Jump to content
[TLC]YIPPEE

How the current contact visibility negatively impact tactics in BOX

Recommended Posts

Well how complex were those AI planes in the 90‘s sims? In „Their Finest Hour“ you could have 75 AI planes in the air and no problem if you had this powerfull x386 processor. The AI planes flew moronic, none of them even remotely acting as they should. European Air War had up to 256 planes. But if you had such „planes“ today (2 hits = smoking, 4 hits = shot down or something like that) you‘d alt-F4 right away.

 

If it wasn‘t ressource limited, then there wouldn‘t be a single reason not to increase the bubble. There is also no reason to assume the devs not being aware on the limitations the current situation imposes. Assuming they don‘t give a larger bubble becuase „12 km is bad for us“ I find ridiculous.

 

Remember, the sims is compelled to have headroom for the maximum number of planes (these may be the more complex and overhead demanding bombers) while still not slowing down real world time on an average system. And already people seem to notice that in missions that have many objects.

 

AFAIR, Jason explicitly stated that this overhead is making four engined bombers not likely in this sim. They eat a lot of CPU overhead running all the systems.

 

But contrast and glare are some of cosmetics that could sill need some luvin‘ without to much of a price to pay.

 

For single core programming, we certainly hit the brick all here. unless multithreading is fully implemented, we are stuck with what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fumes said:

There is nothing about BoX that should make it that resource limited.

In BoX all the AI aircraft use the same advanced flight model as the player. That’s not the case in any of these other sims. The FM is the chief thing that limits how many aircraft the game can handle at one time. This has been optimized recently to allow more AI but it’s still a limiting factor. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Well how complex were those AI planes in the 90‘s sims? In „Their Finest Hour“ you could have 75 AI planes in the air and no problem if you had this powerfull x386 processor. The AI planes flew moronic, none of them even remotely acting as they should. European Air War had up to 256 planes. But if you had such „planes“ today (2 hits = smoking, 4 hits = shot down or something like that) you‘d alt-F4 right away.

 

If it wasn‘t ressource limited, then there wouldn‘t be a single reason not to increase the bubble. There is also no reason to assume the devs not being aware on the limitations the current situation imposes. Assuming they don‘t give a larger bubble becuase „12 km is bad for us“ I find ridiculous.

 

Remember, the sims is compelled to have headroom for the maximum number of planes (these may be the more complex and overhead demanding bombers) while still not slowing down real world time on an average system. And already people seem to notice that in missions that have many objects.

 

AFAIR, Jason explicitly stated that this overhead is making four engined bombers not likely in this sim. They eat a lot of CPU overhead running all the systems.

 

But contrast and glare are some of cosmetics that could sill need some luvin‘ without to much of a price to pay.

 

For single core programming, we certainly hit the brick all here. unless multithreading is fully implemented, we are stuck with what we have.

Think 800 planes, not 75. Alot of the old MMO sims had absurd numbers of players running around. The BMS campaign, which has a very sophisticated player flight model, and decent ai (esp for bvr) has hundreds of planes and ground units being commanded simultaneously. View distances in sims in general, including modern ones that do as much or more than BOX, are usually anywhere from 17-30km. Not 10. 

 

Box doesnt do anything significant that should causes such a huge bottleneck that they cant increase the view range out further. For heavens sake, you could even have the render range for a given object determined by conditions, hence reducing the overhead. For example, ground vehicles dont need a 10km view range, and certainly not 20 or 30. Same thing for 4 engine planes for that matter: surely they are no more complex than 4 whole single engines fighters? Ju-52 has 3 engines, surely 1 more is not the end of the world? 

 

In my opinion, there is alot more to the reason we dont have 10km than a bottleneck. I dont think we are being given the whole story, and that could be for a whole range of reasons. 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In BoX all the AI aircraft use the same advanced flight model as the player. That’s not the case in any of these other sims. The FM is the chief thing that limits how many aircraft the game can handle at one time. This has been optimized recently to allow more AI but it’s still a limiting factor. 

Then that should be changed. Simple as that. Furthermore, if you can change the range at which something renders, then you can change the range at which it uses such a FM. 

33 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

If it wasn‘t ressource limited, then there wouldn‘t be a single reason not to increase the bubble. There is also no reason to assume the devs not being aware on the limitations the current situation imposes. Assuming they don‘t give a larger bubble becuase „12 km is bad for us“ I find ridiculous.

 

 

This explanation does not even make sense to me even on the surface. The game still tracks the contact even if it is not being rendered by the player. Based on what has been said, the game is still having to calculate everything except the ai's visual appearance. With regards to the number of ai or sophistication of the FM, that should have nothing to do with the overload because that would still have to do most, if not all, of that even when the airplane cant bee seen. If it wasnt tracking the plane, how would ai pop in anyhow? Surely the entire idea of a render range is that the airplane is sill "there" even if its not being rendered. Hence how it comes into render range at some point, or how ai shoot each other down outside this range, or bomb things. 

 

What is more, even if for some strange reason the cpu does no work at all on a unrendered plane, this says nothing of a case with several players. Playing a mission with alot of ai could easily be bogged down with just a tiny player population since if those players were in different places they could easily be "rendering" every ai on the map anyhow. 

 

Sorry I dont buy this. 

Share this post


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

Then that should be changed. Simple as that. Furthermore, if you can change the range at which something renders, then you can change the range at which it uses such a FM. 

Giving distant AI a simple FM was considered. I’m not sure if it is anymore. There has been some optimization already. 

At some point you have to decide if this is a game for you or not. It sounds like you’re stuck in sims from decades ago and can’t move on.

No sim today is going to have 800 aircraft in the air with the fidelity that’s expected by today’s market. 

Your comments aren’t constructive they’re just endless complaining. This thread is going the direction of the pointless FM debates and maybe needs to be moderated as such. It’s run it’s course. 

