Spotting problem

[=RvE=Windmills]

 

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

 

You're going to mod your game to make sure you can't see contacts properly? Because surely won't stay like it is now.

 

Interesting you'd prefer being visually impaired over 'unrealistic dots' though. If you want to talk realism you'd probably be working a desk job with those kind of eyes, not flying a plane.

Edited January 9, 2014 by iLOVEwindmills

[AndyHill]

May I recommend the realistic option, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papers,_Please

 

Just imagine yourself as a desk clerk in Stalingrad and that's probably quite close to what war really would've been like for many of us.

[dburne]

Man I go out of town for business for a week and get back to see this thread still going...

Popular subject!

[JG27_Chivas]

I was concerned that spotting dots with the Oculus Rift might be a problem.  Those concerns have been somewhat alleviated with the latest OR prototype using an OLED screen.   Apparently this  OLED screen can produces very dark blacks, especially in the dark environment of the closed OR headset, which might make spotting dots a little easier.  Another positive thing is that game developers can produce colors that they want their users to see as they know exactly what kind of screen the OR users have,  rather than a huge selection of uncalibrated user monitors.   There is no word what resolution the latest prototype uses, but Lucky has said the consumer release will probably be even higher.  Those that are using the latest prototype say they're experiencing no motion sickness or motion blur, because of the new OLED screen, 6DOF, and a new solution called "Low Persistence" that only flashes a quick pic, then goes black, which apparently eliminates motion blur.   People can now read text and gauges, even while rotating their head.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I was concerned that spotting dots with the Oculus Rift might be a problem.  Those concerns have been somewhat alleviated with the latest OR prototype using an OLED screen.   Apparently this  OLED screen can produces very dark blacks, especially in the dark environment of the closed OR headset, which might make spotting dots a little easier.  Another positive thing is that game developers can produce colors that they want their users to see as they know exactly what kind of screen the OR users have,  rather than a huge selection of uncalibrated user monitors.   There is no word what resolution the latest prototype uses, but Lucky has said the consumer release will probably be even higher.  Those that are using the latest prototype say they're experiencing no motion sickness or motion blur, because of the new OLED screen, 6DOF, and a new solution called "Low Persistence" that only flashes a quick pic, then goes black, which apparently eliminates motion blur.   People can now read text and gauges, even while rotating their head.

Not to derail the topic but i was a little, taken back, when i saw that their positional tracking solution was just to basically put a track ir on the front of it. Thats gonna be great for us, but all those guys building games that you stand up and look around in are fricken PISSED.

 

 

back on topic. Id like slightly larger dots at a distance. Nothing cosmic here. Just a slightly larger final lod should fix this issue. And that shouldnt be to difficult for the devs right?

[Creepermoss]

If a solution is implemented, I personally would prefer dark or larger dots to colored ones. It's (IMO) not a matter of one being less realistic, as neither is really more or less realistic than the other, but colored icons remind me that I'm playing a game, and if I can't visually determine what type/nationality of plane I'm looking at, red or blue markers feel a bit cheat-y.

 

My preference is to remain as immersed as possible, so anything that pulls me out of that is a no-go. Just my two cents.

[Fifi]

back on topic. Id like slightly larger dots at a distance. Nothing cosmic here. Just a slightly larger final lod should fix this issue. 

 

Yes

 

 

If a solution is implemented, I personally would prefer dark or larger dots to colored ones. It's (IMO) not a matter of one being less realistic, as neither is really more or less realistic than the other, but colored icons remind me that I'm playing a game, and if I can't visually determine what type/nationality of plane I'm looking at, red or blue markers feel a bit cheat-y.

 

My preference is to remain as immersed as possible, so anything that pulls me out of that is a no-go. Just my two cents.

 

And yes!

[ST_ami7b5]

And yes!

[SKG51_robtek]

And yes!

I'll drink to that! 

[Georgio]

I can't remember which sim it was, maybe vanilla European Air War, but their way round this was to use black dots at long distance which then changed to dk. grey/black dots at middle distance. Grey were friendlies, blacks hostiles and it was quite striaghtforward to identify aircraft at mid to far distance.

Imo I hate labels, my personal fave is ground attack in BoS and I love it winkling out those tanks/trucks when they get in amongst the villages; the IL-2 is going to be a blast in this respect.

[Rama]

Grey were friendlies, blacks hostiles and it was quite striaghtforward to identify aircraft at mid to far distance.

And this is supposed to simulate the reality?

What do you call "mid distance" and "far distance" (in km)?

