Expert visibility - contrast change dependent on zoom level

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

No one here is arguing that. Simply that vanishing should not be affected by FOV / zoom. Period.

It has to be. Otherwise you’ll get the “inverse zoom” effect in Alt Visibility which you can already select if you want it. 

According to the Devs (and I can’t find the post) there is not a middle ground they can figure out. It’s one or the other. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

16 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It has to be. Otherwise you’ll get the “inverse zoom” effect in Alt Visibility which you can already select if you want it. 

According to the Devs (and I can’t find the post) there is not a middle ground they can figure out. It’s one or the other. 

 

Also, stop using ALT visibility as an option that solves the invisibility problem. To put it bluntly - ALT is like someone giving you running shoes to run a marathon, then shooting you in the foot so you cannot run (referring to the long range ugly ballooning effect). In other words, not usable in practice. Hence why so many servers are forced to use less flawed Expert mode.

 

No, it isn't one or another. It is resource assigning, and task priority management. Jason was at least clear about that one. If we can show them what is wrong and explain in detail, perhaps the priority will go up so it becomes "sooner" than "later". Clearly they are not done with updates to visibility rendering and are more than aware of its issues:

 

 

Quote

First of all, we have found a way to improve the situation with the planes disappearing too early against a cloud. This won't fix the pixelization issue (it is a different matter), but we hope the coming update will address the problem when a plane can visually disappear at 2 km or so. We plan to start the work on minimizing the pixelization issue before the end of this year.

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SeaW0lf]

3 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

ALT is like someone giving you running shoes to run a marathon, then shooting you in the foot so you cannot run (referring to the long range ugly ballooning effect). In other words, not usable in practice. Hence why so many servers are forced to use less flawed Expert mode.

 

Exactly, highlighting the part in bold. Expert visibility is plagued with bugs and inconsistencies, but at least planes don’t teleport.

 

J5 Flugpark tested Alt Vis for a week and we were counting the days to bring it back to expert visibility, since for many of us planes were basically teleporting with zoom (getting bigger or shrinking depending on the zoom level). You could not tell the distances and assemble some sort of spatial perception. It was [or it is] simply 100% unplayable.

 

So let's hope things improve overtime. Rather sooner than later.

[SharpeXB]

This is the max range I can see another fighter at the wide FOV. 7km for an aircraft this size is pretty reasonable

Of course I was running this test with the icons off. I waited until I could see specks then paused the game and switched them on. 

Alt Visibility is off

 

and “zoomed out” is only for the purpose of the discussion. This FOV is not realistic at all. It’s too small. For a 1:1 FOV you would need to be much more zoomed in. And this is on a 32” screen. 

Time: 12:00

Weather: Clear

Altitude: 2,500

 

A real FOV would look something like this, not zoomed out but 1:1 life sized. I have sat in a P-39 cockpit and it seems about this size.

This doesn't change the detection distance substantially though

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

@[DBS]TH0R

“First of all, we have found a way to improve the situation with the planes disappearing too early against a cloud. This won't fix the pixelization issue (it is a different matter), but we hope the coming update will address the problem when a plane can visually disappear at 2 km or so. We plan to start the work on minimizing the pixelization issue before the end of this year.”

 

^ He’s referring to the bug where planes disappear against clouds. That’s a different bug. It’s been reported and obviously getting fixed. 

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

getting bigger or shrinking depending on the zoom level

Do you see them literally getting larger or smaller or the illusion of that since they’re remaining the same size regardless of the zoom level? I don’t actually see this effect in 2160p so that’s why I’m asking. 

[nighthawk2174]

That is a bit low 

- Note a T38 is actually smaller than a P51...

 

Also you image quality is quite low you wouldn't happen to have the original as when zoomed in there were no dots for me in your image.

[[DBS]TH0R]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

A real FOV would look something like this, not zoomed out but 1:1 life sized. I have sat in a P-39 cockpit and it seems about this size.

This doesn't change the detection distance substantially though

 

 

Please stahp. This is becoming painful to read.

 

Got any scientific evidence to back your claims up? How does it look on various resolutions? I've sat in few cockpits myself, and posting my impressions from them serves no purpose whatsoever to this discussion. Especially since, unless you aren't human (the thought has crossed my mind ? ), you ought to have the same peripheral vision like everyone else reading this.

 

 

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

^ He’s referring to the bug where planes disappear against clouds. That’s a different bug. It’s been reported and obviously getting fixed. 

Do you see them literally getting larger or smaller or the illusion of that since they’re remaining the same size regardless of the zoom level? I don’t actually see this effect in 2160p so that’s why I’m asking. 

