Spotting problem

[JtD]

... a vision angle of 0,03°, below the eye best possible angular resolution

Guess I'm not human, then. I usually wear glasses if I want to see well, but even without I'm at around 0.01°.

 

As a sidenote, spotting is a skill, and that's up to the player. The game needs to properly simulate visibility. Currently, that's pretty questionable.

[Rama]

 IIRC escort formations were used in that way only after the '43, while before there were close escorts.

Can you give me one example were a rear escort intercepted fighters completing frontal attack on bombers?

[FuriousMeow]

 

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

 

 

He totally is. The overtake on a bomber formation is ~200mph with optimal airspeed from the escorts. The escorts would be at cruise speed until contacts sighted. So around ~260MPH in a S weave pattern. The head on approach would be full speed fighters around ~330MPH closing on bombers at ~180MPH so a total of ~510MPH.

 

I'm sure someone can come along with chartzes, but there's no way a fighter escort is going to intercept frontal attacks from mid or rear formation - especially when the bomber streams were a mile to two mile long.

Edited January 20, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Rama]

Guess I'm not human, then. I usually wear glasses if I want to see well, but even without I'm at around 0.01°.

Yes, I was wrong for the max angular resolution, it's closer to 0.02° so 0.03 is above. You're right to correct me on that.

But if you can achieve 0.01° without glasses when the max of a very accurate eye is 0.015.... then you have a 20/10 vision (and don't need glasses)

 

The game needs to properly simulate visibility. Currently, that's pretty questionable.

Do you agree that RoF does it well?

 

If yes, I BoS one day achieve the same, you agree it will be ok?

[gx007]

This weekend's release is more difficult to spot a/c. The snow glare is more too, so maybe that's why it's a challenge to detect it. 

 

I'm using expert realism, no a/c icons. I do use base locator icon so I know where it will spawn. Still very hard to spot until it's 2k from me.

[6S.Manu]

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...

By unassisted I mean having noone saying the vector of the target: that's the second experiment.

 

With no "help" you need to scan a large area, while being assisted you are going to focus in a smaller space with the possibility to detect the contact really far.

 

When interceptors are told that the bomber is on their 2 o'clock at X altitude you are not going to lose time scanning 10 o'clock at Y altitude.

 

 

This link is irrelevant to the question.

It's relevant as you claimed that my quote was referring to detection by images. It was a proof. ;-)

 

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.....

 

Yep. That's the reason I used "size" instead of "quantity". And that's the reason fighters should fly in close formation (less chance to be spotted). Of course trails are useful, but those are going to make the contact really spottable: there's no chance to miss them. If we talk about lower altitude, then it's another matter.

 

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

 

I keep saying it since the CloD's development. :-( 

 

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)...

It's the maximum range after which the plane can't be spotted, not the minimum. How can a spotter not see the He111 with less than 20km? I don't get what you're saying.

 

The graph shows the theoretic distance: if the He111 is turning hard and give you all his belly than you have the chance to see it. Probable? No. Possible? Yes.

 

Being at the same altitude of the target has the advantage to see it against an uniform background but of course you see less area of the plane. On the other side if you look at it from a different altitude and angle then the detectable area will be affected by the belly area. If you are flying a little higher that the He111, at his 9 o'clock with the same vector, it's going to be visible at more that the SideView range (so at least 12km).

 

The problem here, taking in account the Howell experiment, is how can the DC-3 being detected at 20km? IMO there is another thing that we should put on the table: some variables as reflections. background or simply "trails" are going to make the contact more spottable a greater distance than the one in the graph.

 

This is something we miss in a CFS.

 

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".

That's the origin of my idea about the dynamic minimal icons: small but visible icons (a line, a cross, a triangle) that show the position of the contact but are rendered only in the right condition and after a required time.

Far contact should be visible only at the center of your sight, while peripheral vision should be simulated by the said icons at the border of your screen.

 

They will not pop out if you're not look at the right place, but at the same time they "can" be detected by the peripheral vision (if you're lucky).

 

It's not about what YOU see, it's about what the virtual pilot see.

 

Edited January 20, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[AX2]

FuriousMeow, Rama

 

The point of my example was not historical accuracy.     was to shown that...