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

 I dont think we are being given the whole story, 

So what’s your point? Are you implying that the Devs are lying? 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this topic running on fumes yet? :ph34r:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Is this topic running on fumes yet? :ph34r:

Dunno, but you certainly havent lost any of your ability to be a dev defender. Like you are on all other forums, with your usual snark and attitude that anyone with a complaint just isnt grateful enough to the dev gods. Your well on your way to becoming a non-mod version of Sithspawn. 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Giving distant AI a simple FM was considered. I’m not sure if it is anymore. There has been some optimization already. 

At some point you have to decide if this is a game for you or not. It sounds like you’re stuck in sims from decades ago and can’t move on.

No sim today is going to have 800 aircraft in the air with the fidelity that’s expected by today’s market. 

Your comments aren’t constructive they’re just endless complaining. This thread is going the direction of the pointless FM debates and maybe needs to be moderated as such. It’s run it’s course. 

So what’s your point? Are you implying that the Devs are lying? 

This thread only keeps going endlessly because you cant understand the basics of what is needed in a combat sim in order for it work properly. 

Edited by Fumes
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Dunno, but you certainly havent lost any of your ability to be a dev defender. Like you are on all other forums, with your usual snark and attitude that anyone with a complaint just isnt grateful enough to the dev gods. Your well on your way to becoming a non-mod version of Sithspawn. 

 

Good grief, dude, it was a joke and a play on words. Dial it down a notch or five.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

This thread only keeps going endlessly because you cant understand the basics of what is needed in a combat sim in order for it work properly. 

Clearly that means making this game into a replica of a sim from 20 years ago....

 

701A6FEA-46B3-4914-832C-3875606B81DF.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.11.2017 at 10:29 AM, 216th_Jordan said:

Ingame:

- HDR off

- SSAO off

- sharpen filter on

- landscape filter sharpen

- 4x AA

- gamma 0.8-0.9

 

Nvidia profile:

- gamma correction off

- negative lod bias clamp

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

 

think that was it..

Of course make sure your monitor is color calibrated.

 

Hello gents,
The tip for the graphics settings in the Nvidia settings, as well as the hint with the gamma in the game to 0.9 to set were a real game changer. In addition, I have recalibrated my monitor more to natural colors. I can now recognize and find contacts again between 0 - 7,5KM. Depending on the position of the sun they are very good to easy to spot and to follow. All contacts in the nearby air combat area between 0 - 3.5 KM are so clearly visible now, that i currently have to practice again to pursue so many contacts
:wacko::biggrin:. Also it makes no difference if the contact is above forest, water or normal landscape. Alsofor my wingman, the changes have brought much. Yesterday we had the first real team fight without losing sight of each other or after loss of visual contact to find us quickly after instructions. Or to find him after the description of his flight maneuvers in the whole pack. It's almost like in the old Il-2 1946 where you can see and follow a plane flying at an altitude of 500m from a height of 8km. I have also,  as in Ciffs of Dover, great different sun reflections on the aircraft. Not so nice but good enough to discover a contact in 7,5+ KM.
 

I use a I7 3770K 3,5 GHz, 16 GMRam, GTX 680 4GB RAM with an ASUS 27 inch 1920x1080, by 40 - 75 fps. My wingman use a mutch bigger monitor with 4K resolution and comes also to the same distances sometimes even more.

 

regards

Little_D

Edited by 1./JG2_Little_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2018 at 9:46 PM, SharpeXB said:

Clearly that means making this game into a replica of a sim from 20 years ago....

 

701A6FEA-46B3-4914-832C-3875606B81DF.jpeg

It has nothing to do with sims from the 90s. The only reason we are even making comparisons to older sims is because until il2 and DCS, there was a general dearth of flight sims made after that time. So any comparisons we make naturally fall back to that, not because I have some thing for the oldies. 

 

The old sims had their own problems. It is disingenuous on your part to insinuate that these sims have been brought up because I have some ulterior motive to recreate them. The only reference to them that was relevant to this thread is making the point that older sims had many options available that were used to offset a problem that is STILL relevant. For some reason, the two major new flight sims have not given this problem so much as a nod. The reason this point is made is because it is important to point out that solutions to this problem are already in existence, and this is not some novel problem. 

 

46 was trash. I never played ww2 online or warbirds. I left the one old sim I did play because it was showing its age. But you keep on rambling about how we somehow dont need fixes to this problem despite the fact that our display systems are objectively incapable of 1 to 1 recreation of the source medium. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

older sims had many options available that were used to offset a problem that is STILL relevant. For some reason, the two major new flight sims have not given this problem so much as a nod.

A huge difference between newer flight sims and the old ones is the type of display that’s used. Today it’s about universal that every player has a large 1080p or higher res monitors as opposed to the small low res CRTs of the past. Past sims needed to have these visibility enhancements like scaling or dots because otherwise they would have been unplayable. Especially Falcon that simulated long range modern air combat. The new flight sims don’t need this degree of enhancement. Plus they have much better and more realistic graphics where these enhancements would spoil the image presented to the player. IL-2S here does I believe use some sort of sprite, but if so, it’s well done in the fact that it’s unobtrusive and importantly not user adjustable. 

It’s aparent from reading this type of discussion over and over, it comes up constantly, that some older players aren’t adapting their methods to the new games, the old enhancements are a crutch that needs to be unlearned. The way you’re supposed to see distant objects clearly, in current sims, is to use the zoom view. Not to have every distant object appear artificially larger. 

Of course the 1CGS team knows everything about past games and their features. And all the current sim products have gone this direction for a good reason. The recently abandoned effort by ED to introduce scaled up models just illustrates why this isn’t done anymore. At some point you need to adapt your gameplay style and expectations to the current products because it’s not likely they’re going to change in this regard. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reminder for anyone saying that they can spot reliably > 15 km distance. It is good if you can, because most of the others, they can't.

