Spotting problem

[unreasonable]

Please post a video or image of an aircraft in flight visible at 8.5km and your settings when you did. I simply cannot reproduce this claim. I've messed with every graphics option in RoF and simply cannot get an aircraft to appear at that distance.

 

Fair enough, I will try to do this but it might take me while to do, as I have never even taken a sceenshot in RoF let alone taken/posted a video.

 

In the meanwhile, why not just start any quick mission with just your own a/c, find a balloon, put icons on and fly away from it until it (and icon) disappear. Then turn and fly towards the balloon using the balloon's location on the map while fully zoomed out. Voila: at what looks like about 8.5km away on the map the balloon and icon appear!

[unreasonable]

Here is an airfield shot from above using free camera mode. By using free camera over a red-blob waypoint I had established that the maximum free camera altitude was 10km. This is zoomed in as much as possible. You can see that only the aerodrome base texture is visible, no detailed objects.

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/unreasonable_photos/2014_1_7__9_27_50.png

 

Now I move the camera down: at about 8.5km altitude, still max zoom in, my Handley Page appears sitting on the grass towards the bottom of the airfield! Also visible are the extra buildings etc.

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/unreasonable_photos/2014_1_7__9_28_54.png

 

Now without moving the camera, I max zoom out. The HP is still visible (just!)

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/unreasonable_photos/2014_1_7__9_29_25.png

 

Bear in mind that I have never claimed that RoF a/c are easy to see at these distances, it all depends on the circumstances, but the engine is trying to render them.

 

 

These are my RoF settings.

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/unreasonable_photos/RoFSettings.png
 

Edited January 7, 2014 by unreasonable

[BeastyBaiter]

The above matches my experience with RoF, I run what basically amounts to medium-high detail at 1920x1080 on a completely ordinary desktop monitor. Spotting stuff at long range is hard (and it should be) but it is possible. Zooming in makes it easier if you know where to look but it isn't some magic thing that makes otherwise invisible stuff visible, it simply makes it bigger along with everything else. RoF got the spotting and view system right, I really hope they put they same system into BoS.

[Rama]

Is it the red/blue losange what you are calling a dot?

If so yes i see it further than 3Km.

But that's not this red/blue losange i want to see! That's a tiny plane! (as in COD TF4 if i have to say it)

It's quite hard to get the visual of a "tiny plane" with a pixel area of 5 to 10 pixels wide (which would be the size of the fuselage of a fighter (5 pixels) or the wingspan (10 pixels) at 3 km at 1/1 scale on a 1920x1080 24"monitor at 70cm of your eyes).

If the plane was moving toward you , the best you would see is a tiny horizontal bar of 10 pixels with a 2 x 2 pixels dot in the middle.... for a plane at 3 km distance from you.

[SKG51_robtek]

It's quite hard to get the visual of a "tiny plane" with a pixel area of 5 to 10 pixels wide (which would be the size of the fuselage of a fighter (5 pixels) or the wingspan (10 pixels) at 3 km at 1/1 scale on a 1920x1080 24"monitor at 70cm of your eyes).

If the plane was moving toward you , the best you would see is a tiny horizontal bar of 10 pixels with a 2 x 2 pixels dot in the middle.... for a plane at 3 km distance from you.

To reduce the impairment of looking in a monitor  the contrast could be hightened by turning the "correct sized dot or LOD" darker in front of a light background and lighter in front of a dark background.

This way the correct size could be recognized way earlier, as it would be with the normal view in RL.

Edited January 7, 2014 by robtek

[AndyHill]

5-10 pixels is actually huge, I hadn't done the calculations myself. Depending on the color, that should be easily visible. The dots that make all the difference in 1946 are perhaps 2x2 pixels or maybe just a single pixel, I don't really know.

[unreasonable]

It's quite hard to get the visual of a "tiny plane" with a pixel area of 5 to 10 pixels wide (which would be the size of the fuselage of a fighter (5 pixels) or the wingspan (10 pixels) at 3 km at 1/1 scale on a 1920x1080 24"monitor at 70cm of your eyes).