6-7 Km for view, range is few time in seconds.

 

If you want to make everything realistic, that's impossible with a PC monitors.

 

Think... You're looking through very small window in the cockpit ( the PC monitor 1,2,3  IT doesn't the matter )

With much less resolution than human eyes

 

You want to use Real Life  view ranges of 6-7Km .... when looking through a small window? 

Something will end wrong

 

The view range of IL2 1946 and CloD TF4, are perfect for me . 

I don´t Like Dots,  but it's the only solution

 

Really is difficult to see  a enemy aicraft  in BoS also at 2 kms, I think that's the issue, not the historical details .

Edited January 20, 2014 by Mustang

[6S.Manu]

He totally is. The overtake on a bomber formation is ~200mph with optimal airspeed from the escorts. The escorts would be at cruise speed until contacts sighted. So around ~260MPH in a S weave pattern. The head on approach would be full speed fighters around ~330MPH closing on bombers at ~180MPH so a total of ~510MPH.

 

I'm sure someone can come along with chartzes, but there's no way a fighter escort is going to intercept frontal attacks from mid or rear formation - especially when the bomber streams were a mile to two mile long.

 

Ah sure! My fault.

 

I totally misunderstood his point. These days I'm very tired... 

Edited January 20, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

When interceptors are told that the bomber is on their 2 o'clock at X altitude you are not going to lose time scanning 10 o'clock at Y altitude.

You still are going to scann a big portion of the sky, which will take plenty of time... enough to call the detection "unnassisted"

Maybe you should read the paper you gave us the link, especcially the parts I pointed.

And also pilot diaries would be usefull... especially the numerous ones telling how a patrol saw absolutelly nothing after having been directed on a target by the ground control... that was supposed to be only a few miles away.

 

It's relevant as you claimed that my quote was referring to detection by images. It was a proof.

 

The first link you gave, in the post before was referring to detection by image.... so what is this other link a proof a what exactly?... beside being irrelevant for unassisted spoting?

 

I don't get what you're saying.

It's pure geometry. if a plane is flying exactly above you and if his distance to you is 20km, then the height difference between you and the plane is exactly 20 km.

 

The graph shows the theoretic distance: if the He111 is turning hard and give you all his belly than you have the chance to see it. Probable? No. Possible? Yes.

You're kidding?

First, I'm not sure a He111 banks at 90° while turning "hard" (far from it)..... and even if she was, what are the chances he was banking 90° at the exact time you were watching the exact direction to spot?

Do you mean by this that everytime you play loto, you're supposed to win? If everything which is "possible" is taken as usual, then let's talk about UFO instead.

Tell me if you really think you have a valid argument. This would put an end to the discussion.

 

 

Being at the same altitude of the target has the advantage to see it against an uniform background but of course you see less area of the plane. On the other side if you look at it from a different altitude and angle then the detectable area will be affected by the belly area. If you are flying a little higher that the He111, at his 9 o'clock with the same vector, it's going to be visible at more that the SideView range (so at least 12km).

No, if you were flying a little higher or lower, it wont change the detectable area, if you were flying much higher, the He111 would be below the horizon, and you wont see her. and if you were flying much lower, in some specific circonstances, you will maybe be able to see her a little further. Let's make statistics: what are the odds he He111 would be flying high above in a strict perpendicular path to your sighting direction, in a clear dry sky and with the sun behind you..... we could solve this question with a dice set....

In any case, it wont change significativelly the usual spotting distance.

What do you want to have on the simulation... usual or extraordinary spotting distance?

 

The problem here, taking in account the Howell experiment, is how can the DC-3 being detected at 20km?

 

Usually, the DC-3 can't be detected at 20km. It may be in non-usual situations

 

That's the origin of my idea about the dynamic minimal icons: small but visible icons (a line, a cross, a triangle) that show the position of the contact but are rendered only in the right condition and after a required time.

Far contact should be visible only at the center of your sight, while peripheral vision should be simulated by the said icons at the border of your screen.

 

They will not pop out if you're not look at the right place, but at the same time they "can" be detected by the peripheral vision (if you're lucky).

