Spotting problem

[Fifi]

Maybe a 'fisheye' effect could be implemented, where only the middle of the screen is zoomed and the rest normal.

 

If well done, it could be nice feature.

Hardly doable though IMO.

 

But i still would like something like at 3.30 in this vid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2XVOh4-RlA#t=255

Edited December 31, 2013 by Fifi

[Zippy]

I wonder if they could implement the CLOD-type glint off cockpits in the last mod of CLOD. It maybe not as realistic but I can see planes at distance.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Eeeh... no. It has a constant speed propeller, which means very little workload. As for the rest, it's really no different than the La-5FN. I think we all agree, that the Bf-109 was an exceptionally easy plane to fly in combat (though its controls weren't exactly the best balanced either - the rudder was rather less effective) and generally superior in performance to most pre-1944 VVS fighters.

 

I'm simply saying, that the La-5 is not the LaGG-3 and will pose something of a challenge to a 109 pilot, especially if they have numerical superiority.

A constant speed propeller is not a full automatic one like 109 and 190 systems. For each phase of flight you need set the optimum RPM. Imagine keep your heads down switching from level flight RPM to best climb RPM while your enemy just full throttle away with no need to set specific RPM values. Its a huge advantage. La5 don't have fuel injection either, so lots of workload to keep engine on best settings all the time. Lots of heads down during combat. It is more like a new fighter prototype than a frontline fighter like La5FN.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I wonder if they could implement the CLOD-type glint off cockpits in the last mod of CLOD. It maybe not as realistic but I can see planes at distance.

 

It was a very clever idea as long as it's not over done. The idea is that occasionally you get a clue that there is something out there and draws your attention in that direction. Then it's down to you to pick it up against the background etc.

[unreasonable]

I suspect some people are basing their views on RoF's spotting system on obsolete versions. Here is an extract from Jason's notes on version 1.019 in May 2011.

 

2. Objects Visibility - The object draw distance affects ALL objects other than trees. This means that Airplanes, Buildings, Vehicles, Balloons and their associated effects such as Flak are drawn much further out. At maximum draw distance Objects are drawn at 8500m. Their draw distance is no longer connected to the FOV setting. This is what you have asked for and we have tried to deliver. We have found in testing that if you can already run ROF successfully you should be able to run 100% Draw Distance with little or no impact on game performance.

 

Personally I gave up RoF early on because of the need to zoom to spot anything further out than the original 1-2 km (or whatever it was) which made the game unplayble for SP campaign use, however much fun dogfighting might have been.

 

When I revisited RoF recently I found that this new method is extremely good, and now far contacts are visible: but you still have to look hard since they are small and hard to see against the ground: against cloud fairly easy. And no more fiddling about with view buttons upsetting your SA or flight control, and positional tactics start to matter: though still not enough as the AI always sees you coming

 

So if they come up with RoF system enhanced, I shall be a very happy bunny!

[Finkeren]

A constant speed propeller is not a full automatic one like 109 and 190 systems. For each phase of flight you need set the optimum RPM. Imagine keep your heads down switching from level flight RPM to best climb RPM while your enemy just full throttle away with no need to set specific RPM values. Its a huge advantage. La5 don't have fuel injection either, so lots of workload to keep engine on best settings all the time. Lots of heads down during combat. It is more like a new fighter prototype than a frontline fighter like La5FN.

Again, I'm not saying that the Bf-109 didn't have an advantage with it's automated systems, especially for an inexperienced pilot who had to think about everything he did instead of just reacting on aquired instinct.

 

But while the La-5 was complicated compared to the Bf-109, it really wasn't different from most other fighters of the era, and compared to a fixed-pitch or variable-pitch prop, a CSP did infact lessen workload quite a bit.

[C6_bandini]

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It take a lot of concentration and some method for a real pilot to scan the sky for boogeys. It's not an instantaneous dot spot.

The only drawback is that a real pilot wont loose his periferal vision like the simmer will if zooming. It's IMO a small drawback.

 

This doesn't mean actual spoting distances are ok. Just that I do like having to zoom in order to spot plane from far distances.