 

This is real world spotting too, again it happened, just now:

media.media.37232a05-f772-4518-ad64-8f9e

 

at EDTY (Schwäbisch Hall). Collision in the pattern for landing. Both pilots dead. RIP. :(

 

Just for the record, compared to air combat tournament standards, the average pilot sucks at spotting. It is amazing how many things you find you have to do other than looking out the window. You rely on the other seeing you, your mom won't be happy. "Spotting" is not "seeing". Workload is very bad for spotting. Little flying practse is also bad for spotting. Being used to stare at your effin' phone is bad for spotting...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 4:57 AM, ZachariasX said:

Just as a reminder for anyone saying that they can spot reliably > 15 km distance. It is good if you can, because most of the others, they can't.

 

This is real world spotting too, again it happened, just now:

media.media.37232a05-f772-4518-ad64-8f9e

 

at EDTY (Schwäbisch Hall). Collision in the pattern for landing. Both pilots dead. RIP. :(

 

Just for the record, compared to air combat tournament standards, the average pilot sucks at spotting. It is amazing how many things you find you have to do other than looking out the window. You rely on the other seeing you, your mom won't be happy. "Spotting" is not "seeing". Workload is very bad for spotting. Little flying practse is also bad for spotting. Being used to stare at your effin' phone is bad for spotting...

I fail entirely to see what the point is in pointing out that if the pilot is busy he wont notice things around him. That has not absolutely nothing to do with the abilities of the human eye were he actually paying attention. It is a given that if you are too bust to look for something, you arent going to see it. The point of this discussion is the poor nature of spotting in game when you are ARE looking for something, and even when you are looking right at that certain something. 

Share this post


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

[...] That has not absolutely nothing to do with the abilities of the human eye [...]

Thank you for making my point.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Thank you for making my point.

What point? That any human task can be interfered with by things not related to the task? WOW. What a revelation. 

 

The entire point of this conversation is what kind of spotting should the player be capable of. Being distracted has got literally nothing to do with this debate. Holy crap. :wacko:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fumes said:

Being distracted has got literally nothing to do with this debate.

Even when not distracted, in the real world, it is my experience that people most often fall drastically short of what they are theoretically capable of. Take a simmer along in an aircraft and occasionally ask him how many aircraft he sees and where. You get a very low figure usually.

 

Truth is in the real world, even a pilot "looking out" too often fails to see the aircraft he's about to run into. These are actually the most difficult ones to spot, as they mainatin constant bearing. And you are aware that it takes two participants for an accident. You cannot count on both being distracted or not knowing what they are supposed to be looking for. They are even told on the radio what to look for. In addition they (two of them!) are told *where* to look for and yet they still don't see them at arms lenght.

 

It is ok taking the theoretical maximum as "normal baseline" for a sim, otherwise you'd put on some sort of restriction. To be clear, I am not against the sim showing planes up to 20 km or so (high up where it's dry). That is a wholly different argument and I'd be the last to be against a larger player bubble.

 

What I was trying to say is that a common argument in these forums in the form "I can always spot any plane over 15 km" is more often than not a total lie to oneself. Even higher ranges have been postulated in this forum. So I say, good for you if you can. Others can't. Regular mid air collisions tell a different story. And calling the casualties "distracted" or any other form of stupid doesn't help. Also that attitude may well kill you when you are sitting in a real aircraft. But if you truly can see them all, and I do believe some maybe can, then I am impressed. And your mother will be happy too as it keeps you alive.

 

 

The sim should definitely see far.

A real world person often enough sees as far as their dash. Just don't take them as grounds for far sightedness.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Even when not distracted, in the real world, it is my experience that people most often fall drastically short of what they are theoretically capable of. Take a simmer along in an aircraft and occasionally ask him how many aircraft he sees and where. You get a very low figure usually.

 

Truth is in the real world, even a pilot "looking out" too often fails to see the aircraft he's about to run into. These are actually the most difficult ones to spot, as they mainatin constant bearing. And you are aware that it takes two participants for an accident. You cannot count on both being distracted or not knowing what they are supposed to be looking for. They are even told on the radio what to look for. In addition they (two of them!) are told *where* to look for and yet they still don't see them at arms lenght.

 

It is ok taking the theoretical maximum as "normal baseline" for a sim, otherwise you'd put on some sort of restriction. To be clear, I am not against the sim showing planes up to 20 km or so (high up where it's dry). That is a wholly different argument and I'd be the last to be against a larger player bubble.

 

What I was trying to say is that a common argument in these forums in the form "I can always spot any plane over 15 km" is more often than not a total lie to oneself. Even higher ranges have been postulated in this forum. So I say, good for you if you can. Others can't. Regular mid air collisions tell a different story. And calling the casualties "distracted" or any other form of stupid doesn't help. Also that attitude may well kill you when you are sitting in a real aircraft. But if you truly can see them all, and I do believe some maybe can, then I am impressed. And your mother will be happy too as it keeps you alive.

 

 

The sim should definitely see far.

A real world person often enough sees as far as their dash. Just don't take them as grounds for far sightedness.

 

 

I understood your point before. It is not really relevant to this discussion for two reasons:

 

1. Non-sight related issues with spotting are not the topic of this thread. To make your own point for you, in a game with bloody icons people miss targets. Were having a conversation about MOA and you are talking about being nervous while shooting. 

 

2: This conversation was never about 15km targets. If you read the OP, I stated that while I consider the 10km bubble to be wrong, my issue is with contact spotting at relatively short ranges. The issue starts broadly speaking at around 6km and has some of its worse issues at the sub 3km range. This thread is not about making it "easy" to spot contacts at 15+km. It never was. 

 

To clarify, the spotting issues at those shorter ranges prevent the player from gaining and maintaining a realistic SA picture. 

