Tips and trick to improving visual spotting?

[saintbrutal]

Im new to the sim scene in terms of actual experience ( played dcs for a few months but thats all with modern day system which has automated modes to help you immensely if you lose track of your target ) and so far im loving IL2 BoS dogfighting!!

 

 

 

what have you guys taught yourselves over time and experience to help you keep track of your enemy?

 

 

also i heard that sometime they will get out of the game visual rendering, at this point.. is it just one of those.. im shit out of luck.. and should just head to the next objective?  

 

 

one of many experience occurs often is, team calls for help at a certain area.. im eta 1-2min.. as im getting there im constantly scanning the area.. as i get closer i still see nothing... then suddenly 5+  planes pop up thats about 10-15sec away from me... its kinda frustrating at times because.. now i lose the element of being able  to get the jump on someone and now im in the middle of the furball lol

Edited March 11, 2019 by MechSauce

[blitze]

It's a hard one.  Settings be it 2D monitor setup or VR setup differ quite a bit based on the viewing hardware you have.  Try to work with your resolution be it either and if 2D monitor - colour calibration helps a lot.

 

Online - team calls help a lot with grid references.  Also scanning for MG fire which can be a good give away either in air or from ground up.  Some Axis pilots just like to sit high and look for ground fire over targets they know are objectives for the VVS and then swoop down onto the attacking VVS ground pounders.  Knowing where objectives on the map are and where they are in relation to enemy bases, one can sort of figure out where to fly to find people.

 

Offline - one gets good info on the radio and ones pilot also calls out enemy aircraft when within spotting range.  Usually gives you a direction and range for which to react to.  Sometimes though, you might get call outs on an escort mission which are say range 8km or so but they are not threats as they might be an ground attack group from the other side so not relevant to your mission.  Listen out to range info coming in closer and use your ground pounders as bate but keep them in visual range when you do engage attacking fighters who will try to drag you away from your mission and open up your escort to their friends.

 

Silly AI - we're on to you ?

[CountZero]

6 hours ago, MechSauce said:

Im new to the sim scene in terms of actual experience ( played dcs for a few months but thats all with modern day system which has automated modes to help you immensely if you lose track of your target ) and so far im loving IL2 BoS dogfighting!!

 

 

 

what have you guys taught yourselves over time and experience to help you keep track of your enemy?

 

 

also i heard that sometime they will get out of the game visual rendering, at this point.. is it just one of those.. im shit out of luck.. and should just head to the next objective?  

 

 

one of many experience occurs often is, team calls for help at a certain area.. im eta 1-2min.. as im getting there im constantly scanning the area.. as i get closer i still see nothing... then suddenly 5+  planes pop up thats about 10-15sec away from me... its kinda frustrating at times because.. now i lose the element of being able  to get the jump on someone and now im in the middle of the furball lol

 

game alowes you to see contacts from only 9,5km (bombers is easy to spot from that far fighters not), and usealy you are able to see them from 5-6km if you dont know they are there, when they get big enought. So for ww2 airplane speeds thats short distance that gives you no time to plan anything or even see airplanes that will get on your 6 in 5s when you start fight.

 

change gama to as low as it goes so its not to dark that helps the most, in startup.cfg (located in your main game folder, data folder) you can manualy adjust it below 0.8 

 

its problem since game was lanched, this flying game compared to others have worst visibility, get used to it is only way if you wont to play this game, youll have thouse suprises you describe all the time, and nothing will help as we are going to faster and faster airplanes but visibility range stays on ww1 level so it will just get wors

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

its problem since game was lanched, this flying game compared to others have worst visibility, 

 

Which other sims are you referring to, since IL-2 GB is currently the only combat flight sim like this on the market?

IMO IL-2 is better at this than CloD and about equal to DCS. RoF was and is really superb at visibility. 

[RedKestrel]

37 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Which other sims are you referring to, since IL-2 GB is currently the only combat flight sim like this on the market?

IMO IL-2 is better at this than CloD and about equal to DCS. RoF was and is really superb at visibility. 

I guess Il-2 1946 had easier spotting, don't know if its a fair comparison as its pretty old, even if its still kept alive by mods (official and unofficial). 