 

In case I was reading that wrong, all the more reasons to continue reporting this - until it finally gets assigned to a developer like the pixelization issue and cloud bug. For how long did people need to report this before they started working on it? "No, it cannot be done, game engine limitation etc..."

 

FYI: I don't intend to stop. You need a new cheat sheet of stuff to repeat over and over, the one you are using has worn off long time ago. ?

 

 

7 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

That is a bit low

...

Also you image quality is quite low you wouldn't happen to have the original as when zoomed in there were no dots for me in your image.

 

Exactly. Personal impressions have nothing to do with real life physics. The same goes for calling bugs features.

 

Agreed on the low quality images, and good luck to anyone spotting those in-game.

Edited November 22, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Got any scientific evidence to back your claims up? How does it look on various resolutions? 

It doesn’t need to be that scientific. Bottom line I can see other aircraft at realistic ranges with or without the zoom view. I can’t test other resolutions but anyone else can. 
Yes there are some bugs but this thread was wandered so far off topic it lost its purpose pages ago. 
 

If you find an actual bug. Just document it and report it. Then move on and stay away from the endless visibility debates which have no solution. 

4 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 you ought to have the same peripheral vision like everyone else

You’re missing the point of the 1:1FOV example. That’s not trying to simulate peripheral vision. That’s attempting to size the view to a lifelike scale using the cockpit as a reference. Yeah “real pilots don’t have zoom” but real plots see the world at this size. Not the tiny zoomed out view. What’s important in the game is that you can vary your FOV on the fly. A “zoom view”. It’s a really vital view command which for whatever reason some people don’t understand. The 1:1 view is an easy way to explain why it’s necessary. 
And the zoom view is not the source of the other bug I reported. It’s just the size of the aircraft being rendered. Although changing the zoom level is the easiest way to affect that you can see the same effect moving the camera back and forth. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by SharpeXB

[[DBS]TH0R]

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If you find an actual bug. Just document it and report it. Then move on and stay away from the endless visibility debates which have no solution.

 

The documentation was provided with two videos, one by me, other by @SeaWolf

 

First we need to agree what the bug is, and isn't. And there we do not agree. You have your own understanding what realism is, I have mine.

 

The ideas for solutions were offered. The fact you don't like them is completely another matter.

Edited November 22, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

The documentation was provided with two videos, one by me, other by @SeaWolf

SeaWolf’s looks like the same thing I see. 
honeslty I can’t tell what yours is, the video isn’t clear enough. The best thing is to post an actual track file (game recording)

31 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

First we need to agree what the bug is, and isn't.

Really I don’t think the Devs would agree on your definition of a “bug” regarding the zoom view. And that discussion is wandering off topic from the original post. Best keep it to one bug per thread. 
 

Get back on topic and post a link to the track file of your original video. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by SharpeXB

[[DBS]TH0R]

First, I couldn't care less what you think the devs might think. Second, the majority here disagrees with your "definition". So there is that.

 

The thread is well on topic. Allow me to quote myself:

 

18 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 The reason why we're discussing wide FOV invisibility "feature" here is because it is, like @[TLC]YIPPEE said - one of the reasons this contrast change went unnoticed.

 

Both of these effects combined are affecting the visibility in a negative way.

 

And stop acting like we haven't discussed anything else here.

Edited November 22, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

the majority here disagrees with your "definition". So there is that.

That “majority” is maybe 2 or 3 people... ?

And reporting a bug is not a subjective vote. Either something clearly works or doesn’t. 

[A_S]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b710/ec0ee173c78eeddd5348244ac9ef4e6e250c.pdf

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, A_S said:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b710/ec0ee173c78eeddd5348244ac9ef4e6e250c.pdf

That IL-2 GB doesn’t use that feature is not a bug. You guys are just ranting about your personal preference in game features and trying to pass off your arguments as “bugs”. It just clouds the whole issue. 

[RedKestrel]

On 11/21/2019 at 4:55 AM, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

Not exactly. Alt spotting was better at scaling from about 6km to 15km. Obviously at long ranges it was excessive. The problem both expert and alternate have is that scaling under 6km is next to non-existent. I certainly cant see it, anyhow. As far as I cant tell, they have made no attempt to fix close in spotting, which was always the bigger issue.

 

A compromise between the two would be good for spotting over 10km. But something entirely different needs done for everything from 1-6km, really 1-10km. ALT spotting had the same issue with planes blinking out of existence at shorter ranges, and the contrast bugs people are seeing now were there from the beginning with alt spotting, it has just taken longer to notice with expert because everything was smaller in the first place.

