HDR effect on spotting?

[[DBS]Browning]

1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

My question is how much of this issue is just do the the age of the game's architecture?

 

Absolutely none of the problems with spotting are caused by the age of the game.

I can say that with confidence as there are several older games that have no such problems.

[Atomic_Spaniel]

On 7/24/2020 at 2:49 PM, Didney_World said:

Even on Berloga, where it's pretty much a desert, it's impossible to see anything without zoom set at x5 (with tiny FOV), or watching for huge fat tracers. You can see/spot the planes only when they're around ~500-800m, or when they are in the sky during a banking turn.

 

I used to wonder why the game kept the ludicrous bright tracers - but I now think they have to be kept because finding other aircraft would be almost impossible without them. 

[TAIPAN_]

4 hours ago, cellinsky said:

 

Im with you. But...what would you do to be fair to anyone? There is simply no technical solution unless everybody is using the very same device for spotting. If it would be an easy fix, I think it would be done since ages. I switched recently from a superfine-density Monitor to a HTC cosmos. The difference in spotting things couldnt be more indistinguishable. As long we have huge 4k monitors and lowres headsets the issue will remain.

 

The answer is to make contact size a percentage of the vertical resolution, not the same pixel size for everyone.

 

E.g. if a given far away contact is 2x2 pixels for someone on 800x600 resolution, then it should be 4x4 pixels for someone on 1600x1200 resolution. Making the contact the same percentage of the total monitor space is the only way to ensure upgraded  hardware maintains the same spotting as older hardware. If they are the same physical size for everyone then people could stop turning their resolutions down.

 

It has to be vertical resolution used to determine the percentage only. Cannot use total pixels because some people have triple screen setups, ultra-wide monitors, or VR with wide FOV. Otherwise you'll end up with the same problem of ultra-wide players having to cut resolution to square size to maintain contact pixels for spotting ? Vertical resolution is the best way to compare object size across monitors.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Dan_Taipan

[[DBS]TH0R]

5 hours ago, cellinsky said:

Im with you. But...what would you do to be fair to anyone? There is simply no technical solution unless everybody is using the very same device for spotting. If it would be an easy fix, I think it would be done since ages. I switched recently from a superfine-density Monitor to a HTC cosmos. The difference in spotting things couldnt be more indistinguishable. As long we have huge 4k monitors and lowres headsets the issue will remain.

 

Lets reverse this a bit... Current solution is rendering contacts as much as possible at 1:1 realistic scale in an already blurry environment. End result is that many players do their best to circumvent the rendering system by either using Reshade, force low gamma or stay at low resolution displays in order to render those pixel size contacts better.

 

Older and other flight sims did not use such approach as it, as can be seen, simply doesn't work in practice. They make compromises to best simulate realistic spotting system. Thus no such problems are exhibited.

 

TL;DR: the system we have in this game is disregarding the lessons learned from other sims and stuff that should be taken for granted in 2020.

 

In order to be fair to the widest spectrum of players, s complete new thinking is needed how spotting should be modeled in a combat flight simulator, or bare minimum - offered as a valid option. Not half arsed butchered solution called "Alternate visibility". Especially in 2020 when we have so many variations on which this game can be displayed - from low resolution to 4K+ monitors to VR headsets each with its own limitations and benefits.

 

Sadly, this forum has a few very vocal individuals that do their best trying to "convince" others that spotting is hardware limitation and "solutions from 20 years ago" shouldn't be used. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Edited July 27, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

On 7/23/2020 at 6:32 PM, Rattlesnake said:

The "fly-speck" contact dots War Thunder simulator mode uses at long range work, and work well, to at least bring players together. Just steal the idea already and be done with it.

It's true, but War Thunder shows your aircraft as a dot for huge distances over 10+ km, regardless how many skies are between observer and you. ?

[=X51=VC_]

Guys, I really didn't think that a question about a specific setting, not complaining about spotting in general but just trying to understand how it works and how it affects this aspect of the game, should turn into such a game-bashing whine thread.

 

OK, I agree with you to an extent that directly trying to render an object at its real size will cause issues with spotting especially across different hardware setups. But if lowering resolution makes spotting easier then the problem is that a target significantly smaller than one pixel is rendering at all. We do not need approaches that go to the lowest common denominator to fill the skies with huge black dots. Something in between is needed, where on low resolution the target dot is adjusted for colour so it is not black and easy to spot but grey based on how much smaller the real thing is than the pixel it is rendered as.