BUT it must be said that the easier spotting was due entirely to adding black dots at higher distances, and the lower levels of detail in the background terrain. I found it actually harder to spot enemies when they were closer than when they were farther away. 

[E4GLEyE]

53 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Which other sims are you referring to, since IL-2 GB is currently the only combat flight sim like this on the market?

IMO IL-2 is better at this than CloD and about equal to DCS. RoF was and is really superb at visibility. 

not to be a landing hook, but DCS 1944 or what they call the project is a direct competitor to IL2. And as much as I love IL2 for its campaign, its flight immersion, its amazing graphics and superb damage modelling... The spotting is one of the great anchors pulling it down... At least an unrendered 2d dot or just a rendered target would be nice up to 20 even 40 Kms out... It's annoying when you are a fighter, darn crippling if you are high alt level bombing, as the game won't render the target unless you are on top of it.... This and the AI if gets fixed we will have a darn near perfect WW2 sim.

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, E4GLEyE said:

not to be a landing hook, but DCS 1944 or what they call the project is a direct competitor to IL2. And as much as I love IL2 for its campaign, its flight immersion, its amazing graphics and superb damage modelling... The spotting is one of the great anchors pulling it down... At least an unrendered 2d dot or just a rendered target would be nice up to 20 even 40 Kms out... It's annoying when you are a fighter, darn crippling if you are high alt level bombing, as the game won't render the target unless you are on top of it.... This and the AI if gets fixed we will have a darn near perfect WW2 sim.

 

Am I reading this right?  You are comparing BoX to DCS 1944 and criticising the spotting on BoX?   The visibility issues in DCS are legendary.   I don't think there has been an online combat flight sim with worst visibility this millenium!  No that is not hyperbole ?

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

The spotting in Box is far more realistic than anything else out there, rendering a 2d dot at 20km is something that shouldn't exist in a modern sim.

 

Spotting planes isn't easy, if it was I'm sure the air war would have turned out a lot different. 

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, E4GLEyE said:

At least an unrendered 2d dot or just a rendered target would be nice up to 20 even 40 Kms out... 

You wouldn’t see an aircraft 40km (24 miles) away. You’ve been spoiled by the “dots” in those old sims. 

[Heckpupper]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You wouldn’t see an aircraft 40km (24 miles) away. You’ve been spoiled by the “dots” in those old sims. 

 

Imho the further the render range the better. Any artificial limit on the render range is simply unrealistic. I agree that there are rangest past which spotting a small fighter is damn near impossible, but they should still render, just in a way where spotting it requirest an extremely keen eye. And yeah, spotting a plane past 8 or 9km is definitely possible, especially if you're already tracking it.

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

Imho the further the render range the better. Any artificial limit on the render range is simply unrealistic. I agree that there are rangest past which spotting a small fighter is damn near impossible, but they should still render, just in a way where spotting it requirest an extremely keen eye. And yeah, spotting a plane past 8 or 9km is definitely possible, especially if you're already tracking it.

Why use system resources to render planes that they player wouldn’t be able to see? Agree that the 9km could be pushed out just a little especially for larger aircraft. But not by much, not 40km. Icons and dots in these sims have convinced players that far away aircraft should be easily seen but that doesn’t match reality. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by SharpeXB

[Heckpupper]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Why use system resources to render planes that they player wouldn’t be able to see? Agree that the 9km could be pushed out just a little especially for larger aircraft. But not by much, not 40km. Icons and dots in these sims have convinced players that far away aircraft should be easily seen but that doesn’t match reality. 

 

It depends on how you look at the issue. For me rendering of a dot that is so faint that it's gonna be missed by 99% of the players, 99% of the time is better that not rendering it.

Seeing (pun intended) how human eye has angular resolutin of 0.03 degrees (30cm at 1km) an aircraft that has a wingspan of 10 meters would be visible to a human at 30km. That's obviously in perfect conditions, and it would only be visible as a faint, dark dot. But multiply that dot by dozens if not hundreds, add to that many, many contrails and you have a B-24 formation that could potentially be seen by a keen eye. 

