nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Just now, SharpeXB said: 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. You do realize your point on this was so utterly proven nonsensical and plain out wrong on other forums right? Edited October 13, 2019 by nighthawk2174
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said: Aces High is ancient Whatever this has to do with anything.... 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said: BMS has this silly scaling that makes the targets twice their size No it makes them the correct size. There is a difference. Weird how all the "hard core" players in the BMS community dont seem to have a problem with it.
Guest deleted@83466 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Not being disingenous about my experience at all. I have MANY problems spotting within 10 kilometers in the game. I don't assume it should be easy. I also can see things with my own eyes in the real world which confirm that spotting a small object against various backgrounds can be difficult. My opinion on the matter has consistently been that continued tuning and optimization of the visibility system would be desireable; Only the developers can make that decision to do so. Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: No sh*t. The real world isn’t on a computer screen. Oh so you do understand! Progress!
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SeaSerpent said: Not being disingenous about my experience at all. I have MANY problems spotting within 10 kilometers in the game. I don't assume it should be easy. I also can see things with my own eyes in the real world which confirm that spotting a small object against various backgrounds can be difficult. My opinion on the matter has consistently been that continued tuning and optimization of the visibility system would be desireable; Only the developers can make that decision to do so. More so difficult in getting your eyes into the right spot than actually seeing. Also on the last point yes and hopefully they will impove the alt vision even more fixing the above 20km visibility and imprving the contrast and vision sub 10km.
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: I have MANY problems spotting within 10 kilometers in the game. good than we agree. 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: easy. This is a meaningless term. 3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: small object against various backgrounds can be difficult. Not as difficult as it is in the game, not even close. We even had another real pilot who started a thread not long ago on one of the issues regarding planes blending into trees. 1
Guest deleted@83466 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Basically, you are asserting as "fact" that other peoples real-life experience in spotting things and their experience in this game are simply not as accurate, true, or relevant as your own. You reject the math that demonstrates that "Expert" is closer to reality; and you even cite sources which you claim support your argument, but really seem like a great endorsement of "Expert" vis settings, not Alternate. That's laughable. I never argued that spotting within 10k can't be improved or that viewing things on a 2D monitor of a given resolution is not easier or harder for some people. I never argued that some allowances shouldn't be made to compensate for seeing things on a computer screen. However, a binary choice has been forced upon us, and upon the server operators. I just vehemently disagree that addressing some problems in the "Expert" vis systems by going all-out in the opposite direction with Arcade-vision is desireable. Maybe for you, but not for a lot of others. I believe it dumbs down the game. You can continue to assert as "fact" all you like. You can argue and counter argue all night. It doesn't make you any more correct. Frankly, you are starting to bore me now. Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said: You do realize your point on this was so utterly proven nonsensical and plain out wrong on other forums right? If you’re playing BMS with silly scaling you’re handicapping yourself at every other current sim. That’s the reason you are so terrible at spotting. 2 1
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SharpeXB said: If you’re playing BMS with silly scaling you’re handicapping yourself at every other current sim. That’s the reason you are so terrible at spotting. Lol at this point I see everything you say as unrionically trolling... as the ed forum user Tippis said to you saying "And I’m not reading it because it’s all gibberish." to scientific studies
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: No it makes them the correct size. Ok so remember when I said visibility was a player created problem? This is one reason. Taking the silly scaling system from one game and having it handicap you in others. BMS renders aircraft at about twice the size as they are here. Like a 2x factor at 3 miles or something. I’m not going to argue about how wrong this is. But it’s what’s handicapping you in this game. The spotting troubles you have aren’t due to this game but a crutch you’ve acquired from another. No other flight sim is likely to adopt silly scaling so you’ll have to choose what you get accustomed to. You’re creating your own problem in IL-2
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: experience in this game are simply not as accurate, true, or relevant as your own. No I am asserting through specific empirical evidence that other people are pretty bad at recounting their own in game experiences. Most people put alot of assumptions in their supposed observations. 5 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: You even reject the math that demonstrates that "Expert" is closer to reality If by math, you mean the 1 minute of angle thing....you should know this is false. Only a single eye sees at this minute of angle. But you have TWO. With two eyes most people can achieve around 0.3-0.5 minute of angle. there are also other factors at play that enhance vision. Your brain builds a picture that is more than the sum of the parts. 7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: and you even cite sources which you claim support your argument, but really seem like a great endorsement of "Expert" vis settings, not Alternate. No rational interpretation of what I posted is an endorsement of the current expert settings. 9 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: It doesn't make you any more correct. how very defensive. 10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: Just vehemently disagree that addressing that going all-out in the opposite direction is an appropriate alternative. Well I haven't heard a single argument yet that explains how the improvements to spotting at closer ranges outweighs the rather meaningless ability to spot someone at extreme distances. Im waiting.
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992128&postcount=97 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992196&postcount=115 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992242&postcount=131 I mean how many times do you have to be told and shown your wrong (and admittedly willfully so) on this? Worse than arguing with a brick wall.