 

What needs to happen is that the scaling needs to be seriously implemented at closer ranges.

 

It should be more akin to this:

 

 

 

Or this

 

 

 

Or This

 

 

 

 

And it needs to stop being this crap:

 

 

 

I finally was able to watch these videos and compare. With the caveat that I was watching these on Youtube so who knows whats been done compression wise.

In the Aces High video I lose the planes very easily against the dark water, pick them up super easy against the sky and only have a middling success against the ground. Better spotting against the ground than Il-2 but I think that is a function of all the planes appearing to be rendered very dark or black until they are really close, and the background being very bright and smooth for lack of better terms.

In the CLOD video, you clearly spot the formation of bombers sooner than I find it possible to - I was unable to spot them until well after you start your dive. I had to rewatch a few times to really see it. Maybe slightly better for spotting against forested backgrounds but not by an order of magnitude. I suspect something has been lost on the upload to youtube, or I am just not used to spotting in that game.

In the BMS (I assume its BMS) video I could see the plane against the sky very easily but I lost it against the ground even worse than I do in Il-2 GB. I don't know what to tell you. Also the planes appear very jaggy to me there, and the plane changes size in weird ways...I'm assumign this is the smart scaling effect? I never did play Falcon 4 or BMS.

In the Il-2 GB video, I have to say that if that's how the game commonly appears to you, I understand you having trouble spotting. It could just be the youtube compression once again but spotting contacts on my screen is nowhere near that bad, especially over the terrain it takes place on. Against dense dark forests I lose contacts fairly frequently but not over the Steppe. The graphics looked really jaggy to me, like there is some AA issue going on. I get that effect against clouds a bit in-game but that's all. Like at one point theres a Pe-2 crossing your path and it just pops into view at less than 2km and looks like its drawn with an etch-a-sketch. I've honestly never seen it look that bad.

Comparing the first three videos to what I see, some have some things better than Il-2 but I'm honestly not seeing huge improvements here.

[LColony_Kong]

37 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I finally was able to watch these videos and compare. With the caveat that I was watching these on Youtube so who knows whats been done compression wise.

In the Aces High video I lose the planes very easily against the dark water, pick them up super easy against the sky and only have a middling success against the ground. Better spotting against the ground than Il-2 but I think that is a function of all the planes appearing to be rendered very dark or black until they are really close, and the background being very bright and smooth for lack of better terms.

In the CLOD video, you clearly spot the formation of bombers sooner than I find it possible to - I was unable to spot them until well after you start your dive. I had to rewatch a few times to really see it. Maybe slightly better for spotting against forested backgrounds but not by an order of magnitude. I suspect something has been lost on the upload to youtube, or I am just not used to spotting in that game.

In the BMS (I assume its BMS) video I could see the plane against the sky very easily but I lost it against the ground even worse than I do in Il-2 GB. I don't know what to tell you. Also the planes appear very jaggy to me there, and the plane changes size in weird ways...I'm assumign this is the smart scaling effect? I never did play Falcon 4 or BMS.

In the Il-2 GB video, I have to say that if that's how the game commonly appears to you, I understand you having trouble spotting. It could just be the youtube compression once again but spotting contacts on my screen is nowhere near that bad, especially over the terrain it takes place on. Against dense dark forests I lose contacts fairly frequently but not over the Steppe. The graphics looked really jaggy to me, like there is some AA issue going on. I get that effect against clouds a bit in-game but that's all. Like at one point theres a Pe-2 crossing your path and it just pops into view at less than 2km and looks like its drawn with an etch-a-sketch. I've honestly never seen it look that bad.

Comparing the first three videos to what I see, some have some things better than Il-2 but I'm honestly not seeing huge improvements here.

There is some loss due to compression on all videos. Are you watching them at full res? Everyone else I have watch those can see a huge difference. 

 

As for my experience in il2, it's not unique to me. That's why I show the difference between icons on and off. I could make literally tons of videos like that. Most people don't realize how many short range contacts they are missing. Keep in mind I run 1440p as well. And I suspect the reason you havent seen the pe2 that bad is because when it happens you usually don't see it....

 

Anyways video is video. I'm not seeing something different in game than you are. 

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I finally was able to watch these videos and compare. With the caveat that I was watching these on Youtube so who knows whats been done compression wise.

In the Aces High video I lose the planes very easily against the dark water, pick them up super easy against the sky and only have a middling success against the ground. Better spotting against the ground than Il-2 but I think that is a function of all the planes appearing to be rendered very dark or black until they are really close, and the background being very bright and smooth for lack of better terms.

