Jump to content
mazex

Realistic spotting

Recommended Posts

Looking at this clip from @ACG_Herne in another thread about VR Allies I realized my decades old beef with "full real" servers and the unrealistically hard spotting of aircraft that has unfortunately been worsened now that many of us have started using VR but it applies to flat screens as well.

 

Having flown quite a bit IRL myself I can agree that finding another aircraft in the air can be a bit tricky - but when you are tracking an aircraft with your eyes like in the clip below (starting at 2.50) you would NEVER lose sight of the plane "blurring into the forest below" only to appear when it gets out over a field again...

 

Try to follow that me over the forest in the clip below at 2.55- 2.58. That plane would never "almost disappear" IRL like it does in this (and other flight sims).

 

IRL that plane is a couple of hundred meters above that forest and would in no way blend into the forest so that it disappears. This happens all the time (worsened by the lower res in VR naturally) in all flight simulators. And everyone says "yeah - this is a full real server". But IRL it is not that hard to see an aircraft a couple of hundred meters away from you. Period. And naturally with your eyes it is a lot easier to see the camouflage pattern, markings etc. I just read a combat report from some P-38 guy that evaded two 109s that chased him from a rather long distance but could not catch him and he wrote that they had green spinners in his combat report. Good luck seeing that in IL2 or any other flight sim...

 

So - even though the full real crowd (being the majority here) will flame me I mean that we for a realistic full real "simulation" of what a real pilot sees when he looks down at an aircraft below him over a forest, we needs enhancements to the current aircraft spotting.

 

And adding the "fat red markers" naturally makes it way to easy to spot them. The small "v" over the planes in DCS actually feels like an OK compromise. I'm fine with not having it color coded for enemies as that makes it too easy. But how many times have you not chased an aircraft - as happens in the start of this clip where ACG_Herne bleeds all his energy as he thought he was chased by a 109 instad of a Yak. This happens all the time in Multiplayer where we fly 200 meters behind some aircraft for a long time unsure if is a 109 or a Yak. 

 

Yes - it was tricky IRL and many friendly fire incidents occurred, but I cannot imagine that the sky was full of planes chasing friendlies for a very long time as happens in the game today?

 

So - my propsal that I mean should be the default for full real servers is:

 

1. Add a thin dark "outline" to aircraft and other vehicles like trucks so they become a bit more distinguishable from the background behind them. Dont remember the 3D tech name for it where you enhance the contrast of a 3D object.

2. Or add a small grey "v" like in DCS if 1 is not possible.

 

My .5 cents. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that spotting is way more difficult on a screen than IRL. 
Also I think that ARMA 3 has a good solution for this: they draw a *very* faint halo around an enemy, using a light color, which in turn helps to bring attention to the eye without messing visuals too much. Like you I would also like to have something to make spotting a little bit easier, or at least better than icons (which I hate).
Let's hope. 

Cheers.
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is we are mostly playing at 1080p and there just isn't enough pixels to create a true to life image. 4k I am sure is much better for spotting against terrain that blends with the aircraft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with spotting in games is that they always try to user one method to satisfy two very different questions. 

The first is 'What is the maximum distance that it is *possible to see* a target if you know exactly where to look?' and the second is 'What is the maximum distance at which it is *impossible to miss seeing* a target even when just scanning past it without knowing where to look?'

 

People say 'If I look towards the airport 20 miles away I can clearly see the light aircraft there,' so expect every aircraft to be instantly visible as soon as it gets within 20 miles.   I also have experience of real world flying and I can assure you that even if you are warned that there may be something in the vicinity you can miss seeing an aircraft 2 miles away.   I have stood on the airfield knowing 100% that there are 5 aircraft in the circuit within 1/2 mile of the boundary and still struggled to find them all.    An good system would have aircraft that are at first barely visible as grey dots at extreme range if you know where to look and we pretty much have that though I do agree that it should be much harder to lose a close target against the ground once you know where it is.   Even better would be a system that makes the targets clearer the longer you look at them so sweeping your view across the sky will be unlikely to work.  In the real world armed forces personnel responsible for looking out for approaching aircraft are taught to search the sky in sections, stopping at each one for a few seconds.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

The issue is we are mostly playing at 1080p and there just isn't enough pixels to create a true to life image. 4k I am sure is much better for spotting against terrain that blends with the aircraft.

