Jump to content

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

beginning to see a dot on average at 8km

This is not quite right, and what you said right after this makes my the point. The dot at 8km is not just a spec (maybe if head on). This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible. The reason you see this as the average distance is because as range decreases the angular distance between foveal fixations goes down. Each eye is making several fixations per second, and homogenizing this into a "minds eye" image. The 4-7nm average detection range just happens to coincide with the area where the fixations are coming closer and just before the 2.5nm and below peripheral zone where virtually anything should be detected in short order.

 

image.thumb.png.7631cc5f912ca994655d6bab5906583d.pngimage.png.0889318c92c348853e4d27da3f2fcde9.png

Edited by YIPPEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated, the average pilot begins to see a dot at 8km. This is exactly what your source states. I can pick up a dot in game at ranges of 10k plus, sometimes 12. This without knowing where it is. So better than the average in real life. I can track a contact in game out to 25km, this lines up well with what the source you reference states.

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

As stated, the average pilot begins to see a dot at 8km. This is exactly what your source states.

 

In the book The Ace Factor: Air Combat and the Role of Situational Awareness (1988) the author (Mike Spick)  produced a chart for average spotting distances for pilots over the western front.

 Biplane, head on – range 1 to 2 miles
Aircraft  Banking – 2 to 4 miles
Dogfight or a formation  4 -6 miles

This was also dependent on weather/atmospheric conditions and the time of day etc.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

This is not quite right, and what you said right after this makes my the point. The dot at 8km is not just a spec (maybe if head on). This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible. The reason you see this as the average distance is because as range decreases the angular distance between foveal fixations goes down. Each eye is making several fixations per second, and homogenizing this into a "minds eye" image. The 4-7nm average detection range just happens to coincide with the area where the fixations are coming closer and just before the 2.5nm and below peripheral zone where virtually anything should be detected in short order.

 

image.thumb.png.7631cc5f912ca994655d6bab5906583d.pngimage.png.0889318c92c348853e4d27da3f2fcde9.png

You should find examples using WWII era fighters. This example is citing MiG-21s and F-14s which are very much larger aircraft than we have in IL-2 for those aircraft. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


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

I can pick up a dot in game at ranges of 10k plus, sometimes 12

No, in il2 you occasionally get a dot at 10km. Meanwhile you miss the other 6 at 2km. And 3 others at 8km etc. Il2s spotting is incredibly inconsistent, even when looking right at it. The problem is not what you can technically see, its what can be seen easily enough to be considered average. What you should be seeing is frequent spots at 4-7nm's with a much higher ability to require once taking your eyes off it so the player doesnt have to track it in zoom constantly. And occasionally getting spots at even greater ranges 17km or so, with the sort of rarity we currently get contacts from 8-12.

 

You can sometimes see airplanes in DCS from over 10nm away.  No one thinks the spotting in that game is reasonable. Again, this is not about max spotting distance, or what you occasionally spot.

 

Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you are half blind in real life.

Edited by YIPPEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

No, in il2 you occasionally get a dot at 10km. Meanwhile you miss the other 6 at 2km. And 3 others at 8km etc. Il2s spotting is incredibly inconsistent, even when looking right at it. The problem is not what you can technically see, its what can be seen easily enough to be considered average. What you should be seeing is frequent spots at 4-7nm's with a much higher ability to require once taking your eyes off it so the player doesnt have to track it in zoom constantly. And occasionally getting spots at even greater ranges 17km or so, with the sort of rarity we currently get contacts from 8-12.

 

Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you are half blind in real life.


Yep I see exactly what you suggest I should see/get in Il2, and Therein lies the dilemma, you don’t, but I do. I don’t have issues seeing stuff all the way out to 10km rarely miss them in Il2. Beyond that it’s a toss up. Occasionally I am seeing glitches where planes pop out at lower ranges in front of my eyes but I only noticed that in the alternate setting.

 

and nope, 20/10 vision thank you very much.

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Yep I see exactly what you suggest I should see/get in Il2, and Therein lies the dilemma, you don’t, but I do.

