Spotting.

[LColony_Kong]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The poll simply shows a 50/50 split between players who prefer “realistic” vs “fun”

Some of us think realistic IS fun 

And some of you think anything that is harder is more realistic. Alt spotting makes spotting above 25km too easy. Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. Seeing a plane 40km away has a far less significant effect on tactics than not seeing it under 10. Spotting things over 40km just looks stupid, missing them under 10km gets you dead.

 

Find the 110. Image taken from 4km with expert spotting.

 

 

Now you see them

 

Now you dont

 

[[DBS]TH0R]

8 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

And some of you think anything that is harder is more realistic. Alt spotting makes spotting above 25km too easy. Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. Seeing a plane 40km away has a far less significant effect on tactics than not seeing it under 10. Spotting things over 40km just looks stupid, missing them under 10km gets you dead.

 

This +1000

 

Harder is not more realistic. Simple as that.

 

EDIT: If we had "Alternate spotting" with a toned down inverted zoom and a cut off i.e. no rendering past 20-25 km, I am willing to bet we would see a much different / one sided poll results.

Edited October 12, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[LColony_Kong]

 

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. 

Aircraft under 10km are easy enough to see... realistically. And don’t use still images to try and make a point. Targets are moving and easier seen because of that. 

 

I get it that there’s a subset of players which for whatever reason just can’t seem to see anything in these games. That’s why you’ve got icons as an option. And now you’ve got Alternate Visibility. 

 

Flight sims have no better or worse visibility than any other game type. 

 

There are now three visibility options for you to choose from. If that’s not enough then perhaps it’s time to give it up and play Angry Birds. 

9 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Harder is not more realistic. Simple as that.

If they made this perfectly accurate many players would still complain that it’s too hard. 

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

rcraft under 10km are easy enough to see... realistically.

This is pure BS. Its such rubbish that I no longer think you are arguing in good faith.

 

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If that’s not enough then perhaps it’s time to give it up and play Angry Birds. 

Yes condescend when you dont have an argument.

 

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And don’t use still images to try and make a point. Targets are moving and easier seen because of that. 

Yes moving is easier. But still images are still valid if the target should have been seen even when still. And that 110 wasnt visible even when moving. he would flicker in and out of existence for long period and was able to make an attack run without any of the escorting 109s seeing him. his tracer fire erupted from mid air. And I also posted a video.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, YIPPEE said:

This is pure BS. Its such rubbish that I no longer think you are arguing in good faith.

I can see targets at that range just fine. Why you can’t is anybody’s guess.  But it’s nothing wrong with the game. 

 

The best improvement IL-2 could make for visibility would be this

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by SharpeXB

[[DBS]TH0R]

@SharpeXB like @YIPPEE said, stop with the condescending act, else you are eliminating yourself from the argument all together. And no matter how you tailor it, you do not represent the majority here. The poll is painfully evident about that.

 

The fact you don't have a problem and some people do with spotting doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the game. Term "bury one's head in the sand" fits the description here nicely.

 

And no, forcing people to buy new hardware, or in this case HDR monitors that are still in their infancy, isn't a solution to the problem - you just admitted exists btw. in that very thread.

Edited October 12, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

@SharpeXB like @YIPPEE said, stop with the condescending act, else you are eliminating yourself from the argument all together. And no matter how you tailor it, you do not represent the majority here. The poll is painfully evident about that.

 

The fact you don't have a problem and some people do with spotting doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the game. Term "bury one's head in the sand" fits the description here nicely.

 

And no, forcing people to buy new hardware, or in this case HDR monitors that are still in their infancy, isn't a solution to the problem - you just admitted exists btw. in that very thread.

It isn’t condescending to tell you want my experience is. This topic comes up so much in flight sims and when you delve into it a good part of the problem is the players themselves. Their hardware, expectations, gameplay habits etc. The game is not broken. 

 

Forum polls are generally meaningless. A 137 person sample of the 183,000 forum members who themselves probably represent a small fraction of actual owners. Servers could try announcing which setting they are running and take a sample of that attendance over time. That might be more meaningful. Right now people don’t even know what setting is being run. 

 

And HDR is not in its infancy. It’s in full implementation everywhere except niche PC games like this one. Every Xbox kiddie is running it. Anyways it would be a super good feature where this issue is concerned. 

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I can see targets at that range just fine.