 

4k makes a big difference 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft disappear all the time in Il-2. The other day I went to the deck dogfighting over some hills (Sopwith Camel VS Fokker D7, which turns to be a very close fight) and we lost each other all the time. The trick is to graze the ground to see the enemy a few meters above, and when I do that, usually I see the guy looking for me. We almost collided a few times, and I gave up and needed to gain altitude. He went home as well. At one time I was a hundred meters above a furball and couldn't engage, because I couldn't see the five or six planes below. I saw the tracers and planes here and there, but I knew I would bump into someone if I tried to get into the fray. In many situations I am circling for several minutes in an area when there are several planes below me. I've also seen planes circling above without knowing that there were several of us a couple of hundred meters below. People already know this and usually approach enemies from below (Boelcke must be turning in the grave).

 

For me, this is as serious a problem as the visibility limit (which appears to be finally being solved). Game-play is simply thrown out the window.

 

But that doesn't happen in ROF (they say CloD is similar). I still complained about ROF, but it's much better, especially since the wings of the airplanes glitter with the sun, when it is recurring to see airplanes two thousand meters below shining their wings against the sun (it makes it look so real).

 

Here is what is common in ROF, planes glittering down below (both over no man's land and forests). As they are moving, it is impossible to miss them. I don’t think I ever saw that in Il-2. In tests, sometimes they glitter, especially if the aircraft has a silvery finish, but in-game in multiplayer it never happened to me. I think the Lapino map also does not have the same reflection of the Kuban map, but I’m not sure.

 

5gItxmD.jpg

 

And then I collected a few pictures in the last couple years to research the subject. The planes below are real, and the small one has his top wing lit up against the sun. For them to don't see each other in a fight over some bushes, they need to be nearly blind or severely impaired.

 

yd5zJlg.jpg

 

And the photo below is also real, and the aircraft was moving down and it is impossible to miss on the video. On the detail, it appears to have a shade / shadow. It would require some work, because real objects, especially with several meters of span, can’t disappear like they do here. The same thing happened in DCS, although I quit that game in 2017 and I'm not sure how it is now.

 

taUcizi.jpg

 

I hear people say that they tweak the gamma correction and this and that, but then the colors get all messed up. No fun in that. The problem seems to be in the game engine and how it render things, but lack of contrast in between objects and the ground is a problem, plus the reflection as well. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

New View Distance for Airplanes

 

Yes, by popular request, we have increased the visibility of distant airplanes. This has been a difficult technical challenge, but we think Sturmovik pilots will appreciate this new reality. Can you spot the far-off planes? We’re still tweaking the feature, but it’s in testing.

Wait for the next update if you are unsatisfied wih the current spotting system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

Wait for the next update if you are unsatisfied wih the current spotting system.

 

The spotting mentioned in the OP is not related to visibility distance.

 

When they [devs] talk about visibility improvements, is that before the aircraft were only rendered up to 9.5km (IIRC). After that they simply disappeared into thin air, were not rendered at all. In the case of spotting, we are talking about the contrast of near objects in relation to the ground, aircraft that goes AWOL over terrain even though they are being rendered. They are two completely different things.

 

Unless they are changing the way they are being rendered altogether in all distances, but I did not read that. In fact I think they said that they are not using the dot method to improve visibility, but relative lighting, so it might happen that we won't see far off objects in most cases, the same way that we don’t see near objects either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jokerBR said:

Well, I agree that spotting is way more difficult on a screen than IRL. 
Also I think that ARMA 3 has a good solution for this: they draw a *very* faint halo around an enemy, using a light color, which in turn helps to bring attention to the eye without messing visuals too much. Like you I would also like to have something to make spotting a little bit easier, or at least better than icons (which I hate).
Let's hope. 

Cheers.
 

 

Exactly - when I wrote outline I meant "halo" that is a better description of what I mean. And you are probably right that a lighter colour halo would be better to make it easier to spot over a dark forest. The problem is that the forest is a dark blurry texture rendered beneath a blurry LOD state X version of a plane. That ends up with the plane disappearing. So I am all in for a ligher halo. IRL the plane that has the exact same green camo as the forest hundreds of meters down do not blend at all, the plane is much "lighter" than the forest below so a light halo would be an OK compromise.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 In many situations I am circling for several minutes in an area when there are several planes below me. I've also seen planes circling above without knowing that there were several of us a couple of hundred meters below. People already know this and usually approach enemies from below (Boelcke must be turning in the grave).

