Jump to content
mazex

Realistic spotting

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It would be interesting to know if the developers agree that the close range spotting against terrain etc. is something that is on the list to improve in the future?

 

There are a number of ways proposed in this thread that are hopefully not that complex to implement like more reflections, contrast by making objects lighter / darker, ground haze etc. Most of us seem to agree that spotting is too hard at close range today (especially over terrain) and improving that would improve our enjoyment of the game. And that would hopefully make more people fly online where the problem is most obvoius. It seems that most flying online use the "blurred texture" filter that is not realistic and makes the game look worse than IL2 1946.

 

I know for sure that I would fly a lot more online if spotting was not so hard at least. And you online pixel chasing experts need some more cannon fodder ;) 

Edited by mazex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Damn, this thread that I started myself cost me EUR 539 as it got me to order a Valve Index instead of my HTC Vive to remedy some part of the problem. It doesn't fix the root cause and it's not about VR resolution and clarity... ;)

Edited by mazex
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if this thread helps a bit. I wasn't able to test spotting yet, but for sure the BOX map (Kuban) is not looking like a mish-mash of pixels like before (although ROF was looking gorgeous with SS before the fix).

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting. But I can agree that snow with harder reflective properties is a bit tricker than grass / foilage. And they are talking about spotting from 1,5 kilometers as they where that high above the IL2:s, not a couple of hundred meteres where we loose them today. And they flew under a lot of that haze I talked about earlier that sometimes forms "bundary layers" -  especially in cold weather with snow on the ground cooling the low air and hotter air comes in above forming a leap layer. That boundary almost looks like a surface of water when you fly over it. A plane "under the surface" is naturally hard to spot.

 

And - deducting from that statement is does not seem that they had that much problems flying at 2000 meters covering IL2:s at 400 meters when it was not winter ;)

Edited by mazex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, this is a very specific case of planes grazing the ground with cammo, and in close combat I doubt people have a hard time spotting planes.

 

The camera below is barely 1080p (the human eye is tenfold better), it wobbles for some reason, but for sure you can't miss any of the planes involved in the show. There are red planes, green planes, checkered planes, and all of them are perfectly visible. And the 'map' is similar to what we have, especially the Kuban one. And it is exactly in these situations that I also have spotting problems (and see foes having a hard time to track me as well). 

 

Once I was fighting a Dr1 in a Camel and I told him on chat that I was going to disengage, because I was keeping my altitude to bounce him, but he was disappearing on the ground and being very dangerous popping out of nowhere with prop hangs. And we were at the same distances seen on the video below. Like I said a real life pilot has to be blind or having a bullet in his skull in this case.

 

And there is the haze effect mentioned that helps to spot any plane in between the ground and a plane above.

 

 

 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 4:06 PM, mazex said:

Another thing that I think everyone that has flown IRL knows is that when you are flying there is almost always a slight "haze" of moisture / pollution etc in the air. Only on a very clear winter day you might end up with air that is really clear looking down. So when you fly at 600 meters looking down at that other aircraft at 300 meters with the green forest below - the forest down low will have a more "haze" over it than the aircraft at 300 meters. So it will "stand out" over the ground below as there is always that "slight fog effect" looking down. Especially in summer time. 

That effect is already present it just depends on the time of day and weather. Targets stand out against the background haze really well when the conditions are right.

2019_8_31__15_27_39.jpg

On 8/28/2019 at 3:25 AM, mazex said:

 It seems that most flying online use the "blurred texture" filter that is not realistic and makes the game look worse than IL2 1946.

Which would be a shame because the ground textures in 4K look fantastic! I will prefer pretty scenery any day over "gaming the graphics"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think he's talking about is that the atmosphere has humidity, and as high as you are, the ground would be hazier. It is not about morning / afternoon haze or horizon haze.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

What I think he's talking about is that the atmosphere has humidity, and as high as you are, the ground would be hazier. It is not about morning / afternoon haze or horizon haze.

Right. I’m curious how close what we have if it’s authentic to that area of the world. They put a good amount of work into that. Making the appearance in the sky and ground correct for Russia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Edit.  I see this was already posted 😎

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´d even wager for planes to be more visible against this haze than against the ground itself. 