No you cant. Not unless you are playing on a massive display, have extraordinary human eyesight compared to the average healthy human, or are redefining the word "fine" to mean something entirely outside the range of definitions a rational person would use.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The best improvement IL-2 could make for visibility would be this

HDR would help, but its long past the time you quite the BS of how modern displays are just fine and all we need is some HDR to solve all our problems. It is a counter factual. This is a easily researched subject which you are for some reason disinclined to acknowledge the facts regarding. Moreover, it is also a point of fact that HDR displays are not all that common, especially among PC's at the moment. Additionally, suggesting we all need to change our hardware to fix this issue is beyond absurd. It also requires software changes for the display to make the maximum difference. The differences between real world spotting also go beyond the contrast improvements HDR would bring. Humans see in binocular vision with a much wider fov than you get with a PC game. Objects appear much larger than they do on screens. Therefore some kind of scaling or other adjustment is needed to compensate for this. There are also innumerable other factors, including things like glint which the devs have done a good job of adding.

 

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It isn’t condescending to tell you want my experience is.

What a bunch of rubbish. You told us to go play angry birds. Insinuating that everyone who disagrees with you should go play arcade games is clearly an intended slight. It is also incidentally narcissistic and suggests that people who like phone games are lesser in their taste.

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

No you cant. Not unless you are playing on a massive display, have extraordinary human eyesight compared to the average healthy human, or are redefining the word "fine" to mean something entirely outside the range of definitions a rational person would use.

You said “under 10k”

I can definitely see aircraft in this game at under 10k. I’m sure most other players can too. Heck many people’s complaint was that the game stopped rendering them at that limit. Which was what drove the new visibility system we are debating. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by SharpeXB

[LColony_Kong]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can definitely see aircraft in this game at under 10k.

Right, so we are going to continue with the intentional gas lighting I see.

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. 

This was my original statement you reacted. Notice the key words "too hard." No where to do i say it is impossible to spot aircraft at 10km.

 

3 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

rcraft under 10km are easy enough to see... realistically.

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

can see targets at that range just fine.

These are your two responses to me. You know full well that we are talking about how hard it is to see things under 10km, not IF they can be seen. But you clearly are choosing to switch to claiming I said it was impossible when I called you on it.

 

Cut the crap.

[-250H-Ursus_]

If alternative mode didn't had that 40km rendering view everything could be different, off course changing a little the sizes at high distances. 

40km render just ruins the SA and turns everything into a berloga...

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

You know full well that we are talking about how hard it is to see things under 10km,

I think you are expecting it to be too easy. By any account it isn’t. Read AnPetrovich’s post

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

By any account it isn’t.

 

 

 

"Any account" Here are 826 other accounts.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

I haven't been following this controversial discussion for a few days, but I'm confused.  So Yippee, by the account you cited above, the real world detection distance for a T-38 sized aircraft ranges from about 8 kilometers to 14 kilometers..as a "dot" against the the background.  That means that the "Expert" spotting option is in the ballpark, while the one that is routinely allowing some players to spot at 25 k and beyond is way out there, and not realistic, according to the reference that you yourself cite.  I'm not saying that some improvement to the Expert Viz setting wouldn't be welcomed by many (they said they are done with it for the foreseable future, unfortunately), or that there aren't problems with it, but at the present time, one option is clearly the more realistic and less gamey of the two.  Spotting with the Expert settings can be frustrating as hell, and I certainly feel it, but we're doing simulation here, aren't we?

    Spotting under 10k is hard too, but it's definitely doable depending on the background.  I don't expect to see all things easily just because they are within 10 kilometers.

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[SharpeXB]

56 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

 

 

 

"Any account" Here are 826 other accounts.

 

 

You know the example you’re citing isn’t from WWII. The aircraft is a T-38 which is 50% longer than a 109. 46’ vs 30’. Depending on the aspect that aircraft presents a significantly larger profile than the fighters in IL-2GB

[LColony_Kong]

30 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

"dot"

A dot in the real world is not 1 or 2 pixels. This is also a generic description that you are reading alot into, and it describes the general appearance, not it size or clarity etc.

 

31 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

"Expert" spotting option is in the ballpark, while the one that is routinely allowing some players to spot at 25 k and beyond is way out there, and not realistic, according to the reference that you yourself cite.

Nope. Notice this is the average detection distance. Not the maximum spotting distance. These pilots were on average, with factors like workload playing their role, spotting contacts around 6nm away. A 6nm spot in il2 is an extreme spot. The average spotting distance in il2 would be closer to 2-4km, with the occasional spot beyond this.