 

 

Exactly - I have also realized that the best way to be able to find the enemy AC is to fly lower as they are much easier to spot that way - naturally madness from a tactical perspective. And IRL it is easier to spot them from above...

 

The tricky thing IRL is the natural tendency of the brain to scan the horizon, but the planes you are looking for on the same altitude as you are above the horizon etc... But with clouds in the background and haze it is tricky to see them there. Much easier a bit below you over a forest. Thinking of it the hardest are flying towards / away from you slightly above your alitude on a cloudy day - but the spotting in that situation is rather easy in flight sims.

 

And no, I am not talking about distant spotting that naturally is a related and complex question. I remember the old distant dot discussions in the original IL2 1046. I am talkning about not beeing able to visually track a plane a couple of hundred meters away from you above a forest. Regarding distant spotting a very thin light halo might be viable as well? Yes the dot becomes bigger than a plane at 3 km should be - but we are using monitors and not MKI Eyeballs.

 

Finally we have the problem of the community going in two directions. The 4K screen bunch and the VR gang. It was easier 10 years ago when 97% of the gamers used 1920x1080 :) The fixes for visibility for the two groups are naturally very different to strike a nice compromise. When VR equipment some day hopefully get cheaper and we have the horse power to run higher res VR screems I see no reason for 4K to remain a viable option thogh. The immersion boost from VR is worth it already today according to me, but I understand that many feel that the resolution loss is unacceptable today. And a lot of that is related to spotting.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mazex said:

The immersion boost from VR is worth it already today according to me, but I understand that many feel that the resolution loss is unacceptable today. And a lot of that is related to spotting.

And there is the issue with what you have raised, the limitation "currently" of VR resolution.

 

As other's have mentioned, 4k makes a big difference when spotting distant and low flying aircraft in the game.

We also have to factor in that WWII aircraft were painted so it was harder to spot them when flying over terrain. When flying IRL today, it is no doubt much easier to spot an aircraft that is painted white, with nice shiny surfaces flying at 140 mph as apposed to a camouflaged aircraft with a less than a 40 ft wingspan flying at 330 mph low over trees etc.

 

 

Cloud7-Shoot-02.jpg.9d908d45eb62fcbd50f1068c8dfa7842.jpg

 

abj.jpg.4943d0c62b3238b726991373a4305aa9.jpg

 

 

 

Hopefully once the new spotting system feature is introduced it will be the happy medium for VR users and non VR users  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that a white plane naturally sticks out more over a forest (and most civilian planes are white). But I remember spotting a camouflaged AJ-37 Viggen passing beneath me with forest below when flying in a glider at around 1000 meters. He was at 300 meters or so doing 700 km/h - ish... It was in no way hard to track him, but I was naturally lucky to look in that direction to spot him initially. And as he was not directly beneath me I think that he was never closer than a kilometer from me. I cannot imagine doing  that in IL2.

 

If I would have taken a still image it would have been a lot trickier to spot him on the image as we then end up in the computer render problem when the real 3D world is flattened to an image and the aircraft stops travelling at 700 km/h over the irregular forest. That "frozen" 109 over the desert is a cool example of why they painted them that way in Africa, but IRL the background would be moving under the plane and reflections would glimmer, prop disc showing etc. Matte paint is never that matt as it looks close up.

 

But we agree that the current problem is that running a 4K screen is the best way to spot planes with the current limitations, and at the same time a big chunk of the community is now flying VR or lower res screens. I have a very nice Asus ROG Swift PG279Q IPS monitor with sharp 2560 x 1440 resolution and 165 Hz refresh. IL2 looks great on it and I can imagine that a 4K screen would make spotting even better. But as good as the Asus screen is, I always fly with my Vive anyway as I am suddenly in an aircraft instead of watching a flat screen. And the spotting on my 1440p is still a lot harder that IRL in my opinion.

 

So the big buch of people running 1920x1080 without TrackIR or similar are really handicapped unfairly right now. The 4k guys have much better spotting and in many cases use TrackIR to get SA. The SA in VR is even better so we VR-pilots get an edge there but they are having big problems with spotting.