 

Maybe a slight UI overlay in the form of a area of light around the plane so its edges are more pronounced.

I´d imagine for this to be the easiest technical solution to the spotting problem.

Share this post


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

Maybe a slight UI overlay in the form of a area of light around the plane so its edges are more pronounced.

I´d imagine for this to be the easiest technical solution to the spotting problem.

I would prefer to avoid strange visual effects and aids. Just making graphics appear realistic should be the only goal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went out a did a real life spotting test. I stood in a crossing where I had measured that it was exactly 200 meters to another crossing (marked with 200 meters in the image below). I was going to see if I could see which car model it was - modern cars are naturally much smaller than a WW2 aircraft, and they really look very similar in comparison.

 

So - I realized that I had no problems seeing that a black car at 200 meters was actually a Volvo V40 etc. So I measured a further point at 350 meters and realized that worked as well - but it was getting harder (yes that is a white Volvo V70 in the image at 350 meters). Found a 500 meters point and as a test seen on this image I guessed - BEFORE snapping this image that the black car at 500 meters was an Audi A6. And it was. Bear in mind that an Audi A6 is VERY similar to a BMW 5-series, Volvo V90 and other cars that are common in Sweden from that angle.

 

So with that said - ingame I have a very hard time telling if that pixel blob at 200-500 meters is a 109 or an LA5 (having quite different camo patterns etc and MUCH more different than a black Audi A6 or a black BMW 5-series - and red stars / black crosses the size of an Audi hood on their sides). And then we are not talking about looking straight behind them but with a bit of angle etc. like that Audi. So a bit of added contrast or what not could hardly be seen as unrealistic?

 

And the image below is a zoomed in smartphone image. MKI eyeballs are way beyond them in resolution and I have very good eyesight (with glasses I see 2.0 on the tests with the optician that she says is rather rare (on both eyes). Just like the young fighter pilots back then).

 

ChtcWAc.jpg

Edited by mazex
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly RC model planes and I can confirm camo warbirds against the treeline they can be very hard to see  IRL. Even at relatively close distances,  when you know they are there(specially with a thin profile) . And this is from a stationary stable viewpoint.  It adds another layer to RC flying difficulty, and  can cause disorientation of plane direction (with less experience, confusion of facing direction against a bright background is another issue with warbirds). High contrast colour planes are a lot easier to fly as a result.. They were painted for a reason with camo.

 

Not many people get to see real warbirds against forest backgrounds (in Russia like in game) from another plane and certainly not in combat scenario, so making IRL comparisons against today's civilian planes (painted for the opposite reason) outside that context I would say is not a good comparison.

 

I don't think its quite as unrealistic as some seem to think. Weather and light levels , in game this should impact visibility (which it does, a good thing). Profile and lighting does have a big impact IRL. The game does  a very good job I think, and although the spotting in Il-2 GB is harder (than titles like IL-2 COD , which I also enjoy) , it's more realistic IMHO. With the new updates It should improve (though its more about distance viewing). We at least get less pronounced , pop in out like we currently do at about 9.5 km, but this update from my reading is not targeting what is being discussed here. 

 

Regarding the icons: The system in GB is not a great one for those that want it . COD and Il-2 1946 (same roots) has a much better system (customisation)  which I hope that gets looked at too at some point, it needs to be adjustable, (some want large , some what smaller). There are different situations I want icons and on and off and def levels of info and details , ie  more flexibility on how its done currently (this would only  improve MPlayer servers that do have icons enabled, and offline play too).

 

And one thing I know for certain , not everyone will like anything that is done by the developers.

Its a game an not IRL , and so we have a wide range of opinions on what is "the Best solution". There is no "best solution" for everyone, only a middle ground (wide opinions in sim community) Having more  configuration options to enable on/off is not a bad thing, having not enough is  (for Mplay and offline).

 

But that doesn't mean the game can't help deal with hardware limitations to make a more enjoyable experience (res, contrast, field of view etc).There is always room to improve,  but this is not going to be a one fit solution.