I think you don't really realise what you're asking.....but it's exactly an instant long range detection... you can make it as complex as you want, it would still be long range instant detection (any visible icon will make the detection instantaneous).

This will just result to avoid simulating the most important pilot task. sky spotting.

 

BTW, you didn't answer my question about RoF solution....

[Rama]

The point of my example was not historical accuracy.

Ah? so what was the point?

 

6-7 Km for view, range is few time in seconds.

Yes... just divide the distance by the speed, and you get the few time amount in seconds... easier to do

So let's say 7km at 500 km/h. It gives 50 seconds. 25s if the ennemy is flying toward you at same speed. Plenty of time to do a lot of things.

What the point?

 

 

If you want to make everything realistic, that's impossible with a PC monitors

 

So that's a reason to allow instant spotting at totally unrealistic distances?

[Fifi]

So let's say 7km at 500 km/h. It gives 50 seconds. 25s if the ennemy is flying toward you at same speed. Plenty of time to do a lot of things.

What the point?

 

 

Currently and with luck, 1.5Km...plenty time to get killed without seeing nothing. But the AI of course is seeing me far further.

No time to focuse scanning sky on one side or other. By the time you scan not even one side of cockpit you are dead...

When multi will be released, i can imagine bunch of players flying all around in a 3Km radius without seeing each other...and turning and turning searching targets for hours.

[Rama]

Nobody is saying 1.5 km is ok as a max spotting distance.

[dkoor]

They should make even more blind than it is, it would perfectly suit my current preferred style of play.

That is - ground attack missions. I'm having a blast with Bristol in RoF  , can't wait for Il-2 or Stuka to become available.

If I accidentally get spotted and killed by an enemy fighter I'd probably go ahead and buy a lottery ticket.

 

I mean, what are the odds?

Edited January 20, 2014 by dkoor

[6S.Manu]

You still are going to scann a big portion of the sky, which will take plenty of time... enough to call the detection "unnassisted"

Maybe you should read the paper you gave us the link, especcially the parts I pointed.

And also pilot diaries would be usefull... especially the numerous ones telling how a patrol saw absolutelly nothing after having been directed on a target by the ground control... that was supposed to be only a few miles away.

 

How do you call the way pilots scanned the sky in the second Howell's experiment? I call it "assisted", as somebody is telling the pilot to look at "that direction". Noone here is telling that the spotting is instant.

I've read many aviation books. In one text I remember the assisted pilot (guided by the radio) spotting the single enemy plane at a great range, so far that at start I doubted it (can't actually remember the book, but it was clearly pre-radar). Of course I also read about guys who didn't catch anything.

 

The first link you gave, in the post before was referring to detection by image.... so what is this other link a proof a what exactly?... beside being irrelevant for unassisted spoting?

 

For the second time, it was not referring to detection by image: the paragraph in that study is titled "Previous research". They start their analysis speaking about that test that was conducted with real planes in the '50. There is no detection by image in the Howell experiment. As it could be mistaken, being quoted in an experiment about detection by image, I linked some doc who prove that one was a real flying plane (daytime flying, normally painted and equipped DC-3).

 

It's pure geometry. if a plane is flying exactly above you and if his distance to you is 20km, then the height difference between you and the plane is exactly 20 km.

 

Of course...

 

You're kidding?

First, I'm not sure a He111 banks at 90° while turning "hard" (far from it)..... and even if she was, what are the chances he was banking 90° at the exact time you were watching the exact direction to spot?

Do you mean by this that everytime you play loto, you're supposed to win? If everything which is "possible" is taken as usual, then let's talk about UFO instead.

Tell me if you really think you have a valid argument. This would put an end to the discussion.

 

Again I'm not talking about probability, but possibility. I'm not saying that it's easy or normal, and I'm not even saying it's at least difficult: it's an extreme case (just like winning at the lottery as you say).

The fact is that a shape of that size can be be seen at that distance according to the graph; it's a mathematical function.

 

Note that the F-14 can be seen BV at 23km (but it's service ceiling it's 15km). It can still be seen if it's flying showing his belly (90°, my ironic "hard turn"); don't think I believe an heavy bomber will hard turn that way.   