And it is IMO a big drawback of the zoom method. And the loss of peripheral vision is not the single issue. IRL you can switch from looking far to looking closer at a different point and back very quickly. If you need to zoom, IMO you lose both peripheral vison and eye agility. Geometric truth and physiological truth  are not the same, so I think there should be some kind of zoom factor varying with the distance, to compensate the fact that we are looking at computer pixels.

[Rama]

And it is IMO a big drawback of the zoom method.

So we disagree.... comme disait ma grand-mère, heureusement que tout le monde n'a pas la même opinion...

 

IRL you can switch from looking far to looking closer at a different point and back very quickly.

Not if you want to scan the sky with method. To keep the concentration and have a chance to spot far contacts (small, relativelly slow, so almost immobile artifacts in the sky) you can't scan the sky at radar speed. Ony the center of your vision can detect these boogeys, peripheral vision only "see" fast moving objects. To keep this concentration, you need to scan the sky slowly enough and focus at least a few seconds on the scan you're doing.... exactly what you will do in zoom mode.

"Eagle eyesighting" is not just a question of eye "optical quality", it's also a question of training and building a sighting skill. This is baked by pilots diaries, explaining that at first they can't spot much and are easilly surprised by "popping" ennemies, and that with experience, accumulating missions, spending most of the time scanning the sky (principal occupation of a fighter pilot during WW2), they develop this spotting skill (to various level).

I dislike tricks (icons, others) giving this eagle eyesighting instantaneously to everybody without learning and practicing anything. At least with the differential zoom spoting distance, you have the possibility to developp a skill that will make the difference with those not practicing it.... that's what I like in it.

 

This is an opinion based on my experience and my knowing about human eye vision (nothing to do with geometry).... No problem if you still disagree. you just have another opinion/experience.

[Fifi]

Basicaly i agree with Rama point of view.

But i prefer beeing able to search and scan the skies without this zoom fonction wich always give me a bio-ionic/superman eye sight feeling.

I usually set my default FOV view as close as it could be in a real cockpit, and then i scan the sky a natural way.

When something is spotted, then i use the zoom for identification matter...

It works a charm in COD for instance, with the high distance spotting... 

[[JG2]R7_Blackadder]

Don't we have any words about this from Dev team ?

 

 

 

P.s.

First post of the year

[Georgio]

+1 on the glinting cockpit glass from CLoD implemented in BoS, though maybe toned down a little as sometimes a group of planes look more like flashing christmas trees.

Maybe if just the nearest aircraft gave a quick glint or something.

 

Spotting aircraft IRL is something that builds with experience; most pilots started effectively blind and assuming they survived their first sorties gradually became more adept at spotting planes at distance.

There were many instances where separated pilots would form up on a group of planes only to find out they were enemy aircraft so it's not that easy even at close range.

[AndyHill]

Note that the limitations of the human eye will never cease to apply even when looking at a screen, so we don't have to worry too much about that. It is true that you only have about 2 degrees' worth of (insanely) high resolution, but there's no need to model it by zooming, since there is no way to exceed human physiology limits. You still only get that 2 degrees of high resolution when looking at the screen.

 

Thus having to zoom in to see distant objects makes the whole thing feel like paralympics to me. I believe that considering the resolution, framerate and viewing area we get we'll be modeling virtually blind pilots flying around each other, not the reality of air combat as it was. Even with TIR and big screens our ability to scan the skies is vastly reduced. I've always been a proponent of seeing assists in simulators, but not being a combat pilot (don't have the eyes for it) I didn't realize just how hopelessly, utterly and completely blind we're flying until I tried Euro Truck Simulator 2, which is much more familiar territory to me as far as real life experience goes. I have to say that was a real eye opener for me at least; with TIR, big screen and cheating mirrors driving around in small towns with little traffic I was basically running on luck and relying on the mass of my vehicle to get me through any crossroads. 

 

I think 1946 pretty much nailed it and should be used as a baseline for any development - not saying it's perfect, though. My personal preference is DotRange (planes visible at any zoom as smallish dots) at something like 10km and maybe friendly plane numbers closer. Dots are unfortunately resolution dependent making them too hard to see for some.

 

But by far the most important thing about 1946 dots/icons is that they are very adjustable and server-enforced. Seeing assists are a controversial topic, but with those two technologically relatively simple steps it can be solved just like that.