 

Good discussion thread, it's def something everyone wants.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
re-posted to many edits

Share this post


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

I would prefer to avoid strange visual effects and aids. Just making graphics appear realistic should be the only goal. 

That´s what shooters are often doing to increase visibility of enemies, it´s so slight it´s barely noticeable, but works wonders.

 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That´s what shooters are often doing to increase visibility of enemies, it´s so slight it´s barely noticeable, but works wonders.

 

But those are “games” not “sims”. This isn’t Battlefield V

Share this post


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

But those are “games” not “sims”. This isn’t Battlefield V

I agree that they are not sims. But that does not automatically exclude anything in their playbook from being used here.

 

Our eyes see far beyond the usual 1080p or 1440p resolution most screens and graphics cards are able to show us. 

If we were able to plug our own eyes into the computer instead of relying on a flawed tool such as monitors, I´d completely agree with you.

 

But we can´t. If the game is not able to show us planes several hundred metres above woods as it should be, we need to cheat.

If necessary with something out of Battlefield´s toolbox. 

 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the underlying issue is, I just switched to 4k on a 27 inch screen, and I still have targets fade into the background, as I am tracking them, right before my eyes (the blue tint on the ballistic glass exasperates this).  

 

While this exists to some degree in other sims; the effect is definitely more pronounced in this game.  I shouldn't have to zoom in full tunnel vision to track a target I've already located.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I agree that they are not sims. But that does not automatically exclude anything in their playbook from being used here.

 

Our eyes see far beyond the usual 1080p or 1440p resolution most screens and graphics cards are able to show us. 

If we were able to plug our own eyes into the computer instead of relying on a flawed tool such as monitors, I´d completely agree with you.

 

But we can´t. If the game is not able to show us planes several hundred metres above woods as it should be, we need to cheat.

If necessary with something out of Battlefield´s toolbox. 

 

Battlefield V does that to enforce a certain style of gameplay. It also has weapons with the ballistics of Airsoft guns. That’s all fine because it’s a game and not a sim. Sims are about having reality as the yardstick and not gamey manipulation. It wasn’t easy to see real aircraft in combat, they were camouflaged for a reason. Certainly the game should attempt to render objects as realistically as possible but not enhance them beyond reality. 

if you don’t prefer realism then just use icons. 

1 hour ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

  I shouldn't have to zoom in full tunnel vision to track a target I've already located.

On a 27” screen when you’re zoomed in you’re probably seeing the target 1:1 sized. Why is that wrong?

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if you zoom in on a 27-inch screen, the glass on a 109's reflector sight is a full 9 inches across.

 

I'm sure you just don't realize that though, because in the interest of "realism" and to "not enhance them beyond reality", you never zoom in that much.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


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

Actually, if you zoom in on a 27-inch screen, the glass on a 109's reflector sight is a full 9 inches across.

 

I'm sure you just don't realize that though, because in the interest of "realism" and to "not enhance them beyond reality", you never zoom in that much.

You need the zoom view for two reasons

1. To give yourself a realistic FOV. Depending on how far you sit from the screen that means zooming in quite a bit. The only way to have both realistic peripheral vision and a narrow 1:1 FOV is to vary your zoom. 

2. To account for resolution. Since your screen has a fixed number of pixels the only way to replicate what you could see with 20/20 eyesight is to make the image larger. 

On the contrary it’s realistic to make extensive use of the zoom view. Not using it is why many people have trouble.  

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On a 27” screen when you’re zoomed in you’re probably seeing the target 1:1 sized. Why is that wrong?"

 

[9-inch reflector glass]

 

"...the only way to replicate what you could see with 20/20 eyesight is to make the image larger."

 

Yes, the *only* solution.  The only one that's ever been suggested or tried; because that replication of what you could see with 20/20 eyesight is the only one that's valid.  If you don't want aircraft to fade from view, predator-like, in front of your eyes, over the forest, you must use zoom.  Working as intended!

 

You're absolutely correct though; you gotta make extensive use of zoom as the game stands now.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The only one that's ever been suggested or tried; because that replication of what you could see with 20/20 eyesight is the only one that's valid.  If you don't want aircraft to fade from view, predator-like, in front of your eyes, over the forest, you must use zoom. 