In the CLOD video, you clearly spot the formation of bombers sooner than I find it possible to - I was unable to spot them until well after you start your dive. I had to rewatch a few times to really see it. Maybe slightly better for spotting against forested backgrounds but not by an order of magnitude. I suspect something has been lost on the upload to youtube, or I am just not used to spotting in that game.

In the BMS (I assume its BMS) video I could see the plane against the sky very easily but I lost it against the ground even worse than I do in Il-2 GB. I don't know what to tell you. Also the planes appear very jaggy to me there, and the plane changes size in weird ways...I'm assumign this is the smart scaling effect? I never did play Falcon 4 or BMS.

In the Il-2 GB video, I have to say that if that's how the game commonly appears to you, I understand you having trouble spotting. It could just be the youtube compression once again but spotting contacts on my screen is nowhere near that bad, especially over the terrain it takes place on. Against dense dark forests I lose contacts fairly frequently but not over the Steppe. The graphics looked really jaggy to me, like there is some AA issue going on. I get that effect against clouds a bit in-game but that's all. Like at one point theres a Pe-2 crossing your path and it just pops into view at less than 2km and looks like its drawn with an etch-a-sketch. I've honestly never seen it look that bad.

Comparing the first three videos to what I see, some have some things better than Il-2 but I'm honestly not seeing huge improvements here.

Having watched the vids myself my brain just goes well this is BS...  And not only that but having played all of the games except CLOD, my brain screams this even louder.  All of the videos you can see the targets far easier than in IL2, they don't disappear just vanish into the ether.  I was in the fight Yippee posted, we came into it thinking there were maybe 4 guys total with at least two of them being friendly.  Never saw all the other BS that was going on...  There is no doubt in my mind that if I was in Aces High (in fact I've seen similar situation arise in Aces high) we would have seen pretty much every contact especially within 2km no matter if they were contrasted against the sky or ground or water.  Additionally, I think your also not considering that the ranges at which all of the fights in the other vids are happening are far longer ranged than IL2.  In IL2 I've lost HE111's that have been under 2km from me.  I knew where they were because the pilot and I were in communication and he'd turn on his lights and fire flares.  Yet, nothing, he was 100% invisible to me and yet he was within 2km (this is post vision fix using the expert mode) a freaking HE111 which is the size of a small airliner.  Yet in all of the games above I've never lost a fighter sized aircraft like I did the HE111 against the ground and all were far easier to see at that range too. For example 2:45 in the BMS vid... that A4 is 100% visable and easy to track in IL2 I couldn't even see a HE111 from that range.  As Yippee said you are watching at the resolution of your screen right?

 

-edit: Spelling, grammar, and additional point bellow

Of note in the BMS vid at 2:45 the bandit is on the deck and Yippee is somewhere above 28k ft which gives a range far in excess of 2km a range of around 10-12km to the A4 is far more reasonable and you can still see it and track it.  For me that's really all the proof you need to show the differences between IL2 and BMS.  I've been in situations where I've orbited over enemy airbases at 14kft and I wasn't able to find bandits on the ramp as easily as this A4 in BMS.  They would just blend in, even with the glint effect, and i'd miss them entirely.

Edited November 22, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

In the Il-2 GB video, I have to say that if that's how the game commonly appears to you, I understand you having trouble spotting. It could just be the youtube compression once again but spotting contacts on my screen is nowhere near that bad, especially over the terrain it takes place on. Against dense dark forests I lose contacts fairly frequently but not over the Steppe. The graphics looked really jaggy to me, like there is some AA issue going on. I get that effect against clouds a bit in-game but that's all. Like at one point theres a Pe-2 crossing your path and it just pops into view at less than 2km and looks like its drawn with an etch-a-sketch. I've honestly never seen it look that bad.

 

Replying to the lines in bold - the game looks just as bad on my end too. Also running 1440p.

 

The second bolded part is a deliberate misleading comment in order to undermine the issue we are presenting here. And a bad one as well.

 

Furthermore, this game has serious issues with "pixelization", especially with AA ON. So, nothing to write home about in that regard either. For this reason it is recommended to turn it OFF (coupled with SSAO as it only makes the canopy muddy). Those that have, report easier spotting. Yes it does look jaggy, but the benefits are that targets are slightly easier to spot, as they stand out rather than blending in (when rendered though).

