Realistic spotting

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

For a genre that already requires peripherals for basic functionality, to require even more expensive hardware just to see other aircraft at a functional level, is why this game will always be a niche within a niche.  If the original IL-2 had followed the same philosophy that the hardcores of this community advocate today, this game probably wouldn't even exist today.

 

High end extras will always impart an advantage in PC gaming.  It's when those high end extras become a virtual requirement to function at a basic level, that you start locking out players.

 

I honestly believe there has to be some sort of middle ground here.  For instance the ability to "mark" a target you've already located with a slightly enhanced contrast so long as you keep it within your field of view...or something.

Edited September 3, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

For a genre that already requires peripherals for basic functionality, to require even more expensive hardware just to see other aircraft at a functional level, is why this game will always be a niche within a niche.  If the original IL-2 had followed the same philosophy that the hardcores of this community advocate today, this game probably wouldn't even exist today.

 

High end extras will always impart an advantage in PC gaming.  It's when those high end extras become a virtual requirement to function at a basic level, that you start locking out players.

This game functions just fine with basic hardware. A 24” 1080p screen will work acceptably. Less than that probably not without using icons.

Much of the visibility “troubles” are player induced or just unreasonable expectations. 

“Hardcore” mode is not a requirement to play the game, there are plenty of aids and simplifications available. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by SharpeXB

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Yes, we get it Sharpe.  Is that what you play on?  Of course not; and I'm sure you won't be downgrading any time soon will you? 

 

I'm curious to know how many with the hardware you cited tend not to have visibility issues in this game...  I guess it's all good if you accept that you'll have to view the world through the FOV of a toilet paper roll.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

Yes, we get it Sharpe.  Is that what you play on?  Of course not; and I'm sure you won't be downgrading any time soon will you? 

 

I'm curious to know how many with the hardware you cited tend not to have visibility issues in this game...  I guess it's all good if you accept that you'll have to view the world through the FOV of a toilet paper roll.

I used a 24” or 27” 1080p screen for many years on DCS, RoF and this game. Never had that much trouble seeing targets. 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

RoF doesn't have the same visibility issues that this game has.  I've never had a plane fade from view, in front of my eyes, in RoF like they do in this game.  I played RoF on a 14-inch laptop and could see/track targets fine- once I found them.  Finding them for me required learning how to use the toilet paper roll FOV; but once I did find them, it didn't require it in order to keep visual.

 

But like I said, I get it.  You like it how it is.  Good for you.  I'm still going to disagree.

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

RoF doesn't have the same visibility issues that this game has.  I've never had a plane fade from view, in front of my eyes, in RoF like they do in this game.  I played RoF on a 14-inch laptop and could see/track targets fine- once I found them.  Finding them for me required learning how to use the toilet paper roll FOV; but once I did find them, it didn't require it in order to keep visual.

 

But like I said, I get it.  You like it how it is.  Good for you.  I'm still going to disagree.

Whenever this discussion comes up. And it always does. There seems to be a common thread. 

The reason I don’t perceive any trouble is I didn’t play these old flight sims. Those things had simplistic graphics and enhancements, dots, some made other aircraft artificially larger etc. So they spoiled players abilities to see things in the current crop of games that feature more elaborate effects and less enhancement or aid. 

 

Judging by attendance online the majority of players don’t feel the need to use icons.

Edited September 2, 2019 by SharpeXB

[BlitzPig_EL]

*cough*

 

Attendance online?  You are joking, yes?  Online numbers in BoX are abysmal, at best. I have tried to coax my old squad mates to come online like we did in the old days, but they are having none of it.

Why?  The lack of spotting ability in this title, and the lack of ability to properly configure icons to compensate for it.

 

The hard core meta of the Sim currently is keeping players away, not bringing more in.

[mazex]

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Whenever this discussion comes up. And it always does. There seems to be a common thread. 