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said: Lol at this point I see everything you say as unrionically trolling... as the ed forum user Tippis said to you saying "And I’m not reading it because it’s all gibberish." to scientific studies Please don’t turn this forum into the deranged ravings on this topic that goes on with DCS. Although 1CGS just stepped into the same mistake ED did. 1
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: Like a 2x factor at 3 miles or something. There is a paper on this that explains why this is correct. 2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: I’m not going to argue about how wrong this is. This is because you dont have any data to back your position up. Your argument all these years has been "HDR solves all problems that dont exist" 1
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, YIPPEE said: There is a paper on this that explains why this is correct. This is because you dont have any data to back your position up. Your argument all these years has been "HDR solves all problems that dont exist" +1
Guest deleted@83466 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km? No? Then I guess Alternate vision isn't realistic. Sorry. That's really what it comes down to. What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon/Fast Food/Dueling server, but doesn't want to admit it. Goodnight, pal, can't waste any more time trying to reason with the unreasonable. Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SeaSerpent said: Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km? No? Then I guess Alternate vision isn't realistic. Sorry. That's really what it comes down to. What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon server, but doesn't want to admit it. Is it any more realistic to not see a HE111 when its within 2km from you?
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SeaSerpent said: Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km? Never argued it was. And you know this. 1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said: Sorry. That's really what it comes down to. What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon server, but doesn't want to admit it. Yes, completely ignore the points I made about which one is worse since since both are wrong. I will wait until you actually try to explain to me how it is better to sacrifice better spotting in close because I can see something at ranges that are so far away they do not matter. 1
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, YIPPEE said: Yes, completely ignore the points I made about which one is worse since since both are wrong. I will wait until you actually try to explain to me how it is better to sacrifice better spotting in close because I can see something at ranges that are so far away they do not matter. I'm waiting for this too...
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: Can you routinely spot BF-109 sized things at 40 or 50 km? No? Then I guess Alternate vision isn't realistic. Sorry. That's really what it comes down to. What we're dealing with here is someone who really should be flying on an Icon server, but doesn't want to admit it. It really is pretty flabbergasting the degree to which you can shift goalposts and ignore the present arguments as they are given. You ability to pretend like you dont understand what Im saying is astounding. And you wonder how I find you disingenuous. 2
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992128&postcount=97 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992196&postcount=115 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992242&postcount=131 I mean how many times do you have to be told and shown your wrong (and admittedly willfully so) on this? Worse than arguing with a brick wall. The Serfloss stuff is total BS and bottom line is you people have f*ed yourselves up using it in BMS. Now you can’t see crap in this game but that’s your own fault.
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SharpeXB said: The Serfloss stuff is total BS and bottom line is you people have f*ed yourselves up using it in BMS. Now you can’t see crap in this game but that’s your own fault. may I point you back to this:
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said: The Serfloss stuff is total BS And the basis for this statement is?
Aap Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: I will wait until you actually try to explain to me how it is better to sacrifice better spotting in close ... So, does this "alternate" setting give better spotting in close? Just curious.
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, II./JG77_Kemp said: So, does this "alternate" setting give better spotting in close? Just curious. Yes for sure sub 10km is greatly improved as objects don't just blank out of existence (as often) and it is truly now possible to see stuff that's on the deck from 25kft (7.62 km).
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 14 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: There is a paper on this that explains why this is correct. The paper is this bullshit study done by a video gamer for a philosophy degree. The video displays are 2003 technology and totally irrelevant to a game like this today. It was based upon a very specific display. I doubt it was ever used in any real simulator because depicting aircraft out of scale is super problematic. You people have screwed yourselves up playing BMS with this stuff which is why you have so much trouble here. Again, visibility trouble is in many ways a player created problem. 1CGS can’t fix that.