 

Simply you are taking account  "plane and observer" while I'm talking about raw numbers. And by numbers you CAN spot a He-111 at 20km. Just like you CAN win the lottery.

 

BTW I'm talking about a standard distance: some variables can make it longer, while others can make it worse.

 

Just keep reading below where I'm talking about dynamic icons.

 

No, if you were flying a little higher or lower, it wont change the detectable area, if you were flying much higher, the He111 would be below the horizon, and you wont see her. and if you were flying much lower, in some specific circonstances, you will maybe be able to see her a little further. Let's make statistics: what are the odds he He111 would be flying high above in a strict perpendicular path to your sighting direction, in a clear dry sky and with the sun behind you..... we could solve this question with a dice set....

In any case, it wont change significativelly the usual spotting distance.

What do you want to have on the simulation... usual or extraordinary spotting distance?

 

If we still talk about optimal conditions most depends on the delta altitude and on the wingarea of the plane. Since it's clearly difficult to calculate every the probability with every kind of airplane, I agree that it will not greatly change the spotting distance. Anyway think about a soaring aircraft.

 

Usually, the DC-3 can't be detected at 20km. It may be in non-usual situations

 

We don't know in which conditions the DC-3 was observed during the second Howell experiment. It say over various conditions anyway.

 

Do you know the "Project Yehudi"?

http://books.google.it/books?id=q06Jw1lgcF8C&lpg=PA41&ots=8e5EN3KpR3&dq=Project+Yehudi+bomber&pg=PA41&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Project%20Yehudi%20bomber&f=false

 

A TBM 3D Avenger was used to simulate a torpedo attack against a submarine. The US Navy's Project Yehudi used lights mounted on the leading edges of the wings of a torpedo bomber to successfully hide the plane in broad daylight when attacking a submarine. Visual detection range in the tests dropped substantially from 12 to 2 miles.

 

An Avenger is clearly smaller than a He111, and if was spotted during the first attack run at 12miles. Frontal View?

 

I think you don't really realise what you're asking.....but it's exactly an instant long range detection... you can make it as complex as you want, it would still be long range instant detection (any visible icon will make the detection instantaneous).

This will just result to avoid simulating the most important pilot task. sky spotting.

 

The bolded part is something I can't probably explain correctly, as many posters don't get it. The icon should not be rendered instantly as the sight of the pilot scan its position. Because of the many conditions variables in the visibility formula planes in the same position should not being 100% visible every time, the way it's now in every game except in maybe WW2O (correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a CFS with dynamic icons rendering). The right approach should be that the icon (that it's useful also to correct the sight acuity on a PC screen) is going to be rendered randomly, using the conditions as parameters.

 

Just like you said before, sometimes spotting a plane is like winning the lottery... what's the probability? An Italian lottery has 1/622.614.630. That's clearly an extreme case.

What about the statistic of a plane a 4km in front of you? What about the same plane at you side (peripheral vision)? And again what about the same plane BUT against the sun?

 

Now it's your duty as pilot to put yourself in the right position to have good visibility and hide from the enemy ("Beware of the Hun in the sun").

 

I hope I've been clear.

 

BTW, you didn't answer my question about RoF solution....

I missed the question. I'm going to answer tomorrow.

 

Bye.

Edited January 21, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[sturmkraehe]

Do we have an answer from the devs if and when they intend to address this issue?

[Rama]

I've read many aviation books

Yes... maybe too many. Sometimes you should try piloting (it isn't that expensive). You probably then will see your lectures with another perspective.

 

Simply you are taking account  "plane and observer"

And it should'nt be taken in account for determining if observation is possible?

We're talking about real world, not about theoritical imaginary world.

 

Again I'm not talking about probability, but possibility

Ok, this is putting an end to the discussion, as far I'm concerned. I'm interested in combat flight simulation, not in spotting lottery with randomized icons (which will still be unrealistic, since for those planes, the detection will still be instantaneous without the need to carrefully scan each small area of the sky).

