Would you prefer intelligent markers or the current "realistic" visibility?

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

The spotting right now is extremely difficult and is unlikely to get radically better. One possible solution is to use intelligent markers that adjust their state according to the range. Suppose that you like to play on a server that is otherwise uses "hardcore" realism  Would you prefer to have such markers on or visibility they way it is now?

Here is an excellent post by @CAFulcrum that I totally agree with.
 

  

6 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

This mess is why I would prefer to have an intelligent icon system that simulated what the pilot would see or notice, rather than leaving it up to the user end and their equipment.  You're never going to simulate actual visibility with a screen, it's not just a matter of pixel size but parallax and the effect of seeing a moving object against a non-moving background vs a screen that is constantly moving around.

 

At least the devs are looking at it.  I don't think there is ever going to be a graphical solution that matches realism.  I'd argue that an icon system that doesn't cheat (ie you only see the icon when your pilot would see a plane, and it changes its fidelity of information depending on how well the pilot sees them) is better than a graphical system that does (ie altering the natural appearance of the aircraft to make it more apparent.)

 

Graphically, they could do something to make the outline of an aircraft more apparent, either a lighter or darker edge or a motion-trail/blur of the object to sort of cue the eye that it's seeing something moving rather than static.

 

Icons wise, they could use something less obtrusive than glowing red/blue letters, like dots or distance-lines, or they could to some sort of pure dot or aircraft outline, and have them fade in and out of view depending on the pilot's accuity.  It might look sort of terminator-ish but you'll end up with a more accurate simulation and the code could be used to improve ai visibility as well.

 

Though I think the community largely prefers no icons, so I'd hate to see them waste resources on something no one uses.  But then again, how much of that is simply due to the fact that we have a somewhat rudimentary icon system?

 

[Nolly]

Counterpoint (with caveat): Vis is awesome

 

I actually think that vis is very very good right now. I fly hang gliders in real life (10M wingspan, same as a 109 but with no fuselage) In recent years there has been a fad towards "smoke" or semi transparent glider sails - in effect camouflage which makes it harder for your competiters to see and follow you in competition. When i fly in game i get a very simular visual picture to when i do this in real life. I feel the ranges i can track targets at is appropriate, and that the difficulty is hard but realistic.

 

Aircraft stand out aginst the sky, but become VERY difficult to track when below the horizon if camouflaged, just like IRL. Hovever it can be done, and many in game pilots clearly do it - if they couldnt booming and zooming would be impossible.

 

Just like in game i dont know how many times i have though i was tootling along alone, and then suddenly noticed that there are gliders scattered everywhere all around me in my RL "view bubble". You notice one and then suddenly you start to see heaps!

 

There are surely specific things that need work (dissappearing planes?), and some tweaks that can be made, but for me i'd prefer to see the devs working on content and developing new features, rather than throwing effort into a problem that is (IMO) solved from a realism perspective, and unsolvable from a "gamey" perspective.

 

I know AnPetrovish flies hang gliders and light aircraft in real life also,  and i like to think i can see his experieince showing through in the current vis system. 

In addition there is deferred shading and who knows what that will bring?

 

Caveat: for a monitor i use an old large screen TV (very early .model Sony Bravia) which i got for free recently as a friend was throwing it out (they are online for AU$50). This has made things easier certainly, but i stand by my points.

 

I await the flaming rebuttals

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by -RS-Nolly
grammer, clarity

[Voidhunger]

I cant see a s... now, i have switched to the "old" visibility in the menu, but it is stil bad. I dont want to use icons what we have now, because it ruins immersions. Right now im using autopilot briefly to guide me in the right direction. Any improvements to visibility are welcome

Edited May 15, 2020 by Voidhunger

[ATAG_SKUD]

I've got a 4K monitor and gave up fighters because I can't see anything past 500 meters if its below me. I can see flak bursts and stare and zoom and still can't find the fighter. I flew in many bush planes in Alaska and traffic around my town is heavy. I can see other aircraft easily out to a mile -even if they are below me. I think the current system blends in too well. Maybe if the aircraft images were sharper with better reflections and texture definition they would stand out more realistically. Now its a blurred pastel plane on top of a blurred pastel background with no outline, definition or crispness.