 

In my opinion the correct approach is to base rendering on real life studies of how far combat pilots have spotted their targets, and then ensure that there is something just barely visible at those ranges for everyone, with visibility increasing linearly as the target gets closer. However it is almost impossible to truly anticipate all hardware setups and account for them to be equal.

 

I have to warn you though, I think a lot of people are saying "give us real pilot eyesight" while completely overestimating spotting ability in real life. Studies by the USN at various weapon trainings have shown that pilots will spot a "dot" enemy aircraft on average at a range of approximately 5 nautical miles (9km). But these were targets from A-4, F-5 and up to the size of an F-4 Phantom. Put a Phantom next to a Yak or 109 and tell me the same guy, who barely saw that Phantom at 5nm, will see the 109 at 10km+ that people here are expecting. Even the A-4, though tiny for a jet, projects much more fuselage and wing area for spotting than a WWII single engine fighter.

 

I understand your nostalgia but what some of you are asking for basically equals unrealistically easy spotting for everyone. I don't think spotting in IL2 BoX is perfect and I believe some of you when you say you feel blind. But overall I think that across a reasonable range of hardware an average player has (not either extremes), IL2 delivers mostly realistic spotting ranges in most conditions as far as I'm concerned.

Edited July 27, 2020 by =X51=VC_

[THERION]

On 7/23/2020 at 7:32 PM, Rattlesnake said:

The "fly-speck" contact dots War Thunder simulator mode uses at long range work, and work well, to at least bring players together. Just steal the idea already and be done with it.

 

To me it's very difficult to compare two products completely different. And to copy some tech from one to another doesn't seem to be the right approach.

 

We have to be patient and keep the faith in our dev team so they can sort it out. I know, that they are aware of this issue and they keep trying to find a good

solution for their product - there is absolutely no need to copy a tech from another product (I don't want to call it a sim).

 

Can you imagine what people would say, if they would copy some spotting tech but would also lower the graphic quality of the simulation? Sure we might

be able to spot a little better, but for the price of an ugly graphical environment? Because when it comes in comparison to our simulation, WT is absolutely

no match at all - I tried (shame on me!) it different times and always came to the same conclusion: absolutely ugly, very gamey (simulation mode), it reminds

me of the game hall days were you could chase waves of enemy planes in a F14 - funny at that time, but hey, we're in the 20ies now.

 

I prefer to stick with these spotting issues for the moment and hoping this will be fixed soon. I still enjoy connecting to some MP server like Combat Box, Berloga

(to warm up), Finish and WOL. And yes, even if I do not spot very much, I think the enemy doesn't either, so we are in parity.

 

And one last thing - as I'm not a pilot in real life, I do not know how far a plane should be spotted realistically - some say 15 miles away, other say 5 miles. I don't

know, so I can't really judge.

 

11 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

In my opinion the correct approach is to base rendering on real life studies of how far combat pilots have spotted their targets, and then ensure that there is something just barely visible at those ranges for everyone, with visibility increasing linearly as the target gets closer. However it is almost impossible to truly anticipate all hardware setups and account for them to be equal.

 

Absolutely!

Edited July 27, 2020 by THERION

[[DBS]Browning]

Spotting at range might need a little work, but it's not so bad. 

It's spotting planes at medium distance (say 2 - 5km) that is the biggest let down for me. 

I can be escorting a formation of bombers below me, turn away for 30 seconds and then be compleaty unable to find them, despite them being within 5km of me. 

Even more often, I give my online wingman a landmark to meet up over and we both start circling the area, unable to find each other for a great deal of time, despite our proximity. 

[TAIPAN_]

8 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

In my opinion the correct approach is to base rendering on real life studies of how far combat pilots have spotted their targets, and then ensure that there is something just barely visible at those ranges for everyone, with visibility increasing linearly as the target gets closer. However it is almost impossible to truly anticipate all hardware setups and account for them to be equal.

 

That is fine, but it needs to be an approach that's equal across hardware, not based on number of pixels.

Otherwise it's locking people into the previous generation of hardware and not allowing the game engine into the future of 4k screens, high resolution VR, retina displays etc.