That’s the only solution possible on a monitor. 

The other solutions will be better color depth (HDR) rendering and resolution. 

Honestly the sim is very good at this aspect already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

That´s what shooters are often doing to increase visibility of enemies, it´s so slight it´s barely noticeable, but works wonders.

 

No thanks.

Share this post


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

That’s the only solution possible on a monitor. 

The other solutions will be better color depth (HDR) rendering and resolution. 

Honestly the sim is very good at this aspect already. 

 

OK - but the default resolution that the majority of the computers in the world are using is 1080p - and that will be true for many years to come. So BoX has to work OK with a normal 1080p screens so it does not become a "pay to win" in the form of people that can afford a 4K HDR screen (and the hardware to drive that) - or expensive high res VR kits with high resolution. And even with high res screens today the spotting is nowhere near as good as in reality. And we want a realistic simulation of WW2 aerial combat. In reality a pilot with 20/20 eyesight could rather easily determine the aircraft model from 500+ meters if it's not from dead behind, in the same way that in my test yesterday where I could identify a black car from 500 meters as an Audi A6 (that is MUCH smaller and very similar to a BMW or Volvo etc). And in the game today there are situations where you have no chance of even seeing a plane over a forest 250 meters away - or determine the type. 

 

So we can do it while zooming, and I agree that the fully zoomed view gives a rather realistic view of what the eye really would see - which ends up worsening one of the main problems of any type of monitor that we use - the FOV and clarity. To be able to zoom in to that binocular FOV view we need to know WHERE to zoom in. And when we are "zoomed in", looking through that tube we don't see what is happening outside that tube...

 

A VERY common real world scenario:

 

I am turning hard left  trying to get in a firing position of two assumed enemy fighters flying slightly below me, over a forest with my wingman slightly ahead of me 60 degrees to the right. The distance to the presumed enemy planes is 500 meters and they are also turning hard left. So - as the only way to see what a real fighter pilot in that situation would see is to zoom in, I have to look at one of those two aircraft and then zoom in. I "miss" my zoom and have to "look around" while in the zoomed view. If I dont have VR or TrackIR that panning is done with a hat on my joystick or the num keys... I'm lucky and after 1 seconds I manage to zoom in on one of the possible e/a - looing for 0.5 seconds while zoomed to see that it is really a Me 109.

 

During those 1.5 seconds my wingman that cannot see me over his left shoulder turns so that he is on a course that will make us collide - and the other e/a that I am not looking at breaks hard right. But I have no idea as I am looking through a tube to be able to see that it actually is a 109. A real pilot see all this, and a blinking red light on the dashboard without any "loss of SA". So in this scenario in the game, my wingman suddenly pops into view at very close distance from the right, jerking the stick I manage to avoid a collision almost G-stalling and then try to find those two e/a over the forest but I have lost them. After 3 seconds I find the one that I was looking at still turning left but I have no clue that the other one is doing a high Yo-Yo to the right as they where faster than us, getting on our tails after a while.

 

Come tell me that this situation is not something EVERYONE playing this game has exprienced....

 

I don't care how it's done - but to have a realistic simuation of WW2 dog fighting we need some kind of SA help to get a realistic simulation. Pilots did not fly around with cones on their head with blur filters that they could press a button to remove, but only by narrowing the cone to half the size...

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Come tell me that this situation is not something EVERYONE playing this game has exprienced....

 

I never experienced this, but then I didn't start playing IL-2 until after I got a VR headset.

Share this post


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

 

I never experienced this, but then I didn't start playing IL-2 until after I got a VR headset.

I assume this is due to VR showing you two pictures each at a slight angle. 3D sight would be beneficial indeed, but not everyone can afford this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mazex

You might be right in general about 1080p being the most used resolution today but for gaming that is moving to 1440p and above.  For those of us who enjoy this sim, we fork out a little more for the hobby.  Now when you compare the cost of a VR headset against a 1440p 144Hz 27" monitor or greater, there is not much between them.

 

Add to that mid level and above hardware of which we are prepared to shell out for and also, Il2 BoX series runs quite well on mid level systems (i5, 16Gb ram, 1070GTX for example) - well....