 

What's interesting in a simulation is what's probable and usual, not what's possible. There are gazillions of possible weird things in real life, as for example a gunner falling from 20.000 ft witheout a parachute and surviving (and it actually happened, at least once). You don't base a believable simulation on possible things, but on probable outcomes. It's would be a pure nonsense to add gazillions of low probability events in a simulation. If you want to play with low probabilities, then Raffle is the thing (and don't need an expensive PC)

[=RvE=Windmills]

I suppose the answer to the RoF solution would be that it wouldn't be adequate. As it wouldn't support long range spots which were apparently possible granted certain circumstances are met. With the example of the He111, you wouldn't be able to spot it even from a perfect angle in ideal conditions at 9km with RoF solution right?

 

The 'likelihood' of seeing a 111 in a perfect scenario doesn't seem relevant here I think. Even if the conditions for spotting it are met it still won't be visible under RoF rules, which I don't feel would be an ideal solution.

 

At least, if I'm understanding all this correctly.

[Rama]

I suppose the answer to the RoF solution would be that it wouldn't be adequate. As it wouldn't support long range spots which were apparently possible granted certain circumstances are met. With the example of the He111, you wouldn't be able to spot it even from a perfect angle in ideal conditions at 9km with RoF solution right?

In some kind possible granted certain circumstances (sunglint), a small fighter can possibly be spotted 30km or more away..... do you sugest it should be the normal long range spotting distance?

[unreasonable]

I suppose the answer to the RoF solution would be that it wouldn't be adequate. As it wouldn't support long range spots which were apparently possible granted certain circumstances are met. With the example of the He111, you wouldn't be able to spot it even from a perfect angle in ideal conditions at 9km with RoF solution right?

 

The 'likelihood' of seeing a 111 in a perfect scenario doesn't seem relevant here I think. Even if the conditions for spotting it are met it still won't be visible under RoF rules, which I don't feel would be an ideal solution.

 

At least, if I'm understanding all this correctly.

 

My recollection of a thread in the RoF forums discussing this issue (which I am too lazy to try to find) had a statement from the developers along the lines that the  8.5 km draw distance was simply a choice based on its usefulness and its effect on PC performance rather than a limitation of the engine itself.  The engine could attempt to render objects at any distance, but since the area the PC would have to cover increases by the square of the distance, a limit had to be found that would not bring players' PCs to their knees. 

 

Given that our PCs are somewhat better now, but that CPU is still a bottle neck and the new maps will have many more objects, the devs still have to find a reasonable distance.

 

Personally, I would be happy with an exact duplicate of RoF system, + an objects view distance slider that that went out somewhat further than 8.5 km, + some graphics options to allow contrast heightening for objects, so that we can choose what works.  Seems entirely sensible:  also seems unlikely given this week's bizarre announcement.

[6S.Manu]

And it should'nt be taken in account for determining if observation is possible?

We're talking about real world, not about theoritical imaginary world.

 

So if a study says that a F-14 can be seen at 23km (see graph) if it wasn't possible in real world?

 

Ok, this is putting an end to the discussion, as far I'm concerned. I'm interested in combat flight simulation, not in spotting lottery with randomized icons (which will still be unrealistic, since for those planes, the detection will still be instantaneous without the need to carrefully scan each small area of the sky).

Aaaand here we go.   

 

Where did I said I want the icons to be rendered at the maximum range without having to actually search in small area of the sky? 

 

Did you read the explanation below?

 

You have to move your sight in the right areas or the icon CAN'T be rendered; and more FAR the icon is, more TIME is need to be detected (in the case of a  1/10000000 probability it could be spotted once in many minutes... aka really improbable, almost impossible).

 

The image in the doc about the visual detection lobe (FIG 2) confirms that it's not possible to spot contacts at great distance if you're not looking in the right spot: that's the result I would like to have in a CFS. But I'm against the dumb zoom in/zoom out system we have in RoF as you totally lose peripheral vision.

 

 

What's interesting in a simulation is what's probable and usual, not what's possible. There are gazillions of possible weird things in real life, as for example a gunner falling from 20.000 ft witheout a parachute and surviving (and it actually happened, at least once). You don't base a believable simulation on possible things, but on probable outcomes. It's would be a pure nonsense to add gazillions of low probability events in a simulation. If you want to play with low probabilities, then Raffle is the thing (and don't need an expensive PC)

It's your opinion.