I like this example. Very good camouflage, but texture, reflection and lighting differences grab your eye.

skud

[gorice]

I find any kind of markers an immersion breaker, but I'd love it if plane visibility were improved. I really don't care whether some grognards think it's 'realistic'; there simply has to be an easy mode for spotting, due to the vagaries of hardware and eyesight, and I sincerely doubt the current spotting is realistic. Last time I tried playing online, I was checking 6 when a fast-flying enemy fighter decloaked and started firing right before my eyes. It's literally unplayable.

[jokerBR]

I like the way ARMA3 solved this. They put a sort of very faint halo around the enemy when it is at distance, helping your eye to catch the difference against the background more easily (specially if it is in movement, like it would in real life). 

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

8 hours ago, gorice said:

I find any kind of markers an immersion breaker, but I'd love it if plane visibility were improved. I really don't care whether some grognards think it's 'realistic'; there simply has to be an easy mode for spotting, due to the vagaries of hardware and eyesight, and I sincerely doubt the current spotting is realistic. Last time I tried playing online, I was checking 6 when a fast-flying enemy fighter decloaked and started firing right before my eyes. It's literally unplayable.

Several times I had enemy fighters approaching me right head-on and I saw them only after they opened fire. Very often I see AAA firing at an enemy, but don't actually see the plane unless I am in 300 meters or so.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

23 hours ago, -RS-Nolly said:

 Hovever it can be done, and many in game pilots clearly do it - if they couldnt booming and zooming would be impossible.

 

One of the greatest mysteries to me is how people actually do it. I can only go on B&Z raids in twilight when contacts are reliably visible from far away. Otherwise, it is extremely hard to find anyone. And even when I do, I sometimes lose the target when I start diving. In most conditions spotting someone within 1000m is often barely possible, how can anyone prepare a diving attack from above is beyond my understanding.

Edited May 16, 2020 by mincer

[JimTM]

FYI, from the latest Developer Diary:

 

"In the graphics department, we're adding an alternative antialiasing method, FXAA, which trades some AA quality for a noticeable performance boost. It also has a side effect of somewhat improving the visibility of the contacts against the ground, especially when used in conjunction with the "Sharpen" graphics option."

[VR-DriftaholiC]

I think calling it an icon is what causes problems for many people. But having a shape representing the aircraft at distances where it would be only a few pixels would greatly help spotting. I know warthunder is gamey but the long range spotting is far better over there.

[Stoopy]

The current "alternate spotting" would be a great place for the devs to experiment with some of these ideas since it's pooched at the moment (IMHO) so most online servers run with it off and i'd bet lots of SP folks might also.  I'm sure the servers and folks who do use it would appreciate a fix for the ginormous-looking distant planes and the mind-bending zoom behavior.  As well as a fix for the universal problem of disappearing ships and stuff at specific zoom and distance settings.  They meant well in giving us an option but so far it seems only half-baked, so might as well tinker with it. 

[JG5_Schuck]

To be fair to the Devs,

The current spotting in Alt view is pretty good, (monitor res etc aside)

and in my opinion (if you don't use the zoom) very close to real life.

Spotting an aircraft against the sky should be relatively easy out to 10k, as it is....

In reality, its actually movement that the human eye detects, long before colour or size. 

So, a parked white aircraft (either bomber or fighter) parked on a white background should difficult to see. (this is what camo is for).

I'm hoping, as stated the up coming patch may help in this regard.

Its a well known fact that a good percentage of pilots shot down had now idea it was about to happen, and very few had long protracted dogfights.

They certainly didn't see a marker in their peripheral vision to warn them!