 

It's upsetting when I read on reddit that people advise not to buy the HP Reverb VR headset because the resolution is "too high for spotting", or to get a 1080p 40 inch TV to play on instead of a widescreen monitor because the monitor is too detailed for spotting.

 

For spotting to be realistic/hard work is great - as long as it doesn't get worse when hardware gets better. It should be the opposite in fact, the detail of a small object should get clearer as resolution goes up the same way eyesight improves when putting your glasses on. It can be the same physical size, but should be more pixels.

 

A level playing field, with the objects appearing the same percentage of the screen for all screens.

 

 

[SJ_Butcher]

13 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I understand your nostalgia but what some of you are asking for basically equals unrealistically easy spotting for everyone. I don't think spotting in IL2 BoX is perfect and I believe some of you when you say you feel blind. But overall I think that across a reasonable range of hardware an average player has (not either extremes), IL2 delivers mostly realistic spotting ranges in most conditions as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's pretty simple, we don't have the same setup, and spotting should be easier because we are behind a much less quality screen and sizes, settings are all over the place. And many people is stoping buying/playing the game because of this, money talks first man. Other Sims don't have this problems and they sell well.

[[DBS]TH0R]

21 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

OK, I agree with you to an extent that directly trying to render an object at its real size will cause issues with spotting especially across different hardware setups. But if lowering resolution makes spotting easier then the problem is that a target significantly smaller than one pixel is rendering at all. We do not need approaches that go to the lowest common denominator to fill the skies with huge black dots. Something in between is needed, where on low resolution the target dot is adjusted for colour so it is not black and easy to spot but grey based on how much smaller the real thing is than the pixel it is rendered as.

 

In my opinion the correct approach is to base rendering on real life studies of how far combat pilots have spotted their targets, and then ensure that there is something just barely visible at those ranges for everyone, with visibility increasing linearly as the target gets closer. However it is almost impossible to truly anticipate all hardware setups and account for them to be equal.

 

I have to warn you though, I think a lot of people are saying "give us real pilot eyesight" while completely overestimating spotting ability in real life. Studies by the USN at various weapon trainings have shown that pilots will spot a "dot" enemy aircraft on average at a range of approximately 5 nautical miles (9km). But these were targets from A-4, F-5 and up to the size of an F-4 Phantom. Put a Phantom next to a Yak or 109 and tell me the same guy, who barely saw that Phantom at 5nm, will see the 109 at 10km+ that people here are expecting. Even the A-4, though tiny for a jet, projects much more fuselage and wing area for spotting than a WWII single engine fighter.

 

I understand your nostalgia but what some of you are asking for basically equals unrealistically easy spotting for everyone. I don't think spotting in IL2 BoX is perfect and I believe some of you when you say you feel blind. But overall I think that across a reasonable range of hardware an average player has (not either extremes), IL2 delivers mostly realistic spotting ranges in most conditions as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'll try keeping this as short as possible, replying to paragraph per paragraph:

 

Therein lies the problem. Rendering stuff 1:1 is simply not doable with current tech. Instead, IMHO the goal should be to render stuff that would be visible in real life. Not strictly adhering to 1:1 scale rendering as we have it now. Agreed that something in between is needed. I have been asking for a compromise for a long time now.

 

Seconded for real life studies and rendering. I believe this is the reason original 9-9.5 km bubble was chosen. Problem was nothing was rendered past that, and now that it is - contacts around 9 km mark are barely a size of a pixel, i.e. are rendered a size of a pixel.

 

The same can be said for spotting we have in-game now. Severely underestimating what is possible in real life. Hence many of us call this "blindness tuning". It is my belief that combat flight simulator should allow for 20/20 vision. Some of pilots are not in their early 20s and their eyesight has deteriorated. Some in their 20s playing this surely don't have 20/20 vision.

 

No one here is asking for unrealistically easy spotting. Do not confuse that with easier spotting than we have now.  Unlike you, my impression is that spotting in this game works either on 4K 50" TVs or 27" 1080p desktops (people having no issues often have systems in this range - extreme end). VR headsets are hit or miss, often easier to spot but near impossible to ID the target. In other words, IL-2 Great Battles spotting is delivering extremely limitating and unrealistic spotting across the wide range of used hardware. Especially for the average user. Here my opinion is complete opposite from yours.