[BigPickle]

And this is supposed to simulate the reality?

What do you call "mid distance" and "far distance" (in km)?

 

Wouldnt that be a 777 design choice and not his?

[Rama]

???

I'm just asking Georgio explanations about some parts of his post, in order to understand it better.

[FuriousMeow]

You're going to mod your game to make sure you can't see contacts properly? Because surely won't stay like it is now.

 

You still don't get it. The options are already present to alleviate spotting problems - the labels/icons that are somehow less realistic than making larger dots or larger airplanes - that is the compromise.

 

On the other side, no icons/labels - which is how a lot of RoF servers are, and previous Il-2 servers were run. I'll be on those.

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.

 

Why are they too easy? Please elaborate, because they are customizable.

[=RvE=Windmills]

You still don't get it. The options are already present to alleviate spotting problems - the labels/icons that are somehow less realistic than making larger dots or larger airplanes - that is the compromise.

 

On the other side, no icons/labels - which is how a lot of RoF servers are, and previous Il-2 servers were run. I'll be on those.

 

 

I think the vast majority doesn't want to be forced to use icons in order to see something. 'Oversized' dots that serve to simulate a pilots ability to spot planes at longer distances are much less immersion breaking then icons.

 

The reason Il2 didn't need icons was because you could actually spot enemies sufficiently far away, granted you were paying attention.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think the vast majority doesn't want to be forced to use icons in order to see something. 'Oversized' dots that serve to simulate a pilots ability to spot planes at longer distances are much less immersion breaking then icons.

 

The reason Il2 didn't need icons was because you could actually spot enemies sufficiently far away, granted you were paying attention.

 

 

IL2 was a nightmare for many years regarding the dots!

 

I'd be happy with something that made it a bit easier to see them but not guarantee it like Icons do.

[AndyHill]

Is it possible to modify the icon/dot settings in BoS?

[Fifi]

Is it possible to modify the icon/dot settings in BoS?

 

That would be cool, and probably help some...

 

Main problem in actual 35% game, is if you miss and don't see the ennemy plane in time, he will never miss you wherever you are, and directly aim to you.

He has an inboard radar infallible. And you're alone on the map, no one to distract him...

With pair of planes spawned, problem is a bit less though.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

We're also missing things like exhaust smoke and maybe reflections (if they implement them) these would be much better ways to leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you find a target through hard work rather than icons.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

That would be cool, and probably help some...

 

Main problem in actual 35% game, is if you miss and don't see the ennemy plane in time, he will never miss you wherever you are, and directly aim to you.

He has an inboard radar infallible. And you're alone on the map, no one to distract him...

With pair of planes spawned, problem is a bit less though.

Agreed that the AI have perfect vision.  One thing that is good for MP is that the other player is going to be having as much trouble as i am seeing me!  So I'll have a little bit more of a chance. lol.    The best thing right now is that this issue is not falling on deaf ears and both Jason and the Devs are reading these threads.  Im sure we will see a solution before release.

[Matt]

Main problem in actual 35% game, is if you miss and don't see the ennemy plane in time, he will never miss you wherever you are, and directly aim to you.

He has an inboard radar infallible. And you're alone on the map, no one to distract him...

With pair of planes spawned, problem is a bit less though.

 

Actually, the AI has a blind spot feature, so he won't see you when you are at his low 6 o'clock for instance. I don't remember any other flightsim that actually has this.

 

Otherwise yes, the AI will see you all the time. But it's also tough to improve on that. Unless you set some sort of spotting distance and maybe make that dependant on the AI skill level, so that a low level AI has to get closer to actually notice you.

 

One thing this difficult spotting (wether or not it's realistic or not, i'll out of that, as long as i'm looking at a 2D screen...) might actually improve, is teamwork in MP. It might make it more essential to have more eyes spotting for potential targets/dangers.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Matt

[Fifi]

With latest update where we are binded to this SSAO stuff, i think spotting is even worst than before.

No more cristal clear picture from incockpit...it really doesn't help 

[SKG51_robtek]

Spotting really went from bad to worse.

Actually since the update my TIR is acting up sometimes, coupled with the actual spotting i have to fly slow and level so

I can find the LaGG on my six before downing it.

That is not the way it's ment to be!

[Fifi]

I can feel your pain.

I'm absolutely unable to fly without labels now with last update, can't see the planes unless they are 1Km around me. Without doubt, it's worse.