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said: The paper is this bullshit study done by a video gamer for a philosophy degree. The video displays are 2003 technology and totally irrelevant to a game like this today. It was based upon a very specific display. I doubt it was ever used in any real simulator because depicting aircraft out of scale is super problematic. You people have screwed yourselves up playing BMS with this stuff which is why you have so much trouble here. Again, visibility trouble is in many ways a player created problem. 1CGS can’t fix that. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992196&postcount=115 Edited October 13, 2019 by nighthawk2174
Guest deleted@83466 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: Never argued it was. And you know this. Yes, completely ignore the points I made about which one is worse since since both are wrong. I will wait until you actually try to explain to me how it is better to sacrifice better spotting in close because I can see something at ranges that are so far away they do not matter. if you don't understand the significance of ultra-long range spotting, then you clearly don't have a great understanding of air combat. I've read several accounts already in other threads about the Alternative, ultra-long range spotting leading to a certain airquake mentality similar to what is found on the Icon/Dueling servers, because its so easy to see where everyone else is at, and everyone naturally flies to the furball. Also, you are putting forth as a given that shorter range spotting is seriously flawed and that it should be much easier. I've repeatedly said that it could probably be improved or tweaked to better account for the limitations of viewing on a computer screen, but frankly I don't accept your assertion that it is that far off of reality. I find spotting difficult, yes, but everything I've seen in this thread, other threads, and with my own two eyes indicates that it often times -is- difficult. Goodnight, now. I've seen what you have to say, and far from convincing me, you've strengthened my belief that Alternative Vis is not the correct choice for people who value the simulation in Flight Simulation. Hopefully there will be servers for you to play with your Alternate Vis option, and hopefully there will be servers that allow me to fly with Expert vis. Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Just now, SeaSerpent said: if you don't understand the importance of ultra-long range spotting, then you clearly don't have a great understanding of air combat. I've read several accounts already in other threads about the Alternative spotting leading to a certain airquake mentality similar to what is found on the Icon/Dueling servers. Also, you are putting forth as a given that shorter range spotting is seriously flawed and that it should be much easier. I've repeatedly said that it could probably be improved or tweaked to better account for the limitations of viewing on a computer screen, but frankly I don't accept your assertion that it is that far off of reality. I find spotting difficult, yes, but everything I've seen in this thread, other threads, and with my own two eyes indicates that it often times -is- difficult. Goodnight, now. I've seen what you have to say, and far from convincing me, you've strengthened my belief that Alternative Vis is not the correct choice for people who value the simulation in Flight Simulation. Hopefully there will be servers for you to play with your Alternate Vis option, and hopefully there will be servers that allow me to fly with Expert vis. I mean it was already there just you could never see it before... thought there was 1-2 bandits turns out there was this number Edited October 13, 2019 by nighthawk2174
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992196&postcount=115 WTF cares what math text wall guy on ED says? Bottom line is you guys have screwed yourselves up with this stupid scaling sh*t. No other flight sim uses stupid scaling so you’re screwed if you keep depending on it.
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, SharpeXB said: WTF cares what math text wall guy on ED says? Bottom line is you guys have screwed yourselves up with this stupid scaling sh*t. No other flight sim uses stupid scaling so you’re screwed if you keep depending on it. only if you'd actually bother to read the papers
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said: So, does this "alternate" setting give better spotting in close? Just curious. Yes it does. Close being everything from 5-15km. Then there is a shift at close range where the affect is less noticeable or not there. 12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: The paper is this bullshit study done by a video gamer for a philosophy degree. So no criticism of the actual content then. Gotcha. 13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: You people have screwed yourselves up playing BMS with this stuff which is why you have so much trouble here. more baseless ad hominem 14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: The video displays are 2003 technology and totally irrelevant to a game like this today. It was based upon a very specific display. Clearly you didnt read it very carefully.
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 Just now, nighthawk2174 said: only if you'd actually bother to read the papers The “paper” is some video gamer philosophy major’s idea for video games disguised as research. And even if you try to take it seriously it’s all calibrated around a certain display. In order for it to be implemented with any correctness in a real game, the sim would have to somehow detect your monitor size and viewing distance.
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: if you don't understand the importance of ultra-long range spotting, then you clearly don't have a great understanding of air combat. Please, where is the specific explanation of how spotting a contact at 40km is worse than missing it at 10 or 6. Still waiting. 11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said: Also, you are putting forth as a given that shorter range spotting is seriously flawed and that it should be much easier. I've repeatedly said that it could probably be improved or tweaked to better account for the limitations of viewing on a computer screen, but frankly I don't accept your assertion that it is that far off of reality. It is, because this is in the peripheral zone of vision. I would love to hear the rational on how non-scaling rendering of ANY object in a video game could possibly be even close to reality considering the huge differences in effect resolution, contrast, lighting etc. It isnt just a given that this is the case, your point of view is materially impossible.
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: Yes it does. Good for you. Now you can check that box in your graphics settings and stop complaining.
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: The “paper” is some video gamer philosophy major’s idea for video games disguised as research. Ad hominem. Argument from authority. Misunderstanding of the actual content of the paper. No specific argument as to how any of the it is wrong. Sharpe you have been going at this one for years and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence posted yet. I am still waiting for you to provide some specific reason as to how any of the calculations or rationals in that paper are wrong. "gamer" Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory. He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems. Thats "dr. gamer" to you Edited October 13, 2019 by YIPPEE
nighthawk2174 Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said: The “paper” is some video gamer philosophy major’s idea for video games disguised as research. And even if you try to take it seriously it’s all calibrated around a certain display. In order for it to be implemented with any correctness in a real game, the sim would have to somehow detect your monitor size and viewing distance. At this point I just outright believe you are purposely lieing soooo pls stop posting on stuff you know nothing about
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 14 minutes ago, YIPPEE said: philosophy major’ Almost missed this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
SharpeXB Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 46 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992196&postcount=115 Is that all you can do? Post the same stupid nonsense link over and over?
LColony_Kong Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 1 minute ago, SharpeXB said: Is that all you can do? Post the same stupid nonsense link over and over? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
Recommended Posts