 

IMO a WW2 CFS should take in account visibility ahead of minor aspects (that are not FM, DM but more 3D model quality, landscape ect): I think that giving the sun its real importance or having to spend 5 minutes to scan the sky around are mandatory.

 

Do you really like to move your head around and gain full SA in 10 seconds as it's now?

 

Edited January 21, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

So if a study says that a F-14 can be seen at 23km (see graph) if it wasn't possible in real world?

In order for the F-14 to be seen at 23 km, she should show you her belly in an orthogonal plane to the sighting direction at the exact moment you exactly try to spot in her direction... something giving this event a very low probability. The graph can't be taken in account without replacing its application in real situations.

Another low probability event is that you spot an UFO (and you also can't demonstrate it isn't possible in real world)... would you want to have UFO in game just because you can't prove it's not possible?

 

Did you read the explanation below?

Yes I did, and what you propose is still to replace the vision detection by an algorithm choosing for you what you can see and what you can't (by deciding or not to draw the icon that will instantaenously reveal the presence of a plane).... not a simulation that help you to experiment what was 90% of the pilot's work (scanning the sky, spotting stuff, not being sure it's a plane or not, getting confirmation when closing, etc....)

I understand what you want. It's of no interest for me. And I certainly wouldn't like to have the developpers loosing time (in my oppiion) developping an overcomplex (and useless, again IMO) icon system to decide for me what I can see and what I can't.

 

It's your opinion.

It's not only mine.

Ask around what they would prefer: a simulation making you able to "live" and feel something a little bit like from what the WWII pilots experienced in everyday's missions.... or if they want to be able to survive in game a 20000ft chute without parachute and other alike very low probability events?

 

PS: what about the RoF solution? ok or not ok for you?

[BraveSirRobin]

Why is this even an issue?  Spotting is not a problem in RoF.  It seems rather obvious that BoS will work very similar to RoF.  The fact that it's not doing so now can be summed up in 1 word:  alpha.

[Quax]

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.

 

 

I didn´t oppose the RoF solution. And nobody said the current state is final. 

[Jason_Williams]

BOS uses same system as ROF at the moment. I'm not sure why this has even become an issue. 

 

Jason

[6S.Manu]

In order for the F-14 to be seen at 23 km, she should show you her belly in an orthogonal plane to the sighting direction at the exact moment you exactly try to spot in her direction... something giving this event a very low probability. The graph can't be taken in account without replacing its application in real situations.

Another low probability event is that you spot an UFO (and you also can't demonstrate it isn't possible in real world)... would you want to have UFO in game just because you can't prove it's not possible?

 

Yes I did, and what you propose is still to replace the vision detection by an algorithm choosing for you what you can see and what you can't (by deciding or not to draw the icon that will instantaenously reveal the presence of a plane).... not a simulation that help you to experiment what was 90% of the pilot's work (scanning the sky, spotting stuff, not being sure it's a plane or not, getting confirmation when closing, etc....)

I understand what you want. It's of no interest for me. And I certainly wouldn't like to have the developpers loosing time (in my oppiion) developping an overcomplex (and useless, again IMO) icon system to decide for me what I can see and what I can't.

 

It's not only mine.

Ask around what they would prefer: a simulation making you able to "live" and feel something a little bit like from what the WWII pilots experienced in everyday's missions.... or if they want to be able to survive in game a 20000ft chute without parachute and other alike very low probability events?

 

PS: what about the RoF solution? ok or not ok for you?

 

I don't know why we are still arguing about what's probable vs what's possible.

If I understand correctly you're a going to ignore anything that is not really probable: it's good to know, that's enough for you and I can't make you change idea.

In my part, ignoring UFOs and flying pigs, I only put on the table the data in the docs: I fully understand the almost zero probability of spotting a plane at that maximum range (I'm aware, it's like winning the lottery); I still think that's something to take in account just to put a variable limit to the visibility distance of a single plane instead of "anything farther X km is not visible". If the engine is going to ignore every low probability event (1/X probability, choose a number), that's a compromise between resources and efficiency.

 

Good, I see that you understand that I mean. 