 

-Airplanes are too small in profile. Making them not only too hard to see but too hard to gauge distance and energy state. 

 

-Airplanes blend into both the ground and sky too well (especially the ground) at CLOSE ranges. Meaning 800m-3km. Sometimes a contact you know you are looking at, not looking for, will simply vanish for no good reason. 

 

-There is no LOD adjustment, or scaling, to compensate for aircraft size and game resolution. As a result IDing aircraft at realistic ranges requires too much FOV zoom, increasing the decision loop too far for useful SA. 

 

-Broadly speaking, planes in this game simply "blend" too much. It is impossible to build SA, and as a result the only tactical options that work (contrary to the real world) are caution to the point of tactical ineffectiveness or aggression that does not allow for anything other than a furball. 

 

As an afterthought, the 10km bubble somewhat exacerbates all this by giving the player too small of a SA bubble. 

 

Ive already posted a bunch of evidence of this, but I will also add that if you read through ww2 after action reports you can see that the pilots writing them had a much better idea of what was going on around them than what is possible in Il2, and their tactics reflect it. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 6:51 PM, 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 hit 500 hours about 37 years ago, flying green and tan airplanes very low and very fast over Germany with a pair of smoking J-79s (more fun than a bachelor should have been allowed to have!). Nowadays I'm an 18,000 hour sky god in taildraggers trying to shake gliders off the end of a 200 foot rope. I have been extremely fortunate to have great success in RL picking up the relative motion of airplanes (and gliders).  I experienced the embarrassment of exactly one Canadian CF-104 jumping me unobserved and joining on my wing. Not that it mattered, but my WSO was flying the jet. As the Zipper tucked into close formation, I held up both hands in surrender so he knew who was flying. Never happened again. These days as a bug smasher I confess that I actively listen to the radio to build and continuously update my SA. I will frequently let Tower know I have traffic in sight before they call it out. Not as a general rule, but in situations where I can tell there are converging vectors or to ask about sequencing. The faster the traffic the easier it is to spot (for me at least).  It's all about relative motion against a given background.

 

Unlike you, I find RL infinitely easier than the game WRT to picking up a contact. I find the game down right difficult. But HerrMurf and DakPilot think the game is fairly accurate. Combine my trouble acquiring bandits with my lousy gunnery (a professional never blames his tools), I die early and often. When I grow up I want to be as good as MeowScharfi.

 

FWIW for your 90% statistic to be true you would have to interview all the fighter pilots shot down. 

 

Edited by busdriver

Share this post


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

-Airplanes are too small in profile.

Are they really? Why would they be? Why shouldn't the 3D engine of the sim draw to scale? The human vision and perception enlarges objects to a great degree if you are looking at them "in the real world". Having a good picture of important details (hungry lions) keep you alive. Comparing a photo with real life perception reveals impressive differences. The famous "big red sun" in Japanese drawings is testament of that. Drawn to scale, it should be a dot. The magnification process doesn't work when you are looking at a screen.

 

I have no idea if that woudl work when using VR gear. Would be a neat experiment though.

 

I'm not challenging your finding here, i just didn't notice such so far.

 

3 hours ago, Fumes said:

-Airplanes blend into both the ground and sky too well

I would say that depends a bit on the weather (when comparing to RL), but the reduced contrast a screen offers compared to the real world is big indeed. Thus I like the reflections (often mentioned by Seawolf in these threads) that we have in RoF a lot. Also the on and off nature of the glare drastically facilitates spotting. So I hear you. It's just that there are other requirements that make RL spoting difficult that are absent form spotting on a monitor. Thus for me it is just a different sport. Eventually, you should have SA such that you don't need to constantly eyeball the aircraft for knowing where it is.

 

 

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

Unlike you, I find RL infinitely easier than the game WRT to picking up a contact.

That coming from someone like you, I belive hat. You are far, far more trained to maintain a propper lookout. Not only that, you are much more experienced that you can fly the plane subconsiously and channel your efforts in actually looking outside. I did fly with someone that shares a similar resume. He easily kept track of things I had a hard time spotting in the first place. This is the moment when you leave the aircraft and think to yourself whether you not better quit flying. Then there are others that make you question the purpose of windows. (And you feel like Chuck Yeager again.)

 

But for having the same SA in a game, I find you have to start from scratch with practising.

 

My original rant above was mainly expressing my anger because people do not look outside for various reasons. And then accidents happen. And that does happen to people you know. And it happens where you fly. And you may say, how could they be so stupid?, that would never happen to me. When we in fact create circumstances that very much so encourage accidents. When I look at the statistics, I find two main groups of pilots at risk. One are the rookies. They bend metal, get hurt, sometimes die. The other group are the Experten. They just know where the mountain is and where it is not. Even if there's a huge cloud. Then you scratch them off a rock. When self confidence overcomes humleness, you live dangerously. I related this to the discussion as this is like saying "of course I always see ALL aircraft around me". And I say, great, if you can. You keep not only yourself safe, but the others too. But I'm not banking on you seeing me. Humbelness prompts you to look again.

 

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

FWIW for your 90% statistic to be true you would have to interview all the fighter pilots shot down. 

I usually see my assailant when I get shot down. When hell breaks loose, I look back, and there he is. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Are they really? Why would they be? Why shouldn't the 3D engine of the sim draw to scale? The human vision and perception enlarges objects to a great degree if you are looking at them "in the real world". Having a good picture of important details (hungry lions) keep you alive. Comparing a photo with real life perception reveals impressive differences. The famous "big red sun" in Japanese drawings is testament of that. Drawn to scale, it should be a dot. The magnification process doesn't work when you are looking at a screen.

 

I have no idea if that woudl work when using VR gear. Would be a neat experiment though.

 

I'm not challenging your finding here, i just didn't notice such so far.