If the plane was moving toward you , the best you would see is a tiny horizontal bar of 10 pixels with a 2 x 2 pixels dot in the middle.... for a plane at 3 km distance from you.

 

2 x 2 pixels is the size of a full stop on this forum . . . at least on my monitor . . the base of an i is 2 x 8. Not hard to see provided that you are looking at it and the contrast is good.

I think part of the problem is that AA, supersampling etc tends to smooth and blur the image.

 

robtek's idea I like as a graphics option if done well.

[AndyHill]

The 1946 dots are actually 2x1 pixels.

Edited January 7, 2014 by AndyHill

[Fifi]

It's quite hard to get the visual of a "tiny plane" with a pixel area of 5 to 10 pixels wide (which would be the size of the fuselage of a fighter (5 pixels) or the wingspan (10 pixels) at 3 km at 1/1 scale on a 1920x1080 24"monitor at 70cm of your eyes).

If the plane was moving toward you , the best you would see is a tiny horizontal bar of 10 pixels with a 2 x 2 pixels dot in the middle.... for a plane at 3 km distance from you.

 

I would like a 10 pixels bar with 2X2 pixel dot in the middle at 3Km! Even half of that!

All i get is 1 fading pixel at 2.27 Km...can you see it on picture?

 

[unreasonable]

I think so - above the central "2"? Looks like about 3 pixels to me, but the real problem is the lack of contrast. The dot in the red "2.27" is shown as 2 pixels on my screen (2x2 full screen?) but is easy to see.

 

Whoops, edit.... if you put this into JPEG into Paint and then enlarge you can see the nose and wings clearly, as Extreme_One states.

 

Planes at that range in RoF seen against the sky are usually much easier to see.

 

Although there are no clouds in our minimap BoS missions the atmosphere looks very hazy. Maybe when we get control of the weather/atmospheric conditions we will get a better idea of the range of spotting possibilities.

Edited January 7, 2014 by unreasonable

[Rama]

All i get is 1 fading pixel at 2.27 Km...can you see it on picture?

Yes, perfectly

 

I made a big zoom on your image with photoshop, and then you can see more than a single pixel: you see a bar of 7 pixels wide, slightly inclined to the left (so a plane turning toward you), with a a little darker 2x2-pixel fuselage. The whole is surrounded by jpeg image noise (a raw screenshot would have been better to see it).

Evrybody can do it, but I can upload the zoom this evening at home if you want.

 

So, it's quite similar to what I have described about what would be a plane at this distance, the FoV you use is wider than 35°, so it's normal that the wingspan is more 7 pixels than 10.

 

The only real critic that can be made on the rendering at that distance is the contrast of the plane with the background. The bacground itself is probably to clear, even for a winter sky, which is an handicap for the detection, and the plane could be a bit darker.

Not much problem that could be easilly overcommed before the release.

So the cross posts says almost the same...

Edited January 7, 2014 by Rama
cross posts

[unreasonable]

So I am in good company for once ....

[6S.Manu]

5-10 pixels is actually huge, I hadn't done the calculations myself. Depending on the color, that should be easily visible. The dots that make all the difference in 1946 are perhaps 2x2 pixels or maybe just a single pixel, I don't really know.

In reality you should see 5-10 pixels.

 

In IL2 normal view you see 1 pixel.

 

Edited January 7, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[6S.Manu]

I made a big zoom on your image with photoshop, and then you can see more than a single pixel: you see a bar of 7 pixels wide, slightly inclined to the left (so a plane turning toward you), with a a little darker 2x2-pixel fuselage. The whole is surrounded by jpeg image noise (a raw screenshot would have been better to see it)

 

I would like to point out that we still have "noise" in game: when you look at the contact from above, then you'll see a bunch of pixels (most of the time changing size because of profile and distance) moving over a sea of pixels (the landscape); these pixels are constantly changing color on the screen (if you're moving or if the world around you is moving because wind or sea), and in this chaos we can't track the contact because of the lack of resolution.

Edited January 7, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

The lack of resolution can be overcommed with an increased constrat with the background... it's a compromise to be done by the dev.

