Realism of zoom

[SharpeXB]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

It breaks immersion for me personally - and yet I find myself using it now and then.

Being visually handicapped and inept breaks immersion for me...

[Diggun]

I'm glad to finally be able to answer this question once and for all. It appears that the zoom function we have in game is entirely realistic! See below for an image from Arthur J Hughes' 'History of Air Navigation' (1946, written 44/45)....??

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

The problem with first gen VR is that your focus is fixed, and pixel density is simply not good. VR isn't necessarily better than trackir at this point, its more of a trade off.

 

Trackir- You're still playing on a monitor, but looking around is very easy.

 

VR- Much more immersion, but everything outside of your plane is going to be blurry. This makes target ID very difficult until you are very close. Also, it's 1:1 tracking. Once again, this gives you more immersion but that means checking your six can be a very awkward task.

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 minutes ago, itsthatguy said:

but that means checking your six can be a very awkward task.

 

Like in real life? 

 

 

[dburne]

17 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Like in real life? 

 

 

 

Precisely.

No head on a swivel in the real thing.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Like in real life? 

 

 

 

Also not burning to a crisp in an aeroplane that is shot down in flames - like in  real life.  The game simulates certain aspects of real life, fortunately not all of them.  Which aspects we want to have simulated realistically obviously varies from person to person: sensibly the developers have given us options, although I hope at some point they give the realism evangelists a true "iron man" option.

 

Some people might only ever buy a new game if it had VR: fair enough. But I would only ever buy a new game if it can be played without VR.

 

If you want real life, go and join the air force.

[PainGod85]

On 8/26/2018 at 6:27 PM, InProgress said:

I would like to talk about how realistic is zoom in game. I think most people use it, from time to time i like to watch guncam from IL-2 on youtube.

 

Like you can see, it's max zoom all the time. Because of it, shooting is waaay easier, especially at small targets on the ground. I decieded to stop using max zoom, just a bit that you can still see everything in your cockpit. Now my shooting looks like from real guncams, most of bullets hits around target and i need way more shots to destroy something. Feels more realistic and challenging, it's tempting to zoom in and have it easy but it's kind of fun this way. Would recommend you to try and hear what you think about it.

 

I would like to throw in a mention about the realism of pixels here.

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Like in real life? 

 

 

VR headsets have much more narrower FoV than we have in real life hence to check your six in VR you need to turn your head at least 45° more than you would IRL.

VR~145°-150°

IRL~95°-100°

And those last 40° out of 145° is painful.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The game simulates certain aspects of real life,

Yes it’s physically exhausting to actually keep moving your real head and body constantly. It’s also physically exhausting to operate real aircraft controls if they had the actual forces on them. So we get a pass on that too.  

Try racing sims with a full force feedback wheel and pedals! That’s the most physical I think any game can get! Now I realize what a break we get in flight sims easily pushing our stick around with our fingers. 

[pegg00]

Gameplay should be sacrificed for realism sparingly, in my opinion.  A computer screen can NEVER be truly realistic, compromises must be made.  I mean all the proof you need of this is DCS multiplayer:  You can't see anything in the skies.  Is it more realistic than IL-2?  Probably, but I can tell you IL-2 multiplayer is much more fun, competitive, and is more realistic because I'm actually playing it.  Let us all be careful with the die hard realism arguments, at the end of the day this is a computer GAME, and it needs to be playable.  Not to mention the differences between players set-ups (small screens, big screens, different resolutions), keep in mind it's not all about whats better for YOUR specific build. TL;DR: Gameplay>Realism & some peoples set-ups need zoom.

Edited September 20, 2018 by pegg00

[E_Davjack]

Being a TIR junkie, I want to say that VR sounds exhausting. :V

 

Okay no, the real thing I want to say is that a snap view might be easier for checking your six in a split second, but for scanning the sky around the cockpit, I'll take tracking any day.  Scanning your vision from side to side while watching for dots-in-motion is so much easier than snap views.  Your head becomes a controller, no need to waste a hat on it.  