[Beazil]

I'm thinking about spotting and related discussion topics alot lately.  Here are my thoughts for what they are worth to you all.

 

I've disabled migoto mod and enabled parallel projections to make possible zoom in VR and for alternative I'm using regular zoom in non VR on a 55 inch tv. 

The whole zooming controversy got me thinking:

What if there was no zoom at all? 

And while we are on the current theme of "I don't like you flying with crutches because I'm oh so much better than you are" crowd, we should disable maps, markers, tech chat (and chat period while flying) and zooming of any kind other than what you can accomplish by moving your head (tracking).

Might be unpalatable for some but who cares?  Server moderators can set the server to have whatever on or off for everyone anyway, so that would solve the issue there I think. Maybe we can make another thread for that, but since this appears to be the theme d'jour, it's not that nutty, and I'm only being half sarcastic.  Everyone on the same page.

I assume that is what deferred rendering will bring; parity zoom across VR and monitors.

But why is this an issue?  If everyone's spotting is "real", why have any of these (options?) on?  Ie: NO zoom.

 

For the purists out there, why have any zoom at all?  ( And all the other tech chat, etc). Could this be the answer to so many questions, particularly regarding multi player?

 

I haven't voted on your poll at the moment, as I am a bit undecided which way to go there.

 

Edit fourteen:. Interesting topic though!  I am sincerely not trying to ruffle feathers.  The more I think about this the more I am convinced it would work.

Edited May 18, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[vonGraf]

I don't use zoom but would like to have a small binocular (max. 4x, not stabilised) in my cockpit for a quick view.

[Beazil]

12 minutes ago, vonGraf said:

I don't use zoom but would like to have a small binocular (max. 4x, not stabilised) in my cockpit for a quick view.

Theoretically and for discussion purposes only here: no.  (I'm not really opposed to your suggestion).

[SCG_Wulfe]

 

18 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

I'm thinking about spotting and related discussion topics alot lately.  Here are my thoughts for what they are worth to you all.

 

I've disabled migoto mod and enabled parallel projections to make possible zoom in VR and for alternative I'm using regular zoom in non VR on a 55 inch tv. 

The whole zooming controversy got me thinking:

What if there was no zoom at all? 

And while we are on the current theme of "I don't like you flying with crutches because I'm oh so much better than you are" crowd, we should disable maps, markers, tech chat (and chat period while flying) and zooming of any kind other than what you can accomplish by moving your head (tracking).

Might be unpalatable for some but who cares?  Server moderators can set the server to have whatever on or off for everyone anyway, so that would solve the issue there I think. Maybe we can make another thread for that, but since this appears to be the theme d'jour, it's not that nutty, and I'm only being half sarcastic.  Everyone on the same page.

I assume that is what deferred rendering will bring; parity zoom across VR and monitors.

But why is this an issue?  If everyone's spotting is "real", why have any of these (options?) on?  Ie: NO zoom.

 

For the purists out there, why have any zoom at all?  ( And all the other tech chat, etc). Could this be the answer to so many questions, particularly regarding multi player?

 

I haven't voted on your poll at the moment, as I am a bit undecided which way to go there.

 

Edit fourteen:. Interesting topic though!  I am sincerely not trying to ruffle feathers.  The more I think about this the more I am convinced it would work.

 

I don't love it, since I actually think having no zoom will make us all generally less able to ID than we are in real life. But, it is fair. 

I also don't love the idea of markers. However, if the game cannot better address inequity in the zoom and spotting available between platforms (screens, resolutions, and VR)... then one of these solutions is really the only fair outcome I can see. 

[RedKestrel]

18 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

I'm thinking about spotting and related discussion topics alot lately.  Here are my thoughts for what they are worth to you all.

 

I've disabled migoto mod and enabled parallel projections to make possible zoom in VR and for alternative I'm using regular zoom in non VR on a 55 inch tv. 

The whole zooming controversy got me thinking:

What if there was no zoom at all? 