 

But on Fifi's screenshot, the noise was purelly a jpeg compression noise.

[6S.Manu]

The lack of resolution can be overcommed with an increased constrat with the background... it's a compromise to be done by the dev.

 

But on Fifi's screenshot, the noise was purelly a jpeg compression noise.

 

Of course, as there should be no noise on the sky. 

Edited January 7, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Crow]

Here is an airfield shot from above using free camera mode. By using free camera over a red-blob waypoint I had established that the maximum free camera altitude was 10km. This is zoomed in as much as possible. You can see that only the aerodrome base texture is visible, no detailed objects.

These are my RoF settings.

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/unreasonable_photos/RoFSettings.png

 

 

Can you reproduce this with an aircraft other than the Handley Page? I tried it with Fokkers and couldn't make it work. I'm also curious to know how monitor resolution factors into this. I have a 22" 1680 x 1050 monitor, whereas I see your resolution is 1920 x 1080.

 

Also, in the zoomed out view I don't see anything. Maybe perhaps a slightly brighter pixel in one particular part of the airfield. There might be something further south of that bright pixel, but it's functionally invisible to me. I had to get within about 12" of my screen to even attempt to make the possible pixel aircraft out.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Crow

[Fifi]

A shame i can't upload diirect screen bitmap picture. In my resolution, it's way too heavy.

Although there IS noise compression with JPEG, i can assure you when i took this shot, with game paused, it wasn't much better at all on my screen.

Impossible to see more than this tiny pixel.

I don't know why i would lie to everybody about this issue...because it is an issue for me. Unless of course playing with labels on.

As said Rama, if the correct pixels numbers are here, just make them all appear please. And if possible not only on low resolution screen.

Give me the 7 pixels bar + 2X2 for fuselage all visible on this pure cristal clear winter weather as it should be   

[Crow]

Here's what I get when I look at an Albatros D.Va from 5km. I simply started a QMB and put the aircraft 5 km away and 500m higher so it would be easily visible against the blue sky.

 

Zoomed completely in: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24895700/2014_1_7__21_0_7.bmp

 

Zoomed completely out: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24895700/2014_1_7__21_0_21.bmp

 

All I can see in the second screenshot is a very dim gray pixel. I personally cannot see it unless I lean into my monitor and look at the image from about 12" away. If I sit back at a normal distance it blends in with the sky.

 

I've noticed a trend in other screenshots and I think it might be true in this one as well. I think that as the aircraft starts to become a single pixel there is a transparency or maybe it's the anti-aliasing that starts to make it fade out and become similar to the colors around it. So when zoomed out the object seems to disappear (even though it exists in space) because it has become camouflaged with it's background regardless of it's actual color. Perhaps that's why so many people have trouble spotting airplanes at distance. If they are becoming artificially camouflaged, that would certainly make them much harder to see.

[Fifi]

Rama is right about my shot 

Pict zoomed X500 here on my laptop (maximum) and contrast and light sturated/adjusted to enlight the plane, it's there!

More grey than black even saturated though. Probably few pixels for wings (how can you count them?) and bigger one for body.

Don't know if you realise what means X500 to be able to see something at 2.5Km on a paused picture though...unacceptable for me.

Even JPEG noise compression can't be 100% faulty.

Note always try using photoshop to convert bitmap to JPEG with the maximum quality slider option.

 

Edited January 7, 2014 by Fifi

[JG4_DUI]

I do not play BoS yet but am following this discussion (and the other topics) from the start on. Really interesting to see how people rate things differently. I can understand if contacts are displayed differently on different monitors. But how Fifi's tiny, faded-out light-grey pixel(s) can be seen "perfectly" by some is really surprising to me.

 

Based on this image - made by someone who I admire for his great piece-of-art screenshots and who probably knows more of image editing and quality than I ever will - I would really be concerned about contact spotting in BoS. I mean we are speaking about a plane that is not even 2,3 km (or is it miles?!) away. Assuming that the plane is on an interception course it would be in firing range within seconds. And we are even looking at an "frozen" image under - as Fifi already mentioned - perfect conditions without the own plane shaking and moving like in-game. How would this tiny, faded-out pixel(s) look in the afternoon with a not so bright sky..? Again, we are not talking about a distance of 8 km but only 2,3 km, are we?