 

As for zoom? Dumb old argument.  The best a game could do on a 2d screen is look like a fisheye lens, and that would be UGLY and we all would hate it.  What a lot of people forget or don't know is that our brain processes what our eyes can technically see into what our consciousness perceives.  For instance, most optical Illusions trick our brains, not our eyes.   As has been said over and over and over, we see center detail and periphery all at once, as a function not just of the physical jelly of our eyes, but also our brains turning that information into something we needed to evolve as a species. 

 

When you are "zoomed" in this game, you are acting like a human focusing on the center of their vision, but you are losing the human ability to perceive motion out of the corner of our eyes.  You just can't have both.  Most of the time I try not to zoom in too far to aim. That's a trade-off that I make to keep some peripheral vision, but I come from a WWI background, where the situational awareness is a little...messier. 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder, do some of these anti-zoom people have terrible vision IRL?  Not an insult...just, another thing I run into with realism minded FPS games.  I have never played a WWII game where I could identify targets out to 300m like I can with my real M1. Every game I play, distances look ridiculously far, even with the aiming zoom. 

[Diggun]

1 minute ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

I come from a WWI background

[-TBC-AeroAce]

4 pages later and people are still taking about this lol.

[Barnacles]

The whole argument depends on the definition of realism.

 

If the definition is along the lines of "the game's still images must look as much as possible like photo's from a 'normal' camera". Then zoom is not "realistic".

If the definition is along the lines of "the game's participants ability to ID and spot other military units must roughly correlate with the probability of achieving the same in real life". Then arguably, zoom, smart scaling, hell, even icons of some sort are more "realistic".

 

It depends on your point of view. I've read novels which create a far more vivid 'picture' of a scene or situation with just ink on paper than actual drawings. Painters use tricks to make scenes look more 'realistic' and 'immersive' than simply copying the intensity, colour and position of elements of an image. There are even genres of art such as hyperrealism, photorealism and impressionism which are all equally valid.

 

Until we get very high resolution 170 degree FOV VR there will always be compromises depending on what you want.  

[Trooper117]

59 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

4 pages later and people are still taking about this lol.

 

It's allowed... and it's the law!  Be sure...

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

VR is the future of virtual flying. It is silly to think otherwise. VR is incredibly immersive. As a long time real world pilot (30+ years/15,000 hours) and a long time virtual fighter pilot (22 years, Who knows how many thousands of hours), VR re-ignited my interest in virtual flying.

 

VR does require a significant commitment to serious hardware. It really requires a home cockpit if you want to be serious about being able to properly look behind you. You need to be able to physically brace. And you need to work on your physical ability to turn your body. In 10 months of VR flying, my torso and neck flexibility and range of motion has dramatically improved.

 

Once you have a suitable setup and have the physical range of motion required, VR will improve your knife fight skills. Your physical awareness of the entire three dimensional situation is greatly enhanced. Relative motion requires no thought.

 

VR is definitely much harder. Physically, its demands are constant. You can't look around without actually looking around. The need for a competent, well trained wing man becomes immediately obvious. I have a regular wing man that I have flown with for years and until he also transitioned to VR he didn't quite understand my insistence on certain things even though his background is real world air combat. (He loves VR too now)

 

Zoom is a clunky solution to a problem as old as virtual air combat. Personally I prefer a spotting system that addresses this problem by enhancing the visibility of aircraft to approximate the real world while accounting for the limitations of PC simulation. If that isn't present, then my preference is for some sort of icon/label/marker system that subtly enhances visibility when necessary without presenting too much information. This system would necessarily not do any enhancing at close range.

 

DCS has horrible visibility in VR so the only active WWII server there uses a label system to compensate. It is a reasonable solution. DCS used to have model enlargement feature that made labels superflous but the realism nazis got that killed. Its funny how a certain group of players want the realism of invisibility but will fight vehemently any flight model realism that makes them actually fly the aircraft all the time. I have seen it in every title over two decades. 

 

War Thunder Simulator battles does a great job allowing you to see "dots" at distance, making it easy to find the fight but recent graphics changes make aircraft against the sky, clouds and most ground invisible at medium ranges when they should be plainly visible.