And while we are on the current theme of "I don't like you flying with crutches because I'm oh so much better than you are" crowd, we should disable maps, markers, tech chat (and chat period while flying) and zooming of any kind other than what you can accomplish by moving your head (tracking).

Might be unpalatable for some but who cares?  Server moderators can set the server to have whatever on or off for everyone anyway, so that would solve the issue there I think. Maybe we can make another thread for that, but since this appears to be the theme d'jour, it's not that nutty, and I'm only being half sarcastic.  Everyone on the same page.

I assume that is what deferred rendering will bring; parity zoom across VR and monitors.

But why is this an issue?  If everyone's spotting is "real", why have any of these (options?) on?  Ie: NO zoom.

 

For the purists out there, why have any zoom at all?  ( And all the other tech chat, etc). Could this be the answer to so many questions, particularly regarding multi player?

 

I haven't voted on your poll at the moment, as I am a bit undecided which way to go there.

 

Edit fourteen:. Interesting topic though!  I am sincerely not trying to ruffle feathers.  The more I think about this the more I am convinced it would work.

Personally, I think zoom is useful and necessary to overcome some fundamental limitations we have either in resolution (VR) or image size (monitors). If you were sitting in a RL cockpit, with the gunsight roughly the same distance away as your monitor is, the gunsight would be 3 or 4 times larger in relative size for most players. There is no way to overcome this deficiency without serious downsides, even with insane monitor sizes and resolutions - monitor sizes large enough to show object size at a 1:1 fidelity and retain useful FOV have fisheye distortion on the edges of the screen, aside from being extremely expensive and requiring higher-end graphics cards.

I am not against a small amount of artificial enhancement to make spotting a little easier, provided it is subtle and not full on icons, and doesn't come up against its own issues. Most smart icons, scaling, etc. though introduce issues with estimating range, or it being easier to spot targets at long range than at short range, etc.

But then, I am not a purist in terms of these things. The first thing we have to recognize when playing simulators is that they will never be perfect, and trying to fix the deficiencies without careful thought can often result in something that is either less realistic or just destroys the fun and function of the game.

My hope is that this update will roll out with a native zoom feature for VR that will allow VR players to ID contacts at or near to parity with monitor users. Even though I don't see myself using VR at any point in the near future, I think it's always going to be part of the sim world going forward and it makes sense as a community to make sure the game is enjoyable on as much hardware as practically possible.

[SharpeXB]

There is really no way to have any “realistic” marker or icon. Even the smallest effect will over-enhance targets. 
The best thing IL-2 could do would be to adopt HDR output with its wider color gamut. That’s what would really help spot green planes against green backgrounds. Most every other current game has this and more flight sim players are using HDTVs as displays, and many current monitors are HDR compatible these days. 

[SCG_Wulfe]

Just found this study. Not sure if its been posted here before. 

Very detailed and in depth. It's a long read. 

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005594

 

The attached chart is a good summary of the findings. It doesn't speak to ability to identify an aircraft type but rather just spot the aircraft at all based on range and contrast (visibility conditions.)

 

Identification is another matter and I think some zoom is still necessary to make up for resolution constraints. 

 

If I were to suggest a zoom system, I would base the magnification allowed for various displays on the detected game resolution. I would prevent the zoom from increasing render range and only allow it zoom on objects already rendered at the non-zoomed range. 

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

I think some zoom is still necessary to make up for resolution constraints. 

That’s really the reason for zoom view besides just the FOV. You can’t increase the resolution of your screen to match real world acuity so the only solution is to make things larger. Imagine this example. Put an eye chart in the game out on the wing of your plane. Given an average desktop 24” 1080p monitor or typical VR HMD, how much do you think you’d have to zoom in to read the 20/20 line? My guess is a lot. Maybe 10-20x. Which would be really awkward and unusable in the game. 5x is about all you can do without it becoming just unusable and probably kinda unrealistic. So it’s what we have. 