 

Do not get me wrong, but assuming that everyone gets results similar to Fifi I just think that current spotting contacts is a huge problem. I am sure this issue will be adressed by the developers. But negating that this topic is a problem on Fifi's image is kind of strange, politely spoken.

Edited January 7, 2014 by DUI

[Rama]

Rama is right about my shot 

Pict zoomed X500 here on my laptop (maximum) and contrast and light sturated/adjusted to enlight the plane, it's there!

More grey than black even saturated though. Probably few pixels for wings (how can you count them?)

It's easy to count them if you use a nearest neighbour zoom (and not a bicubic zoom), then you can see the pixels.

If playing quickly a bit further with brightness and constrast to visually remove the jpeg compression noise (but it also then remove the central pixels of the wings, you get that:

 

 

The you can see all pixels and count them, from left wing to right wing, it's 7... right?

Actually it even may be a bit bigger since part of the wingtips may gave gone with jpeg noise.... so I would say size of the wingspan is somewhere between 7 and 8.

 

But negating that this topic is a problem on Fifi's image is kind of strange

 

I don't see anybody "negating" anything.

 

As per Fifi's screenshot, what can be said:

1) Size of the plane is correct according to FoV, distance and screen resolution. (so that's a fact...)

2) Constrast is probably not high enough and could be upgraded for a better spotting. Maybe sky and plane color are a bit off too.

 

I pretty sure this will be upgraded in the future versions (it's not about code, it's just about visual parameter optimization), and spotting will be then better, at least as good as in RoF.

And in any case, I'm sure players will play with gamma and screen contrast to improve spotting even further.... 

 

 

[Fifi]

 Assuming that the plane is on an interception course it would be in firing range within seconds. And we are even looking at an "frozen" image under - as Fifi already mentioned - perfect conditions without the own plane shaking and moving like in-game. How would this tiny, faded-out pixel(s) look in the afternoon with a not so bright sky..? Again, we are not talking about a distance of 8 km but only 2,3 km, are we?

 

 

Yes DUI, talking Km not miles...

And you're right, it's a matter a of few seconds before he will fire at me. Plenty of times, without labels on, i'm suddently hitted (btw always broken aiming sight and gauges) within 2 seconds without seeing plane coming and even no tracers at me.

I can say it's very frustrating, because i don't have the worst screen on market (Samsung SA850), i have enhanced the brightness/contrast using screen options + i'm using SweetFX to enhance game's details!

 

So all i can hope now, is devs could have a serious look into this.

Again i'm playing ROF COD DCS without labels, and don't have this kind of issue.

ROF is the best in that matter, but because planes aren't that fast. Planes far away are dark enough for spotting.

COD comes after, because TF patch is very well done on that matter. Planes far away are also dark enough + sun can blink on canopy (i love this feature).

DCS comes last, but still ok even though it's hard to spot targets.

BOS...well you know 

[JG4_DUI]

Yes DUI, talking Km not miles...

And you're right, it's a matter a of few seconds before he will fire at me.

 

Doing some maths: If the two planes are on an intercept course with a speed of 500 km/h each, you only have 8 seconds to react to the indianer.

As it most likely will take you another two, three or four seconds to spot him under normal conditions you really need a wide awake guarding angle in your dogfights to come...

Edited January 8, 2014 by DUI

[unreasonable]

Can you reproduce this with an aircraft other than the Handley Page? I tried it with Fokkers and couldn't make it work. I'm also curious to know how monitor resolution factors into this. I have a 22" 1680 x 1050 monitor, whereas I see your resolution is 1920 x 1080.

 

Also, in the zoomed out view I don't see anything. Maybe perhaps a slightly brighter pixel in one particular part of the airfield. There might be something further south of that bright pixel, but it's functionally invisible to me. I had to get within about 12" of my screen to even attempt to make the possible pixel aircraft out.