 

 

21 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Spotting at range might need a little work, but it's not so bad. 

It's spotting planes at medium distance (say 2 - 5km) that is the biggest let down for me. 

I can be escorting a formation of bombers below me, turn away for 30 seconds and then be compleaty unable to find them, despite them being within 5km of me. 

Even more often, I give my online wingman a landmark to meet up over and we both start circling the area, unable to find each other for a great deal of time, despite our proximity. 

 

From our flying together, it is my impression that since you 100% time use VR - it is easier for you to spot targets at a long range, say 10km. I have very rarely been able to spot anything at that range with my desktop 27" 1440p monitor. As for 2-5 km - I fully agree with you. Same impressions/disappointment on my end.

 

Spotting needs to work both for VR and for desktop, and currently it is working on neither systems. Most likely two solutions would be needed in order to create a level playing field, one for VR and other for desktop (2D) users. Until then, developers will have their hands full stomping various cheating methods. As long as things don't change, people will find ways to cheat. It is my opinion that their time would be much better spent by designing a modern up to date system that allows for easier and yet realistic spotting in this simulator, which would eliminate the need for mods and circumventing the unrealistic blindness spotting, therefore at the same time eliminating the need for occasional game changes to ban such mods.

Edited July 28, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[Guest deleted@134347]

28 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

From our flying together, it is my impression that since you 100% time use VR - it is easier for you to spot targets at a long range, say 10km. I have very rarely been able to spot anything at that range with my desktop 27" 1440p monitor. As for 2-5 km - I fully agree with you.

 

I fly VR 100% and I can distinctly spot the distant targets (~10km) on Combat Box. They appear as a pretty simply 3-5 pixel blob, but importantly the blob is made up of Black&White pixels only, so it can be easily discerned against the background.

 

When the same target comes within 1-5km (or less, can't tell), the amount of pixels increase, however they are no longer just black&white. They are of all tones of gray, green, and something lighter. And that stuff just freaking BLENDS with the ground. And the pixel colors aren't static either, they keep changing too, but all within the same gray-ish palette successfully merging with their surroundings, and making it even worse if you have any sort of Anti-Aliasing enabled. Had they stayed with the same black/white simple model you'd be able to spot the target very easily. Alas, that's not what's happening.

 

The purists here then would say: "well, that's why planes had camo, to blend in." And they're right in their on right. But in this game we're talking about pixels, AA, blending, reflections, etc.

[CountZero]

Laying on bech i can see airplanes landing and taking off from airport that is ~12km from it, single engine prop types like cessna 172 and have no problem tracking them when they fly few kms abow me all way to the airport, i can glance at "flora and fauna" on beach and then have no problem to reaquire airplane again in distance its so easy to see them, and when choppers take off they can also clearly be sean, and are noticable bigger then cessnas, what we have in game is no way realistic to what is posible in real life. And at no point airplanes were invisable or imposible to fined after looking at other places for some time ( more then when in game you lose guy who your falowing jus by glancing on your 6 for 1s).  

[THERION]

42 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Laying on bech i can see airplanes landing and taking off from airport that is ~12km from it, single engine prop types like cessna 172 and have no problem tracking them when they fly few kms abow me all way to the airport, i can glance at "flora and fauna" on beach and then have no problem to reaquire airplane again in distance its so easy to see them, and when choppers take off they can also clearly be sean, and are noticable bigger then cessnas, what we have in game is no way realistic to what is posible in real life. And at no point airplanes were invisable or imposible to fined after looking at other places for some time ( more then when in game you lose guy who your falowing jus by glancing on your 6 for 1s).  

 

Well, I wouldn't compare the situation you described here with the situation we actually have/simulate. Don't forget, as you stated at the beginning of your first sentence - you are lying on the beach. This is a quite different situation, if you ask me. You observe these planes / choppers from a fix position, you don't move.

And even if you have a glance at other things like flora or fauna, from your fixed position it is much easier to regain sight on those flying objects, because you

do not move, you do not change your position.

 

Even if I'm not a real pilot, I think this is a crucial point. I'm a motor biker and on the road, it is easy to focus on something fix/static or if I have a break and

observe vehicles passing by from quite a distance. But as soon all is moving/driving the situation is not the same, it is more likely to loose "contact".