 

I am beginning to see an interesting pattern here: the most vocal defenders of the spotting system are those with 4K screens. Either the game was tuned for that resolution or there is a completely different matter how different virtual pilots here use zoom. Personally - I'd like to keep it on wide (not full wide) FOV in order to get a better peripheral vision. Just like I have do in every other simulator on the marked. Sadly, this isn't possible since planes literary disappear when fully zoomed out (read: are drawn as pixels) in this sim with "Expert" visibility option. A serious FLAW / BUG.

 

My conclusion is that in order to see anything in this game is to not go wider than normal FOV and to constantly use zoom when checking my surroundings. Because only on max zoom some targets are rendered large enough in order to be spotted.

 

More videos and examples are about to follow.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[RedKestrel]

Just now, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

Replying to the lines in bold - the game looks just as bad on my end too. Also running 1440p.

 

AA has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to render and spot targets. This is a deliberate misleading comment in order to undermine the issue we are presenting here. And a bad one as well.

 

Furthermore, this game has serious issues with "pixelization", especially with AA ON. So, nothing to write home about in that regard either. For this reason it is recommended to turn it off. Those that have, report easier spotting. Yes it does look jaggy, but the benefits are targets are slightly easier to spot, as they stand out rather than blending in (when rendered though).

 

I am beginning to see an interesting pattern here: the most vocal defenders of the spotting system are those with 4K screens. Either was tuned for that resolution or there is a completely different matter how different virtual pilots here use zoom. Personally - I'd like to keep it on wide (not full wide) FOV in order to get a better peripheral vision. Just like I have do in every other simulator on the marked. Sadly, this isn't possible since planes literary disappear when fully zoomed out (read: are drawn as pixels) in this sim with "Expert" visibility option.

 

More videos and examples are about to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

There is some loss due to compression on all videos. Are you watching them at full res? Everyone else I have watch those can see a huge difference. 

 

As for my experience in il2, it's not unique to me. That's why I show the difference between icons on and off. I could make literally tons of videos like that. Most people don't realize how many short range contacts they are missing. Keep in mind I run 1440p as well. And I suspect the reason you havent seen the pe2 that bad is because when it happens you usually don't see it....

 

Anyways video is video. I'm not seeing something different in game than you are. 

If other people notice a clear difference, then obviously watching them on my setup has resulted in some serious compression problems or just bad playback, I don't know. My internet connection has improved massively of late but its still dodgier than what most people are used to. I'm leaning towards the playback or compression from Youtube being an issue because I frankly don't believe that people would respond this vehemently if we were truly looking at the same thing. You'll notice I noted that possibility in the first line of my reply.

But I can only tell you what I see. I look at that video and everything in it looks like it has jagged edges in a way that I have only seen in-game once when I  tried to play with AA completely off, to see if it would help with stuttering (it didn't).  The Pe-2 I mention looks really badly jagged when it pops in and out. Maybe I'm articulating myself poorly - but I have never seen the game look like that on my screen with my normal settings, and my first thought was that the jagged edges were contributing as to me it made it very hard to follow contacts.

 

 I fly at 1080p, not 4k, or 1440, so I don't know what you mean by the 4k thing. 

I do not notice the spotting problems when flying over that type of terrain - against steppe and fields like that I have very few issues tracking aircraft, the same as against clear sky. I do have issues with losing contacts over forests, and  I have noted the contrast change issues the whole thread is supposed to be about when zooming in or approaching aircraft. I also get the skin loading/unloading when I look at planes and I have reported that one as it is a clear bug, but for me this started only since the most recent patches. I'm on record in this thread (or one of the million other ones) saying that the difficulty of seeing and tracking aircraft against the ground needs to be looked at and improved.

But in that video, even the planes that I am able to track through almost the whole minute look extremely badly rendered and pop in and out in a way that I do not see when I play. Its like night and day. It's not just that I miss contacts at close range, maybe  I do, but I'm saying that that video looks much worse than my game. I don't know how to explain it to you guys better than that, I'm sorry.

 

 

[Nicob]

I made this video about AA and pixel spotting some time ago. 

It compares how AA affect pixels. No AA has a clear advantage at 1080 p

 

 

The video is zommed in with a video editor to compare pixels 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Tes

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Tes said:

I made this video about AA and pixel spotting some time ago. 

It compares how AA affect pixels. No AA has a clear advantage at 1080 p

I don’t see how you conclude that no AA has an advantage. At farther ranges ( 1:24 in the video) the aircraft turns into a flashing dot and then vanishes while the other examples are still plane shaped. Plus without AA the game looks horrible and everything you see is a jagged mess. 