The reason I don’t perceive any trouble is I didn’t play these old flight sims. Those things had simplistic graphics and enhancements, dots, some made other aircraft artificially larger etc. So they spoiled players abilities to see things in the current crop of games that feature more elaborate effects and less enhancement or aid. 

 

Judging by attendance online the majority of players don’t feel the need to use icons.

 

Sharpe, have you ever flown in a real plane chasing another plane for fun as you seem very sure that BoX does a good job of depicting reality regarding spotting distances? 

 

I am hopefully going flying in an old Sk-50 (Saab Safir - kind of a Swedish Bf-108) later this week as a friend own one. There is a camouflaged Spitfire LFXVIe in the same hangar right now. It would be great to see if there is a possibility to arrange a video chasing him from 200-500 meters over some forest and see how well that translates to what we see in game to settle this debate. But it would naturally be through the FOV cone and resolution of a camera so there is unfortunately no way of depicting it for real... In the video he would probably look small and pixelated, but even the camera will not loose him over a forest at that distance And in reality a Spitfire from 200 meters is not small and pixelated, seen that one in the air quite some times. 

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

*cough*

 

Attendance online?  You are joking, yes?  Online numbers in BoX are abysmal, at best. I have tried to coax my old squad mates to come online like we did in the old days, but they are having none of it.

Why?  The lack of spotting ability in this title, and the lack of ability to properly configure icons to compensate for it.

 

The hard core meta of the Sim currently is keeping players away, not bringing more in.

Their loss. At some point you need to learn to move on. Change yourself to match the game because the game isn’t going to change to match you. 

6 minutes ago, mazex said:

Sharpe, have you ever flown in a real plane chasing another plane for fun as you seem very sure that BoX does a good job of depicting reality regarding spotting distances? 

No. But we are talking about a PC game here. A realistic one but still a game. And until the day we all have displays or VR headsets capable of fully lifelike color and resolution we will all deal with this issue. 

 

Most players with trouble here aren’t comparing this game to real life, they’re comparing it to another game. 

[JonRedcorn]

I agree guys, let's add bright yellow rings around planes once you spot them, can even add an ability called "ACES EYE" it will fill up every time you land a shot on target, you hit a key and boom the whole world turns black and white and planes jump out like glowing yellow orbs, if you look at one for more than 3 seconds it will lock onto it, then the game engages dogfight mode and you kind of just steer the plane around with the thumbstick, this way you can engage easily and without worry of losing the target. If you hit a special combo of keys while you are being chased you do a pugachev kobra maneuver and escape the dogfight. Personally I think this could make the game far more accessible.

 

I also think it'd be cool if we could create a pilot for online and get cool unlockables and maybe even microtransactions, get cool new scarfs, or better oxygen mask that doesn't leak. We can get better flight gloves and cool new abilities as well, for like 2 dollars you can unlock double XP mode for one match. Allowing you to rack up the points. Honestly think it'd be really awesome if everytime you got a kill it'd pop up on the screen and say + 100XP I really like where this discussion is going and totally agree if we want Il2 to thrive we need to start catering to old people and call of duty fanbase. I've got a ton of other awesome ideas as well. Stuff like "Russian Courage" you can disable all G effects and fly at super sonic speeds. Just let me know if you want to hear more. Thanks.

[SeaW0lf]

I suppose the monitor size should not affect how the game is played other than make things bigger. The vast majority will still be playing on 1080p in different sizes, laptops and whatnot or ultrawide. And I assume the numbers won’t change that much in the coming years and VR is stalled for years as well, plus the GPU marked is also crazy right now with the RTX prices.

 

In my case, currently using an ultrawide 1080p, I would never go back to 16:9, even if I had got a 1440p or 4K for free. So it forces me to have as an upgrade option the ultrawide 34" 2K monitors that cost U$1K (U$1.5 here). And then a RTX 2070 Super to power those pixels and frequency. A couple of months ago it required a RTX 2080. Unrealistic regarding South American prices (especially the monitor), unless I'm making a load of cash.