 

Actually I am not inclined to spend more time jumping through hoops for you since the example I gave (and your own screen posts later on) demonstrates that Jason's description of how RoF renders objects at distance is correct, and that ergo those, including myself, who posted this information fully understood it and were not "parroting".

 

vb, -rots, -roting or -roted

4. (tr) to repeat or imitate mechanically without understanding (Collins)

 

The bright pixel (actually 3 on my screen) is the aircraft. For some reason at a certain distance the bright colour, which is a reflection, becomes dominant over the brown dope colour which is what you see close up, given the particular time of day etc .

 

Whether something is "functionally invisible" is a completely different matter to whether the engine is rendering the aeroplane.  I am finding fighters in BoS "functionally invisible" at distances at which I would have no trouble seeing them in RoF using the same graphics settings. Your own hardware/settings and playing environment are different to mine, not to mention that everyones' RL eyesight will have slightly differences.

 

In your screenshots I did not see the zoomed out Alb until I checked where to look, at which point it becomes obvious. If it was flying across a nice white cloud and/or being archied I expect the motion would attract your attention with no problem. Certainly in my own campaigns I often see contacts at this distance: but I am sure that I miss many more.

 

Personally I have found that planes are much easier to spot, in RoF with SS off and AA toned down, but then the picture is not so pretty.

[Crow]

 

Actually I am not inclined to spend more time jumping through hoops for you since the example I gave (and your own screen posts later on) demonstrates that Jason's description of how RoF renders objects at distance is correct, and that ergo those, including myself, who posted this information fully understood it and were not "parroting".

 

vb, -rots, -roting or -roted

4. (tr) to repeat or imitate mechanically without understanding (Collins)

 

The bright pixel (actually 3 on my screen) is the aircraft. For some reason at a certain distance the bright colour, which is a reflection, becomes dominant over the brown dope colour which is what you see close up, given the particular time of day etc .

 

Whether something is "functionally invisible" is a completely different matter to whether the engine is rendering the aeroplane.  I am finding fighters in BoS "functionally invisible" at distances at which I would have no trouble seeing them in RoF using the same graphics settings. Your own hardware/settings and playing environment are different to mine, not to mention that everyones' RL eyesight will have slightly differences.

 

In your screenshots I did not see the zoomed out Alb until I checked where to look, at which point it becomes obvious. If it was flying across a nice white cloud and/or being archied I expect the motion would attract your attention with no problem. Certainly in my own campaigns I often see contacts at this distance: but I am sure that I miss many more.

 

Personally I have found that planes are much easier to spot, in RoF with SS off and AA toned down, but then the picture is not so pretty.

 

 

The point is that the Handley Page is the largest aircraft in the game, so it should be spotted the furthest away. If smaller aircraft suffer from not being seen until much, much closer that's still a serious problem. I concede that on a purely semantic level Jason's statement is accurate, but I would argue that it's misleading because you cannot see aircraft at that range in practice. The constant quoting of that RoF forum post is pointless because it simply isn't useful or applicable information in spite of its semantic truth. Anyone who's flown RoF for more than a few minutes will agree that spotting aircraft at 8.5 km simply isn't going to happen despite what that forum post implies.

 

On top of the semantic argument is idea that the O-400 is at 100 ft. wingspan aircraft with over 1,648 sq. ft. of wing area. It should be visible from over 20 km away. If it's basically invisible at 8.5 km, we can infer there are significant limitations to the RoF engine that could be improved upon in BoS.

[FuriousMeow]

It should be, and it would be, but you're missing a key ingredient - a display that produces 1:1 scale. You don't have it, so you settle on either using icons or finding a display that can do 1:1.

 

Or you can use zoom, which produces 1:1.

 

In any event, this entire thread is clamoring for a gamey/gimmicky/unrealistic solution to the fact we have unrealistic display devices. They don't produce a 1:1 scale, so you may as well use unrealistic solutions to an unrealistic display.