 

I would say that depends a bit on the weather (when comparing to RL), but the reduced contrast a screen offers compared to the real world is big indeed. Thus I like the reflections (often mentioned by Seawolf in these threads) that we have in RoF a lot. Also the on and off nature of the glare drastically facilitates spotting. So I hear you. It's just that there are other requirements that make RL spoting difficult that are absent form spotting on a monitor. Thus for me it is just a different sport. Eventually, you should have SA such that you don't need to constantly eyeball the aircraft for knowing where it is.

 

 

That coming from someone like you, I belive hat. You are far, far more trained to maintain a propper lookout. Not only that, you are much more experienced that you can fly the plane subconsiously and channel your efforts in actually looking outside. I did fly with someone that shares a similar resume. He easily kept track of things I had a hard time spotting in the first place. This is the moment when you leave the aircraft and think to yourself whether you not better quit flying. Then there are others that make you question the purpose of windows. (And you feel like Chuck Yeager again.)

 

But for having the same SA in a game, I find you have to start from scratch with practising.

 

My original rant above was mainly expressing my anger because people do not look outside for various reasons. And then accidents happen. And that does happen to people you know. And it happens where you fly. And you may say, how could they be so stupid?, that would never happen to me. When we in fact create circumstances that very much so encourage accidents. When I look at the statistics, I find two main groups of pilots at risk. One are the rookies. They bend metal, get hurt, sometimes die. The other group are the Experten. They just know where the mountain is and where it is not. Even if there's a huge cloud. Then you scratch them off a rock. When self confidence overcomes humleness, you live dangerously. I related this to the discussion as this is like saying "of course I always see ALL aircraft around me". And I say, great, if you can. You keep not only yourself safe, but the others too. But I'm not banking on you seeing me. Humbelness prompts you to look again.

 

I usually see my assailant when I get shot down. When hell breaks loose, I look back, and there he is. :)

 

VR at some point in the furture might solve most of these issues. But to do that its going to need to drive an order of magnitude better resolution. 

 

In the mean time I think the magnification problem can be solved with either smart scaling, or dynamic LODs. In my definition, dynamic lod differ in that they do not scale the entire plane but change the size of certain things depending on the perspective of the players camera, such as thickening wings when the airplane is about 1km away and in a narrow profile. Or exaggerating feature that would be noticeable IRL, like elliptical wings. 

 

The contrast problem can be solved with dynamic adjustments as well. Shading aircraft with more extreme off colors, depending on players perspective. Since we dont have the same contrast from a monitor, the solution is to use larger color differences. I am told CLOD does this. And I agree that reflections help alot with this as well. 

 

Btw here is an example of smart scaling. 

 

 

An example of lod adjustment in profile. Illustrative, not necessarily intended to demonstrate how it should be implemented precisely. 

unknown.png

 

Edited by Fumes

Share this post


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

 

-Airplanes are too small in profile. 

You need to back up statements like this with facts. There’s a section for technical assistance if you can really support the observation that one of the 3D models is incorrectly shaped. 

4 hours ago, Fumes said:

In my definition, dynamic lod differ in that they do not scale the entire plane but change the size of certain things depending on the perspective of the players camera, such as thickening wings when the airplane is about 1km away and in a narrow profile. Or exaggerating feature that would be noticeable IRL, like elliptical wings. 

This sim already does a very good job of rendering the aircraft shapes at distance. Exaggerated features have the potential to be perceptible by the player and look odd. Many aircraft only have very subtle differences between them and the degree of exaggeration is too subjective. 

9 hours ago, Fumes said:

 

-There is no LOD adjustment, or scaling, to compensate for aircraft size and game resolution. As a result IDing aircraft at realistic ranges requires too much FOV zoom, increasing the decision loop too far for useful SA. 

What do you consider “too much FOV zoom” ? considering that, on a desktop size monitor, the full zoom in is probably closer to life sized. 

9 hours ago, Fumes said:

Sometimes a contact you know you are looking at, not looking for, will simply vanish for no good reason. 

If you see an aircraft actually vanish from the screen then maybe consider a bug report supported by a track etc. 

otherwise are you sure you aren’t just losing track of contacts? I lose track of contacts all the time but it’s not the games fault, it’s mine. 

 

Smart scaling or something similar presents the big problem that players will certainly want it adjustable. That would have the result of fragmenting multiplayer. Any system for visibility needs to be baked into the game and not adjustable by the players. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


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

if you read through ww2 after action reports you can see that the pilots writing them had a much better idea of what was going on around them than what is possible in Il2, and their tactics reflect it. 

Except for the pilots who were killed and never saw who killed them. Which is certainly the case for most of the dead pilots. Dead pilots don’t write after action reports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "....flying green and tan airplanes very low and very fast over Germany with a pair of smoking J-79s..."

 

  Hmmm....that sounds suspiciously like an F4 Phantom. Absolutely one of my favorite airplanes in all of aviation history. As annoying as all the problems with DCS are, I would HAVE to buy a Phantom if they ever released one. 

  Hit 500 hours 37 years ago? That means that you're probably about my age. I started flying when I was in my twenties....37 years ago. I had just hired on with American Airlines and finally had enough money to do what I had dreamed of.  Should have lots more time but I stopped flying for many years and then went back to it.

  Taildraggers are too much fun. Have lots of J3 and Citabria time, and I owned a home built SONEX. Closest to flying a hot little fighter as I'll ever come. 

 I was thinking about your comment concerning speed over the ground. I can see where that would make sense. That sudden movement out of the corner of your eye is going to get your attention. 

  Maybe slow airplanes are harder to see. I flew my old 1946 Ercoupe into Sun N Fun one year. There's a lake south of the airport that you have to circle over and the controller releases planes as he has a slot open. I could hear him on the radio talking to them. (You're not supposed to answer. Just quickly comply with instructions). I saw the guy in front of me, but didn't see most of the others he was talking to. I knew they were out there. The guy in front of me was sent in, and then me right after him. I locked my gaze on that guy. Didn't want to lose him. I was afraid that I wouldn't reaquire him! 