Nope. No you dont, not unless you have a huge screen. The game is the same for everyone. If you have normal vision, you are seeing the exact same thing I am. No one in this game is seeing contacts at 10-12km as the average spotting distance as I just described. If you are claiming otherwise you either do not know what you are missing, are being disingenuous, or dont understand what you should be seeing based on my description above.

 

This is pointless if were going to sit here and entertain counter-factual claims. Ive already showed plenty of screenshots and videos showing that spotting at long and short distances is absurdly inconsistent. For every contact spotted at 10km, even 2km, there are generally 10 others that should be detectable that are not. In many cases a contact is invisible even if you look right at it.  Anyone who says otherwise at this point does not know what they are missing or is just ignoring the facts.

Edited by YIPPEE
  • Sad 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is not quite right, and what you said right after this makes my the point. The dot at 8km is not just a spec (maybe if head on). This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible. The reason you see this as the average distance is because as range decreases the angular distance between foveal fixations goes down. Each eye is making several fixations per second, and homogenizing this into a "minds eye" image. The 4-7nm average detection range just happens to coincide with the area where the fixations are coming closer and just before the 2.5nm and below peripheral zone where virtually anything should be detected in short order.

 

image.thumb.png.7631cc5f912ca994655d6bab5906583d.pngimage.png.0889318c92c348853e4d27da3f2fcde9.png

 

You just disproved yourself. A plane 2/3rds the size a Mig-21 (most fighters we have ingame) is spotable by  2/3rds the abovementioned distance OR above.

Additionally looking down from 11km to ground to spot a usually white plane in its most exposed top view while looking through a less dense atmosphere is not something I'd consider surprising.

 

Digital representation of contacts has its issues and is not as natural as IRL, but the actual ranges correspond quite well.

 

Actually been on the "spotting should be a lot further" train some time ago - after starting to fly gliders it hit me hard however, that most of the time it wasn't easy to spot other planes just a few km out. Sometimes one plane would suddenly pop into view a kilometer away and they didn't even see me in some atmospheric and lighting conditions. Spotting is a pain - thats why I'm fine with have an improved artificial spotting system (although current one needs to have some reduction for far objects and bugfixing for closer targets it seems).

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Spotting is a pain - thats why I'm fine with have an improved artificial spotting system

A thousand times this! It is not only a pain, but also for the most part an aquired ability. 

 

7 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

If you have normal vision, you are seeing the exact same thing I am.

No. If you share a thermal flying a glider with five other gliders it may well be that you see only four of them. The one that can cut off your tail with its wing is the one you never saw until it was too late.

 

Spotting is a technique that you have to teach to both pilots and AAA gunners as part of SA. It requires both proper scanning technique and a resting focus set to infinite. Us working on computer screens today are heavily challenged in that. I still habe a better vision than most, yet often I find it disturbing how long it takes me to spot other aircraft that announce on the radio joining me in the pattern over an airfield. Looking at the sheer number of midair collisions over airfields (remember, of all places this is where you must expect traffic!) I am not alone with that.

 

The ability to see has not much to do with spotting. It is just a requirement. Just because there‘s water doesn‘t mean you can swim.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is pointless if were going to sit here and entertain counter-factual claims. 

 
Yep, on this we agree. What about the photo I shared of the airliner less than 2km away that is already incredibly small?

 

I find it amusing that you are so sure of what I personally can see and cannot see in IL2. In any case, I personally find it easier in the normal mode than it is in real life.

 

Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you have ever tried to spot a plane while flying in real life. 

 

image.png.f05c8067d443579814e9975da7d18078.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 4:27 PM, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

 

Ya, where did that come from?  The way I see it, Expert is too short (~10km) and Alternative is too far (>=40km).  I think 25km would be a good distance for aircraft spotting in perfect conditions and would deteriorate from there based on haze, etc. 

 

The other problem is that when you spot something and zoom in it disappears.  Maybe it shouldn't resolve it better at far distance when zoomed but the plane should never disappear.