[Beazil]

3 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

Where did you get THAT from?  Never mind, it's not a challenge.  More of a LOL kind of comment.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Real-life zoom looks like this

[Charlo-VRde]

After the 4.006 update I would change my vote to current visibility. I can spot bogies in VR much better now, and can even take my eyes off of them for a quick situational awareness check and find the bogies again about half the time.  
 

I can’t tell if they are friendly in my VR headset, though, until I get within convergence distance.  But that’s a whole other discussion

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Yes, I found new visibility to be much better. However, it is a relative comparison. In the absolute sense, visibility is still poor and spotting is hard. I am actually fine with it as long as the visibility conditions are reasonably even for all players. For example, I don't care if somebody has a better monitor than me and spots me 30 seconds before I spot him. I don't care if my opponent uses TrackIR and I use a hat.

 

What I am concerned about is 3rd-party software that radically alters visibility conditions. If spotting is still hard, people will go out of their way to gain an upper hand as spotting is the most important aspect of air combat. There will be just too much room for abuse to gain an advantage. If one thing stops working there will be another one, and the process will go on and on.

However, if there were markers guaranteeing a certain minimum level of spotting for basically anyone, 3rd-party software will be useless. There is no point in hacking the game if it gives 5% improvement over what the game offers by default. Markers are a way to level the playing field. Right now the difference between default settings and some "visual tricks" is gigantic, which I find unfair. Using default graphics setting basically means being blind.
 

Edited May 21, 2020 by mincer

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, mincer said:

However, if there were markers guaranteeing a certain minimum level of spotting for basically anyone,

There already are. Icons. 

[JG5_Schuck]

While i agree,

zoom is needed for some (i don't use it).

Its the level of zoom that appears to be the problem.

As you look at an object and zoom, you reach a certain point and it dramatically changes in a unrealistic manner.

So cap the view just before this happen. 

Then there will still be a zoom (reduced), for those that need it, but the object size issue goes away...

I actually think the spotting in game is pretty close to RL....

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

As you look at an object and zoom, you reach a certain point and it dramatically changes in a unrealistic manner.

How so? Are you using Alternate Visibility? I don’t see anything odd or unrealistic when using zoom

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

I think one elegant solution to the planes being nearly invisible against backgrounds is what DICE did after they had ditched icons for Battlefield V.

They "simply" make soldiers more visible against the background, by either making them appear lighter or darker, depending on the background they were viewed against.

[SharpeXB]

On 5/24/2020 at 9:18 AM, So_ein_Feuerball said:

I think one elegant solution to the planes being nearly invisible against backgrounds is what DICE did after they had ditched icons for Battlefield V.

They "simply" make soldiers more visible against the background, by either making them appear lighter or darker, depending on the background they were viewed against.

That effect actually looks kinda awful. Like poor shading. So I wouldn’t want to see anything artificial like that in a sim. BV didn’t really do that to avoid icons, there aren’t icons over enemies unless they’ve been spotted. It’s just that the graphics became so elaborate along with customizable soldiers that seeing them became difficult. But BV isn’t a “sim” and this was done to enforce a certain gameplay style, something “sims” shouldn’t do. 

[BlackBadger]

I think spotting has improved somewhat in the latest patch, but only when looking against the sky. Still very VERY difficult to see an airplane at 1-2km at your 4-5 when they're infront of the ground.

 

On 5/15/2020 at 5:00 AM, -RS-Nolly said:

Counterpoint (with caveat): Vis is awesome

 

I actually think that vis is very very good right now. I fly hang gliders in real life (10M wingspan, same as a 109 but with no fuselage) In recent years there has been a fad towards "smoke" or semi transparent glider sails - in effect camouflage which makes it harder for your competiters to see and follow you in competition. When i fly in game i get a very simular visual picture to when i do this in real life. I feel the ranges i can track targets at is appropriate, and that the difficulty is hard but realistic.