 Must be me. I probably wouldn't have made a very good fighter pilot. 

Share this post


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

But for having the same SA in a game, I find you have to start from scratch with practising.

 

My original rant above was mainly expressing my anger because people do not look outside for various reasons. And then accidents happen...[snip]...I related this to the discussion as this is like saying "of course I always see ALL aircraft around me". And I say, great, if you can. You keep not only yourself safe, but the others too. But I'm not banking on you seeing me. Humbelness prompts you to look again.

 

This discussion is going well off topic IMO. I can't argue with your logic, pilots and simmers have to practice and refine their visual scan. And I totally understand that highly experienced RL pilots like HerrMurf and Dakpilot may find the game similar (or reasonable) in regards to visual acquisition. The thing that surprises me is a RL pilot thinking the game has an easier environment for spotting contacts. As it relates to your theme that RL pilots are frequently deficient in scanning and acquiring other airplanes. But that deficiency is rather common and not an exception.

 

When I became an instructor pilot, I had a mentor tell me, "watch your students like a hawk, they're ALWAYS trying to kill you." The same can be said of general aviation pilots. I expect that the other guy is not listening on the radio. I expect the other guy is distracted and will not see me. I like to read the accident summaries in the NTSB database. Traffic patterns are the most dangerous place, especially at uncontrolled airports. Traffic pattern collisions are typically on final, not turning crosswind, downwind or base. So for self preservation, I spend most of my time looking out the window. 

 

But back to my difficulties with the game. It is simply a color palette issue and a lack of discernible contrast. Combine that with the total lack of somatosensory feedback (we're all 1G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilots). It is what it is for me, so in SP I use icons. Works for me. 

Edited by busdriver
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

  Hmmm....that sounds suspiciously like an F4 Phantom. Absolutely one of my favorite airplanes in all of aviation history.

 

 

 Taildraggers are too much fun. Have lots of J3 and Citabria time, and I owned a home built SONEX. Closest to flying a hot little fighter as I'll ever come. 

 

 

 Maybe slow airplanes are harder to see.

 

One of my favorites too, but I wish I had flown the de Havilland Mosquito.

 

Taildraggers are indeed exquisite fun.

 

That's been my experience, slow line of sight change (relative motion) unless you're nearly beam aspect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst case of pilots not seeing each other, which I actually saw the results of, occured at the little uncontrolled airfield that I learned to fly from. It was on Long Island, in New York. The field was called Zahns, and it's no longer there. It was very close to Republic Field where they used to build P-47's, and much later the famous "Thud." The F-105.

 Anyway, a student in a Cessna 150 took the runway and started rolling. Unfortunately, he either didn't see or didn't bother to look to notice a Cherokee on final. Cherokee pilot didn't see the Cessna, either. Yes....the Cherokee landed right on top of the Cessna 150. Naturally, the story made the news that night.

Edited by Poochnboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure if that table is all too helpful. What I get from this table is that detection range for aircraft is 7 to 10 km roughly at lower altitudes (as we have it in the sim for any altitude) plus they say that good vision correlates with good contrast.

 

As base, they seem use such a chart to match their for their lab rats against:

contrast-sensitivity-clinical-assessment

 

It is indeed old news  (proven by an old chart) that visual acuity strongly correlates with contrast senstityity. This is why almost none of you are ever confronted with a visitech chart, unless you develop some sort of glaucoma.

 

But I don't think any of this is an issue with what we have in the sim here. I think we have "the problem" (i don't think it's so bad, but you can always improve) because the 3D engine is actually telling the truth, plus it makes things nice. Here, as example:

 

planes.jpg

 

You can see that in fact those Ju-52 are very dark, as they should, but the 4xAA blends them in the sky to remove boundary artifacts, those "stairs". What it does is defacto blend the oject in the background, the best camouflage tactic you can have. In the blue sky, there is still contrast left and you can see it, but as soon as you get over forest, a plane lit by sunlight shuld be much brighter than the irregular background, always maintaining a good contrast. Under clouds however the aircraft should indeed be very, very hard to spot.

 

Adding a glare spite might help, but it would still be a crutch. The simulator has an absolute contrast for the whole scene, and not relative for the FoV you are looking at. It will be a challenge adjusting contrast according to FoV in the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Not so sure if that table is all too helpful. What I get from this table is that detection range for aircraft is 7 to 10 km roughly at lower altitudes (as we have it in the sim for any altitude) plus they say that good vision correlates with good contrast.

 

As base, they seem use such a chart to match their for their lab rats against:

contrast-sensitivity-clinical-assessment

 

It is indeed old news  (proven by an old chart) that visual acuity strongly correlates with contrast senstityity. This is why almost none of you are ever confronted with a visitech chart, unless you develop some sort of glaucoma.

 

But I don't think any of this is an issue with what we have in the sim here. I think we have "the problem" (i don't think it's so bad, but you can always improve) because the 3D engine is actually telling the truth, plus it makes things nice. Here, as example:

 

planes.jpg

 

You can see that in fact those Ju-52 are very dark, as they should, but the 4xAA blends them in the sky to remove boundary artifacts, those "stairs". What it does is defacto blend the oject in the background, the best camouflage tactic you can have. In the blue sky, there is still contrast left and you can see it, but as soon as you get over forest, a plane lit by sunlight shuld be much brighter than the irregular background, always maintaining a good contrast. Under clouds however the aircraft should indeed be very, very hard to spot.

 

Adding a glare spite might help, but it would still be a crutch. The simulator has an absolute contrast for the whole scene, and not relative for the FoV you are looking at. It will be a challenge adjusting contrast according to FoV in the sim.