 

I also think it is not ‘tech’ related, since we have ROF as the precursor game engine with a much better spotting than BOX - while people still have plenty of room to bounce, hunt and graze the trees to disappear and get away. So why it got worse with the ‘updated’ engine?

 

Mazex, would be great if you could try a mock-fight with the Spit. You don't have to record. Just tell us the impression you had regarding shapes, edges and lighting over metal if possible. We might be all wrong, but I sense it should be pretty difficult to lose sight of a 7000lb metal bird in a 300 yard radius. I've seen a P-47 from up close and that thing looks like a frigging bus ?

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Mazex, would be great if you could try a mock-fight with the Spit. You don't have to record. Just tell us the impression you had regarding shapes, edges and lighting over metal if possible. We might be all wrong, but I sense it should be pretty difficult to lose sight of a 7000lb metal bird in a 300 yard radius. I've seen a P-47 from up close and that thing looks like a frigging bus ?

It’s funny when you guys talk as if the 1CGS team has never seen a real airplane ?

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

34 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Mazex, would be great if you could try a mock-fight with the Spit. You don't have to record. Just tell us the impression you had regarding shapes, edges and lighting over metal if possible. We might be all wrong, but I sense it should be pretty difficult to lose sight of a 7000lb metal bird in a 300 yard radius. I've seen a P-47 from up close and that thing looks like a frigging bus ?

 

Are people actually complaining about losing sight of aircraft less than 300m away?  If so, they should consider buying a new monitor.

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s funny when you guys talk as if the 1CGS team has never seen a real airplane ?

 

 

It does not mean they used it for spotting reference or study. The aircraft is red and yellow and even with a bad 1080p resolution they are pretty clear in all angles over bushes. And in real life the perception is much more accurate (unless the person has sight impairment).

 

If someone could go out there against a camouflaged Spit, it is another ball of wax entirely. The same way the Kermit video gives us a pretty good idea of green WWI planes against the green terrain.

[69th_Panp]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Judging by attendance online the majority of players don’t feel the need to use icons.

I'm with BlitzPig_el on this 

There were times when you had to wait for 30 to 40 minutes for a spot to vacate on some server in Hyper lobby in the old IL2, there was a time when you had 900 to 1000 player on HL

The server ranged from full real to full icons, but all had the same thing in common ( you could see other aircraft further out than you can in BOS ) this made team work and the ability to see and take action better that what we have in BOS, you had time to see, react, and counter!

What I here most often on coms these days is quote( I flew around for 30 minutes and didn't see a thing until I got shot down)

10 k views just doesn't work with computer monitor.

lack of and poor contrast doesn't work in this game as far your ability to see.

 

I know that I have never lost sight of another aircraft at less that 1000 meters in real life like I do all the time in this game.

SharpeXB

why do you think reshade is used in BOS ?

why do you think people are all adjusting Gama in cfg file?

Why do you think this visibility discussion has been going on since the first release of bos?

 

It all boils down to being able to see in a realistic manner on a computer screen, which BOS doesn't do very well

 

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, Panp said:

 

There were times when you had to wait for 30 to 40 minutes for a spot to vacate on some server in Hyper lobby in the old IL2, there was a time when you had 900 to 1000 player on HL

 

 

Have those people all died?  Because I'm pretty sure that they're not on HL any more.  What happened to them?  And what does this have to do with spotting contacts in BoX?

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Panp said:

There were times when you had to wait for 30 to 40 minutes for a spot to vacate on some server in Hyper lobby in the old IL2, there was a time when you had 900 to 1000 player on HL

The server ranged from full real to full icons,

Today that game is called War Thunder. I’m sure half the players in old IL-2 were playing Wonder Woman style with icons. This sim caters to a different audience than arcade style games. Back in the days of old IL-2 games were cheap enough to make that they could afford to be all things to all people. Today they need to be focused. The type of player who is in IL-2 GB won’t use icons so there’s no point in developing elaborate features for them. 