 

Trying to expect decent range viewing / spotting on a 21" 1080p office monitor is a little unrealistic.

 

Then again I remember playing on a 17" CRT monitor thinking it was the bees knees.  Times have changed and there is only one constant in life, everything changes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget our brain (also a computer) is quite capable of analyzing a far away vague object that's moving. Like a pack of grey wolves moving against a rocky background ... it's in the genes. Now do that with a computer, a still like with a photo has less of effect. Even a nice Volvo V70.

 

We are funny animals BTW. We are biological robots, with some sensors that analyze our surroundings that send digitized data (on-off current pulses) to our BIO-computer-brain for interpretation of the world we live and move around in. Actually quite functional for simple animals, as basically only meant to obtain our daily nourishment and reproducing our selves. Our dog proves that every day. Eat sleep, and by chance a walkabout with some sniffing actions, with hopefully a follow up of sexual activity. Or a Cat-Kill if lucky.

 

What do we do with that when our once evolutionary simple brain outgrows these basic needs and functions? Among inventing music and writing/reading stories, we create religion, and if that's not enough already, wine and worse. Then to boot some weird computerized world as with IL*2, pretending we re-create real life situations.

 

Beats me, but hell, let's have some fun while at it. J

Edited by jollyjack
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

OK - but the default resolution that the majority of the computers in the world are using is 1080p - and that will be true for many years to come.

This game plays very well on a 1080p screen.

But players will always spend money on hardware to get an advantage. Welcome to PC gaming. 

 

Also for the avid gamer 1080p is becoming quite outdated. 

7 hours ago, mazex said:

So we can do it while zooming, and I agree that the fully zoomed view gives a rather realistic view of what the eye really would see - which ends up worsening one of the main problems of any type of monitor that we use - the FOV and clarity. To be able to zoom in to that binocular FOV view we need to know WHERE to zoom in. And when we are "zoomed in", looking through that tube we don't see what is happening outside that tube...

The best thing to do with the zoom command is have it assigned to a slider axis so you can quickly vary it on the fly. Looking quickly at different zoom levels to build a picture of the situation. 

1 hour ago, blitze said:

Trying to expect decent range viewing / spotting on a 21" 1080p office monitor is a little unrealistic.

Yeah that is not the sort of screen to be playing a flight sim on. Especially without icons. You can buy a giant 4K TV these days for less than the price of an Xbox so there’s not much reason to use something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should think of those students have little money to buy 32 in and 2k or 4k screen. I am using my 15.6in notebook in my 5 people dormitory.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@mazex

You might be right in general about 1080p being the most used resolution today but for gaming that is moving to 1440p and above.  For those of us who enjoy this sim, we fork out a little more for the hobby.  Now when you compare the cost of a VR headset against a 1440p 144Hz 27" monitor or greater, there is not much between them..

 

59 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This game plays very well on a 1080p screen.

But players will always spend money on hardware to get an advantage. Welcome to PC gaming. 

 

Also for the avid gamer 1080p is becoming quite outdated. 

 

Hey guys! I am from Sweden and trying to be politically correct here, check my sig ;) And yes, my 1440p monitor cost me as much as my Vive VR set. 

 

Still - I feel that waiting for 4K HDR monitors that hardly exist for PC monitors today too solve the spotting problems is too far away. And I still mean that a 4K HDR screen is not going to have anywhere close to the resolution of the eye looking at an Audi A6 or an Me 109 from 500 meters. My expensive 1440p IPS monitor is soo far away from being OK for it. It will still be a bunch of 50-100 pixels without zooming in, and that is my problem with that solution.

 

So - if any generic 3D engine is "told" to render an aircraft at 500 meters with texture X wrapped around it - it will still be too low res to simulate what a real fighter pilot would see, especially without any real depth. And as situational awareness is critical to a dog fight at close range the end result is unrealistic in my opinion. Being able to see that it really IS a 109 down to the left while in the corner of your eye to the right, without thinking about it, make sure that your wingman is not turning a bit tighter than you are...