 

In my opinion there's no real downside to rendering objects at far distances as long as it's done in a way that doesn't scream "fake and overdone", and using some resources to simulate that is perfectly fine. It's definitely a better use of resources than, let's say, eye candy such water droplets when flying low over the sea. I guess it's a matter of priorities, but in my opinion 1C should redo the spotting system (hopefully bloody son) and I'm hopinh they'll do it the right way this time, cause what we have right now is literally on par with DCS just on the other side of the spectrum.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by 4./JG26_Onebad

[BraveSirRobin]

19 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

In my opinion there's no real downside to rendering objects at far distances 

 

What if it turns the game into a slide show?  Is that a downside to you?

[Heckpupper]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

What if it turns the game into a slide show?  Is that a downside to you?

 

Then it would only mean that the optimisation is borked. 

If it would cost some frames, then I'd be fine. If some people would lose frames to a point of unplayability, then I'd tell them to get a better computer.

[BraveSirRobin]

16 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

Then it would only mean that the optimisation is borked. 

 

Actually, I think the fact that they're not displaying aircraft at long range IS the optimization.  How do you think "optimization" would work in this case?  And how exactly is it "borked" if it kills the frame rate?  Because it seems to me like tracking and displaying every aircraft in the air, even if they're not likely visible, is a pretty resource intensive process.  How, exactly, would you "optimize" it?

 

[Heckpupper]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Actually, I think the fact that they're not displaying aircraft at long range IS the optimization.  How do you think "optimization" would work in this case?  And how exactly is it "borked" if it kills the frame rate?  Because it seems to me like tracking and displaying every aircraft in the air, even if they're not likely visible, is a pretty resource intensive process.  How, exactly, would you "optimize" it?

 

 

I don't know man, maybe we should ask people over at 1946, CloD, or any other sim that did it better than what's currently in BoX. Man listen, all I'm saying is that a couple mile wide bubble is straight up unnacceptable in this day and age. It either needs to be increased, or overhauled. If this has been done in order to optimize the game then well, cutting corners is what it is. 

If anythings gonna change and I'm going to lose a couple frames over it then I'm fine. I'd prefer that than having a plane literally dissapear off of my screen because of magic.

[E4GLEyE]

Dunno... I still stand by the point that the 10km bubble is not enough... And mostly not enough for ground pounders... but people dont level bomb all that much so I guess it's not a strong enough reason.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I am fairly happy with fighter aircraft only being visible at 10k.  As someone with a reasonable amount of RL flying experience I can confirm that you can easily fail to see another light aircraft at half that! ?   The real issue is the 'bubble' as it makes level bombing, or even lining up for a shallow dive attack,  much harder than it should be.    They need to separate out the rendering of ground detail from the rendering of aircraft and at least triple the distance at which you can see towns & rivers.  Notice that I said 'towns & rivers' not 'targets'.  In IL2-1946 they artificially made ground targets very visible with the result that you would see the 'dots' of destroyable targets long before you saw the town they were in and that was too much.   If we can see the rivers & towns then at least we have something to roughly set up the bomb run and refine the precise bearing later through the bombsight.   Not seeing the actual targets until the hypotenuse is under 10km is still quite late but if you were able to see enough to line up reasonably accurately from 30k out then it should be enough time for minor adjustments.   Even if they made this extra visibility only work in the bombsight it would help and doing that would probably reduce the cpu workload.

[6FG_Big_Al]

5 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I am fairly happy with fighter aircraft only being visible at 10k.  As someone with a reasonable amount of RL flying experience I can confirm that you can easily fail to see another light aircraft at half that! ?   The real issue is the 'bubble' as it makes level bombing, or even lining up for a shallow dive attack,  much harder than it should be.    They need to separate out the rendering of ground detail from the rendering of aircraft and at least triple the distance at which you can see towns & rivers.  Notice that I said 'towns & rivers' not 'targets'.  In IL2-1946 they artificially made ground targets very visible with the result that you would see the 'dots' of destroyable targets long before you saw the town they were in and that was too much.   If we can see the rivers & towns then at least we have something to roughly set up the bomb run and refine the precise bearing later through the bombsight.   Not seeing the actual targets until the hypotenuse is under 10km is still quite late but if you were able to see enough to line up reasonably accurately from 30k out then it should be enough time for minor adjustments.   Even if they made this extra visibility only work in the bombsight it would help and doing that would probably reduce the cpu workload.