12 minutes ago, Panp said:

SharpeXB

why do you think reshade is used in BOS ?

why do you think people are all adjusting Gama in cfg file?

All a bunch of junk I’ve never needed to use and I have always been able to see in this game just fine. 

[jollyjack]

What the f*** are we complaining about .... :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpAJTURalIM

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

22 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Have those people all died?  Because I'm pretty sure that they're not on HL any more.  What happened to them?  And what does this have to do with spotting contacts in BoX?

 

That's actually an interesting question, and it's really hard to answer without proprietary information.  We do know that the various iterations of IL2 and DCS both have their playerbase split between Steam and their own online stores.

 

When I last looked, DCS world was averaging about 600 players on steam charts, while BoX was sitting at about 240.  1946 still had a good 50 dudes plugging along, and Cliffs of Dover had a sad two dozen guys still flying.  Apparently Rise of Flight still has a dozen steam players hanging in there.

 

So maybe that's our 900 players .  Who knows what number of people buy and play from these companies' inhouse storefronts; though I suspect it's considerably more than buy through steam; but looking at multiplayer numbers, it's clear most never make it into multiplayer for one reason or another.

 

People forget though, that golden age of air sims or not, 1946 was the only serious game in town for quite some time.

Edited September 3, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

That's actually an interesting question, and it's really hard to answer without proprietary information.  We do know that the various iterations of IL2 and DCS both have their playerbase split between Steam and their own online stores.

 

When I last looked, DCS world was averaging about 600 players on steam charts, while BoX was sitting at about 240.  1946 still had a good 50 dudes plugging along, and Cliffs of Dover had a sad two dozen guys still flying.

 

So maybe that's our 900 players.  People forget that 1946 was the only serious game in town for quite some time.

 

I suspect that most of those people are playing War Thunder.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

10 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I suspect that most of those people are playing War Thunder.

 

I'd be surprised if many people who would be attracted to this game (or games like it) are playing War Thunder.  I recently flew simulator battles over there for a few weeks and comparatively those guys are terrible.  I'm trash in WW2 planes, and I was seal clubbing those guys.

 

I have no doubt that if you're playing BoX multiplayer, you're flying against some of the best sim pilots in the world; and having flown WT's simulator, I have a hard time believing that it's pulling players from titles like BoX.

Edited September 3, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[novicebutdeadly]

In regards to online numbers.

The problem that I have is ping (living in Australia).

And while in the old il2 series I could play on servers even with a ping of circa 350 at times with mostly no problems,

In this series it's near impossible, even if I don't get booted 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

It does not mean they used it for spotting reference or study. The aircraft is red and yellow and even with a bad 1080p resolution they are pretty clear in all angles over bushes. And in real life the perception is much more accurate (unless the person has sight impairment).

 

If someone could go out there against a camouflaged Spit, it is another ball of wax entirely. The same way the Kermit video gives us a pretty good idea of green WWI planes against the green terrain.

You’re hilarious. ?

You think the developers haven’t ever seen the exact same thing?

Again you’re talking like you think 1CGS has never seen a WWII airplane. 

 

 

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

I'd be surprised if many people who would be attracted to this game (or games like it) are playing War Thunder. 

 

 

 

There were lots of people playing IL2-46 in Wonder Woman view.  Those people absolutely would be attracted to War Thunder.  I'm sure that others who played 1946 are also now in WT.

[JonRedcorn]

4 hours ago, Panp said:

I'm with BlitzPig_el on this 

There were times when you had to wait for 30 to 40 minutes for a spot to vacate on some server in Hyper lobby in the old IL2, there was a time when you had 900 to 1000 player on HL

The server ranged from full real to full icons, but all had the same thing in common ( you could see other aircraft further out than you can in BOS ) this made team work and the ability to see and take action better that what we have in BOS, you had time to see, react, and counter!