My solution to the contrast system would be for the devs to implement a color offset. If combined with something similar to the smart scaling I showed above, it would solve 90% of the problem. A color offset would simply be that the colors of the planes shift  to extreme values based on their orientation to the player and the players distance and FOV. So right now in game a Yak1 or 109 that flys over trees a mere 1km away can just vanish due the contrast issue were discussing. The offset would shift the plane to some color extreme enough from the background to compensate for the limitations of our displays. For example, a green plane over a brown set of trees turns black. Unless I have been misinformed, CLOD currently does this. The effect would have to be tied to the players camera with regard to FOV, since you dont still want a black plane if your zoomed in on it etc. How would you feel about that? In addition to something that scales planes up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current visibility favours turn fighters over B&Z'ers which require space to manuver which often equals losing the target.

Current visibility favours low flying fighters over medium/high flying - flying higher means the airplanes are just in "separate world" - unable to utilise the altitude advantage. You fly low or you are just out ot the fight unable to spot the enemy.

 

Visibility range is to small for sure right now but on the other hand - after trying some other games - i appreciate IL2 visibility/spotting model (not the small airplane generated range) because in IL2 camouflage has it's purpose and the system is more immersive/realistic/demanding than other games "black dots visible from tens of kilometers through clouds and over the ground."

 

Cheers and have a nice day!

Edited by bies

Share this post


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

My solution to the contrast system would be for the devs to implement a color offset. If combined with something similar to the smart scaling I showed above, it would solve 90% of the problem. A color offset would simply be that the colors of the planes shift  to extreme values based on their orientation to the player and the players distance and FOV. So right now in game a Yak1 or 109 that flys over trees a mere 1km away can just vanish due the contrast issue were discussing. The offset would shift the plane to some color extreme enough from the background to compensate for the limitations of our displays. For example, a green plane over a brown set of trees turns black. Unless I have been misinformed, CLOD currently does this. The effect would have to be tied to the players camera with regard to FOV, since you dont still want a black plane if your zoomed in on it etc. How would you feel about that? In addition to something that scales planes up. 

I doubt that a color offset actually does help here. I took some screenshots in Lightroom and played with the sliders and I find that in fact reducing contrast makes the planes more visible, as they start to get their own color instead of blending in the ground clutter. But the effect being marginal.

 

What I think helps more is reducing the Antialiasing on the planes to make them maintain a hard contour vs the background. Clouds are precessed at a different rate currently, and maybe this would be a way for planes as well. HOWEVER, the planes would get noticeably pixelated. This might not go well with other peoples taste, as seen in the case where planes get pixelated boundaries in front of clouds.

 

I'm also not convinced that object enlargement is the way to go. Spotting on a two dimensional screen makes a lot of things easier (no need to focus to infinite where you can't see anything) as well as you have zoom.

 

Just take a screenshot and play with the color adjustment sliders and see how much you can gain by that. I find that to be shockingly little. The glare effect however is different from that, as it also enlarges to object besides discoloring it.

 

 

28 minutes ago, bies said:

Current visibility favours low flying fighters over medium/high flying

This is as it is in the real world.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing gamma also helps sometimes. Then the dark dot is even darker.

I also use minimal draw distance, so when the background is blurry a dark spot is easier to spot. But I am not super good at spotting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JG27_Kornezov said:

Reducing gamma also helps sometimes. Then the dark dot is even darker.

Yes, with regret i have to say most competitive YT players have gamma artificially reduced in config.ini to 0.6 (in menu you can decrease gamma to 0.8)

Their game looks like dark ...., they have to turn on cockpit lighting during the sunny day, but there is far easier for them to spot the enemy as a black dot.

I think it shouldn't be possible to reduce gamma in config.ini lower than 0.8 as it is in menu.

Cheers

Edited by bies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the 0.7 gamma a good compromise. At lower gamma settings the cockpits really look awesome.
Some friends tell me that with sharpness enabled they spot contacts better.
 

 



 

Edited by JG27_Kornezov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I doubt that a color offset actually does help here. I took some screenshots in Lightroom and played with the sliders and I find that in fact reducing contrast makes the planes more visible, as they start to get their own color instead of blending in the ground clutter. But the effect being marginal.

 

What I think helps more is reducing the Antialiasing on the planes to make them maintain a hard contour vs the background. Clouds are precessed at a different rate currently, and maybe this would be a way for planes as well. HOWEVER, the planes would get noticeably pixelated. This might not go well with other peoples taste, as seen in the case where planes get pixelated boundaries in front of clouds.

 

I'm also not convinced that object enlargement is the way to go. Spotting on a two dimensional screen makes a lot of things easier (no need to focus to infinite where you can't see anything) as well as you have zoom.

 

Just take a screenshot and play with the color adjustment sliders and see how much you can gain by that. I find that to be shockingly little. The glare effect however is different from that, as it also enlarges to object besides discoloring it.

 

 

This is as it is in the real world.

 

I found with ROF that there was a very clear choice - if you have anti-aliasing and super-sampling on  the landscape looks lovely but you could lose sight of your own wingmen a couple of hundred yards behind if they were lower than you. Or you could turn both these off and planes stood out much more clearly: but annoyingly pixilated. I always went for the beauty.

 

Given that there is a fair bit that players can do in game to change contrast individually based on their own hardware (and wetware) I would not be in favour of some global fix that artificially increased the size or radically changed the colour of planes.  I still remember how silly EAW planes looked once they had landed, dwarfing the hangers....

 

I do miss the reflections off wings from RoF and I seem to remember another old game that had a rather nice "sun glint off glass" effect (just a quick flash of a white pixel or two IIRC) that would give the occasional hint that there was something in the distance. MiG Alley?

 

So perhaps there is some creative idea that could help with this issue: but I suspect that it is very low on the priority list. Longer term, very large monitors/TVs in Ultra HD help considerably as they reduce the need for anti-aliasing.  (At least mine does :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The long term solution for much of this is UltraHD+HDR video. The One X and PS4 consoles have this already and PC is playing catch up. 