At first, i thought it was due to Ultra and SSAO...so i backed up to Balanced without SSAO ---> same problem, planes pixels are fading and mixing with scenary.

1Km of decent sight (even if it was 2 or 3) is unacceptable for a WW2 sim.

[AX2]

I can feel your pain.

I'm absolutely unable to fly without labels now with last update, can't see the planes unless they are 1Km around me. Without doubt, it's worse.

At first, i thought it was due to Ultra and SSAO...so i backed up to Balanced without SSAO ---> same problem, planes pixels are fading and mixing with scenary.

1Km of decent sight (even if it was 2 or 3) is unacceptable for a WW2 sim.

+1.000.000.000.000.000

5-6Km is the minimum for a fighter, 10- 14Km  for a bomber, otherwise would be impossible to intercept.

( for the simple fact of the high speeds in WWII , Bomber speed 400km/H , Fighter speed 600km/H .... the time window for  intercept is very small. maybe 20 KM would be required)

Edited January 20, 2014 by Mustang

[Rama]

maybe 20 KM would be required

why not 100 km for that matter?

Didn't knew interception radar was a standard equipment of WWII day fighters...

[AX2]

I can understand but ..  

 

If you are use mathematics, trigonometry to intercept a bomber flying at 7000 meters, you will see the problem of the time window and the visual range

( also with a good radar as support) 

 

The radar in World War II were not accurate, ,  don´t was  doppler radars . 

The time window is the problem.

 

BoS will be have a good radars ?

 

We have something "realistic" in Il2 Sturmovik 1946, after 12 years of discussion in the forums.

Why should we go back in time, and accept less visual range ? 

 

Anexample

IF

I will take a B17 in Il2 Sturmovik  1946 flying a 5000 to 6000 mts , I will set the dot range for server at 6-7 kms.

and I will tell my position by chat every 4 -5 minutes like a radar, there you will see that , the interception is almost impossible with 6-7km of visual range.

Trust me please.

[Rama]

Whatever was possible or not in Il2, having a 20km spotting range is just unrealistic.

A Bf109 wingspan at 20 km gives a vision angle of 0,03°, below the eye best possible angular resolution

And A B17 (again using wingspan for max dimension), will give a vision angle of 0,09° at same distance, so just a little more than best possible angular resolution, and thes could be only seen with perfect clear sky conditions (no dust, dry air, and solar behind the observer).

 

Asking for a 20km spotting distance is like calling to play some "shoot the plane" game which has nothing to do with a combat flight simulation.

 

PS: Intercepting bomber formation isn't just a function of spotting. What you need is an interception control, directing you until you're in bomber spotting range.... and if you did read a bit of history, this didn't work allways, sometimes, even if the fighters were in spotting range of the bombers, they never saw them.

Whatever, if you want to get somewhat realistic bomber interception simulation, you should advocate for another game feature: interception control simulation. This has not much to do with spotting range.

[6S.Manu]

Actually you can spot a He111 at 20km (if the weather contitions are good enough).
 

Howell [5] carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km.

 

Of greater relevance to this study, the subject aircraft also carried an experimenter who knew exactly the approach angle of the target aircraft, and “kept constant vigil with his naked eye” until he detected the intruder aircraft. This “threshold distance”, over the same conditions, averaged from 17.3 to 23 km, about three times larger than the detection distance. We will return to these results later in this paper. Analyzing these data, Graham and Orr concluded that see and avoid failures were due primarily to failure to detect the target [1]. No attempt was made to predict aircraft visibility.

 
Source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005594
 

Talking about bomber interception it's clear that we must take in account the second "experiment".

 

BTW: a bomber stream is easily spottable as it covers a great area in sky.

Edited January 20, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

Actually you can spot a He111 at 20km (if the weather contitions are good enough).

No, that's neither what your quote said (DC-3 could only be spotted between 5.5 and 8.7 km, and DC3 wingspan (29m) is bigger than He111 wingspan (23m) , actually closer to B17 wingspan (32m)),

nor what the study you linked said.

The study isn't about spotting in real conditions, but about "detection" on simulated images (so not much to do with real conditions), when you know exactly where to look at...

 

In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your sources is that a He111 spotting distance is largelly inferior to 10km....

And moreover, is the DC3 was "approaching on a collision course", it was the best conditions to spot him (the full wingspan make the apparent viewing angle), and that was probably just in front of the spotter, he didn't need to scan the sky.

 

BTW: a bomber stream is easily spottable as it covers a great area in sky.

I used the real wingspan to compute the numbers I gave...