 

Aircraft stand out aginst the sky, but become VERY difficult to track when below the horizon if camouflaged, just like IRL. Hovever it can be done, and many in game pilots clearly do it - if they couldnt booming and zooming would be impossible.

 

Just like in game i dont know how many times i have though i was tootling along alone, and then suddenly noticed that there are gliders scattered everywhere all around me in my RL "view bubble". You notice one and then suddenly you start to see heaps!

 

There are surely specific things that need work (dissappearing planes?), and some tweaks that can be made, but for me i'd prefer to see the devs working on content and developing new features, rather than throwing effort into a problem that is (IMO) solved from a realism perspective, and unsolvable from a "gamey" perspective.

 

I know AnPetrovish flies hang gliders and light aircraft in real life also,  and i like to think i can see his experieince showing through in the current vis system. 

In addition there is deferred shading and who knows what that will bring?

 

Caveat: for a monitor i use an old large screen TV (very early .model Sony Bravia) which i got for free recently as a friend was throwing it out (they are online for AU$50). This has made things easier certainly, but i stand by my points.

 

I await the flaming rebuttals

 

 

I think comparing slow moving gliders with transparent wings to a larger metal/wooden plane that moves at a much faster rate (and therefore is more likely to be registered by the eye) is a very misleading comparison. There are plenty of people with irl flying experience that know you should be able to spot something within the 2-3 km radius even when the target is between you and the ground. The reason being:

 

A) Stuff that moves attracts the brains attention. Camouflage or not. I've seen people post the camouflaged ww2 a/c photographed against a tree canopy background saying that's proof they're almost invisible. But that's nonsense. If you look at any video of a moving object even camouflaged against a similar background it's the movement  that gives it away. Camouflage IRL is not there to hide something lol. It's there to break up a pattern so that when a tank etc is stationary you can't identify what it is with ease. In a best case scenario you can miss a static object entirely when casually scanning. But once you factor in movement it's visible.

 

B) When flying at 5km, you should see anything at the 2-3km altitude a lot clearer then at ground level due to how visibility/atmosphere works. The further something is the more washed out it seems. The closer something is the more contrast it has. Of course depends on atmospheric conditions. Relative contrast changes according to whether it's foggy or a clear day. 

In-game the land loses contrast with height as it should. But the relative contrast difference between land/ac doesn't seem to work on planes below you when zoomed out.

 

Final thoughts

The Eyes acuity is much better then what a monitor can provide. The zoom mechanic is an absolute must to simulate how the eye can differentiate details IRL. And at that it does a good job. However! Registering motion and distinct patterns is a different attribute of the eye/brain that is not very well modelled when zoomed out.  Fast movement up to 2-3km below should be visible at all zoom levels. In terms of game mechanic. Take the contrast that planes currently have against pale blue sky. Adjust it to X percentage for a given background. For instance against white snow, visibility should be (and i'm guessing here) 120%. Against blue water 80%, against forests 70%, against autumn barren landscape such as stalingrad 85% etc.

 

Because right now the contrast drops to near zero for anything below you when zoomed out. And that's an issue because if you're up high you're not going to see almost anything. The searching game then becomes quickly boring. How many of you have flown around for hours without any contact?

 

But for those that want to keep it as it is... If you think this is realistic....Well have fun searching for contacts only via flak bursts and tracers "early warning system". Which btw are visible at 10km+ so why is that? If you want it 'realistic' surely flak/tracers would be nearly as invisible as the planes. So you accept one side of the coin but not the other? The flak/tracer spotting system only works as a crutch atm.

 

Anyway I'm sure the devs are looking into this, it was mentioned in a dev diary and I asked on these forums not long ago. As to what they want to implement I don't know but may I humbly suggest something akin to the above would be a good start.

 

EDIT: clearly object sizing or 'dot' size is not an issue as objects are now clearly visible at 5k against the sky at wide to mid zoom. All that remains is to adjust contrast.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by hnbdgr