 

The aircraft disappearing issue, I believe, is only seen in with Alternate Visibility when you approach them. It seems that in MP when the system has to turn off the rescalling, if there is some lag, the aircraft takes too long to re-render and disappears. The regular mode ("expert" as some call it) doesn't seem to suffer from the issue as the aircraft does not rescale as far as I know. The expert one is very reallistic in terms of far contact spotting since it makes it highly dependant on angles and light conditions. If those change as it does during a flight since you and the contact are moving, it os only natural to see contacts not be visible anymore until those aforementioned conditions are again favorable for spotting. This does not mean the aircraft has disappeared at all. The ac still there. Under favorable conditions, in Expert mode, you can clearly see contacts between 10 to 20km so your claim that this mode is only around 10km is incorrect.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 6:35 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

Agreed, although I haven't noticed the issue of targets disappearing when zooming in i'll take peoples word for it.  It would be nice if this could get fixed.  Although I do want to add, on that front, imo the fact that you can see targets from reasonable ranges without zooming in all the way like in expert and pre-expert modes is nice.  With this aspect being on of the alt spottings best changes.  Zooming in severally limits your SA and ability to keep visual on your flight lead.  So being able to see stuff at realistic distances without zooming I hope that stays.  As Thor said pixel hunting is not realistic.

 

Since you are in a game and airplanes in such game are represented as pixels, pixel hunting represents airplane hunting. There is nothing more to it. It is a game and regardless of how hard or close we get to the real thing, it will never be the real thing. As it stands, the expert mode is the closer we have. 

On 10/15/2019 at 2:08 AM, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

 

And therein lies the biggest problem, of not understanding the problem in the first place.

 

I will re-post again, here is one example of "pixel spotting" we currently have in-game:

 

This example is why some people (me included) stick to the ALT system even though we do not like its rendering range and huge blobs in the distance.

 

 

And at the same time, harder does not equal near impossible.

 

Where does this request of seeing contacts at 40K come from, who asked for that???

 

Hell, I'd be happy with 15km if only I could see things around me. And I know what I can and cannot spot with my own two eyes.

 

Before you jump on me for not being able to spot, mind you I have over 15 years of experience flying flight sims on full difficulty settings. And I am perfectly aware of the techniques of how to track and spot aircraft, and most of the time I have good SA.

 

 

Who is stopping you from using zoom? It can still be used after a certain range when the target gets closer (for ID). The ALT version where the dot stays the same size no matter the zoom level is a very nice compromise to bridge the gap of featuring peripheral vision you get in real life. As a real pilot (I am assuming here) yourself - why do you oppose the novelty feature trying to simulate more realistic in-game visibility system?

 

Why do people oppose changes for the better? The fact it didn't go as planed from the first attempt, doesn't mean devs should abort their attempts at fixing the problem.

 

Because these changes are not for the better. That is your opinion just like he has his. For him and many others, spotting people from 40km away all the time is unrealistic. That is our opnnion and you can have yours but you will realize that most of those who have real flying experience will agree that spotting enlarged planes at 40km away is not what they experience in RL. Do what you want with that notion. I dont expect to change your mind in the subject and understand why some people want to have better visibility to make the game easier but, at on point or another, we should ask urselves regardless of the issues seem in both system what is more realistic? I can play in both settings and I take the AV for what it is. An arcade approach to the issue. That does not mean it is not enjoyable ... It is ... My air kill to survival ratio goes up so I benefit from it but I rather play in a more realistic envinronment where I actually have to work to see things around me, plan my routes and probable locations where the enemy might fly by and use the sun in my favor to help me spot the enemy. All of these factors matter in the expert setting just like they did in real life. Is the system perfect? Nope, but it definitely beats the bloated aircrafts at 40km away.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible

 

On the graph that you presented, it says that "this graph estimates the maximum (central acuity) visual detection ranges ...".

So, according to this estimation, the maximum range that a person can spot a MiG-21 in belly view, with it's delta wing, when specifically focusing on it (central acuity) is 7 nm (about 13 km).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 9:14 AM, SharpeXB said:

Many players in a sim are always going to want a fully realistic option. The purpose of simulation demands it. And as displays and headsets get better, higher resolutions, better color depth and rendering that goal may be achieved quite well. The problem is that if the game was able to do this with full realism there would still be this subset of player who just won’t like it. 