Edited January 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Fifi]

I'm not in favor of using zoom to get a 1:1 rendering, because i can't fly using full zoom all the time to scan the skies...it could make me sick easily with TIR 

I even would prefer an unrealistic plane size rendering (just few more pixels than it could be in RL) for a gameplay matter on our limited screens, and this way keeping a acceptable FOV incockpit (but not full FOV out either - approximately like the screenshot above).

Keeping in mind this unrealistic plane size at 4Km should decrease properly to finally match what would be real at 1/1.5 Km.

 

I don't think people out there are calculating the rendering pixels number at 3 or 4 Km to see if it matches reality.

I think they don't care if the game is 100% reality accurate in the plane rendering at 4Km ---> they just want to see something! (else than losange dot)

Off course not too way off either  but a compromise between reality and computer screens gameplay, that could statisfy those of us who wish to fly without labels or blue/red losange dot.

[unreasonable]

The point is that the Handley Page is the largest aircraft in the game, so it should be spotted the furthest away. If smaller aircraft suffer from not being seen until much, much closer that's still a serious problem. I concede that on a purely semantic level Jason's statement is accurate, but I would argue that it's misleading because you cannot see aircraft at that range in practice. The constant quoting of that RoF forum post is pointless because it simply isn't useful or applicable information in spite of its semantic truth. Anyone who's flown RoF for more than a few minutes will agree that spotting aircraft at 8.5 km simply isn't going to happen despite what that forum post implies.

 

On top of the semantic argument is idea that the O-400 is at 100 ft. wingspan aircraft with over 1,648 sq. ft. of wing area. It should be visible from over 20 km away. If it's basically invisible at 8.5 km, we can infer there are significant limitations to the RoF engine that could be improved upon in BoS.

 

Well I have flown RoF for hundreds of hours in SP and I disagree, so the embolded statement in your post is factually incorrect.

 

Of course it is very rare: but every 50 or so missions you might be patrolling the front, a burning balloon pops into view (at 8.5km), and close inspection fully zoomed in reveals a pixel moving about: the scout that just flamed it.

 

The HP is not "basically invisible" at 8.5 km: look again at the zoomed in picture, it is huge, the wingspan is fully 15 pixels wide on the JPEG (presumably more full screen). At 17km it would still be 7-8 pixels wide if RoF was set up to render that far out. It is only fully zoomed out that it is hard to make out, and this is as much to do with contrast as size.

 

The reason why reposting (hardly constantly) Jason's post is useful is that there are presumably a number of people concerned about the BoS view situation who have never played RoF but who know that BoS is based on elements of the RoF engine. Posting factually incorrect statements about what the RoF engine does or does not render could lead to fear and confusion.

 

Is spotting distant planes harder in RoF than in RL? Yes of course, I do not remember seeing a single post that disputes that.

Do I like using zoom? No, not much, but personally I prefer it to icons.

Could the current BoS system be improved? I hope so, preferably with options to please as many people as possible.

[FuriousMeow]

 

I even would prefer an unrealistic plane size rendering (just few more pixels than it could be in RL) for a gameplay matter on our limited screens,

 

I'm not. It's more gamey than small icon that fades in and out. You do know you icons/labels can be setup to be anything right? So it could just be a small dot above the aircraft that has no color that fades in/out at a particular range, and doesn't have to have red/blue to it at all. Or it can eventually fade to red/blue within 2km or less. But amplyifying the size of the dots is just too much and way to gamey and the next thing after the larger dots, the aircraft should be larger.

Edited January 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[JG4_DUI]

I hardly can imagine any more "gamey" or "arcady" feaure in a flight sim than icons and labels. Maybe, except for those aiming-helping-circles displayed in front of enemy planes.

All nice (optional) features for arcade-players but not a solution for simulation-related pilots.

 

The wheel does not have to be reinvented to solve the spotting problem: if there is a solution like in CloD TF or probably like in one of the other already mentioned games (that I haven't tried yet) everything is perfect.

Edited January 8, 2014 by DUI

[FuriousMeow]

Larger dots or larger aircraft are far more gamey. Everything being asked for in this thread - gamey/arcadey. But of course since it isn't what you want, it's far more arcadey when in fact everything requested in this thread is arcadey. All of it.