What I here most often on coms these days is quote( I flew around for 30 minutes and didn't see a thing until I got shot down)

10 k views just doesn't work with computer monitor.

lack of and poor contrast doesn't work in this game as far your ability to see.

 

I know that I have never lost sight of another aircraft at less that 1000 meters in real life like I do all the time in this game.

SharpeXB

why do you think reshade is used in BOS ?

why do you think people are all adjusting Gama in cfg file?

Why do you think this visibility discussion has been going on since the first release of bos?

 

It all boils down to being able to see in a realistic manner on a computer screen, which BOS doesn't do very well

 

Do you guys not read the dev diaries? They are adding 100km view distance. You will be able to see as far as your little eye can bare to look. Contrails will race across the sky as far as possible. I am not even sure why they bother posting them anymore when they are just ignored. The entire spotting and draw distance features of the game is getting a rework.

[mazex]

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Are people actually complaining about losing sight of aircraft less than 300m away?  If so, they should consider buying a new monitor.

 

No - people like me are generally complaining that it is harder in the "full real" mode to spot and identify aircraft at 200-500 meters than in "real life" tm. In many cases over forests you can lose track of aircraft even with a good 1440p monitor like I have. See if you can spot the LA5 from 230 meters on Ultra settings from my 1440p monitor from this post earlier in the thread:

 

 

Like I said earlier, I mean is that an LA5 over a forest would not disappear like that from 230 meters IRL. Not that I have seen an LA over a forest IRL but hundreds of other aircraft.

 

And I am fully aware that the devs have tested and flown old warbirds, talked to old pilots etc, and so have I, even though my WW2 birds list unfortunately only include the Tiger Moth. I have flown the Yak-52 that at least looks a bit like an old warbird, but naturally way to light etc. But is was fun for aerobatics. The only comparable plane to a WW2 warbird I have flown is actually the Saab SK-60 jet trainer that is a bit "more" in the other direction, but not that much actually looking at size, wheight and speed etc.

 

I guess that many of the devs have pilots licenses themselves as well. I also think that they agree with this problem but it is naturally not easy to fix in a way that does not use visual aids like small icons or outlines that will feel unrealistic to many. I guess the ROF way seems like the most probable candidate for acceptance in all camps if possible to do.

 

So - as I feel that the difficulty of spotting currently ruins the fun for me online where the opponents are much harder than offline, I guess I will have to spend more time flying IRL or with DCS where it works better - as going the WT route is not my cup of tea

 

I will however continue playing offline in BoX as I really love the game in 97% of it's implementation - and would appreciate if the devs could at least give us that think that spotting is to hard some more options for the "icons on mode" like this:

• Three different sizes of markers where the smallest is just a tiny wedge or "v" and the largest is what we have today.
• Three options for what the markers show:
  • Show nationality + aircraft / vehicle type (as today)
  • Show nationalilty
  • Only markers
• Marker render distance (short / medium / long)

 

That should be VERY easy to implement and then I could use smallest markers with no nationality myself offline as that would actually make the game a lot more realistic for me. And then we talk realism as a simulation and not what the screenshots would look like... And I want all the CEM, complex flight models etc so just because I feel that makes it more enjoyable to me does not mean that "I should go fly WT instead". That mentality in this forum is not helping the community grow as most are here to fly a good simulation of WW2 air warfare and not chasing pixels. It is especially bad for finding a truck parked somewhere on a field where agian reality is a lot easier.

 

So can we please stop saying that people that think spotting is too hard and have to resort to using icons on shoud sodd off and play WT / World of Warplanes? I guess people are here are ashamed to say they fly with icons on. Don't be. Spotting is way easier IRL.

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by mazex

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Seriously, 5 pages???  Putting halos or small v icons around aircraft is  just taking us into arcade territory. Just fly on servers with Icons on, or pop over to here

 

 As pointed out already, the Devs are revamping spotting/draw distance. Small, fast moving aircraft painted in camouflage, flying over trees are supposed to be hard to spot.