So dual setting seem inevitable. And perhaps the debate is pointless. 

 

“Normal” (full real) doesn’t have to be debated. It’s just real. No enhancements or anything. That should be easy to understand. Advancements in graphics and display technology will allow this to perform better and better. 

 

“Alternate” doesn’t need to be over analyzed either. It’s a game aid similar to icons. There’s no “realism” to this setting anymore than there can be a “realistic” icon. So it allows excessive visibility? That’s the whole point of an enhanced setting. If you don’t like the enhancement you can switch it off. 

Theres no purpose in trying to adjust Alternate to be more like Normal because that just eliminates the difference between the two. 

 

How multiplayer can handle dual settings remains to be seen. Right now nobody can even tell which settings are running on any server. That can be easily solved though. 

 

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flaying with alternative view on is for me to easy , one can say arcadish. I if you don't like have icons on and care about realism  why you would like to be able spot all contacts so easy and effortless...

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


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

No, in il2 you occasionally get a dot at 10km. Meanwhile you miss the other 6 at 2km. And 3 others at 8km etc. Il2s spotting is incredibly inconsistent, even when looking right at it. The problem is not what you can technically see, its what can be seen easily enough to be considered average. What you should be seeing is frequent spots at 4-7nm's with a much higher ability to require once taking your eyes off it so the player doesnt have to track it in zoom constantly. And occasionally getting spots at even greater ranges 17km or so, with the sort of rarity we currently get contacts from 8-12.

 

You can sometimes see airplanes in DCS from over 10nm away.  No one thinks the spotting in that game is reasonable. Again, this is not about max spotting distance, or what you occasionally spot.

 

Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you are half blind in real life.

 

I wonder the same about you as I can consistently see planes at less than 10km, specially in the right conditions and some at 15 km and further out. What you described above it is exactly how I see the game in "Expert" mode and you, yourself, describied as realistic. Now with AV on, I see everything from 20km and further and can't ID closer planes due to messed up zoom. Also, planes disappear and reappear often when they are in the transition zone (rescale/non-reascaling zone).

11 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Nope. No you dont, not unless you have a huge screen. The game is the same for everyone. If you have normal vision, you are seeing the exact same thing I am. No one in this game is seeing contacts at 10-12km as the average spotting distance as I just described. If you are claiming otherwise you either do not know what you are missing, are being disingenuous, or dont understand what you should be seeing based on my description above.

 

This is pointless if were going to sit here and entertain counter-factual claims. Ive already showed plenty of screenshots and videos showing that spotting at long and short distances is absurdly inconsistent. For every contact spotted at 10km, even 2km, there are generally 10 others that should be detectable that are not. In many cases a contact is invisible even if you look right at it.  Anyone who says otherwise at this point does not know what they are missing or is just ignoring the facts.

 

And now when you lose your argument, you claim to be able to see what other people can see lol. Keep up the good work in proving your point ... Lol. Outstanding!

Share this post


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

A thousand times this! It is not only a pain, but also for the most part an aquired ability. 

 

No. If you share a thermal flying a glider with five other gliders it may well be that you see only four of them. The one that can cut off your tail with its wing is the one you never saw until it was too late.

There can be no talk of acquiring an ability if the exact same picture in the exact same weather conditions pose different visuals for different players. It is obvious that this game LODs/rescaling promotes big monitors with low res ie. plane dots are easily visible on 4K monitor @1080p, not so on FullHD monitor @1080p.

 

No matter if you fly 10/100/1000 hours in IL2, your ability to spot will always be hindered by color balance, resulution, monitor model and monitor specs, pc specs and vid settings. So in this case it is irrelevant of an actual 'ability to spot', rather just a lucky shot that your pc/monitor combo displays it all better than the next guy`s hardware. Alternative Spotting fixes all that, and even if it does it in a rather simplistic manner, it is efficient for the wider player base.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this second image is more interesting.