Edited July 31, 2020 by THERION

[216th_Jordan]

45 minutes ago, THERION said:

 

Even if I'm not a real pilot, I think this is a crucial point. I'm a motor biker and on the road, it is easy to focus on something fix/static or if I have a break and

observe vehicles passing by from quite a distance. But as soon all is moving/driving the situation is not the same, it is more likely to loose "contact".

 

This is definitely true, but one could make the point that observations from the beach would be comparable to sitting on the airfield, canopy open, and trying to spot surrounding planes. Someone made a spotting test mission (JimTM ? - I'll try to find it again) with emulates exactly that - sitting on an airfield with 109s circling the field at various distances. I found that very nice for quantifiyable results. 

 

With my basic NV profile settings I could barely make out a 109 that was 3 km away in the mission - I was able to tweak that now so I see them up to 5 or 6 km quite a bit better now, but it is still a pain TBH.

[Blackhawk_FR]

I always saw a lot of complains about contact spotting.

 

Well, to me, it seems very realistic and coherent since few updates. 

 

IRL when the air traffic controler give me the position of another aircraft, I can tell you that even with a very sharp view, it can be very hard to find it until he's close from you. Some times I will never see it even when he's passing close (especially if he's under me). 

On the other hand, I will sometimes see them from very far, and it's possible to see trucks on highways up to 20km away. 

 

Spotting an aircraft is a matter of many thing: 

How big it is

Its color/camo

Background (sky, cloud, or ground)

Time of the day, luminosity
And... my guess is it's also a matter of luck

 

So I may be the only one who think that but... contact spotting is one of the strong point of IL2 (not saying it's perfect of course). Depending on the conditions, you can spot someone more than 10km away, while in the worst conditions, you will kill your eyes trying to find it few kms away. 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by JG300_Faucon

[firdimigdi]

I too have little issue spotting - it's the IDing that makes me lose time... are those 5 pixels friendly I wonder?

[fogpipe]

Havent played in a year, quit in disgust at the poor performance and unstable frame rate, but i got a new joy stick and in the interest of putting it through its paces fired up il2.

 

I have the same hardware and iirc it didnt matter what graphical settings i used before, there was always stutter and lag.

 

Today, with the new stick and conservative settings, its running pretty smooth. What happened?

 

EDIT: also, is there somewhere on the forum i could find an update history? Seems to be a lot of new stuff and i dont want to miss anything.

Edited July 31, 2020 by fogpipe

[Redwo1f]

Never has been a problem for me either (1080p SP).

[PatrickAWlson]

Can't see a thing.  I'm also old and wear glasses.  I need something like a K-Mart blue light special thingie.

[jollyjack]

It certainly runs better, but since i bought TC loading time has increases, maybe almost twice as long. ???

[RedKestrel]

Just now, fogpipe said:

Havent played in a year, quit in disgust at the poor performance and unstable frame rate, but i got a new joy stick and in the interest of putting it through its paces fired up il2.

 

I have the same hardware and iirc it didnt matter what graphical settings i used before, there was always stutter and lag.

 

Today, with the new stick and conservative settings, its running pretty smooth. What happened?

 

 

They fixed some texture loading issues that were leading to some microstutter for many people and implemented deferred shading which shifted more workload to the GPU, which generally speaking meant most hardware would deal with the load from the game better. And a bunch of optimization on the clouds as well. Maybe some other performance-oriented stuff. 

[Noisemaker]

Spotting by me is also no problem.  GTX 1080 with a 1080p resolution flatscreen.  I always see the contacts long before the markers appear (No trackIR or equivalent yet, and just getting back into flight sims, so cut me some slack).

[HBB*Hunger]

Same for me. I think spotting has become very realistic. But it's just my personal experience. I think it's sometimes even easier to spot sth in GB as to spot other gliders around me in real life, even if they are painted white.

 

 

[Stoopy]

6 minutes ago, jollyjack said:

It certainly runs better, but since i bought TC loading time has increases, maybe almost twice as long. ???

 

That's just the Provkorvka (or however it's spelled?) map.  Takes longer to load than others, even a tad longer than the Bodenplatte map.

 

[jollyjack]

That explains it, your almost namesake has his problems too, even on the ground:

 

[Algy-Lacey]

I fly in VR with an Oculus Rift CV1 and have noticed a great increase in performance since they switched to 'deffered shading'.