 

33 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

but we're doing simulation here, aren't we?

Yes, which is why alot of other simulators did alot of things (like scaling) to fix these problems.

 

34 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

one option is clearly the more realistic and less gamey of the two.

Yes, alternate. Because seeing someone 40km away just looks bad (and is generally wrong), and not seeing someone at 6km kills you. Expert spotting is so bad that it is hard to fly realistic formation spacing. Making use of a top cover is nearly impossible due to it being impractical to keep track of anything from any range over 2km.

 

35 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

doable depending on the background

Doable is not what matters here. As I have shown from screenshots and videos, planes in il2 blend into the background so well that the players is impaired to a non-realistic degree. It is not realistic that entire formations of bombers can fly under a group of planes staring right at them and make it though, or that only one of them is seen.

[Legioneod]

Only problem I'm having is contacts popping in and out. I can see them from 10-20km out yet when I close to around 5km they disappear and I can't see them. They need to fix the rendering so that it's more gradual instead of having objects pop in and out/change size.

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

And some of you think anything that is harder is more realistic. Alt spotting makes spotting above 25km too easy. Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. Seeing a plane 40km away has a far less significant effect on tactics than not seeing it under 10. Spotting things over 40km just looks stupid, missing them under 10km gets you dead.

 

Find the 110. Image taken from 4km with expert spotting.

 

 

Now you see them

 

Now you dont

 

 

These examples are rather silly. Why are you in 3rd person? Do you fly arcade style? If so why do you care about realism? And this external viewpoint distorts the perceived distance to the target. “Now you see them” “Now you don’t” Am I not supposed to see the obviously visible targets in the second screenshot? They would be easily seen when they’re moving. Like they’re easy to see in your video. Are those supposed to be hard to see? What is this supposed to demonstrate?

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You know the example you’re citing isn’t from WWII. The aircraft is a T-38 which is 50% longer than a 109. 46’ vs 30’. Depending on the aspect that aircraft presents a significantly larger profile than the fighters in IL-2GB

Weird, I hear the sound of finger nails scraping the bottom of a barrel....

 

Every single ww2 fighter has slightly different proportions. A T-38 is perfectly adequate as an analogue to a general ww2 fighter. Significantly larger my ass.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Why are you in 3rd person?

This if anything, only helps the spotting since there is no glass or reflections.  So my case is conservative.

 

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Do you fly arcade style?

This is a track

 

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And this external viewpoint distorts the perceived distance to the target.

You completely made this up and it has no basis in fact.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Am I not supposed to see the obviously visible targets in the second screenshot? They would be easily seen when they’re moving. Like they’re easy to see in your video. Are those supposed to be hard to see? What is this supposed to demonstrate?

And this is where you are outright lying or your display setup or eyesight is extraordinary, all 3 of which invalidate your case. I showed this video to about 10 different people before I posted it here and not a single person could see the contacts you are claiming you see. In some cases the pixels are technically visible but the spot is not even remotely practical.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

Every single ww2 fighter has slightly different proportions. A T-38 is perfectly adequate as an analogue to a general ww2 fighter. 

How about finding an account from WWII like AnP cites here:

 

Here is a Russian military textbook about the air combat tactic, from 1945:

This textbook says:

 

 

Translation:
"27. Basic methods of spotting enemy aircrafts:
- the visual observation - the aircraft can be spotted as a dot at a distance 3000 - 5000 m, a group of bombers at a distance up to 7000 m"

[Guest deleted@83466]

@ Yippee

 

 

I can generally see planes within 10km, sometimes a little farther, depending on the background.  Sometimes it's hard.  That's realistic.  It's not a given.  You clearly want it to be easy.  Is it perfect rendition of real life...probably not, but I completely reject the argument that because of certain difficulties that you are having, that it's okay to do the 40+k thing instead.  You say being able to spot at 40k is not a problem, but not being able to spot within 10k will get you killed, and that the longer range spotting has little effect on tactics?   I argue that someone being able to routinely spot -you- or the knife-fight that you are in at 20 or 40k is quite dangerous to your health too.  It sounds to me that you ought to be playing on an Icon/label server:  You will spot them every time within 10k.

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

Making use of a top cover is nearly impossible due to it being impractical to keep track of anything from any range over 2km.