Spoiler

image.png

 

It does not even draw a range beyond 7 nm and shows that being able to spot a modern fighter at 5 nm (less than the old bubble) would require specifically focusing in the right direction, but also implies that planes closer than 2-2.5 nm (4 km) should be quite easy to detect, when looking at their general direction. That is where the spotting problem is more for me, with my system (I understand that different people with different setup might have different experience), so I would welcome it if devs found a way of improving spotting/tracking close contacts, but don't like the over-sized planes visible at extreme ranges.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Now, this second image is more interesting.

  Hide contents

image.png

 

It does not even draw a range beyond 7 nm and shows that being able to spot a modern fighter at 5 nm (less than the old bubble) would require specifically focusing in the right direction, but also implies that planes closer than 2-2.5 nm (4 km) should be quite easy to detect, when looking at their general direction. That is where the spotting problem is more for me, with my system (I understand that different people with different setup might have different experience), so I would welcome it if devs found a way of improving spotting/tracking close contacts, but don't like the over-sized planes visible at extreme ranges.

Agreed. I know it's hard to see things against a cluttered background but from some real life experiences I believe in game it is too hard. Alt Vis was actually worse for me with tracking close contacts than normal vis. I could see planes at 20, 30, even 50 km if the light was right...but if they got within 4 km or so I would often lose them.

Share this post


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

Because these changes are not for the better. That is your opinion just like he has his. For him and many others, spotting people from 40km away all the time is unrealistic. That is our opnnion and you can have yours but you will realize that most of those who have real flying experience will agree that spotting enlarged planes at 40km away is not what they experience in RL. Do what you want with that notion. I dont expect to change your mind in the subject and understand why some people want to have better visibility to make the game easier but, at on point or another, we should ask urselves regardless of the issues seem in both system what is more realistic? I can play in both settings and I take the AV for what it is. An arcade approach to the issue. That does not mean it is not enjoyable ... It is ... My air kill to survival ratio goes up so I benefit from it but I rather play in a more realistic envinronment where I actually have to work to see things around me, plan my routes and probable locations where the enemy might fly by and use the sun in my favor to help me spot the enemy. All of these factors matter in the expert setting just like they did in real life. Is the system perfect? Nope, but it definitely beats the bloated aircrafts at 40km away.

 

 

 

I and many other pro-ALT agree that 40km is woefully unrealistic. That is not the problem I am trying to address.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

There can be no talk of acquiring an ability if the exact same picture in the exact same weather conditions pose different visuals for different players.

 

I didn‘t try to make that point. My point is that just because you can see over X miles doesn‘t mean you can spot reliably or quickly over said distance. People with good eyesight differ not in their ability to see a plane, they differ in time required to spot said plane. Also the ability to track several planes, something that requires a lot of practice in the sim as well.

 

When flying with passengers and you ask them to help you look out for traffic (you know full well that their effort can be ignored unless they really call out planes), they often see that airliner or this balloon, but e.g. the Cessna that just crossed you 500 m starboard below, that one they hardly ever see.

 

Draw distances in the game are upped such that it takes trained eagle eyes in the real world to see that good. Whether you can see the pixels drawn on screen is a different question though. But the sim is definitely getting better in this regard.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

I and many other pro-ALT agree that 40km is woefully unrealistic. That is not the problem I am trying to address.

What does the alt spotting deliver for you that is not the far distance spotting? For me it is either the same or worse for near distance spotting than normal vis on my setup. 

Share this post


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

What does the alt spotting deliver for you that is not the far distance spotting? For me it is either the same or worse for near distance spotting than normal vis on my setup. 

 

I disliked it at first, but part of the "inverted zoom" I actually got accustomed to and do like now. It allows me to spot contacts with almost fully zoomed out view, thus increasing my peripheral vision and IMHO better simulating RL visibility.

 

That and spotting below 10km in general is not easy but overall less inconsistent than the Expert/"Normal" version.

 

I would be perfectly happy with 15km ALT version if they remove the bloobs. There is no need for 40km visibility range, and I am frankly surprised devs even put this into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

I disliked it at first, but part of the "inverted zoom" I actually got accustomed to and do like now. It allows me to spot contacts with almost fully zoomed out view, thus increasing my peripheral vision and IMHO better simulating RL visibility.

