Stalingrad autumn visibility

[SCG_klobuk]

Hi guys,

I was browsing through this forum but I didn't find any topic that is related to the visibility of aircrafts in the new autumn version of Stalingrad map. I personally really struggle to spot aircrafts that are flying on the deck 2k below me because there is no contrast. I didn't noticed this problem on other maps/seasons so I want to ask if you have similar feeling while flying autumn Stalingrad, if I can fix this somehow in graphics settings or if this issue is known and will be hopefully fixed in some future patch. Thank you. 

[Gambit21]

You do realized that aircraft are camouflaged to produce exactly the effect that you're describing.

[sniperton]

50 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

You do realized that aircraft are camouflaged to produce exactly the effect that you're describing.

This applies to camouflaged aircraft standing still on the ground, but the situation is slightly different when they are moving relative to the background, ehh? That's the good old question of realistic spotting translated into game terms, a can of worms, I know.

[Gambit21]

Just now, sniperton said:

This applies to camouflaged aircraft standing still on the ground, but the situation is slightly different when they are moving relative to the background, ehh? That's the good old question of realistic spotting translated into game terms, a can of worms, I know.

 

Of course the situation is different, but the same mechanics apply. The fact that the aircraft is now moving doesn't change that.

Losing aircraft against the ground in real life is/was common.

[sniperton]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Of course the situation is different, but the same mechanics apply. The fact that the aircraft is now moving doesn't change that.

Losing aircraft against the ground in real life is/was common.

Sure, but what can be debated is the extent how different these situations are. All this depends on one's personal RL experiences and their relationship to how one sees them rendered on his/her actual hardware. Some feel it adequate, some feel it superior, some feel it inferior. A perfect simulation game would be where all these individual discrepancies could be factored in.

[Yogiflight]

45 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Of course the situation is different, but the same mechanics apply. The fact that the aircraft is now moving doesn't change that.

Losing aircraft against the ground in real life is/was common.

This is not quite correct. Even with the best camouflage, you can be seen, when you are moving. Only when you don't move it works perfectly. Of course you are harder to see with an aircraft with camouflage than with a metal effect aircraft, but you can be seen, which BTW works in the game, too. If you lost an aircraft out of sight, look for something moving.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Yogiflight

[Gambit21]

I'm not saying that it makes you invisible - I'm saying it makes spotting more difficult.

 

[LukeFF]

Paging Fumes, Paging Fumes. You are needed in the GD forum.

[SCG_klobuk]

I just want to point out that I have this issue only on new stalingrad map (maybe other autumn maps). It was ok before the update. From my point of view it really looks like that aircrafts lose contrast/sharpness/color if they are rendering in 2km distance or more.

[rolikiraly]

I agree but it's similar on the summer map for me (that's where i've spent more time). It was really bad against forest or sometimes water background even before, but now it's hard against most of the terrain.

BTW for me it's more like an ID problem, many times i do spot something but i can't see the silhouette clearly to tell what is it, and i loose him when i have to focus on something else for a second.

I don't know if it's realistic or not but maybe it wouldn't hurt most people if visibility was made a bit better ? 

[SCG_klobuk]

Visibility above forest was always tricky but I think that's ok. But I have this visibility issue on Stalingrad autumn map regardless the terrain type. Everything seems like greyed out without contrast and color. It's really hard to spot something near ground. I have 27'' monitor but I really struggle to spot anything. Other maps are OK for me as I've mentioned before.

[sniperton]

Just a blind guess, but it may have something to do with improper anti-aliasing in front of certain backgrounds, similar to the clouds issue where planes visually disintegrate or even fully disappear when they're in front of clouds. Anyway, if you find that different backgrounds affect object contour and colours independently from object distance, try to take screenshots to document the issue.

[SCG_klobuk]

Thank you all for reply. I'll try to perform some tests with similar conditions but on different maps and I'll post the screenshots here.

[Mauf]

The spotting/tracking problem we have is actually an artifact of using a screen. In real life, once you spot an aircraft, your eyes would focus at the distance for that aircraft, sharpening the image of the aircraft while blurring most stuff behind it (like ground, trees and whatnot). So long as you keep that aircraft focussed, you're well able to track it across varying backgrounds. In the game, you don't have that. Result: Detailed background, detailed aircraft and nothing for your eyes to focus on creating lots of visual noise.