Sorry but it seems like you either have inadequate hardware or lack skills at seeing contacts. With practice, aircraft at this distance are easy enough to follow. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Sorry but it seems like you either have inadequate hardware or lack skills at seeing contacts. Aircraft at this distance are easy enough to follow. 

No they are not. And I have already posted empirical evidence to support this. And this is not a skill. Scanning technique can be a skill, but this has to do with the limits of the actual sensor available. In il2 everything blends into everything so well that you will never see more than 1/4th of the contacts 90% of the time. And you wont be able to keep track of even one unless that is all you are doing.

[nighthawk2174]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sorry but it seems like you either have inadequate hardware or lack skills at seeing contacts. With practice, aircraft at this distance are easy enough to follow. 

uhh what?!?!  I have he same issues and I know i'm not the only one so are we all bad and lack adequate hardware?  The other day I was flying and we were chasing a target, in order to see him from under 2km I was zoomed all the way in just to keep track of him.  At which point we went into a merge where me and my lead thought there were maybe at most 2ish hostiles and 1-2 friendlies.  Turns out upon futher review there was 12-14 bandits and 6-9 friendlies all within 5-8km of each other and we never saw one of them.  Even with scanning around (after killing aforementioned bandit) just not see 'due to a lack of skill'  the get gud argument doesn't really work here sorry.  So how can me and my flight lead (who has years of experience in WWII flight sims).  Even a person who I fly with who is a rlf a10 pilot thinks the expert spotting is very very bad for sub 10km spotting.  And is fine with the ocational spot at 40km if it means sub 10km is accurate (which he thinks the alt spotting is).

Edited October 13, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[Guest deleted@83466]

Then you should be lobbying the developers to improve the Expert vis setting, not trying to sell Arcade Mode spotting to everyone else as "more realistic" because the facts presented about real-life spotting just don't support that.

[LColony_Kong]

7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

can generally see planes within 10km, sometimes a little farther, depending on the background.

No, in il2 you spot 1 of ten planes that are actually there at that range.

 

8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Sometimes it's hard.  That's realistic. 

No it is not, at least not relative to this game.

 

8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

argue that someone being able to routinely spot -you- or the knife-fight that you are in at 20 or 40k is quite dangerous to your health too

And you would be wrong in point of fact.  If you spot a contact in il2 at 40km your odds of reaching this target before it is killed, or you lose track of it are minuscule compared to the tactical relevance of a contact at 6-10km.

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

27. Basic methods of spotting enemy aircrafts:
- the visual observation - the aircraft can be spotted as a dot at a distance 3000 - 5000 m, a group of bombers at a distance up to 7000 m"

If you actually read the book, this is a general pilots handbook and not a technical study of spotting. Given that this was based on "the general combat experience" one does wonder how they even tabulated this figure.

[nighthawk2174]

11 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

If you actually read the book, this is a general pilots handbook and not a technical study of spotting. Given that this was based on "the general combat experience" one does wonder how they even tabulated this figure.

+1

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

 

And you would be wrong in point of fact

 

 

lol.  Taking your subjective opinion and presenting it as "fact" isn't fooling anyone.   My own experience in IL-2 and RoF, probably several thousand multiplayer hours, doesn't support your theories-presented-as-fact about what is important and not-important.

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Taking your subjective opinion and presenting it as "fact" isn't fooling anyone.

It doesnt need to because it is not subjective opinion. It is a point of fact that keeping track of anything in il2 under 10km is considerably more difficult than it is in reality and that the typical player with non-extraordinary display hardware cannot see contacts with any degree of SA. Contacts in il2 are routinely for all intensive purposes invisible when they should not be. And I have already posted a number of screenshots and a video as non-subjective evidence.

[Guest deleted@83466]

One of the guys I've been flying IL-2 with lately is an active duty fighter pilot, and believe me, the subject of visibility both in game and real world has been quite a hot topic.  He says that Expert vis is much closer to reality than Alternative and prefers it.   So assert as "objective fact" all you like.  Sounds like you have a lot of wrong expectations for how easy spotting should be, or maybe you just have to practice a lot more to develop your SA.  Like I said, you should play on an Icon server, it will give you everything you need.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

One of the guys I've been flying IL-2 with lately is an active duty fighter pilot, and believe me, the subject of visibility both in game and real world has been quite a hot topic.  He says that Expert vis is much closer to reality than Alternative and prefers it. 