 

That and spotting below 10km in general is not easy but overall less inconsistent than the Expert/"Normal" version.

 

I would be perfectly happy with 15km ALT version if they remove the bloobs. There is no need for 40km visibility range, and I am frankly surprised devs even put this into the game.


If you have 15km alt vision without the bloobs (I assumed you mean the scaled up bright planes), what you have is normal vis.  That's the only difference, the scaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:


If you have 15km alt vision without the bloobs (I assumed you mean the scaled up bright planes), what you have is normal vis.  That's the only difference, the scaling.

 

And that is precisely what we want. Not the 40km-see-everything ALT view we have now. Slight scaling so that it doesn't look out of place or odd.

 

In the Expert version I am having problems tracking targets in my near vicinity, and with ALT I can see everything at unrealistic ranges.

 

Clearly there are other differences too, as @YIPPEE has shown. Else I wouldn't have problems with spotting at 1440p, with G-SYNC 144Hz monitor, calibrated to accurate color profile with a device.

 

No matter which version we get or end up with in the end, people will always use all sorts of tricks to help themselves online in MP environment. This is just how it is.

 

I already wrote about the trick with forcing the game to use 0.65 gamma in order to improve contrast and with it spotting. Some pilots that I spoke with say that without that mod they wouldn't be flying online as many are sharing the same problems described here. And no, I am not using it - I wan't my game to look nice when I actually have the time to fly with my group online.

 

Here is another suggestion: modify the ALT system as described in this thread and keep the Expert/"Normal" the same and let the people choose (don't forget to include it in the server options though). :)

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

And that is precisely what we want. Not the 40km-see-everything ALT view we have now. Slight scaling so that it doesn't look out of place or odd.

 

In the Expert version I am having problems tracking targets in my near vicinity, and with ALT I can see everything at unrealistic ranges.

 

Clearly there are other differences too, as @YIPPEE has shown. Else I wouldn't have problems with spotting at 1440p, with G-SYNC 144Hz monitor, calibrated to accurate color profile with a device.

 

No matter which version we get or end up with in the end, people will always use all sorts of tricks to help themselves online in MP environment. This is just how it is.

 

I've already written here about the trick with forcing the game to use 0.65 gamma in order to improve contrast and with it spotting. Some pilots that I spoke with say that without that mod they wouldn't be flying online as many are sharing the same problems described here.

Alt vis seems to give me worse visibility at close ranges - On one occasion I was bounced by a 109 that I tracked from 20 km up to about 5-6 km away, where they promptly went nearly invisible to my eye, got on my six and killed me. I didn't even look away.

Normal vis, my tracking at close range is about the same as before...I would say slightly better but I believe that is a placebo at this point, I haven't tested enough.

I am set up at 1920x1080, gamma 0.8, and I just used software to calibrate my monitor, nothing fancy. I have tried going lower on gamma before but on my rig it made the game look ugly and didn't improve spotting for me at all. I know a few people actually use higher gamma for some reason, which is weird but they claim it works for them. 

One thing though is that on 1080p it might be easier to spot than with 1440 for some reason. Bigger pixels maybe? I am sitting relatively far from my screen too due to how my desk and controllers are set up.

At first I was more in favour of alt vis but the more I used it and the more I flew it online I grew to dislike it. The distant white planes were immersion killers, close by spotting was not improved to me, and because of the scaling it was very difficult to tell just how far planes were. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely bigger pixel on 1080p unless you go with a way bigger monitor diagonal to match the PPI.

 

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

 

EDIT: Example - in order to match the 24" 1080p dot pitch (pixel size) on a 1440 monitor, yo would need to go for 32" diagonal.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

t does not even draw a range beyond 7 nm and shows that being able to spot a modern fighter at 5 nm (less than the old bubble) would require specifically focusing in the right direction, but also implies that planes closer than 2-2.5 nm (4 km) should be quite easy to detect, when looking at their general direction. That is where the spotting problem is more for me, with my system (I understand that different people with different setup might have different experience), so I would welcome it if devs found a way of improving spotting/tracking close contacts, but don't like the over-sized planes visible at extreme ranges.