 

Having the AA set Off in the OP video makes it impossible for me to tell what the “problem” is there. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by SharpeXB

[[DBS]TH0R]

Pixel hunting anyone?! ? Thank you for sharing @Tes

 

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t see how you conclude that no AA has an advantage. At farther ranges ( 1:24 in the video) the aircraft turns into a flashing dot and then vanishes while the other examples are still plane shaped.

 

AA OFF advantages at marks: 0.15 & 1:12

AA ON advantages at marks: 0:49 & 1:25

 

 

Basically @Tes's video is completely debunking @SharpeXB's AA x4 advantage, and only confirming the issue we are calling a bug here. The game render is inconsistent whether you have AA on or OFF and depending on the situation will or will not render the target at all. Combine that with wide FOV and the picture is clear what is wrong with this "Expert" visibility.

 

 

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Plus without AA the game looks horrible and everything you see is a jagged mess.

 

You mean depending on the resolution and screen size? Else this coming from a person with 32" 4K screen is nothing but a blatant lie. Let us put numbers behind this statement:

• run of the mill 24" 1080p screen: 91.79 PPI, 0.2767mm dot pitch
• current middleground 27" 1440p screen: 108.79 PPI, 0.2335mm dot pitch
• small diagonal for this rez 32" 4K screen: 144.71 PPI, 0.1755mm dot pitch

 

Using no AA with this tiny pixel size screen is next to useless. And can hardly be called a "jagged mess".

Edited November 23, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

27 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Basically @Tes's video is completely debunking @SharpeXB's AA x4 advantage, and only confirming the issue we are calling a bug here.

The video isn’t confirming anything. It’s just showing what different AA settings look like. And the results look as expected. There’s no bug being shown in it. 

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

The video isn’t confirming anything. It’s just showing what different AA settings look like. And the results look as expected. There’s no bug being shown in it. 

Aircraft just disappearing into nothing at different times/ranges no matter what AA is used is not a bug?

[SharpeXB]

47 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

You mean depending on the resolution and screen size? Else this coming from a person with 32" 4K screen is nothing but a blatant lie.

@Tes stated that he’s running 1080p. I have run this game and other sims on a 1080p screen and the result of having AA turned off results in the game looking like a jagged horrible mess. The video shows a mess. It shows exactly what I would expect the game to look like without AA where anything smaller than a pixel will flicker and vanish. No game looks good without antialiasing. Plus in reality you don’t look at your screen this close, your eye perceives these pixels as smooth objects if AA is set On. Everyone in gaming knows why antialiasing results in a smoother better image. Except some confused flight sim players. Please don’t report your self induced problems as “bugs”

You may indeed have a documented bug in your original post but having your AA turned off makes it very difficult to evaluate. 

14 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Aircraft just disappearing into nothing at different times/ranges no matter what AA is used is not a bug?

That’s not shown in the video above. if you see that you should post a track. There’s already a bug documented and announced to be fixed where aircraft vanish in front of clouds

 

This is what I’ve seen here

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by SharpeXB

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

@Tes stated that he’s running 1080p. I have run this game and other sims on a 1080p screen and the result of having AA turned off results in the game looking like a jagged horrible mess. The video shows a mess. It shows exactly what I would expect the game to look like without AA where anything smaller than a pixel will flicker and vanish. No game looks good without antialiasing. Plus in reality you don’t look at your screen this close, your eye perceives these pixels as smooth objects if AA is set On. Everyone in gaming knows why antialiasing results in a smoother better image. Except some confused flight sim players. Please don’t report your self induced problems as “bugs”

You may indeed have a documented bug in your original post but having your AA turned off makes it very difficult to evaluate. 

That’s not shown in the video above. if you see that you should post a track. There’s already a bug documented and announced to be fixed where aircraft vanish in front of clouds

 

People are running their games at other resolutions than 4K like yourself.

The video @Tes posted shows both AA ON/OFF planes disappearing and shows inconsistency with it ON/OFF, meaning neither offers benefits as far as spotting goes.

The game with AA OFF doesn't look like jagged horrible mess on much higher than 1080p resolutions with small dot pitch.

There are various types of Antialiasing, and alternatives. Each with is benefits.

We know what you have and haven't seen. Why do you think it is important to repeat it 10 times over and over?

Edited November 23, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R
spelling

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

The video @Tes posted shows both AA ON/OFF planes disappearing.

The plane in the video is “disappearing” because it’s getting farther away. This is normal and not a bug. It’s actually vanishing with distance more so with AA turned off. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The plane in the video is “disappearing” because it’s getting farther away. This is normal and not a bug. It’s actually vanishing with distance more so with AA turned off. 