 

Is there anyone that feels that it's easier to identify a plane from 500 meters away in BoX than IRL, that have a pilots license? And if that is not the case - is it really unrealistic to help the 3D engine with a bit more contrast to make that very important aspect of aerial combat a bit more realistic? And fun? I have done a bit of close formation flying IRL that is actually easier than one might think. In a sim that is almost impossible if you are not only two planes as your overall SA is so bad. You can't look down at your instrument panel and at the same time see that other wing a couple of meters away in the corner of your eye...

 

Edited by mazex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, 8./JG5_seaflanker819 said:

You should think of those students have little money to buy 32 in and 2k or 4k screen. I am using my 15.6in notebook in my 5 people dormitory.

Yeah, been there done that on my 15.6 inch laptop.  Then I got a VR Headset.  Take it with me and the laptop when I travel.  Never will I bother with laptop screen for flying - it sucks and I feel for you.

 

@mazex  Welcome to large FOV VR 😁

Formation flying in Il2 is much easier with it, even with AI that likes to drop to a crawl before executing a way point change of course.  You are right, being able to read instruments and also see out the corner of ones eye what the other aircraft are doing helps.  For that you need Wide FOV be it 2D or VR.👍

 

As for spotting and Id-ing one requires image fidelity for that.  We're getting there and we'll see what comes to the table in a month or so with BoBP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 I feel that waiting for 4K HDR monitors that hardly exist for PC monitors today too solve the spotting problems is too far away. 

That's the direction that the technology is headed though. Or really it's already here. PC gaming is just behind the times.

I think the reason we don't see more 4K HDR PC monitors is that everyone who wants that feature are already using UHDTVs They are becoming so cheap there is hardly a reason to use a "monitor" for gaming anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see there is a lot of discussion about how we need HDR to resolve this problem, or halos, or icons, and other things like that, but it seems to me like the problem with spotting in BoX is more fundamental than that. It might be something as simple as specular maps being absent or very different in luminosity on the low LOD models compared with the high LOD models. The fact that the experience is so different in BoX compared to RoF suggests that it might be something like that.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think the reason we don't see more 4K HDR PC monitors is that everyone who wants that feature are already using UHDTVs They are becoming so cheap there is hardly a reason to use a "monitor" for gaming anymore.

Response time and framerate.

Monitors are there for exactly that reason.

 

If you have the money to buys yourself a 4K Freesync/Gsync TV, then you won´t have to bother with flight simming anymore and get yourself a pilots licence

 

1 minute ago, Hylo said:

I can see there is a lot of discussion about how we need HDR to resolve this problem, or halos, or icons, and other things like that, but it seems to me like the problem with spotting in BoX is more fundamental than that. It might be something as simple as specular maps being absent or very different in luminosity on the low LOD models compared with the high LOD models. The fact that the experience is so different in BoX compared to RoF suggests that it might be something like that.

I assume it has to do with performance on low end systems if it is indeed this problem.

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

If you have the money to buys yourself a 4K Freesync/Gsync TV, then you won´t have to bother with flight simming anymore and get yourself a pilots licence

Not even. A TV like that is about $650 US

Share this post


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

Not even. A TV like that is about $650 US

There´s only one Gsync-TV available, and it´s 4000€.

The cheapest Freesync-TV I am aware of is the SAMSUNG QE55LS01RBUXZG QLED-TV available for 1379€.

 

I doubt there´s this much of a price difference between the EU and the US, so what Freesync TV are you referring to? 

Share this post


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

Blah blah...Darwinian drivel...blah blah


Hmmm...not sure what this has to do with spotting in IL2 after the first sentence. 
 

Dawkins? Harris? Is that you? 
 

 

Share this post


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

There´s only one Gsync-TV available, and it´s 4000€.

The cheapest Freesync-TV I am aware of is the SAMSUNG QE55LS01RBUXZG QLED-TV available for 1379€.

 

I doubt there´s this much of a price difference between the EU and the US, so what Freesync TV are you referring to? 

Samsung has Freesync

honestly that feature isn’t very important. If your graphics card can do 60fps you don’t need it. Certainly not worth paying that much for. 4KTVs are limited to 60hz in any case. 

G & F sync are for those who want to spend more money on their monitor than their graphics card. 

Edited by SharpeXB

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...