Yes and this is one of the points I have been trying to make. The primary issue is not the ranges at which things can technically come into view, it is modeling this image here. ALSO, consider that this is only for one eye, and so is the predicted range chart I posted. TWO eyes never see anything from exactly the same angle, and they combine information from independent fixations to create a image.

6 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

I can consistently see planes at less than 10km

No you cant, and if you think you do, we have different definitions of the word consistent. I dont dispute, as I have already made clear, that you can spot contacts at these distances. The problem is that there will be several others that cannot be seen in the same picture. Even if you look right at them, the will be invisible or nearly invisible. "Consistent" does not mean you flew a sortie and spotted some people at this range.

 

6 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

And now when you lose your argument, you claim to be able to see what other people can see lol.

This doesnt even make sense.

7 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

On the graph that you presented, it says that "this graph estimates the maximum (central acuity) visual detection ranges ...".

So, according to this estimation, the maximum range that a person can spot a MiG-21 in belly view, with it's delta wing, when specifically focusing on it (central acuity) is 7 nm (about 13 km).

For one eye. Which is why the average detection ranges of the T-38 or other planes in the other reports are between 4-7 miles.

10 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you have ever tried to spot a plane while flying in real life. 

Not sure what this image is trying to show, is this airplane supposed to be hard to see lol? But here, spotting from 38,000ft small planes against a cluttered background. Greater than 8nm away. Ive posted these several times already.

 

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

No. If you share a thermal flying a glider with five other gliders it may well be that you see only four of them. The one that can cut off your tail with its wing is the one you never saw until it was too late.

Right, this is  not a conversation about spotting technique. This is a discussion about the eye as a sensor. Discussing how pilot workload or poor focusing techniques interfere with this is not relevant. Also, I wish I could see 4 of 5 planes in il2. That game as it is right now does not support correct spotting even with the best technique.

Edited by YIPPEE
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

You just disproved yourself. A plane 2/3rds the size a Mig-21 (most fighters we have ingame) is spotable by  2/3rds the abovementioned distance OR above.

This sort of shallow and vacuous interpretation of data is why we are still here 6 pages later.

 

-A mig 21 is not 2/3's the size of in game fighters. It is bigger or smaller depending on the aspect.

-This chart is only for 1 eyeball, it is only intended to give a sense of how the eye works.

-You are ignoring that other data I posted about the average spotting distance of the T-38 and other planes.

-You actually cannot consistently spot il2 planes at 2/3ds of these ranges. At almost any range il2 planes are wildly inconsistent and disappear for no reason.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply ignore all arguments brought to field  against yours by singling out what seems to be inconsistencies but what really only marginally makes a difference. 

 

You data does not prove you right. Simple as that, discussion over for me. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Draw distances in the game are upped such that it takes trained eagle eyes in the real world to see that good. Whether you can see the pixels drawn on screen is a different question though. But the sim is definitely getting better in this regard.

So you missed mine, it seems...? In order to even begin to talk about active ability in spotting, we`d all must have exact same picture in front of us. But it`s not like that, so how can anyone even say that one is better at spotting in IL2 than the other? Not a matter of skill, at all. I can only see that which my 24inch monitor shows on a 2D screen. How do some of you here even try to make comparisons of that with real life is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 2:08 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

I misread, and I apologize. Correct. Before you join, unless it is included in the server name - you can not.

 

 

A strong statement, don't you think? Can you see what is visible on my monitor? Have you tried running the game on various monitors (different native resolutions), same for VR?

 

 

Are you telling us that you can spot a blue pixel moving against a blue background on your system, as shown in the YIPPE's post?

people with large monitors, or highly tweaked setting not available in game menu im sure can do this. that's why I think the devs did it in the first place...but people with an advantage over other people complained. yuo shouldn't have to modify game files manually to be competitive  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget spotting, I can't even keep track of my mates while on active coms, the visuals are that horrid.  Far worse than anything prepatch.  I'm suppose to sit back and be content in an environment where some can clearly see beyond ten miles and I can't see squat beyond 3, and still with difficulty under?  Like that's ever going to happen.  Realism, not here.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found disabling "sharpen" filter box helped a lot. With that checked it makes planes practically invisible, particularly around the wings. At high aspect, nose to nose the plane was invisible due to the filter. With it off I was able to make out the air-frame and at distance the black dot became visible and more prominent. Test ON and OFF for your own results. Note: I still use sharpen landscape filter, which doesn't seem to have an effect. 