 

EDIT: Disregard these photographs as I didn't know at the time that these are edited pictures as pointed out by another community member.

I guess it kind of works for very large aircraft too?

  

 

 

Edit: Lets put a little distance between us. The shadow stands out because of the direction of the light but I'm having trouble spotting those wings.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by 6./ZG26_Custard
Updated information

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, mazex said:

See if you can spot the LA5 from 230 meters on Ultra settings from my 1440p monitor from this post earlier in the thread:

 

 

Okay I spotted that guy immediately and I'm on my phone. It would have been even easier in motion. Do you have a better example?

[JonRedcorn]

1 hour ago, mazex said:

 

No - people like me are generally complaining that it is harder in the "full real" mode to spot and identify aircraft at 200-500 meters than in "real life" tm. In many cases over forests you can lose track of aircraft even with a good 1440p monitor like I have. See if you can spot the LA5 from 230 meters on Ultra settings from my 1440p monitor from this post earlier in the thread:

 

 

Like I said earlier, I mean is that an LA5 over a forest would not disappear like that from 230 meters IRL. Not that I have seen an LA over a forest IRL but hundreds of other aircraft.

 

And I am fully aware that the devs have tested and flown old warbirds, talked to old pilots etc, and so have I, even though my WW2 birds list unfortunately only include the Tiger Moth. I have flown the Yak-52 that at least looks a bit like an old warbird, but naturally way to light etc. But is was fun for aerobatics. The only comparable plane to a WW2 warbird I have flown is actually the Saab SK-60 jet trainer that is a bit "more" in the other direction, but not that much actually looking at size, wheight and speed etc.

 

I guess that many of the devs have pilots licenses themselves as well. I also think that they agree with this problem but it is naturally not easy to fix in a way that does not use visual aids like small icons or outlines that will feel unrealistic to many. I guess the ROF way seems like the most probable candidate for acceptance in all camps if possible to do.

 

So - as I feel that the difficulty of spotting currently ruins the fun for me online where the opponents are much harder than offline, I guess I will have to spend more time flying IRL or with DCS where it works better - as going the WT route is not my cup of tea

 

I will however continue playing offline in BoX as I really love the game in 97% of it's implementation - and would appreciate if the devs could at least give us that think that spotting is to hard some more options for the "icons on mode" like this:

• Three different sizes of markers where the smallest is just a tiny wedge or "v" and the largest is what we have today.
• Three options for what the markers show:
  • Show nationality + aircraft / vehicle type (as today)
  • Show nationalilty
  • Only markers
• Marker render distance (short / medium / long)

 

That should be VERY easy to implement and then I could use smallest markers with no nationality myself offline as that would actually make the game a lot more realistic for me. And then we talk realism as a simulation and not what the screenshots would look like... And I want all the CEM, complex flight models etc so just because I feel that makes it more enjoyable to me does not mean that "I should go fly WT instead". That mentality in this forum is not helping the community grow as most are here to fly a good simulation of WW2 air warfare and not chasing pixels. It is especially bad for finding a truck parked somewhere on a field where agian reality is a lot easier.

 

So can we please stop saying that people that think spotting is too hard and have to resort to using icons on shoud sodd off and play WT / World of Warplanes? I guess people are here are ashamed to say they fly with icons on. Don't be. Spotting is way easier IRL.

 

 

 

You understand compressed Jpeg's posted on a gaming forum are not indicative of what the game looks like on an actual monitor while playing the game right?

[mazex]

51 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

You understand compressed Jpeg's posted on a gaming forum are not indicative of what the game looks like on an actual monitor while playing the game right?

 

Sigh, just guessing I think i know more than you - just now discussing how to lower the size of our huge image bank at GCP without losing quality for our CDN solutions when rescaling to fit different target devices etc.  The original is a lossless png, but imgur unfortunately converts them to jpeg. I would naturally prefer lossless webp myself instead. And you know you can click the image to get a full screen view? I would say that the jpeg compression on that full screen is not affecting the representation in any way that is significant from the real screen shot.