 

IL2, which I admit to not having a lot of experience in, seems fairly reasonable when it comes to spotting. My biggest complaint is VR performance is not good. It may be I haven't found the magic settings yet.

 

Zoom is pretty much a necessary evil in VR, at least until titles abandon support for flat earthers and build VR only graphics systems. I look forward to that day.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

DCS used to have model enlargement feature that made labels superflous but the realism nazis got that killed.

The model enlargement feature was really terrible since it allowed players to see other aircraft 50 miles away rendered the size of battleships. It competely spoiled BVR combat since it made using radar unnecessary. Icon or sprite systems that are pixel sized also have the counterintuitive side effect of giving lower resolutions better visibility. That’s also now been eliminated in DCS. What’s there now in the current version is actually quite accurate. This discussion belongs to another sim but nobody should want to see something like that done to IL-2.

1 hour ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

Zoom is pretty much a necessary evil in VR, at least until titles abandon support for flat earthers and build VR only graphics systems. I look forward to that day.

The day that VR completely replaces monitors will be very very very far in the future or probably never. It’s bad enough that these flight sims require the purchase of a $20 joystick let alone a $500 headset. 

1 hour ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

Zoom is a clunky solution to a problem as old as virtual air combat.

The zoom view is the ONLY solution sim games, flight or otherwise, can use to give the player an approximation of 20/20 vision and a real FOV

All flight sims have this feature and most other sim games like sim shooter etc. If some players just can’t grasp this then that’s your own problem. 

But please stop going on about this as if it’s some sort of cheat or broken feature. It’s a universally used view system for flight sims. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by SharpeXB

[peregrine7]

So to summarise:

Zoom is required to have realistic visual perception for spotting and IDing at range
Removal of zoom would be a very shortsighted move (ha) and not one that flight sim devs will ever do. It is foolish to make players myopic in a game that puts such a heavy emphasis on spotting.

However it would be nice to be able to more easily spot targets whilst zoomed out, as the limited spotting ability in game means you spend most of your time zoomed in on little patches of sky, unlike scanning the skies in reality.

Now, onto VR.

VR allows you to see the world at a more correct scale, but the low pixel density ("Low resolution") means that the issue of poor spotting at range is particularly pronounced. Far away planes in VR are still quite large, and your brain says "hey, I should see something if it's there" - but alas, this is not the case. So spotting is unexpectedly difficult and planes often slip by even when you're looking right at them. There are ways to partially alleviate this as a user, but not solve it. 

So, what conclusions can we draw? 

It would be ideal if the devs could increase a player's ability to spot without zooming. This is actually already done by the devs (I believe it is a subtle lighting/contrast  tweak for long distance aircraft LODs). Increased spotting ability would assist both VR users and monitor users and increase the realism. How such a solution would be implemented is a more difficult topic - and a job I don't envy for flight sim devs (we've seen in DCS how badly wrong spotting assistance can go). It's a fine line to tread and we are currently on the "it's a little harder than reality" side of things.  

 

Zooming should definitely stay in the game, IDing those contacts seems fine for both monitor and VR users (VR users with 3DMigoto mod by Lefuneste - by default it's not playable) due to the presence of zoom.

Is this a big issue? Well, it is annoying, but I wouldn't say it is top priority. I'd personally like to see these changes and would be curious to see if the devs had any input. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by peregrine7

[LeLv76_Erkki]

I wouldnt object at all to BoX implementing a "dot" system similar to old Il-2. To help spotting planes a bit, especially at lower resolutions. Longer draw range would obviously also help... But this time around dots wouldnt need to be as big and visible as in old Il-2 where I think they were slightly overdone and at extreme ranges camoflage and masking against terrain were almost useless, all you had to see was the dot, that was always there, moving against background.

[Herne]

with VR I find I can spot ok with out the use of zoom. The only time I use zoom is to ID a target. I never use it as an aid to landing shots at distance, and attempting to snipe.