 

Maple 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight sims aren’t for everyone. That’s why they’re niche games. The ability to see the other aircraft is obviously a key part of the game. If you somehow just can’t do this and won’t use icons, then this just isn’t the game for you. The Devs can only do so much within the limits of graphics and display hardware. You people keep putting up these studies and examples as if the Devs haven’t seen every one of these or haven’t ever seen or flown in a real aircraft. 

All games feature difficult to see objects unless they’re complete arcade games. No game can feature completely true to life visuals on a computer screen so why should flight sims? So get over it. Learn to play or just don’t. Sorry but that’s the reality. 

You've got three visibility options. Use them or give it up. They gave you Alternate Visibility instead of just taking it away. Maybe they should take it away if it’s just going to cause more arguments. 

 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar experience here, planes just vanish at 300-700 (depending on background) meters. Populated servers with 80 players never seemed so empty. Flying in contested objectives' areas (with enemy presence warnings active all the time, scripted AND vanilla "under-attack") I now struggle to see any planes. Even if I bump into somebody in my 300m "bubble", they just.. blend in before any turn is possible, at aprox. 500m. Vanish. Not even a pixel. It's also hard to see your own wingmen.

Of course all of this varies a little depending on weather.

 

Unfortunately though, current state of things in this matter is effectively inferior to even the old system. Combine this with reintroduced stuttering and IL-2 becomes barely (if even) playable for me, will have to take a break until fixes come. 😥

 

I'm using a 1440p G-Sync monitor.

 

 

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Flight sims aren’t for everyone. That’s why they’re niche games. The ability to see the other aircraft is obviously a key part of the game. If you somehow just can’t do this and won’t use icons, then this just isn’t the game for you. The Devs can only do so much within the limits of graphics and display hardware. You people keep putting up these studies and examples as if the Devs haven’t seen every one of these or haven’t ever seen or flown in a real aircraft. 

All games feature difficult to see objects unless they’re complete arcade games. No game can feature completely true to life visuals on a computer screen so why should flight sims? So get over it. Learn to play or just don’t. Sorry but that’s the reality. 

You've got three visibility options. Use them or give it up. They gave you Alternate Visibility instead of just taking it away. Maybe they should take it away if it’s just going to cause more arguments. 

 

This is just arrogant. I understand you're not experiencing any problems, but please don't belittle what others say just because it's convenient.
It's not a new breed that's complaining, but even experienced players. It's not about personal inability to see planes, it's about them being actually invisible (on certain display types it seems).

Edited by RavN_Sone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RavN_Sone said:

This is just arrogant. I understand you're not experiencing any problems, but please don't belittle what others say just because it's convenient.
It's not a new breed that's complaining, but even experienced players. It's not about personal inability to see planes, it's about them being actually invisible (on certain display types it seems).

Sorry but what else is there to say? If you can’t play the game don’t play it. There are plenty of things I can’t do so I don’t do them. 

This is a pretty useless topic. The “experienced” players are just experienced at some other game and they expect every game to be the same. They don’t want IL-2 to emulate reality, they want it to emulate another game. 

Share this post


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

Sorry but what else is there to say? If you can’t play the game don’t play it. There are plenty of things I can’t do so I don’t do them. 

This is a pretty useless topic. The “experienced” players are just experienced at some other game and they expect every game to be the same. They don’t want IL-2 to emulate reality, they want it to emulate another game. 

 

How insensitive of you!  What if my entire life and raison d'être was dependent on this game and the choices of it's developers??? 

 

🤢

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not other game, but this one. You obviously haven't read what people report.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RavN_Sone said:

No, not other game, but this one. You obviously haven't read what people report.

 

I'm highly confident that after 7 long pages, the major participants in this thread are fairly aware about what game is being discussed and what is being reported by various parties.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...