I can fully agree! Unfortunately I am not a pilot in the RL, but there I would probably be such a blind chicken as in the game, however on nearly 10 km I actually almost never see a fighter. Even at 5-6 km it can happen fast by light and clouds that you don't see someone.  Hopefully they will rework the bubble a little bit in the future.

 

22 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

game alowes you to see contacts from only 9,5km (bombers is easy to spot from that far fighters not), and usealy you are able to see them from 5-6km if you dont know they are there, when they get big enought. So for ww2 airplane speeds thats short distance that gives you no time to plan anything or even see airplanes that will get on your 6 in 5s when you start fight.

 

change gama to as low as it goes so its not to dark that helps the most, in startup.cfg (located in your main game folder, data folder) you can manualy adjust it below 0.8 

 

its problem since game was lanched, this flying game compared to others have worst visibility, get used to it is only way if you wont to play this game, youll have thouse suprises you describe all the time, and nothing will help as we are going to faster and faster airplanes but visibility range stays on ww1 level so it will just get wors

 

 

CountZero's tip actually works quite well. Of course, this is not the solution that makes everything better, but it helps. Apart from that nothing else helps than practicing.

[CountZero]

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Which other sims are you referring to, since IL-2 GB is currently the only combat flight sim like this on the market?

IMO IL-2 is better at this than CloD and about equal to DCS. RoF was and is really superb at visibility. 

 Il-2 1946, (its still sold and played, only flying game i play in SP as its best), Il-2 CloD, WarThunder, DCS, World of Warplanes, Ace Combat ... basicly you name it it has better visability then this flying game.

IMO Il-2 BoX is wors then any of them as it has this wwI level of 9.5km bubble but it is ww2 flying game, and because of what not they still didnt decide to expand it.

 

Looking forward to PTO and ppl saying that its normal to have 9.5km bubble lol , and its the best when you search for anything in wast ocean and you can only see that short distance. Even devs say they would like to make it bigger then 9.5km.

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

I don't know man, maybe we should ask people over at 1946, CloD, or any other sim that did it better than what's currently in BoX.

None of these other sims use an advanced FM for all the AI aircraft. That’s a big difference here with IL-2 GB. It has its advantages and disadvantages. In CloD the AI planes fly like UFOs so even though having more of them is sometimes appealing, in many cases the poor FM is distracting. The sim can only render so many other aircraft at one time. Do you want those aircraft close where you can see them or spread out where you can’t?

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

 Il-2 1946, (its still sold and played, only flying game i play in SP as its best), Il-2 CloD, WarThunder, DCS, World of Warplanes, Ace Combat ... basicly you name it it has better visability then this flying game.

Again, none of these sims use an advanced FM for every aircraft. That’s what limits the number of other aircraft. 

[RedKestrel]

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

None of these other sims use an advanced FM for all the AI aircraft. That’s a big difference here with IL-2 GB. It has its advantages and disadvantages. In CloD the AI planes fly like UFOs so even though having more of them is sometimes appealing, in many cases the poor FM is distracting. The sim can only render so many other aircraft at one time. Do you want those aircraft close where you can see them or spread out where you can’t?

Again, none of these sims use an advanced FM for every aircraft. That’s what limits the number of other aircraft. 

Agreed. It's wild to see people calling for a return to dots for rendering and simplified flight models. I can't be the only one who's seen the endless complaining about how the il-2 1946 AI 'cheats' and were UFOs and broke immersion, and that the biggest mistake in old Il-2 was simplifying flight models. What's old is new again I guess.

I think an expansion of the rendering bubble would be great (especially for level bombing and high-alt work) and I'm all for it. But if it means that  people who currently enjoy the game on lower end computers will get the shaft, well, I can live with a shorter rendering distance. If we start cutting people out of the player base so people with higher end machines can get more out of the game, pretty soon we won't have a viable sim. And then what will we all argue about?