Edited January 1, 2014 by AndyHill

[Rama]

It isn't a question of eye resolution vs screen resolution, but a question of FoV.

 

If you give to the sim pilot a dot visibility at 10 km with a 90° or even worse a 120° FoV on a screen (which in general, considering the distance ot the eyes to the screen gives no more than 30° FoV, and usually less), then you give to the sim pilot an ability to scan this wide FoV on a reduced one (so a much easy way to do it)...something a real pilot will never get.

So, with dot represening fighters visible in a wide FoV at 10 km, you give the sim (if is screen definition is good enough) a kind of "optical radar" a real pilot didn't had in WW2.

 

since there is no way to exceed human physiology limits

That's exactly what dots visible at 10 km on 120° FoV will do.... allow the sim pilot to exceed his human physiology limit by scanning a wide simulated FoV on a small effective FoV.

... and this when this pilot scanning skill was probably the most important to build for a pilot.... this is to me an real immersion killer, of course not as big as icons, but stil quite important.

[Uriah]

Rama wrote "I dislike tricks (icons, others) giving this eagle eyesighting instantaneously to everybody without learning and practicing anything."

I need something.  My eyes are old.  But I do dislike the zoom thing.  I like the idea of reduced icons where only the period of an icon shows up, not the type of plane or the distance it is out.  It could be another option the devs give us for icons.  Those who do not want icons at all can just not use the option.  I have found that even with having a dot visible at 10km you still have to constantly look around and develop the scanning skills.

[AndyHill]

Well it is true that you can have a relatively larger area of the surroundings within the area of accurate vision, it's still a matter of apparent size (which may well be in favor of the monitor). Even then resolution, framerate and viewing area (I think the human vision system has about 180 x 120 degrees visibility, slightly depending on your face geometry) are working against you. A well designed dot still needs to be found on the screen even if you're approaching human ability in viewing area (at which point you're usually massively down on resolution and framerate). 

[C6_bandini]

Not if you want to scan the sky with method. To keep the concentration and have a chance to spot far contacts (small, relativelly slow, so almost immobile artifacts in the sky) you can't scan the sky at radar speed. Ony the center of your vision can detect these boogeys, peripheral vision only "see" fast moving objects. To keep this concentration, you need to scan the sky slowly enough and focus at least a few seconds on the scan you're doing.... exactly what you will do in zoom mode.

"Eagle eyesighting" is not just a question of eye "optical quality", it's also a question of training and building a sighting skill. This is baked by pilots diaries, explaining that at first they can't spot much and are easilly surprised by "popping" ennemies, and that with experience, accumulating missions, spending most of the time scanning the sky (principal occupation of a fighter pilot during WW2), they develop this spotting skill (to various level).

I dislike tricks (icons, others) giving this eagle eyesighting instantaneously to everybody without learning and practicing anything. At least with the differential zoom spoting distance, you have the possibility to developp a skill that will make the difference with those not practicing it.... that's what I like in it.

 

This is an opinion based on my experience and my knowing about human eye vision (nothing to do with geometry).... No problem if you still disagree. you just have another opinion/experience.

 

When speaking of agility, I was not speaking of being able to quickly spot anywhere in your surounding. In fact I agree with you on the similarities between carefully examinating a given region of the sky and zooming. However, I think the eye can quicly move to look at an instrument or a nearby object like another plane, and quickly resume scanning at the point it left. Whenever I zoom in an airsim, chances are the plane attitude will start to change without a chance of being corrected (no peripheral vision), and if I have to restore a previous fov to check my wingman or an instrument, I will lose the point I was looking at, and to resume scanning, I need to zoom again, and loose peripheral vision again, wich means piloting without visual clues and hoping for the best. That is why I think requiring zoom to find contact adds an artificial difficulty.

 

In fact with the IL2 mechanism, I experienced the same learning process that is  described in pilot diaries, so being able to see contacts at a 90° fov isn't equivalent to giving a superhuman optical radar to every virtual pilot. 

 

And there is no need to state the obvious thing that we have a different opinion. What is intereting is precisely to explain what are the reason behind our respective opinion.