 

But this does not affect the fact that I consider that the LA in that shot is blending too much into the underlaying trees as it is lacking 3D depth, harder relective properties of the wings compared to the leaves, edge contrast, the moisture / pollution in the air that would make the forest less "vibrant" etc. An LA from 230 meters over a forest simply is easier to separate out from the trees IRL...

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, mazex said:

 

I will however continue playing offline in BoX as I really love the game in 97% of it's implementation - and would appreciate if the devs could at least give us that think that spotting is to hard some more options for the "icons on mode" like this:

• Three different sizes of markers where the smallest is just a tiny wedge or "v" and the largest is what we have today.
• Three options for what the markers show:
  • Show nationality + aircraft / vehicle type (as today)
  • Show nationalilty
  • Only markers
• Marker render distance (short / medium / long)

There is already a mod for this so it’s not something the Dev needs to work on

 

You’ll find that using icons or mods greatly restricts your choices online though. Hardly anyone uses either in multiplayer. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by SharpeXB

[JonRedcorn]

3 hours ago, mazex said:

 

Sigh, just guessing I think i know more than you - just now discussing how to lower the size of our huge image bank at GCP without losing quality for our CDN solutions when rescaling to fit different target devices etc.  The original is a lossless png, but imgur unfortunately converts them to jpeg. I would naturally prefer lossless webp myself instead. And you know you can click the image to get a full screen view? I would say that the jpeg compression on that full screen is not affecting the representation in any way that is significant from the real screen shot.

 

But this does not affect the fact that I consider that the LA in that shot is blending too much into the underlaying trees as it is lacking 3D depth, harder relective properties of the wings compared to the leaves, edge contrast, the moisture / pollution in the air that would make the forest less "vibrant" etc. An LA from 230 meters over a forest simply is easier to separate out from the trees IRL...

Hahaha how many la-5s have you been acquiring over Russian forests? You do a lot of dogfighting in real life I assume. 

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, mazex said:

 

No - people like me are generally complaining that it is harder in the "full real" mode to spot and identify aircraft at 200-500 meters than in "real life" tm. In many cases over forests you can lose track of aircraft even with a good 1440p monitor like I have. See if you can spot the LA5 from 230 meters on Ultra settings from my 1440p monitor from this post earlier in the thread:

 

 

Like I said earlier, I mean is that an LA5 over a forest would not disappear like that from 230 meters IRL. Not that I have seen an LA over a forest IRL but hundreds of other aircraft.

 

 

 

It didn’t disappear.  I can see it.  And I’m looking at it on a 12” iPad.  Also, in real life it would be moving, which makes it easier to spot.

 

I agree that aircraft sometimes “disappear” at long distances.  But that is probably a difficult problem to solve.  And I don’t agree with artificial spotting aids to fix it.

[sevenless]

There you have it. But I agree, it is damn hard to spot.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, mazex said:

But this does not affect the fact that I consider that the LA in that shot is blending too much into the underlaying trees as it is lacking 3D depth, harder relective properties of the wings compared to the leaves, edge contrast, the moisture / pollution in the air that would make the forest less "vibrant" etc. An LA from 230 meters over a forest simply is easier to separate out from the trees IRL...

The aircraft in the screenshot would be very easy to spot in actual gameplay because it would be moving and it’s very close. 

If you have trouble picking up on targets like this it’s because you’re used to relying on icons and that has spoiled your skills at seeing. 

Do yourself a favor and switch those off and never use them again. You’ll be glad you did. Icon graphics are a crutch and they destroy any realism in the action by making targets too visible. Yes displays aren’t up to replicating real world clarity but real world aircraft also don’t have bright colored graphics all over them either. Your eye will be drawn to those graphics and you’ll never develop any skills at seeing. 