 

In lieu of the normal distance focus, most people seem to adopt tracking by either color distinction (which is actually hard on the autumn map as the OP noticed because the colors do match well on them) or by unfocussing your eyes (basically looking through the monitor) and reacting to movement patterns that clash with the background.

 

Point is: That is not something that can be solved by the devs in any fashion (outside of creating highly unrealistic crutches we all don't want in a sim). It's a limit of the technology and we have to deal with it.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mauf

[SCG_klobuk]

@Mauf

Thank you very much for this reply and suggestions. I will definitely try the second approach because I have never done that before and it make sense.

[216th_Jordan]

What are your graphics settings? (ingame and graphics card profile)

[SCG_klobuk]

@216th_Jordan

I'm not at home atm but I'll post my settings and screenshots asap.

[rolikiraly]

1 hour ago, Mauf said:

[...]

 

Point is: That is not something that can be solved by the devs in any fashion (outside of creating highly unrealistic crutches we all don't want in a sim). It's a limit of the technology and we have to deal with it.

 

The problem is that they seem to have made it worse (at least for me) with the new textures. Yes it possibly has much to do with flat monitor vs. reality differences, but having a terrain that hides the planes even more doesn't help, either. 

[SCG_klobuk]

@rolikiraly

I have the same feeling that the new terrain made the spoting harder. I like the new terrain very much and also other graphical improvements in 3.0 update. My only struggle is autumn map I'll try to post some screenshots this evening.

[Mauf]

33 minutes ago, rolikiraly said:

 

The problem is that they seem to have made it worse (at least for me) with the new textures. Yes it possibly has much to do with flat monitor vs. reality differences, but having a terrain that hides the planes even more doesn't help, either. 

 

An unavoidable consequence of higher resolution (meaning both pixels but also texturing details and model complexity). More detail = more noise. I personally don't have more trouble now than before. It's still a challenge and BoX is quite a step up in this regard compared to CloD. But I don't find it more difficult than for example DCS.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mauf

[sniperton]

3 hours ago, Mauf said:

That is not something that can be solved by the devs in any fashion (outside of creating highly unrealistic crutches we all don't want in a sim). It's a limit of the technology and we have to deal with it.

While I agree with you in most of what you said, I'm reluctant to admit that 'crutches' are unrealistic. It all depends on what you take for 'realism'. 'Realism' is a visual convention -- we conventionally regard Renaissance paintings more realistic than Cubist ones, although Cubist paintings convey more faithfully what the human eye actually sees and how it senses objects in a 3D space. Paradoxically, what you take for realistic is in fact unrealistic and restrictive related to RL human perception. Only some kind of augmented reality (=crutches) can convey you the same (or at least equivalent) sensations as you have IRL. 

[Mauf]

22 minutes ago, sniperton said:

While I agree with you in most of what you said, I'm reluctant to admit that 'crutches' are unrealistic. It all depends on what you take for 'realism'. 'Realism' is a visual convention -- we conventionally regard Renaissance paintings more realistic than Cubist ones, although Cubist paintings convey more faithfully what the human eye actually sees and how it senses objects in a 3D space. Paradoxically, what you take for realistic is in fact unrealistic and restrictive related to RL human perception. Only some kind of augmented reality (=crutches) can convey you the same (or at least equivalent) sensations as you have IRL. 

 

Well, I speak of unrealistic in the sense "it can't imitate the way it would work in RL" because limit of technology. Flat screens can't give us depth sense. So what are the alternatives? VR would be the first contender but the tech is currently limited in its applicability and cost. Have an eyetracker to tell the game what we look at and if we happen to look at a plane, add a blur mask? Eyetracking isn't there either yet and there are other pitfalls there.

So any approach that would be feasible would have to work within the limits of the current monitors we use for playing. What could that be? I can only imagine it to be in the area of "adding halo effects to planes" or "make them overly shiny" so they better contrast against the background... both not things I would describe as "steps forward" from what we currently have. Maybe the blinking christmas trees with canopy glass from CloD but that is probably another thing that is hard to get right and it doesn't address the problem of the silhouette, just tracking a contact.

 

But as with all things, if someone has a good suggestion, I would be all ears and support it.

 

This is kinda the same situation to how HE ammo and engine damage is modelled. The real way is not possible right now so no matter what you do, there is no golden way out without new tech to enable it.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mauf

[Mauf]

8 minutes ago, Sambot88 said:

I think you're both right. It depends on the medium. In the case of video games that are trying to simulate things it comes down to design philosophy and in this game all the mechanics point towards a design philosophy that aims at maximum immersion rather than abstractions like icons ("crutches").