[Rama]

However, I think the eye can quicly move to look at an instrument or a nearby object like another plane, and quickly resume scanning at the point it left.

And there is the point on which we disagree. Eye scanning the whole sky environment with concentration is not something you can stop and resume in a heartbeat. It's not a robotic mechanism you can interrupt and restart where you left it.

Well... that's my experience of it. (even detecting planes when you know the right direction to spot at is very far to be instantaneous). The fighters aces experience certainly made it very quick and quite "natural", but IMO not to the point to make it so "instantaneous" and interruptible and resumable at will.

 

However, I think the eye can quicly move to look at an instrument or a nearby object like another plane

Well... it seems that the early war close flying formations, that required more attention than loose one, were an handicap for correct sky scanning, which seems to show that sky scanning isn't as easy, interruptable and resumable as you say.

And as a pilot, in standard cruise flight, I don't have the need to check instruments more often than a quick visual check every 5 or 10 mns. I suppose it was the same (or even less) for fighter pilots in transition flights. There's plenty of time to scan the sky between two checks.

 

And there is no need to state the obvious thing that we have a different opinion.

There's allways a need to state what's seems obvious and isn't for everybody (and I had many proofs of it latelly....).

That said, I'm very glad it's obvious for you.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Creating unintuitive mechanics to try and simulate complicated things like 'attention' and 'focus' is bad.

 

Making mechanics like those don't serve any higher purpose, they just complicate things without adding any real depth. It's poor design and doesn't help the game along one bit.

 

All the game needs is the ability to be able to spot aircraft at longer distance then we can right now. Based on what is posted I think there's enough data concerning the distance that certain objects can be spotted. Don't complicate it more then that.

[Rama]

Creating unintuitive mechanics to try and simulate complicated things like 'attention' and 'focus' is bad.

It's in fact perfectly intuitive to zoom in order to "see better", and it isn't "bad" at all.

But I understand you don't like it and disagree. Ok with that.

 

Making mechanics like those don't serve any higher purpose, they just complicate things without adding any real depth. It's poor design and doesn't help the game along one bit.

It doesn't complicate anyting, and add some real depth by giving a chance for the player developp some skill to survey the sky and detect boogeys... something that everybody seems to agree was the most important fighter ace skill. It isn't "poor" and help the game, at least for peoples intersted by this part of immersion.

Again, I understand you don't like it and disagree. Not everybody is interested by this aspect of immersion (checking the sky, fearing for the undetected ennemy, etc....)

[DD_fruitbat]

Having to zoom in to spot contacts is not realistic. You loose all your peripheral vision, which you do not do in real life when scanning the sky.

 

It would be realistic if WWII pilots had taken to using telescopes in the cockpit to scan the sky........ 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

When scanning you do lose peripheral vision try it. I agree about the zoom though but at the same time having easy to spot dots at 9 km isn't the answer either. Finding an aircraft at far distances should be a reward for thorough scanning, maybe that's why they implemented the zoom feature.

[Rama]

Having to zoom in to spot contacts is not realistic. You loose all your peripheral vision, which you do not do in real life when scanning the sky.

Having a computer screen to watch the world around isn't realistic at all. It's 2D and gives you no peripheral vision outside a small FoV. In order to "restore" a normal FoV (and some kind of unrealistic peripheral vision), games allows you to display a simulated 90° or 120° FoV when your real FoV is less than 30°, this isn't realistic at all... but it helps to counter the drawback of the small computer screen.

If you take this kind of argument, absolutely nothing is realistic in computer game vision, and even with the future items like 3D vision helmets, the FoV will not be realistic.

.... so what do we do, stop playing computer combat flight simulation games?

 

Or... since nothing is "realistic" in this domain, by construction, should we try to find a way that simulate the need for attention and sky scanning skill?... or nor? That's the only real question.

Some (like me) would like it.... some would not, and some want to have icons, and some even like to "pilot" with a mouse. That's plain normal, the gaming world is diverse.

 

The ideal would be an option system to satisfy everybody... but I think every developper would say that would be equivalent as to reach the impossible... and they would be right

[Fifi]

Ok, actually, it's not much of a zoom question, guys.

It's about beeing able to see something further than 2.5 Km without zoom!