Its a greatly expanded color space and contrast. Plus the higher resolution eliminates or reduces the need for antialiasing. I personally prefer 2xAA in 4K as jaggies are still visible with it off. 

Cliffs of Dover originally shipped with no AA and the effect was just horrible. Both in the game appearance and in that it destroys the ability to spot targets as whole pieces of them will alias and vanish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 8:55 AM, unreasonable said:

 

I found with ROF that there was a very clear choice - if you have anti-aliasing and super-sampling on  the landscape looks lovely but you could lose sight of your own wingmen a couple of hundred yards behind if they were lower than you. Or you could turn both these off and planes stood out much more clearly: but annoyingly pixilated. I always went for the beauty.

 

Given that there is a fair bit that players can do in game to change contrast individually based on their own hardware (and wetware) I would not be in favour of some global fix that artificially increased the size or radically changed the colour of planes.  I still remember how silly EAW planes looked once they had landed, dwarfing the hangers....

 

I do miss the reflections off wings from RoF and I seem to remember another old game that had a rather nice "sun glint off glass" effect (just a quick flash of a white pixel or two IIRC) that would give the occasional hint that there was something in the distance. MiG Alley?

 

So perhaps there is some creative idea that could help with this issue: but I suspect that it is very low on the priority list. Longer term, very large monitors/TVs in Ultra HD help considerably as they reduce the need for anti-aliasing.  (At least mine does :))

Unreasonable, you can have a global fix without the things you worry about. 

 

You talked about peoples personal adjustments not being equal. So what though? Everyone's hardware and configs will always be different almost regardless of what you do. There is little relative player difference if we are all blind vs if we can all see well. People will have advantages regardless. The man on 4k 65inch TV is already ahead of everyone. 

 

Second, I dont know what you are assuming such a narrow view of scaling. You do realize that scaling does not require things to be massive when they should not be? Have you ever tried Falcon BMS? This is not a problem. For the life of me I do not understand why you would outright assume it has to be implemented in such a bad manner. 

 

Monitors are not the solution. The game should be designed to work on everyone's system, and even monitor improvements for the foreseen next 5 years will not get us past the deficit between human vision and displays/graphics engines. A 8K HDR 50 inch screen is still not there yet. And even if it were, such scaling options can be adjusted to scale with peoples systems. You can write the systems such that it adjusts itself based on the resolution the player is using obviously. 

 

Scaling is as direct a solution as there is. The increased size of the objects in a scaling system is not some arbitrary number. It is done specifically to try to proportionally compensate for the displays/engines deficits. And it need not involve skyscraper sized tanks or planes that are too big. Unreasonable, did you even watch the scaling demos I posted. 

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

 

"Does the potential application of this technique disappear as technology erases the display resolution hurdle? Arguably, the answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. As discussed earlier, even when newer technology does eliminate the need for such a “work-around” solution, the cost of such technology can often still be prohibitive. Justifying this expense is especially difficult in instances where the current hardware is capable of accomplishing the majority of the necessary tasks. There may be no need to replace a good, and otherwise competent, system just to accomplish a few “visually difficult” tasks. Furthermore, whether it is flying-squadron-level “low-fidelity” flight trainers or a scaled-down portable version of a video game, there has always been the market for lower cost, more portable versions of otherwise expensive simulations. Therefore, until even the least expensive, most portable displays can provide more detail than the human eye needs, this type of visual performance-enhancing method should be useful"

 

"Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems."

Edited by Fumes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s about zero chance that IL-2S is going to adopt scaling. Because it looks really super awkward. The video linked about mentions that in BMS it’s applied at a 1.5x factor to close targets under about 5 miles. 

So Fumes, you’ve got a choice:

Adapt yourself to the game because you can change yourself to match the game but you can’t change the game to match you. 

Habits you’ve acquired playing other simulations might not be appropriate for this one. 

 

The reference to real military simulators is interesting but ting but not quite relevant. Pro simulators are meant to train, not to entertain. They don’t need fancy entertainment level graphics and gameplay. And that paper was written very long ago in terms of how far display technology has advanced since 2003. I can only imagine what tech these use today. 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

There’s about zero chance that IL-2S is going to adopt scaling. Because it looks really super awkward. The video linked about mentions that in BMS it’s applied at a 1.5x factor to close targets under about 5 miles. 

So Fumes, you’ve got a choice:

Adapt yourself to the game because you can change yourself to match the game but you can’t change the game to match you. 

Habits you’ve acquired playing other simulations might not be appropriate for this one. 

 

The reference to real military simulators is interesting but ting but not quite relevant. Pro simulators are meant to train, not to entertain. They don’t need fancy entertainment level graphics and gameplay. And that paper was written very long ago in terms of how far display technology has advanced since 2003. I can only imagine what tech these use today. 

[Edited] You dont have any idea what the devs are going to do. And scaling doesnt look awkward at all. I am beginning to think that you are either just a troll or blind, because some of your comments on what looks bad or how scaling functions in various games are simply bogus or smell of you just making crap up. 

 

[Edited]

 

"So with smart scaling enabled, and Seeing the monitor from proper(diagonal x 1.5) distant, F-16 1.0miles away in BMS looks just as same size in RL."

 

When seeing monitor from its diagonal x 1.5 distance its always 35 hFOV in your sight as a rule. So who has a different size monitor can get same result when he/she follows this rule.

 

Clearly you are unqualified to comment further as you cant even interpret basic sentences. Although I think it is more likely you just saw what you wanted or outright lied. 

Edited by Bearcat
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. It’s really simple. You can adapt yourself to a game but you can’t change the game to adapt to you. So if you decide the positives are worthwhile. Then learn to deal with what this game does and how it works. 

  • Sad 1

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...