 

I also see zoom as a necessary Evil and agree with dawger, in that I look forward to a day when it is no longer necessary.

[Barnacles]

20 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

DCS has horrible visibility in VR so the only active WWII server there uses a label system to compensate. It is a reasonable solution. DCS used to have model enlargement feature that made labels superflous but the realism nazis got that killed. Its funny how a certain group of players want the realism of invisibility but will fight vehemently any flight model realism that makes them actually fly the aircraft all the time. I have seen it in every title over two decades. 

 

 

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The model enlargement feature was really terrible since it allowed players to see other aircraft 50 miles away rendered the size of battleships. It competely spoiled BVR combat since it made using radar unnecessary. Icon or sprite systems that are pixel sized also have the counterintuitive side effect of giving lower resolutions better visibility. That’s also now been eliminated in DCS. What’s there now in the current version is actually quite accurate. This discussion belongs to another sim but nobody should want to see something like that done to IL-2.

As far as I understand it, this scalable feature, which you rightly said spoilt BVR combat, was able to be set as a server realism setting. It's a pity as DCS without radar is pointless as I you can't reliably spot stuff until it's at 2 miles.

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

I wouldnt object at all to BoX implementing a "dot" system similar to old Il-2. To help spotting planes a bit, especially at lower resolutions. 

No because a pixel sized dot actually makes lower resolutions more effective. BoS works beautifully as it is now. No need for such enhancements. 

The troubles VR has it really because those headsets are in their infancy and don’t currently posses enough resolution to be really effective in a game like this. That will improve over time. 

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

 

As far as I understand it, this scalable feature, which you rightly said spoilt BVR combat, was able to be set as a server realism setting. It's a pity as DCS without radar is pointless as I you can't reliably spot stuff until it's at 2 miles.

That discussion really belongs to another forum. Many DCS players have created their own problems with poor skills and the wrong graphic settings. Some people you just can’t help. Right now the current version is very good at this and the super unrealistic stuff is gone. Recently there was a dot system like is described above and it was ridiculous. Again it allowed you to see planes at 50 miles. It’s gone now. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

No because a pixel sized dot actually makes lower resolutions more effective. BoS works beautifully as it is now. No need for such enhancements. 

The troubles VR has it really because those headsets are in their infancy and don’t currently posses enough resolution to be really effective in a game like this. That will improve over time. 

 

But thats the point, to help seeing, so that one doesnt need as big as possible monitor(or zoom) just to not be nearly blind. I'd like them, and they could be more transparent, maybe 100 % against the ground, than in the old game where they were imho perhaps too easy to see all the way to 16 km. Also single pixel only and not multi-pixel for large planes.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

But thats the point, to help seeing, so that one doesnt need as big as possible monitor(or zoom) just to not be nearly blind. I'd like them, and they could be more transparent, maybe 100 % against the ground, than in the old game where they were imho perhaps too easy to see all the way to 16 km. Also single pixel only and not multi-pixel for large planes.

DCS just tried this and got rid of it. Again it just gives lower resolutions absurd levels of detection and handicaps higher resolutions like QHD 4K or VR set with higher pixel density.  

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

DCS just tried this and got rid of it. Again it just gives lower resolutions absurd levels of detection and handicaps higher resolutions like QHD 4K or VR set with higher pixel density.  

 

No it doesnt give you absurd levels of detection depending on how you do it, including limiting dot draw range and its size, like in old Il-2. Theres many factors there.

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

No it doesnt give you absurd levels of detection depending on how you do it, including limiting dot draw range and its size, like in old Il-2. Theres many factors there.

It will if what it does is draw a single pixel. That pixel is bigger in 1080p than it is at higher resolutions. So that won’t work fairly across ranges of monitor resolutions or VR sets with higher pixel density. That was the problem in DCS so they just got rid of it. 

Dots like this have convinced players over the years that they’re supposed to easily spot other small aircraft from across the English Channel. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It will if what it does is draw a single pixel. That pixel is bigger in 1080p than it is at higher resolutions. So that won’t work fairly across ranges of monitor resolutions or VR sets with higher pixel density. That was the problem in DCS so they just got rid of it. 