Give me a pixel or something else at 5 Km, and i'd be happy enough.

 

In COD we can see plane pixel further than 5Km ---> it doesn't mean i can spot ennemy anytime very easily! I'm still missing plenty contacts, mainly if they aren't same level than me.

That's very good this way, and the ace spotting skill is still intact IMO.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Fifi

[StG2_Manfred]

Ok, actually, it's not much of a zoom question, guys.

It's about beeing able to see something further than 2.5 Km without zoom!

Give me a pixel or something else at 5 Km, and i'd be happy enough.

 

In COD we can see plane pixel further than 5Km ---> it doesn't mean i can spot ennemy anytime very easily! I'm still missing plenty contacts, mainly if they aren't same level than me.

That's very good this way, and the ace spotting skill is still intact IMO.

+1

[=RvE=Windmills]

It's in fact perfectly intuitive to zoom in order to "see better", and it isn't "bad" at all.

But I understand you don't like it and disagree. Ok with that.

 

It doesn't complicate anyting, and add some real depth by giving a chance for the player developp some skill to survey the sky and detect boogeys... something that everybody seems to agree was the most important fighter ace skill. It isn't "poor" and help the game, at least for peoples intersted by this part of immersion.

Again, I understand you don't like it and disagree. Not everybody is interested by this aspect of immersion (checking the sky, fearing for the undetected ennemy, etc....)

 

I don't know what you qualify as 'skill', but forcing people to use mechanical actions in order to 'see' properly makes no sense. That has nothing to do with skill. I'm not immersed by having to press buttons in order to have my eyes function like they would in real life.

 

Situational awareness is not the same thing as 'focussing' or whatever you want to call it. The skill is in manoeuvring to reduce deadzones and making scanning a regular habbit. Finding a balance between focussing on the offensive and defensive. Equating zooming all the time in order to spot things with 'skill' is silly.

 

Looking at things doesn't require special skill in real life, it shouldn't ingame either.

Edited January 2, 2014 by iLOVEwindmills

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Ok, actually, it's not much of a zoom question, guys.

It's about beeing able to see something further than 2.5 Km without zoom!

Give me a pixel or something else at 5 Km, and i'd be happy enough.

 

In COD we can see plane pixel further than 5Km ---> it doesn't mean i can spot ennemy anytime very easily! I'm still missing plenty contacts, mainly if they aren't same level than me.

That's very good this way, and the ace spotting skill is still intact IMO.

 

Pretty sure in ROF you can make out pixels to quite far distances...I'm sure I read something like 8km?

 

2.5 km isn't enough that's for sure!

[dkoor]

Fifi nailed it about.

 

I happen to agree with iLOVEwindmills in a sense that eye focusing should not really be simulated.

Makes no real sense because we are already looking on screen with our eyes.

 

And also we are badly crippled already by the fact that we are looking at already pixelated screen and no matter how large or good it is I believe that there is no way it can provide nearly equal visual opportunity as IRL.

[sturmkraehe]

I for my part think that something has to be done - in particularly for the high res users.

 

With icons on I know where the plane should be but I only start to perceive something there at a distance of about 2.5 km. This is clearly wrong. If one knows exactly where the plane should be one should be able to spot it from much further apart (there had been an interesting thread on this on the banana board), something like 8-10+ km should be realistic if I remember well. 

 

Of course it should be no blinking advertisement sign "I-am-over-here" or 

 

 

and it should still be hard to spot a plane but it should not be impossible. My suggestion would rather go towards what had been done in il2 1946 that is a spot that starts out in a faded-out colour and getting more contrast the closer it gets and when it gets close enough start drawing the vector graphics of the plane with an appropriate texture. Of course the spot has to get more pixels when playing in high res.

Edited January 2, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Rama]

Looking at things doesn't require special skill in real life.

Read pilot's diaries, and you'll see they disagree with you. A lot of fighter pilots died because they couldn't master this skill soon enough.

... and no, it's not a question of manoeuvering, it's a question to be able to see ennemies soon enough while you're in transition flight... just that.