And in this game relying on icons will basically prevent you from participating in multiplayer since none of the populated servers use them. In this or any other higher fidelity flight sim. 

[Voidhunger]

26 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The aircraft in the screenshot would be very easy to spot in actual gameplay because it would be moving and it’s very close. 

If you have trouble picking up on targets like this it’s because you’re used to relying on icons and that has spoiled your skills at seeing. 

Do yourself a favor and switch those off and never use them again. You’ll be glad you did. Icon graphics are a crutch and they destroy any realism in the action by making targets too visible. Yes displays aren’t up to replicating real world clarity but real world aircraft also don’t have bright colored graphics all over them either. Your eye will be drawn to those graphics and you’ll never develop any skills at seeing. 

And in this game relying on icons will basically prevent you from participating in multiplayer since none of the populated servers use them. In this or any other higher fidelity flight sim. 

I always play with icons off and is very hard for me to track target with trackir against ground.

like I said in another thread I sometimes need to pause the game and find the target which was in front of my eyes. and I need to use up and down view, because even in pause its hard to find the plane which I knew approx where it was.

Its extremely frustrating.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Voidhunger

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

I always play with icons off and is very hard for me to track target with trackir against ground.

like I said in another thread I sometimes need to pause the game and find the target which was in front of my eyes. and I need to use up and down view, because even in pause its hard to find the plane which I knew approx where it was.

Its extremely frustrating.

And that’s normal. In real combat pilots can lose sight of a target all the time. And sometimes you just don’t see stuff. 

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

7 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Seriously, 5 pages???  Putting halos or small v icons around aircraft is  just taking us into arcade territory. Just fly on servers with Icons on, or pop over to here

 

 

I at least was not talking about a ring or an icon around an aircraft. I was talking about an outline around an aircraft.

There´s no V over the aircraft or a ring around it, it´s simply about the outline of the aircraft being reinforced by lighter surroundings.

This is not something similar to War Thunder, it´s not something you will notice on its own, it´s something which simply makes something which shouldn´t vanish more visible.

 

Again, I repeat, it´s simply a technique, which many other games are using, to make something which should be visible, but isn´t due to engine limitations, visible.

It´s the same as using a reshade sharpening filter to see outlines better, but instead of making the whole game look shitty, which isn´t an option for me, it should only apply to planes at less than 500 m distance.

 

20 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

It is a requirement at 4K, unless you have 2080TI SLI.

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And that’s normal. In real combat pilots can lose sight of a target all the time. And sometimes you just don’t see stuff. 

Is it though? Should you lose a plane just a few hundred meters below you just because it flies over woods?

Because I doubt it.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by So_ein_Feuerball

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

It is a requirement at 4K, unless you have 2080TI SLI.

You don’t need to go that far to get a good 60 FPS in 4K. A single 1080 Ti will get really solid performance even at Ultra settings. 

IMO if your graphics card can’t get 60 FPS in 4K then stick with a 1440p display. Smooth FPS is more important than resolution. 

Sync features are more worthwhile for monitors with high refresh rates like 144hz. But 4K is currently limited to 60hz so it’s not much use there. 

31 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

 

I at least was not talking about a ring or an icon around an aircraft. I was talking about an outline around an aircraft.

There´s no V over the aircraft or a ring around it, it´s simply about the outline of the aircraft being reinforced by lighter surroundings.

 

Again, I repeat, it´s simply a technique, which many other games are using, to make something which should be visible, but isn´t due to engine limitations, visible.

Fixed that for you. Games can do artificial enhancement stuff like that but sims should not. 

34 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Should you lose a plane just a few hundred meters below you just because it flies over woods?

That’s why they say “lose sight lose the fight” because that can actually happen. Why do you think these aircraft had camouflage painted on them?

[mazex]

As the thread starter I hereby officially declare this thread as finished / depleted / done. We are just repeating our arguments the last four pages. 

 

90 minutes played. No goals. Get to the parking quickly to avoid the queues