 

I tend to play on medium graphical settings but I still find the game mechanics to be more rewarding when I use as few crutches as possible. Even something as small as the km/h indicator on your HUD can make an immense difference in the way you play. It is the sign of a well-thought-out game that you can ease yourself into the intended playstyle in a way that lets you work on one fundamental skill at a time.

 

Just to make clear: I'm not against "crutches" where they make sense in regards to what the game wants to be. For example the engine starting procedure. While it is great that a game like DCS has it, when it comes to BoX, I don't miss it. Why? To me, BoX is more about the immersion with the battle situation and the airwar aspect of the game, less with the piloting aspect of the planes. There I don't mind the "Press E to start engine" crutch. I wouldn't like a "crutch" when it comes to the spotting and tracking of planes because that would affect an aspect of the game where, at least in my opinion, the focus of the simming aspect of BoX lies in my eyes.

 

Crutch is such a bad word but I guess it conveys the idea:)

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mauf

[sniperton]

I get your point, but exactly 'the immersion with the battle situation and the airwar aspect of the game' are the main reasons why I tend to rely on 'crutches' or 'visual prosthetics' aka object labels. Without them I don't see sh.t on my 23" FHD display

My point is that exactly in order to be able to enjoy 'the immersion with the battle situation and the airwar aspect of the game' (what is the really important thing here), I don't need the speed bar, I don't need the compass, I don't need messages (now that we have an English speach pack), but I do need the tech chat (at least when flying certain types), and I do need some object markers (although I would be more happy if I could customize them as in good old 1946). As long as I'm bound to a small flat screen, they don't break my immersion, on the contrary, they enable it.

 

[216th_Jordan]

Well there are some settings that help a lot, these still apply for overall good visibility. (But use landscape sharpen instead of landscape blurred!)

If you tried them, please report back. Of course spotting is hard and sometimes you will not see your opponent.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[SCG_klobuk]

Hello again,

I made a quick test on Stalingrad and Moscow maps because unfortunately I don't have Kuban yet :-/

My HW specs: Nvidia GTX 970,  16GB RAM, i7-3770 @ 3.4Ghz

 

Conditions for all test were similar:

1. My starting position 2000m

2. Enemy starting position 500m

3. Head-on (so if I rotate I see all aircrafts below me in +- 1500m distance)

4. Enemy aircrafts: 3x Peschka and 3x Yak

 

Test with A settings:

 

Results:

Stalingrad winter:

 

Stalingrad autumn:

 

Moscow autumn:

 

 

Test with B settings (adjusted according to last Jordans post, also Nvidia settings adjusted):

 

Results:

Stalingrad autumn:

 

Stalingrad summer:

 

To be honest aircrafts are visible a little bit better in game because they are moving, but I think you can catch my point.

Edited April 25, 2018 by klobuk

[KoN_]

11 hours ago, Sambot88 said:

I'm actually pretty impressed with how hard it can be to keep track of aircraft against the ground. Lose a low-flying craft against a forest beneath it and you might as well just go home. It's an uncompromising but challenging mechanic. I've definitely read accounts on these forums about how common it was for this to happen in reality, if only repeated second-hand by forum folk who seemed to know what they were about.

 

I noticed in RoF that it was usually easier to spot Aircraft below you due to their reflections. Why were WW2 craft less reflective? Was it a result of the paint being used?

Glad you brought this up since the patch I am struggling to spot anything thats below me or even behind lol , with the winter maps and tree lines . it never used to be the case in early days winter you could spot but today I'm lost . Reshade help . ?

I think we should have some reflections the skins look shinny enough .Glass canopy . Strong sun light .Ect.

Looking at them photos seems to prove the point . .

Always fly with a wing man four eyes ?

Edited April 25, 2018 by II./JG77_Con

[sniperton]

@klobuk: Just to check if we evaluate your pics similarly.

1. Planes seen from this distance are abstracted into a collection of uniformly dark pixels, where aircraft skin colour doesn't seem to play a role.

2. Aircraft shapes/contours are clearly drawn on the winter map, yet there's very little difference in size and shape between the Yaks and the Peshkas.

3. On all other maps edge pixels seem to be merged with background pixels to the effect that plane shapes dissolve into an irregular pattern where only the central pixels retain their colour.