[AX2]

Rama

Imagine you're flying a P51 , escorting B17. 

You're at back of the B17s at 1 Km, and above 1.500 meters to perform BnZ against the enemy fighters, 

 

Now calculate a frontal approximation (Head to head) or ( 45º ) side approximation of the enemies fighters and calculates the speed and the time to reach the collision  point and with your visual range 6-7 kms 

 

It will be almost impossible to intercept before,  enemy fighters attacking the bombers with 6-7Kms of Visual Range . 

Edited January 20, 2014 by Mustang

[Rama]

Imagine you're flying a P51 , escorting B17. 

You're at back of the B17s at 1 Km, and above 1.500 meters to perform BnZ against the enemy fighters, 

 

Now calculate a frontal approximation (Head to head) or ( 45º ) side approximation of the enemies fighters and calculates the speed and the time to reach the collision  point and with your visual range 6-7 kms 

 

It will be almost impossible to intercept before,  enemy fighters attacking the bombers with 6-7Kms of Visual Range .

Something which is perfectly realistic in the situation you describe.

In real, escort placed 1km behind and 1500m above a bomber group couldn't intercept an enemy flight doing a frontal attack. In order to intercept them, there must be fighters preceeding  the bombers, and with enough distance to have enough reaction time after spotting.

 

Why would you want that something almost impossible in real historical aerial fights should be possible and even easy in air combat simulation of these aerial fights?

[6S.Manu]

No, that's neither what your quote said (DC-3 could only be spotted between 5.5 and 8.7 km, and DC3 wingspan (29m) is bigger than He111 wingspan (23m) , actually closer to B17 wingspan (32m)),

nor what the study you linked said.

The study isn't about spotting in real conditions, but about "detection" on simulated images (so not much to do with real conditions), when you know exactly where to look at...

 

In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your sources is that a He111 spotting distance is largelly inferior to 10km....

And moreover, is the DC3 was "approaching on a collision course", it was the best conditions to spot him (the full wingspan make the apparent viewing angle), and that was probably just in front of the spotter, he didn't need to scan the sky.

 

Nope. I quoted the experiment by Howell (1957), and the first average distance is about an unassisted one. The second instead is obtained with the pilot looking directly at the target position. It's unrelated to the use of images (Pg 174: http://contrails.iit.edu/DigitalCollection/abstracts/USGRRvol28no3.pdf)

 

 

Howell (1957) conducted an actual flight study in which pilots encountered conflicts arranged by the experimenter with other aircraft. Of the 128 conflict trials, nine (7%) ended without the participant pilot detecting the conflict (the experimenter arranged for the conflict to terminate before safety was compromised). On successful trials the average detection distance varied from 3.4 to 5.4 miles, and performance was not affected by whether the pilots were informed that they would encounter traffic.

 

Source: pg1 http://humanfactors.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/Colvin_ISAP05.pdf

 

WW2 Interceptors knew the altitude of the bombers and the possible vector: the large size of a bomber stream can actually reduce the time to spot it (or detect, I don't know the difference...).

 

Then depending on the visible area of the aircraft (angle etc.) this is the calculation I made using the graph on this document (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA241347)

 

 

 

10km it's probably the minimum detection range of a plane that it's not pointing directly to the observer.

Edited January 20, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[FuriousMeow]

Something which is perfectly realistic in the situation you describe.

In real, escort placed 1km behind and 1500m above a bomber group couldn't intercept an enemy flight doing a frontal attack. In order to intercept them, there must be fighters preceeding  the bombers, and with enough distance to have enough reaction time after spotting.

 

Why would you want that something almost impossible in real historical aerial fights should be possible and even easy in air combat simulation of these aerial fights?

 

Because... hollywood. Or something else unrealistic. You're absolutely right, no rear escort is going to zoom ahead of the bomber formation, or even from the middle of the bomber formation, and take out frontal attacks.

[Quax]

If I read your graph correct, a Mig 21 can be detected at 7km. This would make around 4-6 km for a 109. This is plausible, but it represents the maximum (side view - best conditions).

For the front view your graph would suggest 2km for a WW2 fighter. This is all very optimistic, as you need to be lucky to look and focus at the right moment to the right direction (not to be modelled for a 2D screen).

But for the better "gameabillity" I would go for that distances. The requested 6-8 km (poll vote) are definitly more than what is realistic (but perhaps still acceptable as even bigger compromise for the "game").

 

 

 

Actually you can spot a He111 at 20km (if the weather contitions are good enough).