 

By making spotting easier on all low res screens we will get a game that is more fair, both for 1920x1080 pilots and VR-users. And the current dogfights with planes going in circles trying to understand if that is an Me or a Yak is not realistic in my opinion for all groups. There should not be a marker saying "Me 109 G6" but I would be interested to see how the light halo proposed by @jokerBR would look in the game. I am pretty sure it will be more fun as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From a Steam survey:

 

Valve Software’s latest hardware and software survey for July 2018 reveals that 63.72 percent of Steam’s registered members still play games with a 1,920 x 1,080 resolution (aka Full HD). Even more, 13.33 percent of Steam’s gamers play at 1,366 x 768 (HD) while only 1.14 percent are playing at 3,840 x 2,160 (4K). Only 3.12 percent play at 2,560 x 1,440 (QHD).

 

So 4K accounts for just 1% of the players. It might be a bit higher in sims, but I don't think it would make a difference. Also, things might get better in higher resolutions, but the fact is that the planes are still being rendered the same, so I'm not so sure that I would gain that much spotting if I go for an ultrawide 34" monitor. There is no depth on the objects, no shadow to indicate volume, which I think is the most important thing for the eye to recognize (a shaped object with volume against the terrain). Plus IRL people can see reflections and details in an aircraft that we can't see. 

 

I also don't buy that nearby spotting was or is so hard, with or without camouflage. Especially in close combat, more so in Flying Circus, when you really fight in a phone booth. And there are several real life pilots explaining that nearby aircraft won't go AWOL that way. I just saw one quote in all these years that a pilot lost a two-seater in the middle of the dive because it was against the ground, and I'm not even sure of the conditions on the day. Other than that, they would go about their business spotting each other in ways that we can't do here. And like I said, if the mission is looking a bit lackluster, just dive a mile or so and you could be surprised with the amount of planes that were flying below you unadvisedly.

 

It is not that people are asking for semi-icons, but to be believable so that we don't have to resort to fly low just to see who is flying around us, especially over forests and bushes and in close combat. And ROF was much better on this regard.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mazex said:

By making spotting easier on all low res screens we will get a game that is more fair, both for 1920x1080 pilots and VR-users. And the current dogfights with planes going in circles trying to understand if that is an Me or a Yak is not realistic in my opinion for all groups. There should not be a marker saying "Me 109 G6" but I would be interested to see how the light halo proposed by @jokerBR would look in the game. I am pretty sure it will be more fun as well...

Putting a "halo" around aircraft would just advantage 4K users even more than currently, particularly over VR users. Unfortunately the lower resolution from VR is a technical limitation of VR. If you place a Halo around aircraft you might as well just fly with Icons on.  I tend to think that the only folks that would be having more fun would be the ones using a much higher resolution in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i usealy play up high and can spot contacts that fly low from there, but usealy loose them when i get lower, something 1-2km from them especialy if they are over forrests veary low. Its strange that you can clearly see them from 5-6km but you can so easy lose them when you get closer.

I dont know if its resolution thing as i play on single monitor and tm8 on 3 monitors setup and he has it even wors down low close to contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I find it interesting that some of you guys are claiming that spotting with 4k is easier.  
This is not my experience at all. And low contacts are the worst.
For me, on my 32" 4k monitor which is about 12" from my nose, the contacts are rendered so small it makes them nearly impossible to see.
The difference in size of rendered planes and objects between running 3840x2160 or 1920x1080 seems dramatic to me.
There is no question that 4k wins the eye candy test. And a lot of the times I fly around in 4k just because it looks SO good that I don't mind being slaughtered by unseen foes.
But if I want any kind of passable SA in multiplayer I need to run 1920x1080.
Otherwise, my squad mates are calling out contacts all day long that I just can't see.

It will be fun to see what changes the new view system will make.

Edited by SYN_Mugue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mazex said:


Exactly - I have also realized that the best way to be able to find the enemy AC is to fly lower as they are much easier to spot that way - naturally madness from a tactical perspective. And IRL it is easier to spot them from above...

 

 

No doubt in my mind that some combination of limited colour palettes, lack of reflections, screen pixel limits and anti-aliasing add up to make planes too hard to see even when you are staring at them: I wish some solution could be found. I find that using the landscape option blurred helps quite a lot. 

 

Although I agree with the general tenor of the thread it is incorrect to say that being low is always "tactical madness".  The general rule in air-air combat is that it is better to be high - no doubt about that. But like all such rules there are exceptions. Three examples:

 

1) Ball used low side attacks in WW1 (OK so he may have been bonkers ;) )

2) One of my Bergstrom books (IIRC) has an account of Gordon Gollob and another pilot carrying out low side attacks on large Soviet formations during the 1941 battles over the Crimea.