As for example stated by Jeffrey Quill. "On point was the immense tactical advantage for the first spotting in the right time an ennemy formation, and to the reverse the quickness you fell yourself badly engaged if you don't see first. One of the mosr remarquable pilot ot the 65th was Sergent Frankiln. He had eagle eyes; it must be emphasized he was often the first to see and identify the little dots in the sky and to report them to the leader.  I discovered that my capacity to do so improved quickly with experience". (and he wasn't a new pilot... he had more flying time on spitfire than all of his comrades, since he was one of the main Spitfire test pilot). Something who improve with experience is a skill. Vision accuity by itself don't improve with experience. Use of vision to scan the sky, detect boogeys and identify them do improve with experience and training, it's a skill.

BTW, there are other skills based on vision. Vision is mostly a brain work, and to be used in specialized ways, it needs training and experience.

 

And please... don't use words like "silly". No opinion is silly,especially when baked with arguments.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Spotting aircraft is a massive skill. I've been told by ATC that an aircraft was heading towards me so I knew where it in my field of vision and the altitude and still not seen it till very late.

[Rama]

Yes, I think all pilots encountered this kind of situation.

[Fifi]

I'm all for realism, but making it too hard to spot something on our "small" screens and you will see lot of simmers leaving this IL2 title.

Not a good choice IMO.

[unreasonable]

A zoom only solution would certainly cause me to give up on BoS and forget about buying any sequels.

 

RoF originally had this and it was a disaster. It is hard enough managing the a/c controls, watching formation, navigating, clouds etc without struggling with another set of knobs and buttons. Exactly the same reasons why TiR is the hugely popular choice of viewing sytem and only a minority stick with snap view.

 

Fortunately 777 changed this: now in RoF we can see something at 8.5 km. If you zoom, you see more detail.

 

Having recently finished (through a tragic collision) a 100+ hour DiD RoF campaign I can assure Rama that developing your ability to scan and spot contacts is still vital for survival.

 

Fortunately, I am sure 777 are not foolish enough to inflict a zoom only solution on the rest of us.

[C6_bandini]

Read pilot's diaries, and you'll see they disagree with you. A lot of fighter pilots died because they couldn't master this skill soon enough.

... and no, it's not a question of manoeuvering, it's a question to be able to see ennemies soon enough while you're in transition flight... just that.

As for example stated by Jeffrey Quill. "On point was the immense tactical advantage for the first spotting in the right time an ennemy formation, and to the reverse the quickness you fell yourself badly engaged if you don't see first. One of the mosr remarquable pilot ot the 65th was Sergent Frankiln. He had eagle eyes; it must be emphasized he was often the first to see and identify the little dots in the sky and to report them to the leader.  I discovered that my capacity to do so improved quickly with experience". (and he wasn't a new pilot... he had more flying time on spitfire than all of his comrades, since he was one of the main Spitfire test pilot). Something who improve with experience is a skill. Vision accuity by itself don't improve with experience. Use of vision to scan the sky, detect boogeys and identify them do improve with experience and training, it's a skill.

BTW, there are other skills based on vision. Vision is mostly a brain work, and to be used in specialized ways, it needs training and experience.

 

And please... don't use words like "silly". No opinion is silly,especially when baked with arguments.

 

But making something visible, does not mean it will be immediately spotted by everybody. So without  zooming, you still get the "finding a distant contact is a trained skill" without adding an additional and IMO artificial difficulty. Regarding pilot diaries, modern fighter pilots flying with jvn says the FoV limitation and associated peripheral vision loss is problematic. Looking at things on a computer things, you already get less contrast and resolution, there is no need to make it harder than necessary.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Read pilot's diaries, and you'll see they disagree with you. A lot of fighter pilots died because they couldn't master this skill soon enough.

... and no, it's not a question of manoeuvering, it's a question to be able to see ennemies soon enough while you're in transition flight... just that.

As for example stated by Jeffrey Quill. "On point was the immense tactical advantage for the first spotting in the right time an ennemy formation, and to the reverse the quickness you fell yourself badly engaged if you don't see first. One of the mosr remarquable pilot ot the 65th was Sergent Frankiln. He had eagle eyes; it must be emphasized he was often the first to see and identify the little dots in the sky and to report them to the leader.  I discovered that my capacity to do so improved quickly with experience". (and he wasn't a new pilot... he had more flying time on spitfire than all of his comrades, since he was one of the main Spitfire test pilot). Something who improve with experience is a skill. Vision accuity by itself don't improve with experience. Use of vision to scan the sky, detect boogeys and identify them do improve with experience and training, it's a skill.