What a coincidence. Because one of people I fly with is also an active duty fighter pilot, and one of his biggest grips is how crap the spotting in this game is. And I will, all 829 additional examples to boot.

 

And another fighter pilot on this forum @busdriverhas also commented on how spotting in this game is immensely frustrating compared to real life. Airplanes 1.5km away should not be disappearing into the ground 75% of the time.

Edited October 13, 2019 by YIPPEE

[Guest deleted@83466]

6 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

What a coincidence. Because one of people I fly with is also an active duty fighter pilot, and one of his biggest grips is how crap the spotting in this game is. And I will, all 829 additional examples to boot.

 

I'm not sure what "829 examples" you are citing, but I doubt many of them involve spotting at 30 miles.  You appear to be having tremendous problems that others just don't appear to have spotting within 10k. Nobody says it is optimal or perfect or that there isn't room for improvement.  The reality is, a lot of people who like realism in flight simulation aren't going to go along with the Alternate vision system that addresses -your- problems by giving everyone Uberviz, doubles, triples, or quadruples common spotting distances from real life.  That's a "fact" for you ?

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

And this is not a skill. Scanning technique can be a skill, 

Keeping aware of your situation is a skill.  How about practice more and complain less. 

or get your eyes checked

or get a better monitor

or stop screwing up your graphic settings by following some silly advice on the forum

 

That’s all you can do. Change yourself to match the game because the game won’t change to match you.

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I'm not sure what "829 examples" you are citing, but I doubt many of them involve spotting at 30 miles.  You appear to be having tremendous problems that others just don't appear to have spotting within 10k. 

What about the above studies?  In fact how many scientific studies do you have to support your views as i'm seeing a definite lack of scientific support for your argument here.

 

 

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

 

I'm not sure what "829 examples" you are citing, but I doubt many of them involve spotting at 30 miles.  You appear to be having tremendous problems that others just don't appear to have spotting within 10k. 

 

Agreed with the fist sentiment but the expert mode is not realistic I just hope over time more and more people will come to realize that.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

but I doubt many of them involve spotting at 30 miles. 

Which I have not been arguing for, and you know this. This is called moving the goalposts.

 

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

others just don't appear to have spotting within 10k

No I have tremendous problems with people who are disingenuous about their experience, or assume facts into their experience because they cant analyze data in a way that accounts for various factors. Or people who might be playing the game with extraordinary hardware and cant understand that others do not.

 

4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

The reality is, a lot of people who like realism in flight simulation aren't going to go along with the Alternate vision system that addresses -your- problems by giving everyone Uberviz.

And based on a certain poll, the opposite is also true. So your point is moot.

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

And another fighter pilot on this forum @busdriverhas also commented on how spotting in this game is immensely frustrating compared to real life. 

No sh*t. The real world isn’t on a computer screen. I think this sim is probably too difficult for you. Either practice and adapt or realize this isn’t the thing for you and move on. 

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Keeping aware of your situation is a skill.  How about practice more and complain less. 

or get your eyes checked

or get a better monitor

or stop screwing up your graphic settings by following some silly advice on the forum

 

That’s all you can do. Change yourself to match the game because the game won’t change to match you.

Kind of hard to practice spotting (which isn't a skill I don't know why you don't get this) when the object is literally invisible.  And yes I have I have slightly above average vision.  A) that's not cheap and B) what do you mean by a good monitor mine seem perfectly adiquite for the job in sims with good spoting like aces high and bms.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

No sh*t. The real world isn’t on a computer screen. I think this sim is probably too difficult for you. Either practice and adapt or realize this isn’t the thing for you and move on. 

At this point i'm more inclined to believe you are purposely trolling then to relive that you actually believe this...

[SharpeXB]

Just now, nighthawk2174 said:

mine seem perfectly adiquite for the job in sims with good spoting like aces high and bms.

Are you serious? Aces High is ancient and BMS has this silly scaling that makes the targets twice their size. 

No wonder you have problems here. 

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

or get your eyes checked

or get a better monitor

or stop screwing up your graphic settings by following some silly advice on the forum

Here we are again with more condescension designed to deflect the obvious facts of the matter. 

 

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Change yourself to match the game because the game won’t change to match you.

Heaven forbid that this game ever changes one day Sharpe, you might just have to change to adapt! I remember years back you made this same nonsense argument and lo and behold, the devs have made some changes to help the spotting. You must be having a hard time.