, I would love to have more range in WWI as well.

 

And this thread has discussed all that had to be discussed about range and everyone sort of agrees that 9.5km is subpar. It renders a full real server a bit useless in my opinion.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would imply that the game prioritises certain objects to be rendered beyond the 9.5 km. I wonder how much of an impact it would make if such things as larger buldings and flak would be rendered farther away. They do not involve any sort of scripting or AI, so I would guess it would come down to increased presence of geometry in a scene. This then would directly cap your max. FPS. Also, I have no idea how much work the underlaying codebase would require to have different classes of objects differing in render distance.

 

So far, the devs really push forward with what they can sell directly, this is plain content, with the exception of the amazing work done on secery rendering. So if a certain work is done for catering people who bought the game already, then this is a difficult desicion I guess. I mean there are plenty of "little things" that are a thorn in the side of players and server admins.

 

Just going to 12,5 km vision means you have potentially a double amout of objects. Going to 20 km, you have theoretically 8 times the objects. Now that objects are not evenly distributed alleviates that a bit. But I would guess the devs are looking at a rather hard caping of possibilities there. Unless they were to change large pars of the code. The glare within 9.5 km however should not be that difficult.

 

At some point there is no way around going true multicore. Especially for servers. But how does the large part of the player base pay for that? A paid unlock for 64 AI planes? That should probably be something like $100...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It would imply that the game prioritises certain objects to be rendered beyond the 9.5 km. I wonder how much of an impact it would make if such things as larger buldings and flak would be rendered farther away. They do not involve any sort of scripting or AI, so I would guess it would come down to increased presence of geometry in a scene. This then would directly cap your max. FPS. Also, I have no idea how much work the underlaying codebase would require to have different classes of objects differing in render distance.

 

So far, the devs really push forward with what they can sell directly, this is plain content, with the exception of the amazing work done on secery rendering. So if a certain work is done for catering people who bought the game already, then this is a difficult desicion I guess. I mean there are plenty of "little things" that are a thorn in the side of players and server admins.

 

Just going to 12,5 km vision means you have potentially a double amout of objects. Going to 20 km, you have theoretically 8 times the objects. Now that objects are not evenly distributed alleviates that a bit. But I would guess the devs are looking at a rather hard caping of possibilities there. Unless they were to change large pars of the code. The glare within 9.5 km however should not be that difficult.

 

At some point there is no way around going true multicore. Especially for servers. But how does the large part of the player base pay for that? A paid unlock for 64 AI planes? That should probably be something like $100...

I dont buy the idea that this limit is in place due to processing considerations. There are VERY old games out there that rendered objects much further away with considerably more going on in the general environment. Certainly the games have gotten more complex, but they also had a lot less cpu and gpu power to work with: think Pentium 4. 

 

There is nothing about BoX that should make it that resource limited. There are modern (and older for that matter) with just as complex or even more complex flight modeling/ai/etc. And there are lots of game that do all that today without having a 10km limit. 

 

If there really is a software or hardware limit, then there is something truly screwed up or inefficient with something in BOX

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...