BTW, there are other skills based on vision. Vision is mostly a brain work, and to be used in specialized ways, it needs training and experience.

 

And please... don't use words like "silly". No opinion is silly,especially when baked with arguments.

 

The experience factor when it comes to spotting is already inherently present in a sim. Just play IL2 or another sim with new players and see how well they do at spotting and ID'ing aircraft compared to you. Even though the contacts are on the screen for everyone.

 

Also, what Bandini said.

Edited January 2, 2014 by iLOVEwindmills

[Rama]

But making something visible, does not mean it will be immediately spotted by everybody. So without  zooming, you still get the "finding a distant contact is a trained skill" without adding an additional and IMO artificial difficulty.

Making boogeys visible at long distance on wide FoV a computer screen, is artificially easier than it should be. If I measure my "real" FoV through the computer screen "window" (47cm wide screen placed at 70 cm of my eyes), I get 35°. If you allow me to scan a 100° FoV on this screen, you reduce the scanning difficulty by 3 horizontally (and same or more vertically)... so it will be 10 times easier on the computer screen than in real for scanning the same portion of sky.

Making a difference related to FoV for distance detection allows to build a "sky scanning skill" which is too easy if you allow long distance spotting on wide FoV.

 

Don't get me wrong. I tell you what I would like to see.... but I'm not advocating for it. Most probably the spotting distance will be independant from FoV in BoS, at it is now in RoF.

I just tell here my opinion on my preferences, and have no problems with the sim not meeting all my wishes (it's impossible to do something meeting all wishes of every potential player).

 

modern fighter pilots flying with jvn says the FoV limitation and associated peripheral vision loss is problematic. Looking at things on a computer things, you already get less contrast and resolution, there is no need to make it harder than necessary.

That's right. And distance detection should'nt be as close as possible as they are, and even a bit longer in narrow "standard" FoV. For this, some "artificial" vision enhancement (either using increased contrast or little magnification, etc...) is good.... (that's another illustration about the need of artificial solution to get something immersive and representative of reality to overide the the 2D narrow computer screen limitations...) 

What I would like to see (again, pure wish), is just a distance detection being a little shorter when using wide FoV (so, a bit related to FoV).

[AndyHill]

The point about sitting in front of a screen never being realistic is a very good one. Immersion in virtual reality is a bit of a pet subject of mine and I actually consider the "full real" option naming harmful, since it sidetracks the discussion. There is no full real. There are only different gameplay mechanics built around air combat simulation, none of them providing full real experience, not even close. More importantly, the higher "realism" options may not even be any more real than the lower ones.

 

It's true that if you pull a 180 x 120 degrees viewing area to a 30 degree area and give a sighting ability comparable to what you get in reality you have less area to scan with that 2 degree accurate viewing zone of yours. However, I don't think it makes things unrealistic, because it's compensated by massively reduced ability to scan the remaining parts of the sky. Even TrackIR won't come close to the natural ability to scan the skies by intuitively turning your head and eyes. The ability to quickly check six in combat simply disappears, you have to focus on target, leading to hilarious conga lines even with relatively good pilots.

 

In the above mentioned case I assumed that things like resolution and framerate are compensated for, which of course isn't the case usually. As opposed to being 10 times easier with dots (which it isn't because of aforementioned factors) it's currently infinitely more difficult, because at high viewing angles sub-pixel size objects may not even exist in the "eyes" of the renderer, making it completely impossible to see them. Personally I would take 10 times better instead of infinitely worse as the more "realistic" option, especially since that advantage would be again compensated by other factors that make virtual life more difficult.

 

The reason I think dots are a good solution is because scanning the skies is still a skill, you can still get surprised and good pilots are better at it. I would even go so far as to add small relatively unintrusive icons to nearby targets to emulate the ability to quickly check your surroundings during combat. 