Dots like this have convinced players over the years that they’re supposed to easily spot other small aircraft from across the English Channel. 

 

No it wont, and the whole point is to make planes easier to see further out and without zoom. Nothing stops it from being implemented in a way that has limiting draw range or making it more transparent at as range increasese. I have not played DCS, maybe they never bothered to experiment much.

 

Now you have situation where people who play at, say 1200x900 see NOTHING without full zoom and many are frustrated and without a doubt some just stop playing altogether.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

No it wont, and the whole point is to make planes easier to see further out and without zoom. Nothing stops it from being implemented in a way that has limiting draw range or making it more transparent at as range increasese. I have not played DCS, maybe they never bothered to experiment much.

 

Now you have situation where people who play at, say 1200x900 see NOTHING without full zoom and many are frustrated and without a doubt some just stop playing altogether.

It’s just counterintuitive to encourage players to run lower resolutions on their displays. That’s what “dots” do. IL-2 GB does a really good job at visibility. It doesn’t need artificial enhancements. Consider that a lot of the combat in this game is among white painted aircraft over snowy ground and you can still see and ID the planes really well. This sim does the best job at rendering and visibility of any. 

A 1200x900 monitor is too inadequate for expecting to run a flight sim without icons. Hardware is also a factor. If you’re running the game on a small laptop screen or something you can’t expect to run without icons. That’s what they are for. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

It’s just counterintuitive to encourage players to run lower resolutions on their displays. That’s what “dots” do. IL-2 GB does a really good job at visibility. It doesn’t need artificial enhancements. Consider that a lot of the combat in this game is among white painted aircraft over snowy ground and you can still see and ID the planes really well. This sim does the best job at rendering and visibility of any. 

A 1200x900 monitor is too inadequate for expecting to run a flight sim without icons. Hardware is also a factor. If you’re running the game on a small laptop screen or something you can’t expect to run without icons. That’s what they are for. 

 

Do you have a maximum resolution in mind that players should use? Because right now the bigger the screen and better the graphics card one can afford, the better one see planes at range. How is that any more fair?

 

The whole problem exists only because our eyes have much, much higher resolution than any screen and the whole field of vision is packed onto it anyway. You use 1:1 fov from where you sit with a flat screen and you lose peripherical sight, you want to see anything at range and you need to zoom and even more of that.

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Do you have a maximum resolution in mind that players should use? Because right now the bigger the screen and better the graphics card one can afford, the better one see planes at range. How is that any more fair?

Well the maximum resolution a player can use now is probably 3840 x 2160. If you mean minimum resolution I would say you need 1080p to play without icons. 

But if someday displays are available at higher res than so much the better. Higher resolutions being an advantage is only logical. You wouldn’t want the game to encourage the reverse. That doesn’t make sense. Honestly I don’t think higher resolution allow you to see farther or spot objects better. The chief thing which helps that is size and contrast neither of which are improved between 1080p and 4K. Higher res does help ID ing other aircraft though.

31 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

The whole problem exists only because our eyes have much, much higher resolution than any screen and the whole field of vision is packed onto it anyway. You use 1:1 fov from where you sit with a flat screen and you lose peripherical sight, you want to see anything at range and you need to zoom and even more of that.

Correct. That’s why there is a zoom view command. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by SharpeXB

[LeLv76_Erkki]

58 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well the maximum resolution a player can use now is probably 3840 x 2160. If you mean minimum resolution I would say you need 1080p to play without icons. 

But if someday displays are available at higher res than so much the better. Higher resolutions being an advantage is only logical. You wouldn’t want the game to encourage the reverse. That doesn’t make sense. Honestly I don’t think higher resolution allow you to see farther or spot objects better. The chief thing which helps that is size and contrast neither of which are improved between 1080p and 4K. Higher res does help ID ing other aircraft though.

Correct. That’s why there is a zoom view command. 