If ground object rendering can be tied to a different distance than the planes, that might end up being a little wonky (i.e. you could bomb a city from 10k and not see the planes circling on the deck) but still better than the current implementation and would make high alt level bombing more viable.

I'm sure that if it were easy though it would have been done by now. 

 

[Trooper117]

Well, I haven't got a high end machine... but I don't think that should stop the developers from pushing the technology to new heights.

The way I see it, it's me that has to update, not restrict the developers from making the game better.

 

It's something that has forced me to upgrade in the past, and no, I don't have lots of disposable income... I'm retired, I have a part time low paid job, and just like most people, I have to save up until I can afford something.

[BraveSirRobin]

8 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

I don't know man, maybe we should ask people over at 1946, CloD, or any other sim that did it better than what's currently in BoX.

 

There aren’t any games that are better.   CloD used a completely unrealistic black dot.  DCS is notorious for how terrible it is for spotting targets.  I used icons in 46 because I couldn’t ID anything. But I’d love to play the fantasy game that you’ve been playing.

[Soarfeat]

When I was around 58 years old I was having problems spotting aircraft at far distances in this sim. It did not occur to me until at around this same time I was having problems focusing on reading ( especially in dimmer light ). I started using reading glasses at +1.25 and had forgot to integrate this into this sim experience. I could read things on the monitor and read aircraft gauges fine w/o reading glasses.  When I wore my reading glasses, spotting was much better, the aircraft represented in the sim far away were much quicker to notice and identify. So, to this day I unfortunately at 62 continue to use my 1.25 reading glasses to spot aircraft in the sim environment--it helps tremendously and all appears at par if not better than spotting in RL flying. Also to note is I use a 27 inch monitor at 1920x1080 which also makes things a bit larger ( I still would like to go to 1440 x 2560 on a 27 inch screen, that is a different financial journey down the road though ). Please do not take this as a hint that this problem with seeing contacts far away is because of bad eyes, this was just my journey. However to note, eyes just as with our whole physiology change a bit over time, we adapt accordingly. 

Good luck to all on this !! --sf--

Edited March 12, 2019 by soarfeat

[Heckpupper]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

None of these other sims use an advanced FM for all the AI aircraft. That’s a big difference here with IL-2 GB. It has its advantages and disadvantages. In CloD the AI planes fly like UFOs so even though having more of them is sometimes appealing, in many cases the poor FM is distracting. The sim can only render so many other aircraft at one time. Do you want those aircraft close where you can see them or spread out where you can’t?

Again, none of these sims use an advanced FM for every aircraft. That’s what limits the number of other aircraft. 

I haven't played a flight sim in SP like, ever, because flying against AI is the same over and over again, so I don't care what FM they're equipped with.

I'd propably fly against AI more in BoX if it was possible to include them in MP missions in decent numbers. Unfortunately this is where the game poops the bed.

 

What amazes me more is how ya'll can dig for arguments against improving the spotting in a game you're supposed to like. C'mon bruh.

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

What amazes me more is how ya'll can dig for arguments against improving the spotting in a game you're supposed to like. C'mon bruh.

Nobody is against improving the game. If it was possible to do without making the sim unplayable on most PCs then 1CGS would have done it by now. There have been several optimizations for increasing the numbers of AI already. When you make comparisons to older sims you’re forgetting the differences between them and what they do. I’m sure 1946 had a larger rendering range because the map looked like a flat green pool table. 

[=420=Syphen]

Well... I fly irl and without position reports, I have problems spotting other aircraft within a few km of me. People whining here about not being able to spot enemy aircraft beyond 10km have likely never been in a real GA aircraft before, trying to spot other traffic (unaided / no ADS-B).

Edited March 13, 2019 by [CPT]HawkeyeP

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

What amazes me more is how ya'll can dig for arguments against improving the spotting in a game you're supposed to like. C'mon bruh.

 

Bruh...  I’m not arguing against improving the game. I’m telling you why they can’t do what you want. If it was easy to do they would’ve already done it, bruh...