3) A UK Tactical note gives details of a "Ranger Patrol" carried out by RAF fighters in which the unit would descend to tree top level and visit various enemy airfield locations - the reason given being that enemy aircraft are easy to spot and attack by surprise from below.


A camouflaged plane is much easier to spot against the sky than against terrain, just as a camouflaged man is much easier to spot when he stands against the skyline than when he stands in front of a hedge.  Low side attacks are a perfectly valid tactic: quite apart from the ease or otherwise of seeing against ground or sky, low and behind on many planes is a blind spot which pilots rarely check sufficiently often.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best solution to this problem would be HDR video

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mazex said:

Finally we have the problem of the community going in two directions. The 4K screen bunch and the VR gang. It was easier 10 years ago when 97% of the gamers used 1920x1080 :) The fixes for visibility for the two groups are naturally very different to strike a nice compromise. When VR equipment some day hopefully get cheaper and we have the horse power to run higher res VR screems I see no reason for 4K to remain a viable option thogh. The immersion boost from VR is worth it already today according to me, but I understand that many feel that the resolution loss is unacceptable today. And a lot of that is related to spotting.

 

 

Being on the VR side of things I would have to add a few points with the direction of VR tech and not to far capabilities of VR headsets.

 

1.  Image fidelity is as important to us in VR as it is to 4K monitor users.  Unfortunately most VR headsets would have been lucky to render real 1080p images per eye given the pixel limits of their screen hardware.  For 4K users the issue is that of screen size to give at default FOV 1 to 1 scale with real life.  A 50 Inch screen would probably do it and some of you do play on such set ups.

 

2. The change in VR tech started with the Pimax 8K but it has been a slow march for users of that headset to realise the potential of the 4k + 4k screens of the headset and even then, the images are 1440p due to hardware limitations of the time of introduction and the screens themselves are not full strip RGB.

 

3. Proper hi res VR headsets are now coming to market and later this year we also hope to see a real single cable 4k per eye headset.

 

4. Hardware to drive these headsets at high fidelity.  It is not so much a question of having to wait for tomorrows GPU's / CPU's to realise high fidelity image capabilities on VR hardware but more a usage of software techniques that can reduce the demands of providing such an experience.  We have currently in working but not to stable states.

 

- Fixed Foreated Rendering - with Eye Tracking this can further improve user experience.

- Canted Headset Displays that need code implementation to remove Parallel Projection requirements.

- Modifying the Sim Engine to spread the workload of the Sim over multiple CPU Cores and Scaling as able with CPU hardware detection.  Even Staying with Direct X11, of which the Il2 Graphics Engine is well optimised, moving Physics, AI, weather and other non graphic elements to other CPU Cores would probably help in general.  I am not sure what is being done on this front but eventually with CPU's going Chiplet Designs, software will need to adapt.

 

In a nutshell - for 4K monitor users, go 50+ Inch with IR Tracking and for VR - well, be current with tech and hope bugs in drivers and software systems are ironed out to deliver the potential we have available to us today.

 

When I do a test running SteamVR Render Resolution Target of 7k x 4k - it is not what I am demanding my i7700HQ and 2080RTX to do but more so half that with FFR employed.  It works nigh on 50% of the time but a combination of factors leads to Il2 locking up.  I hope this will be resolved soon down the track. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the voice you hear there was one of my squad mates centurion. I have no idea what display he was using. 
 

I was using the Rift S, that footage was recorded from the Oculus Mirror, which is very useful to get single image in game recordings. I guess in an ideal world, being a VR user, and loving every second of IL2 in it, I would love to get to a stage, where there was no longer any need for a zoom function. 

Fighter pilots didn't wear bino's around their necks. When I watch videos of IL2 you often see people zoomed right in on the gun sight able to sniper shot distant targets, I would like to try and move away from that.

Edited by ACG_Herne
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Low side attacks are a perfectly valid tactic

 

But that's not what we are saying. We are saying [please, don't take it literally in every situation, read the context of the posts] that otherwise we won't see contacts especially over forests and bushes. Then it becomes a gameplay problem other than to be just an option and people start to adapt going low [when they don't want to] to see something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ACG_Herne said:

Fighter pilots didn't wear bino's around their necks. When I watch videos of IL2 you often see people zoomed right in on the gun sight able to sniper shot distant targets, I would like to try and move away from that.