 

Not my point. Do you want players on the same footing, with realistic and equal ability to spot planes in a flight simulation or not? Right now they dont because hardware has massive effect.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Not my point. Do you want players on the same footing, with realistic and equal ability to spot planes in a flight simulation or not? Right now they dont because hardware has massive effect.

Hardware will always be a factor, that will never change. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Hardware will always be a factor, that will never change. 

 

Yes but being almost blind (except when using ridiculous zoom levels) isnt very realistic for a game that is marketed as a simulation. Draw range is another problem and while arguably one shouldnt see a fighter size plane much further than 9,5 km in real life either... Buildings, ships and large planes surely should.

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Yes but being almost blind (except when using ridiculous zoom levels) isnt very realistic for a game that is marketed as a simulation. Draw range is another problem and while arguably one shouldnt see a fighter size plane much further than 9,5 km in real life either... Buildings, ships and large planes surely should.

Players are not blind in this game using a 1080p monitor. That works very well. If you’re playing on a small laptop screen you shouldn’t be trying to play without the icons or expect to see very easily. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Objects appear larger at lower resolutions don't they ?

[DD_Crash]

It is a fact that in competitive campaigns with 1946  some squads/individuals used the lowest graphic setting (no trees/low resolution/low details) so that all targets would stand out. Looks awful but if you HAVE to win then there is always someone who wants to do it.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Players are not blind in this game using a 1080p monitor. That works very well. If you’re playing on a small laptop screen you shouldn’t be trying to play without the icons or expect to see very easily. 

 

Not being able to see a thing is easily the biggest complaint every day on our comms. Coming from people who have flown flight sims for decades, who have 1080 screens and state of the art machines.

 

edit: also seeing someone, looking at it as it turns and completely lose it against the sky, game not drawing a single pixel of the plane, unless zooming in.

Edited September 21, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Objects appear larger at lower resolutions don't they ?

For 3D objects no. But for pixel sized graphics like “dots” then yes since the individual pixels are larger. 

At lower resolutions 3D objects can bloom or alias onto adjoining pixels which arguably makes them larger but also less distinct. Like a single black pixel in 4K appearing as 4x 25% grey ones in 1080p. In 2160p you can see very small but sharp objects so although they might be small they’re very defined. Like being able to read all the tiny text in the cockpit. 

Going to a 4K monitor made me understand the difference between “sharpness” and “resolution”

A 1080p output to a 1080p screen looks very “sharp” even though it’s lower resolution. It looks nice and legible. 

A 1080p output upscaled to 2160p looks terribly soft despite having a higher resolution. Even 1440p upscaled to 2160p looks soft. 

 

1 minute ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Not being able to see a thing is easily the biggest complaint every day on our comms. Coming from people who have flown flight sims for decades, who have 1080 screens and state of the art machines.

Well it’s a player problem not a game one. People complain about this constantly on these forums and there’s only so much that can be done without wrecking the game. If I had to guess, when you say these players have been doing this for decades, is they’ve been coddled by the graphic aids of these old sims that were meant to be played on 400x600 CTR monitors. Some things just need to be adapted to and relearned. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well it’s a player problem not a game one. People complain about this constantly on these forums and there’s only so much that can be done without wrecking the game. If I had to guess, when you say these players have been doing this for decades, is they’ve been coddled by the graphic aids of these old sims that were meant to be played on 400x600 CTR monitors. Some things just need to be adapted to and relearned. 

 

It most definitely is a game problem when planes flicker between 1-3 pixels and 0 pixels when they're clearly visible.

 

Quote

coddled by the graphic aids of these old sims that were meant to be played on 400x600 CTR

 

bs

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

It most definitely is a game problem when planes flicker between 1-3 pixels and 0 pixels when they're clearly visible.

Track? Screenshot?

maybe send a bug report?

But I don’t ever see this happen. 

All the complaints about “disappearing planes” in these sims seem suspicious. Does stuff seriously vanish right there on your screen or are you just losing track of it? Happens to me all the time but it’s me, not the game. 

1 hour ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

bs

It gets old... these “I can’t see anything” threads.