[56RAF_Roblex]

What we need to remember of course is that doubling the size of the bubble does not double the CPU load. For a range of 9.5Km, the volume that the game currently has to draw all objects in is about 3,591 square Km  but if we double the range to 19km the game has to track and render every object in a volume of 28,731. 

 

Let me say that again; from 3,591 to 28,591.  Assuming the same density of objects per square Km that is an increased CPU load of about 8 times!  OK, if you are flying below 20Km then the ground will chop some of that volume off but it will still be a big increase (Sorry , with my maths being unused for 40 years I am unwilling to take the time needed to calculate the volume of various truncated spheres)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by 56RAF_Roblex

[Mac_Messer]

I`m surprised people can see ac further away than 2km when drawn against terrain. My experience shows the same case as ever and that is close LOD - good - medium LOD - dissapeared - distand LOD - good. Tried every trick in the book to change it too. Planes vanish and appear from thin air it would seem. The single last thing I could try is to drop the 24 inch monitor I guess.

[KoN_]

18 hours ago, E4GLEyE said:

Dunno... I still stand by the point that the 10km bubble is not enough... And mostly not enough for ground pounders... but people dont level bomb all that much so I guess it's not a strong enough reason.

Maybe That's the reason they don't level bomb because they can't see the target above 5km .

You can't even see tanks until your on top of them . TAW . 

END of the day the engine can't handle it . 

The planes are going to get faster that means your 10km bubble is going to get smaller Reaction time .

The 262 is coming . 

So spitfire pilots could see swarm of bees at 10 miles . That's 16km . Now if we had a 16km bubble that's some thing to think about . 

Dcs is leaps and bounds ahead in jet warfare but not WWII. spotting is a big issue . 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Con

[KoN_]

Ive just watched a YouTube video on cliffs of Dover blitz and you can spot the enemy nicely. And you can play your tactics .

Going to give that ago again . Not flown for a while . 

[JonRedcorn]

35 minutes ago, Con said:

Ive just watched a YouTube video on cliffs of Dover blitz and you can spot the enemy nicely. And you can play your tactics .

Going to give that ago again . Not flown for a while . 

Can't ever find more than 5-10 people online, the weekends can fill up a bit more but it's pretty barren.

[ATAG_kiwiflieger]

 

[Herz_aus_Stahl]

Flying over trees is quite painful if you see the circle of trees popping in. I' flying on a 4k 40" Screen, it is really meh to see flat cities in the distance or even flat villages directly below, because there are no houses....

 

And the needed Power is not that big, for buildings and other structures in the distance are low res textures fine.

[blitze]

I fly VR and have no issues discerning incoming aircraft at distance when they are called out and I know approximately where to look.

 

The 1 to 1 scale representation helps there but you also need 2nd gen VR headset to get the visual fidelity to do so.  I would think fighters at over 10km - not going to see them in real life with few exceptions that current tech can't replicate.

 

Towns and rivers - VR helps considerably in this although I am playing Balanced so distant renders are flat but making out terrain detail and towns is easier including on Winter Maps.  Also, as I am slightly far sighted, it is much easier on my eyes and no need for reading glasses. 

 

I hope to see improvements with CPU multithreading with future updates to the sim, offloading AI, physics, weather and such onto multiple threads and then scaling as a persons system allows.  With Next Gen Ryzen on the horizon and talk of the 12 core boost clocking at 5Ghz across all cores - things are looking good for multithreading.  They can stay with DirectX 11 for graphics for now but just offload other CPU intensive requirements across multiple cores. Should allow for double to triple the AI in action both on the ground and in the air.  Epic.?

[imaca]

I think until Rayleigh Effect is modelled, air to air spotting against background will always be more difficult than it is  irl

[56RAF_Roblex]

7 hours ago, imaca said:

I think until Rayleigh Effect is modelled, air to air spotting against background will always be more difficult than it is  irl

 

How would that make it *easier*?

 

[Lusekofte]

My spotting abilities has improved by them selves. I think I suddenly started to react on distant spots as I do in RL. something is moving relax your eyes and just look the way you sense something.

I was really bad at spotting until one day it just came along. After a while flying your mind knows what to look for