 

I don't play with any, and I get by just fine.

Edited January 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Fifi]

Again we desagree together Meow...

2 more pixels than the exact calculated size wouldn't be more "gamey" as you called, but if it could help seeing something at 3Km it would be very welcome for lot of us, and not that ugly on our screens 

Furthermore, nobody would even notice the "subterfuge"  

 

On side note, keep in mind it remains a game...that we should be able to play.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Fifi

[SKG51_robtek]

Larger dots or larger aircraft are far more gamey. Everything being asked for in this thread - gamey/arcadey. But of course since it isn't what you want, it's far more arcadey when in fact everything requested in this thread is arcadey. All of it.

 

I don't play with any, and I get by just fine.

No, they are a way to compensate the malus of using a monitor instead normal vision in the most immersive way.

[BigPickle]

Hi,

 

Still unable to fight without labels 

Labels on = too easy and not fun for me.

Labels off = unable to see a damn thing coming, playing at 2560x1440.

If the ennemy stays within +- 1500m radius, it's ok...but further, i'm at lost.

Please, devs, find something.

 

You guys playing 1920x1080 is it better? Would be a shame to reduce resolution for playability 

 

 

I dont think its resolution that is the issue, i think that the lighting that produces the snow glare is too much.

[6S.Manu]

I hardly can imagine any more "gamey" or "arcady" feaure in a flight sim than icons and labels. Maybe, except for those aiming-helping-circles displayed in front of enemy planes.

All nice (optional) features for arcade-players but not a solution for simulation-related pilots.

 

I hardly can image any more "unrealistic" feature in a flight sim than having to spot and track a single pixel around the screen when if IRL that pixel should be a distinct silhouette.

 

Are we talking about simulation, aren't we?

Edited January 9, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[=RvE=Windmills]

It should be, and it would be, but you're missing a key ingredient - a display that produces 1:1 scale. You don't have it, so you settle on either using icons or finding a display that can do 1:1.

 

Or you can use zoom, which produces 1:1.

 

In any event, this entire thread is clamoring for a gamey/gimmicky/unrealistic solution to the fact we have unrealistic display devices. They don't produce a 1:1 scale, so you may as well use unrealistic solutions to an unrealistic display.

 

This is not very constructive.

 

The end result of this line of reasoning is that we should all stop making and playing sims because it's never going to be realistic. You always have technical limitations, and you're going to have to compromise in areas. That's something you need to understand. 

[FuriousMeow]

I understand compromises exist already. Labels and icons. But that is too arcadey according to some, and yet artificially increasing the size of dots or the aircraft themselves is less arcadey.

 

It's very constructive because it points out the double standard in the reasoning that one way is better and that the reason for these compromises is an unrealistic limitation so again it doesn't matter dots or icons/labels - both are arcadey and unrealistic to alleviate an unrealistic limitation.

 

The end result of what I said is that the solutions are all arcadey and gamey, you can't have one be less arcadey when they both do the same thing. So what you should stop doing is trying to rationalize how one item is unrealistic while the other is more realistic when they both do the same thing. That's what you need to understand.

 

I'll be playing on the server(s) without any of the above.

Edited January 9, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Fifi]

 

 So what you should stop doing is trying to rationalize how one item is unrealistic while the other is more realistic when they both do the same thing. That's what you need to understand.

 

Not exactely those words.

One is not "unrealistic" (labels) but more "way too easy" to me, while the other (the possible compromise) is "closer to the real difficulty" hence more realistic for a simulation.

In first post, i never used the "realistic/unrealistic" words.

I'm glad you can see planes at 3Km or whatever further actually on your screen, and you'll be able to playi the way it is.

I just can't without the too easy labels that ruins any immersion, as apparently many posting here.

[AndyHill]

I wouldn't say one solution isn't more arcade than the other. Darker dots or upscaled targets at range at least don't look immediately as obviously artificial as icons. Which one of them provides for the most realistic WW2 air combat environment is also a bit of an open question.