4. The more noisy and inhomogeneous the background, the more these 'noisy' patterns seem to blend into it.  

Just for curiosity, have you checked what happens if you completely turn off anti-aliasing?

[SCG_klobuk]

@sniperton

Yes you basically evaluated it correct. Since update 3.0 I've tried many different changes in settings but with no or low success. I can try to play a bit with AA again. I personally think that I am missing some settings in nvidia because not everyone have these issues and therefor it looks like more related to specific graphic card setting than in game settings.

[sniperton]

I have a budget 1050Ti with MFAA 'on' and trilinear 'off', with everything else set to default. In my understanding BoX works best with default NV settings.

I guess your/my/our problem is originating from how a far-away object (abstracted into pixels) is rendered in front of a far-away background (other pixels), and I doubt it can be easily corrected by fiddling with NV settings. (I see some analogy to the clouds issue where basically the same happens to the edge pixels, with the difference that the latter also happens in close ranges.)

I guess edge pixels are now overlaid in a way that foreground and background colours get simply averaged, resulting in the object blending into the background. A possible solution could be to overlay them with the 'colour exclusion' method, which would result in a bit of shimmering of the object as it travels by over the landscape.

[SCG_klobuk]

@sniperton

I can try to adjust some NV settings again... but it will be just exhausting testing because I really don't know which setting has the most impact on this. Or combination of settings :-/

[216th_Jordan]

2 hours ago, klobuk said:

@sniperton

I can try to adjust some NV settings again... but it will be just exhausting testing because I really don't know which setting has the most impact on this. Or combination of settings :-/

 

Its really not many. The ones I've posted.  (Most important the filtering options have to be disabled) Maybe you can post a screenshot of your nvidia game profile settings?

 

Btw: Still images show little because what you want is to spot moving targets and therefore you need a more defined and less washed out shape of your enemies. In general spotting on an autumn map is hardest, but other factors as view direction, sun/lighting are more important factors. Spotting targets directly below you is and will always be problematic. 

[SCG_klobuk]

Thank you all for you suggestions.

I made today several tests with different in game and NV settings. I didn't observe a huge difference so I tried to adjust my monitor color settings and it looks like this really helped to spot aircrafts better (biggest difference). Btw I found in-game blurred terrain setting to suite me better than sharpen. Below are my settings and new screenshot from Stalingrad autumn map.

 

Control panel settings:

 

In-game settings:

 

Screenshot from Stalingrad autumn map:

 

The landscape is now more in contrast with aircrafts and there for spotting is little bit better.

 

EDIT:

One more valuable information. I have G-sync monitor. With G-sync on in my NV settings I had bad fps on Ultra settings (and I think lower settings were also affected). After I've disabled G-sync I have very good fps also on ultra settings.

Edited April 26, 2018 by klobuk
Update

[sniperton]

Thanks for your time and efforts, I'll give it a try.

[SCG_klobuk]

I think color settings for my monitor affected the visibility the most. G-sync disabled boost my fps very well. I've maxed also distance and reflextions. 70 fps on liberty server, 100+ fps in quick mission.

[216th_Jordan]

I just saw one thing also: "Texture filtering quality: performance" actually sets filtering to your graphics. Try to set it to high instead and look if that gives a little improvement.

 

Good that you got it a lot better!

[SCG_klobuk]

Once again thank you all for your feedback, suggestions and quick responses. I will also try that texture filtering quality setings. I just want to sum it up so far because I am very satisfied with my settings now:

1. Adjust nvidia settings accordind to Jordans post (disable NV filtering, SSAO...)

2. If you have G-sync monitor turn this functionality off

3. Adjust your monitor color settings. Basically try to make the in-game menu look more dark but with more satturation and contrast.

4. Optional, if you have head tracking software make sure that force feedback function in camera options is turned off otherwise you will have little lags.

[SCG_klobuk]

@Sambot88

Yes, sorry for missleading information. It is the checkbox in the bottom right corner in 'Main menu/Settings/Control devices' settings. Disable it.

[SCG_klobuk]

I have thrustmaster 16000m joystick and I think that this joystick doesn't have force feedback. So if I disable this setting it doesn't have any impact on my gameplay, it just reduced some lags for me.

[216th_Jordan]

Yep, I also get microlag with force feedback enabled, fpr me that leads to eyestrain and headaches, turning it off made them go away completely.