 

Same track, same plane, different settings AA OFF/X2/X4. Meaning your comment "it is hard to tell since you have AA OFF" is completely irrelevant as an argument for not seeing or "hard to see" the bug. Also explains the "placebo spotting benefits" effect some are seeing with AA ON and others with it OFF. Based on @Tes's video it seems like a toss of a coin.

 

For the casual observer reading this:

• AA OFF advantages at marks: 0.15 & 1:12 (AA ON planes disappears)
• AA ON advantages at marks: 0:49 & 1:25 (AA OFF plane disappears)

Edited November 23, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Meaning your comment "it is hard to tell since you have AA OFF" is completely irrelevant as an argument for not seeing or "hard to see" the bug.

This is easy to test. Make another recording of your bug with AA set to 4x and link it here. 
Then we can see if you get the same effect. 

And if possible post a link to your track file. 

Edited November 24, 2019 by SharpeXB

[A_S]

sometimes it helps to see and to remember..

 

when visibility was visibility (just stumbled over this video..old days..good days)

 

https://youtu.be/YUeNODK5d1o?t=708

[gimpy117]

On 11/30/2019 at 10:19 PM, A_S said:

sometimes it helps to see and to remember..

 

when visibility was visibility (just stumbled over this video..old days..good days)

 

https://youtu.be/YUeNODK5d1o?t=708

yeah, I've never had an issue with spotting before, unlike this game. That's CFS2, Rise Of Flight, Il2 CLOD and flight sim x and flight sim 2004

 

none of those games you had to struggle just to see stuff a kilometer away or so. the spotting system is messed up. we clearly are seeing a pattern. I don't believe that all of these other games took the approaches they did to contacts in error. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by gimpy117

[SeaW0lf]

Il-2 BOX seems to be missing a couple of layers on the rendering of objects. Everything is opaque, without shine, without contrast. ROF has a superb rendering in comparison and planes and objects have reflection / volume that look like reflection / volume. But ROF uses twice the amount of my CPU (30% vs 10/15% of Il-2, which is nothing), then perhaps they downgraded the engine to have some spare room for features? I'm not sure, but the feel is that Il-2 engine is a step down from ROF in terms of rendering and object layers, and this a decade later. I have no idea how objects are rendered, but I know a thing or two about graphic design and it looks like the planes should have a couple more layers of surface effects – hence why they become stealth so easily.

 

And then there is this notion that we are told that people did not see contacts in real life, plus the several visibility bugs, some of them critical, and we are left hunting pixels. And I just play Flying Circus. I can only imagine what you guys go through flying Jugs and 262s.

 

I’m currently studying flak, and it seems that the burst puffs are not visible after 10km (I suspected that playing online). I made a mission with Flak 77 and after the aircraft icons disappear (about 9.5km), the flak puffs also disappear a little later. I’m just at the start, but I have to build a case report.

 

I researched an incident at the start of Bodenplatte when the Thunderbolts that took off from Y29 / Zutendaal Air Base (50°56′51″N 005°35′26″E), captained by Lowell Smith, spotted flak to the northeast over an airfield designated Y32 about 13/15km away / Ophoven Air Base, nowadays abandoned grounds (51°02'58.5"N 5°28'23.3"E)  (print below). Not only that, but they were able to spot from 50 to 80 enemy aircraft low on the deck / tree top altitude. Even if that was a bit later from when they spotted the flak, let’s say from 8/10km away, we are not able to spot contacts on the deck not even at 1/2km away. And it was after 9:00h, so apparently there was no dawn / glittering effect anymore.

 

 

Below is a section of the book Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope / John Manrho, Ron Pütz, which tells that Lt. Melvyn Paisley spotted flak tagging the German wave over the Y32, about 13/15km away.

 

-------

 

Lt. Melvyn Paisley (…) published his memoirs in "Ace" and has kindly given us permission to quote from his work. It is a very graphic account of the turbulent action in the early morning:

 

"La Mort responded to the early morning start with a rough cough (…) the time was 09.15 (…) Seconds later I rocketed into the air directly behind the first element. Taking off to the west, we started our first turn around the field for the join up. As we climbed over the field, I could see the 352nd Group crew chiefs at the west end of the field readying their P-51s. After our first three-sixty of the field, Yellow Flight started to join up with us. Once more around and we would veer off to the target.