 

Only if you have 5 mins to search with your eyes. Under normal conditions you need up to a minute to "find" a 747 at 15 km allthough you know where to look at.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Quax

[Rama]

Nope. I quoted the experiment by Howell (1957), and the first average distance is about an unassisted one.

And spotting while sky scanning is allways unassisted... the observer never knows in advance were the target is... or there's no need to scan the sky.

So, what you're showing is exactly what I said. A DC3, bigger than a He111 is usually spotted at a distance inferior to 10 km...

 

Source: pg1 http://humanfactors.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/Colvin_ISAP05.pdf

This link is irrelevant to the question.

WW2 Interceptors knew the altitude of the bombers and the possible vector: the large size of a bomber stream can actually reduce the time to spot it (or detect, I don't know the difference...).

Of course, bomber stream can be spotted easilly, not only because the size of the stream and the patern of it (bombers form a patern which is "unatural", and so more easilly sorted from natural more random paterns)... but also because of the trails.....

 

Then depending on the visible area of the aircraft (angle etc.) this is the calculation I made using the graph on this document (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA241347)

Very interesting document (thank's for it), that say what I'm saying since the beginning of this spotting issue...

 

And your calculation isn't really correct.... in fact it would be correct only if you can see the full belly view perpendicular to the line of sight... which means you would be exactly above or below the target (below if you want to have agains the sky), to spot it a 20 km distance.

So maybe a ground observer may spot a He111 flying at max altitude, on a very clear sky and with lot of luck.... this will never happen with less than 20 km altitude difference... that's what the graph you're using says...

If you are at almost same altitude and the He111 is flying toward you, then instead of around 1000 sq.ft, the projected area will be around 200 sq.ft... and according to the same graph, with perfect clear clean sky and the sun behind you, you will spot the He111 at 4.5 nautical, so less than 8.5 km. For a side view, it will maybe be a maxof 11.5 km if the plane flight axis is exactly perpendicular to the sight axis (in absolute perfect conditions).

All this is again perfectly compatible with the proposition that a He111 is usually spotted at a distance inferior to 10 km (or 10 km in perfect conditions)...

 

I really like the other parts of the documents, Especially figure 2, which shows what I explained before... that you only get the max spotting range in a very narrow sky area.... and also the chapter about fixations... very well explaining spotting needs a lot of concentration, and that you can't scan with more than 3 "fixations" per second (and so that's the rate you can scan all the very narrow sky areas), which clearly means that scanning the whole sky takes lots of concentration and time....

In real there's nothing like "instant vision" and even less "instant detection".

 

I particularly like "Visual search and detection is a complex procedure that requires continuous training and must be thorourghly integrated into the fighter pilot's game plan. Fighters must always strive for total awareness of the space around their aircraft. This is primarily accomplished by visual search"

Can't agree more

A fighter pilot main task (and main skill) IS sky scanning.

[Quax]

A fighter pilot main task (and main skill) IS sky scanning.

 

 

When Hartmann was asked, what he thinks, he could do better than others, he only mentioned his above average scanning abillities. (he didnt mention his piloting skills, allthough they must have been outstanding as well)

[6S.Manu]

Because... hollywood. Or something else unrealistic. You're absolutely right, no rear escort is going to zoom ahead of the bomber formation, or even from the middle of the bomber formation, and take out frontal attacks.

 

IIRC escort formations were used in that way only after the '43, while before there were close escorts. So Mustang is not totally wrong.

 

Only if you have 5 mins to search with your eyes. Under normal conditions you need up to a minute to "find" a 747 at 15 km allthough you know where to look at.

Of course. But I mean that it's possible... and thanks to the size (and pattern) of the formation you have more chance to get the stream in less time.

 

[unreasonable]

The requested 6-8 km (poll vote) are definitly more than what is realistic (but perhaps still acceptable as even bigger compromise for the "game").

 

Does not this depend on what is meant?  If an always visible icon is meant then yes, unrealistic, but if it just means the object is rendered at correct size then it would be exceptionally difficult to see at that range: you would have to be looking in the right place, with the right lighting/cloud conditions, probably zoomed in as well.

 

RoF renders planes at 8.5 km: to see them at close to that range is exceptionally rare but is possible.  The "icon frame" turns off at a much closer range.  Personally I think this is one of the things 777 eventually got absolutely spot on in RoF. Not sure why the wheel has to be reinvented.

[Rama]

Personally I think this is one of the things 777 eventually got absolutely spot on in RoF.

Agree.