Zoom view is there to make up for the small size and low resolution of monitors. Until players universally have access to life sized and 20/20 acuity resolution which would be something like 16k 60” screens there will always be a need for a zoom view. 

On a normal desktop sized screen zoomed in is more like life sized. There’s no need to worry about this feature related to “fairness” because it’s self regulating. You’re just swapping one advantage for another, when you zoom in you’re losing peripheral vision and vice versa. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Zoom view is there to make up for the small size and low resolution of monitors. Until players universally have access to life sized and 20/20 acuity resolution which would be something like 16k 60” screens there will always be a need for a zoom view. 

On a normal desktop sized screen zoomed in is more like life sized. There’s no need to worry about this feature related to “fairness” because it’s self regulating. You’re just swapping one advantage for another, when you zoom in you’re losing peripheral vision and vice versa. 

 

yes I understand why we have it, I just wish we didn't need it. Maybe at some point in the future the tech will be in a place where it is no longer needed, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 8:50 AM, mazex said:

2. Or add a small grey "v" like in DCS if 1 is not possible.

 

The "v" in DCS is just a workaround with custom "labels", limited to keyboard characters.

 

An similar workaround for an "full real server with icons" require that IL-2:GB allow customize icons/labels (a "la il-2:46), what is not possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Zoom view is there to make up for the small size and low resolution of monitors. Until players universally have access to life sized and 20/20 acuity resolution which would be something like 16k 60” screens there will always be a need for a zoom view. 

On a normal desktop sized screen zoomed in is more like life sized. There’s no need to worry about this feature related to “fairness” because it’s self regulating. You’re just swapping one advantage for another, when you zoom in you’re losing peripheral vision and vice versa. 

I use zoom for each single seat aircraft one time and one time for each position in multi crew aircrafts. When I have a new aircraft I fly it in the QMB, zoom in until it looks to me as if I was sitting in the place of the crew member and then save it. Then I'll never use the zoom again. Yes I know I miss some peripheral view, so I have to look around a bit more. But for me this way has much more immersion than zooming in and out all the time. 

The same I am doing with the tanks, too. I hope we will get binoculars for the commander, so the zooming for pretending the use of binoculars isn't necessary anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ACG_Herne said:

 

yes I understand why we have it, I just wish we didn't need it. Maybe at some point in the future the tech will be in a place where it is no longer needed, who knows.

That technology would be triple 55” 16K monitors. Or something like that. 

 

The solution for color depth depth and contrast is already here with HDR. PC gaming has been slow to adopt it though. In a twist of circumstance, console players now have better graphics. 

15 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Valve Software’s latest hardware and software survey for July 2018 reveals that 63.72 percent of Steam’s registered members still play games with a 1,920 x 1,080 resolution (aka Full HD). Even more, 13.33 percent of Steam’s gamers play at 1,366 x 768 (HD) while only 1.14 percent are playing at 3,840 x 2,160 (4K). Only 3.12 percent play at 2,560 x 1,440 (QHD).

 

So 4K accounts for just 1% of the players.

Meanwhile I’m sure the vast majority of Xbox One players are using a big 4K HDR TV that cost less than their console. By the end of 2019 49% of US households will have one. 

PC players get wedded to their expensive hardware and can’t or won’t move forward. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

But that's not what we are saying. We are saying [please, don't take it literally in every situation, read the context of the posts] that otherwise we won't see contacts especially over forests and bushes. Then it becomes a gameplay problem other than to be just an option and people start to adapt going low [when they don't want to] to see something.

 

I read all the posts - and I agree that, in particular, close contacts that you have already sighted are too hard to follow. Please read my whole post.

 

What I do not agree with is that IRL contacts are easier to see against ground than sky (except perhaps all silver/pale planes) or that low side attacks are tactical madness, both of which @mazex asserts.  You do not strengthen a case by piling false arguments on top of the good ones.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Zoom view is there to make up for the small size and low resolution of monitors. Until players universally have access to life sized and 20/20 acuity resolution which would be something like 16k 60” screens there will always be a need for a zoom view. 