 

You know, the pixel hunting is something that has always bothered me. BTW I'm not used to fly with icons even today and during this 10 years I've always flown in full difficulty servers (that not fully realistic!).

With the increasing of screen resolution (and my age) I lost the enjoyment for the sim as spotting and tracking contacts was always worse because of the impossibility to use that great functions of our eyes, ingame FoV etc. Before the contacts were big black dots, for the lower guy but also for the higher one.

 

I think the other players would like to have a more realistic experience. Have you asked to them if they would like to really use the sun as a weapon against the enemy? To not be limited by the FoV that halve the real size of the contact making bad camo and symbols totally useless, so that a brown plane can disappear over a green field? To search over the fields for ground targets instead of see them spawning and being clearly visible over a field.

 

But above all, being able to fall against an ambush that's not dictated by the sim limitation: personally I've not being killed from an higher enemy in years, while I can easily be killed by a guy 2000km under me that I could not see because of FoV and screen resolution after having scanned that area for 5 minutes (oh, but he clearly see me as I'm a black cross on the sky). Oh... I look at my six twice the time I look in front of me.

 

I must say that I don't really like the RoF solution (constantly switching FoV) as we totally lose the Peripheral vision and the rendering the planes is forced by the current FoV.

Sorry guys, but if I'm looking at a far point in front of me I should still going to notice a contact passing at my side. Probably I could not ID it but surely I'll be aware of its existence.

 

 

[ll./JG77_JadeBandit]

BOS uses same system as ROF at the moment. I'm not sure why this has even become an issue. 

 

Jason

 

I wonder if it's the contrast that's the issue and not draw distance. If they are using the latest spotting system active in ROF then the dot's should be there. I find spotting targets on the horizon difficult due to the white wash effect between the ground and the sky, I tend to lose the dot in this rather large area of visual noise.

 

It may just be me but spotting far objects in the distance becomes easier if you are looking up to find your target, the farther away from the horizon the better, the sun also dominates a large portion of the sky and drowns out your ability to see far off in the distance.

[SKG51_robtek]

If BoS is using the RoF solution atm, the RoF solution is absolutely inadequate!

If thats because of the alpha state, ok, lets hop it will get acceptable in the future.

If one can't spot contacts head on at, at least, 7 to 10 km with wide FoV, I know i've wasted my money here.

Tactical flying is dependend on seeing the enemy early and to get into position while still having SA.

The initial contact might be dark grey, but must be detectable when searching hard.

At 4 km latest the contact must be obvious when looking in that direction.

Before a dark background the contact should be highlighted accordingly.

In the twilight zone contacts are hidden longer.

Additional glints from reflecting surfaces should be occuring and be visible at even greater distances.

All this in clear weather, of course.

And I believe the RoF system is working in RoF because of the slow planes, one can search half a minute with zoom and nothing much has changed regarding ones position or enemy positions.

Dogfights are always at knifes distance there, not like in wwii.

Edited January 21, 2014 by robtek

[JG5_Schuck]

I have to admit, im not one for icons or any sort of head zoom.

 

Its totally unrealistic.Do we have zooming vision? No.

 

There needs to be an option to disable this, along with HuD, gauges, icons etc in the settings. 

 

As long as an aircraft that is twice the size of another can be spotted at twice the distance, ie an IL2 should be easier to spot than a Fw190, does it really matter about max or min spotting distances?

 

Obviously it doesnt want to be to close as this would be unrealistic. All that matters to me is that we all play on a level playing field, especially when it comes to Multiplay.

 

But surely we've all been to air shows, and you can easily spot a Spit side on at 7-8km with the naked eye, and further (10km) when its banking, as long as atmospherics are ok.

 

I think that would be fine for a max distance (without head/vision zoom)

 

And by the way, i can see the Red Arrows smoke trails at 30km+ from my house!

[Quax]

If one can't spot contacts head on at, at least, 7 to 10 km with wide FoV, I know i've wasted my money here.

 

Head on I see airliners, when it would be too late to avoid the crash. And they are a bit bigger than a 109. Good they have thousand feet seperation.

 

If you go head on with 400km/h, you have 9 secs to the merge, when spotting at 2 km (WW2 fighter according to the graph posted earlier by Manu - best viewing conditions)

 

RoF gives you 8 km, even head on. 