 

As I said before, there are no correct answers to this quite complex question, but I think the important point is the goal. To me the goal is to create a simulated air combat experience that gives you as close a representation of real pilots' abilities, resulting in somewhat realistic tactics being useful. Things that alone sound like totally unrealistic - such as icons or upscaled targets - may actually end up providing a much more realistic combat environment than the full "real" version with practically blind pilots fighting each other.

[Rama]

So at the end, it's only a question of different "immersion taste", which is different with every player. For me icons kills instantaneously any immersion feeling.

I totally agree with you that all arguments about "realism" should be avoided. 2D computer screen vision will never be close to IRL vision. But TiR improve immersion by giving the feel to get a "closer to real" vision, and for me, need to zoom (use a narrower FoV in fact) in order to check sky to get a better detection also improve this immersion, and moreover, makes transition flying a much more interesting experience.... but I agree it doesn't seems to be a majority opinion.

 

BTW; I disagree with that:

Even TrackIR won't come close to the natural ability to scan the skies by intuitively turning your head and eyes. The ability to quickly check six in combat simply disappears

It disapear if you're fascinated by the target, but with a TiR, is totally doable to check six while in combat, and keep track of the target.

 

The problem there is more that players tend to use max zoom when on the 6 of the target, concentrating to get the best shot and forgetting anything else. And BTW, target fascination was also a problem IRL.

[=AH=_Sid_]

Making boogeys visible at long distance on wide FoV a computer screen, is artificially easier than it should be. If I measure my "real" FoV through the computer screen "window" (47cm wide screen placed at 70 cm of my eyes), I get 35°. If you allow me to scan a 100° FoV on this screen, you reduce the scanning difficulty by 3 horizontally (and same or more vertically)... so it will be 10 times easier on the computer screen than in real for scanning the same portion of sky.

Making a difference related to FoV for distance detection allows to build a "sky scanning skill" which is too easy if you allow long distance spotting on wide FoV.

 

But this definition of "real" FoV applies solely to you, your screen, and your viewing position, it will be different for each user.

 

For example the default view from the LaGG-3 cockpit on a 17" laptop at 1920x1080 looks like this

 

 

If I display the same default view 'windowed' at 1920x1080 on my simpit I get this

 

 

If I run at my full screen res of 5160x2560 and adjust the FOV fully out to maintain the original view but take advantage of the extra screen space to fill in my peripheral vision I get this

 

 

Your saying that in the windowed small screen I should be able to see aircraft sooner than on the full screen because it has a narrower FOV.

 

So at the end, it's only a question of different "immersion taste", which is different with every player. For me icons kills instantaneously any immersion feeling.

 

Yes I agree 'different' for everyone, having to take my hands off my stick and throttle to use a mouse wheel to 'zoom' in and out totally kills the 'immersion' for me and why I always fly with a fixed FOV (albeit fully zoomed out), I don't see why it should be artificially programmed that aircraft pop into view at closer distance than anybody else's.

 

[SKG51_Joker]

I absolutely agree with AndyHill.

- 'full real' there is no such thing!

- point is: it must be playable in a sense where disability due to the nature of the game (i.e. narrow FOV, sub pixel size of objects, missing naturally picking up of moving objects - biologically we are hunters, aren´t we) is to be compensated.

- it simply makes no sense to have a spotting and tracking system which allows only for the experten to succeed. it simply would let the (comparably small) community starve to meaninglessness.

- the most long term fun I found in 'simulated' airwarfare is coordinated fight with at least one wingman, the game MUST deliver basic possibilities for that (especially spotting, tracking of targets) since that is nutrition for a vital squadron live!

- with a vital squadron life, many people can benefit. Gaming together, education, training, fighting together, in it´s core THAT is what I today hope to get from an airwarfare sim.

 

Moving dots as a representation of a moving target (which could be detail-zoomed to identify) was a balanced trade-off in other sims. I´d rather have that and in consequence something like a dot to LOD 'jumping' transition than icons or target hinting arrows.

 

@SID:

nice reply! I´d like to add that scarcely any gamer will have the opportunity to look at 3 monitors and still should be able to spot and track.

Devs sholud watch not to build a harware-wise pay-to-win game!

Edited January 2, 2014 by ZG15_Falke