On a normal desktop sized screen zoomed in is more like life sized. There’s no need to worry about this feature related to “fairness” because it’s self regulating. You’re just swapping one advantage for another, when you zoom in you’re losing peripheral vision and vice versa. 

High resolution VR will get there first. We are pretty close already with headsets like the HP reverb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been asking for custom icons from day one so we can have somthing in the middle of what we have now but it never gains traction 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just make sure I fly with my squad mates, then when they get bounced I know there's something around so I start looking.  If I get bounced I shout at them for not warning me.

 

It kinda works.

 

von Tom

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AeroAce said:

I have been asking for custom icons from day one so we can have somthing in the middle of what we have now but it never gains traction 

 

That could work for single player, but unfortunately for multiplayer my opinion is that it would require them to really fix the lack of contrast / stealth effect in general that we get here in Il-2 over terrain. Some furball servers could work with custom icons, but full real servers will never use icons, at least in principle (I don’t like them to be honest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

High resolution VR will get there first. We are pretty close already with headsets like the HP reverb.

Monitors are always going to outpace VR in resolution. 8K is a thing now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Played with photoshop with a stroke->subtract on the aircraft outline a bit to show a bit what I have "envisioned".

 

Pic 1 - the real deal as it is now (part of a 1440p screenshot). Do NOT peak the second image below and try to find the LA5 that i 230 meters from me...

 

TPUJiSw.jpg

 

 

With "Halo / outline"...

 

gJSkSSg.jpg

 

Sure - it looks a bit "cartoonish" but it is possible to find that darn LA over the forest at least. From 230 meter looking directly at it you would see it...

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather have the cloud/AA disappearing blurring thing fixed first but that’s just me. 

 

It’ll be be interesting to see the new changes (in time) and how everything changes then. 

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mazex

 

Must be me but I think that La-5 is using some Predator Cloaking Tech.

 

I see something vertical from the nose of the 109 but stills also don't make life easy - moving objects can be easier to spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AeroAce said:

I have been asking for custom icons from day one so we can have somthing in the middle of what we have now but it never gains traction 

Custom icons would never be usable in MP because nobody would be able to agree on their setting. And there aren’t enough players online who use them. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new update on it's way, I guess visibility will improve a lot. I had no problems before spoting planes in the distance that was selected but now you have more chances to see them far away depending on size, conditions and such I suppose.

 

This is great and also, remember that camo and background does a lot when trying to hide. At low alt is easy to lose your target no matter what distance it is. I find BOX to be great in this regard and the only "problem" will be fixed with the new distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dearly beloved, posting still images of objects in distance is moot and pointless.

 

Human eye peripheral vision, like any predators, is black and white and sees only very poorly and responds best to movement.  

 

The vision field that have actual color receptors resides in the center of our field of view and the rest of the color is actually filled in by our brain.

 

Don't believe me? test it for yourself! 

 

Take a handful of color pens, markers or pencils of similar construction, that are distinguished only by color, something like this.

 

copicit-1.jpg.d0900979a7541981cc5930709aa00976.jpg

Place a few behind your back, and randomly pick one. Then, bring it from behind your back at the very edge of your field of vision, while fixating on a some fixed point in front of you. 

See, how far inwards you have to bring that marker or pen before you can tell, what color it is. 

 

I have now shown you the limit of the Matrix, neo, and that all you lived up till now is a lie and you are in computer simulation :crazy:

 

 

 

Oh, and i am telling you this because spotting in VR and on screen is different because of this. In VR, you actually get to use your predator like peripheral vision for spotting movement. Because you are using far more contrast and movement sensitive part of your eye. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS users can’t come to a consensus over resolution vs spotting. Some say lower res helps, others swear by 1440p / 4K. 
 

Is it agreed on one way or the other in IL2? I’d imagine lower res (1080p) makes it easier (at the expense of eye candy), but I’m not entirely sure (I now use VR anyway). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

DCS users can’t come to a consensus over resolution vs spotting. Some say lower res helps, others swear by 1440p / 4K. 
 

Is it agreed on one way or the other in IL2? I’d imagine lower res (1080p) makes it easier (at the expense of eye candy), but I’m not entirely sure (I now use VR anyway). 

 

VR is the new gold standard of simming :crazy:

 

 

You need crazy setup made of screens to get even close to the same immersion first gen HMD offered. Now we have second gen coming out in force and we got nice developments in this field and more to come! 

 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...