 

 

In the german section of this forum a military jet pilot summed it up very good (referring to the "nervous" BoS FM and the visibility):

 

"Guys, you always cry for more realism, and then you whine, if you get it"

 

 

 

 

BOS uses same system as ROF at the moment. I'm not sure why this has even become an issue. 

 

 

 

One reason I can think of are the current dogfight missions. As the enemy planes spawn at 3 km, you have no chance to spot them at 8km   

Edited January 21, 2014 by Quax

[AX2]

The actual spotting system 1.5 KM  make  BoS unplayable. " for me " - the spotting problem even is present at 1.2 KM .

 

 

Even with 8 kms of view range, and zoom in / zoom out - BoS will be very close to unplayable. 

 

I really hope be wrong. 

[Finkeren]

The actual spotting system 1.5 KM  make  BoS unplayable. " for me " - the spotting problem even is present at 1.2 KM .

 

 

Even with 8 kms of view range, and zoom in / zoom out - BoS will be very close to unplayable. 

 

I really hope be wrong. 

 

You apparently are. The devs have said, that long range LOD is still unfinished.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Where did you pull 1.5 Km from. At through range I can nearly see insignia. 4KM is where it gets dicey for me. My problem is the grainy transition of the sky from light to dark blue. Into the Right sky looks 10x better. And has a much less pronounced transition in color.

[6S.Manu]

But above all, being able to fall against an ambush that's not dictated by the sim limitation: personally I've not being killed from an higher enemy in years, while I can easily be killed by a guy 2000km under me that I could not see because of FoV and screen resolution after having scanned that area for 5 minutes (oh, but he clearly see me as I'm a black cross on the sky). Oh... I look at my six twice the time I look in front of me.

 

Correction: I've been ambushed by an higher enemy a pair of minutes ago in RoF...  

 

I should not play the sim after 80 hours of work (software development) in 9 days... 

Edited January 21, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[FuriousMeow]

I have to admit, im not one for icons or any sort of head zoom.

 

Its totally unrealistic.Do we have zooming vision? No.

 

We also don't go living day to day lives looking at it through a much smaller scale. That's why zoom actually is realistic, because it scales the environment to an actual real size.

[Quax]

I admit, I am looking for my target by doing a spiral climb and wait until he shows up against the snow on my six 

[unreasonable]

I have to admit I find Jason's statement above surprising, since I have been playing RoF all week and then a little BoS over the weekend: from looking at the parked aircraft and other objects as you fly over the airfields my impression was that BoS now is like RoF on initial release, where the draw distance was short and dependent on zoom, rather than like the current RoF model of 8.5km independent of zoom.

 

Now have to wait a few days until I can go and convince myself I was wrong.

 

As an aside, RL WW2 pilots hardly ever flew alone, if they had any sense. Multiple pairs of eyes looking around should reduce the problem, which raises the question of how the AI wingmen will deal with this in SP: in RoF they do not have any method of drawing your attention to a sighting, sometimes they break formation to attack on their own, sometimes not (which I like, btw, they are mostly excitable teenagers not robots). Will BoS wingmen alert the player to a bogie?

[FuriousMeow]

How do you expect a WWI airmen to alert you?

 

Yes, they could wave and point - which would be cool - but you'd have to be looking at them to see that. Which most don't.

[unreasonable]

How do you expect a WWI airmen to alert you?

 

Yes, they could wave and point - which would be cool - but you'd have to be looking at them to see that. Which most don't.

Of course I understand that I am not a complete idiot! The point is that WW2 airmen DO have a way to alert you, so I am curious to see how BoS will eventually handle that.

[SYN_DerHesse70]

I'm an active ROF player. Spotting in BOS at the moment is much harder than in ROF. There must something be wrong or different to ROF since the last update. Before the last update it was much better in BOS.

Edited January 22, 2014 by DerHesse70

[AndyHill]

How do you expect a WWI airmen to alert you?

 

Yes, they could wave and point - which would be cool - but you'd have to be looking at them to see that. Which most don't.

It's actually quite telling that in real life that did happen, but in a sim it's absolutely impossible.