 

As Captain Smith started his turn westward, his wingman called out, 'Flak puffs to the East!' Wilcox had not told us about any expected problems in that area so I quickly focused on the swarm of activity. Visibility was virtually unlimited and I saw the raid blasting toward us. Excitedly I alerted Smith to the incoming German fighter sweep, 'Relic Red flight leader, this is Mop! Bandits, lots of 'em. Two o'clock low! Corning in on the deck!' Captain Smith could not see them at first, 'Mop you take the Iead!' 'Roger!' I responded instinctively, still surveying the situation.

 

The enemy planes were at tree-top level, anywhere from fifty to eighty of them. They had just hit the British 2nd Tactical Airfield at Y-32, and it was the Brits' AA guns that Jack Kennedy had seen.

 

-------

 

Perhaps they are working object by object and we are getting further visibility for flak down the road? Perhaps we are going to get better spotting further on?

 

Also, looks like the last update made my bug report even worse. In the original bug report we could see the specks coming toward us until 3.5km, when they started to disappear and only reappear already in the bounce. In a recent video that I made, they are not visible at all until they are already in the bounce. This was after the update 4.002. I also need to work on it to rebuild the bug report.

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[[DBS]TH0R]

I suggest that we move the aircraft disappearing bug into another thread. Or do you wan't me to edit the title?

 

It is plainly obvious how Expert visibility (and ALT by that matter) is riddled with glaring issues. As others have pointed out - most other sims don't have such problems.

 

Thankfully we got the cloud rendering issue resolved since the last patch. Here is hoping this gets addressed in near future as well.

[SeaW0lf]

17 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I suggest that we move the aircraft disappearing bug into another thread. Or do you wan't me to edit the title?

 

It is plainly obvious how Expert visibility (and ALT by that matter) is riddled with glaring issues. As others have pointed out - most other sims don't have such problems.

 

Thankfully we got the cloud rendering issue resolved since the last patch. Here is hoping this gets addressed in near future as well.

 

I'll edit it. I just went off-topic because of the post above, to contextualize that it is not just the bugs, but the approach the game has taken.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

15 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I suggest that we move the aircraft disappearing bug into another thread. Or do you wan't me to edit the title?

 

It is plainly obvious how Expert visibility (and ALT by that matter) is riddled with glaring issues. As others have pointed out - most other sims don't have such problems.

 

Thankfully we got the cloud rendering issue resolved since the last patch. Here is hoping this gets addressed in near future as well.

Cloud issue was not resolved if you are talking about aliasing , took good SS to prove last weekend during multiplayer dogfight FC missions . Check how biplanes are drawn in front of clouds.

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

I'll edit it. I just went off-topic because of the post above, to contextualize that it is not just the bugs, but the approach the game has taken.

 

Do you have moderator status? Edit on the way after pressing post.

 

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Cloud issue was not resolved if you are talking about aliasing , took good SS to prove last weekend during multiplayer dogfight FC missions . Check how biplanes are drawn in front of clouds.

 

Interesting. I've only had a chance to test it briefly (real life work and all), but it seemed to me that it was mostly resolved for the better part. Even running with AAx2...

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, [DBS]TH0R said:

Do you have moderator status? Edit on the way after pressing post.

 

 

 

No, I just removed the video from my post. Wasn't what you were asking? Maybe I did not quite understand it.

[[DBS]TH0R]

I was asking whether to rename the whole thread, seeing how we debated around the issue of disappearing contacts on wide FOV.

 

To include this in the thread title or that you start a new thread with this issue as standalone.

 

Let me know, and I'll link your stuff in the first post with thread name edit.

Edited December 4, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SeaW0lf]

3 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I was asking whether to rename the whole thread, seeing how we debated around the issue of disappearing contacts on wide FOV.

 

To include this in the thread title or that you start a new thread with this issue as standalone.

 

Let me know, and I'll link your stuff in the first post with thread name edit.

 

I already have a bug report on the subject (disappearing contacts), I was posting the video to contextualize my argument that the whole game is flawed regarding visibility, since the previous post was mentioning ROF, CloD and other games (started with the video from Il-2 1946). I mentioned flak just on the surface (I need to build a report and record some videos). Also because it has the information that they were spotting planes kilometers away on the deck.

 

I'm not sure if I veered too far and attached to much information. You can ask the moderation to delete it (also the further replies). It will take some weeks to put things together, but if I open another complaint regarding flak, I’ll post a link here just for people to know.

[[DBS]TH0R]

The more information the better. Thank you for doing the report, I'd do it myself but am very busy as of lately and just had no time.

 

Best we keep things on topic and separate thread for this was a good choice IMHO.