 

I used to do sightseeing on the Kuban map and with no SuperSampling had framerates anywhere between 30 and 45 fps with ASW on @ 45Hz. I could only run on LOW graphics in the In-game settings and Anti Aliasing = 2

 

Since the update everything is smooth as butter and I get a constant 44 - 45 fps even on the ground and over towns. So I put the In-game graphics settings up a notch to HIGH...

 

...I also used the gpresets mod and changed the tree rendering distance from (something like) = 3 to the same setting as used in the ULTRA preset = 5. Back in the cockpit it was still smooth, no stutters and a constant 44 - 45 fps.

 

I don't know what they've done, but for me with my marginal rig for VR it has become oh so much more playable!

My rig is in my sig

 

Algy-Lacey

30 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

They fixed some texture loading issues that were leading to some microstutter for many people and implemented deferred shading which shifted more workload to the GPU, which generally speaking meant most hardware would deal with the load from the game better. And a bunch of optimization on the clouds as well. Maybe some other performance-oriented stuff. 

 

Hi RedKestrel

 

With the optimisation they did with the clouds, has it stopped the old 'boiling clouds' shimmering that were the bane of IL-2 stock clouds? I had to adjust some settings in gpresets (MOD) to get good looking clouds (clouds samples changed from 64 to 128) but now that doesn't seem to be working anymore? Should I try increasing the clouds quality in Game Settings?

 

Cheers

Algy-Lacey

[Jason_Williams]

We post a running list of all our major updates.

 

 

Jason

[HansBlitz]

I have been and continue to be happy with the spotting. I am using a Rift CV1 and RX5700XT GPU.

 

The new zoom did help me with ID'ing.

 

Just wish my schedule was allowing me more flying time..

[RedKestrel]

15 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

I fly in VR with an Oculus Rift CV1 and have noticed a great increase in performance since they switched to 'deffered shading'.

 

I used to do sightseeing on the Kuban map and with no SuperSampling had framerates anywhere between 30 and 45 fps with ASW on @ 45Hz. I could only run on LOW graphics in the In-game settings and Anti Aliasing = 2

 

Since the update everything is smooth as butter and I get a constant 44 - 45 fps even on the ground and over towns. So I put the In-game graphics settings up a notch to HIGH...

 

...I also used the gpresets mod and changed the tree rendering distance from (something like) = 3 to the same setting as used in the ULTRA preset = 5. Back in the cockpit it was still smooth, no stutters and a constant 44 - 45 fps.

 

I don't know what they've done, but for me with my marginal rig for VR it has become oh so much more playable!

My rig is in my sig

 

Algy-Lacey

 

Hi RedKestrel

 

With the optimisation they did with the clouds, has it stopped the old 'boiling clouds' shimmering that were the bane of IL-2 stock clouds? I had to adjust some settings in gpresets (MOD) to get good looking clouds (clouds samples changed from 64 to 128) but now that doesn't seem to be working anymore? Should I try increasing the clouds quality in Game Settings?

 

Cheers

Algy-Lacey

It is still there, though reduced. At higher settings, especially, Extreme, it is much less noticeable IMO. They also just last patch improved the appearance of planes against clouds, they do not appear so pixelated/blocky now.

[Algy-Lacey]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

It is still there, though reduced. At higher settings, especially, Extreme, it is much less noticeable IMO. They also just last patch improved the appearance of planes against clouds, they do not appear so pixelated/blocky now.

 

I will change the In Game setting of clouds up a notch and see if it has a detrimental impact on fps.

 

Thanks!

[RedKestrel]

I feel it has improved somewhat in some of the patches. There are still instances where I feel it is not quite right, such as when it is sometimes easier to see distant contacts than ones nearby, or when contacts seem to fade into the blue sky. But I feel it has been improving in the right direction at least. 

[Noisemaker]

45 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

 

That's just the Provkorvka (or however it's spelled?) map.  Takes longer to load than others, even a tad longer than the Bodenplatte map.

 

I've noticed an increase in loading time as well after buying TC and or 4.008.  I'm currently exclusively flying Kuban, the TC campaign takes even longer to load.

[[DBS]Browning]

I would be interested to know if the people in the thread are playing single or multiplayer.

 

In single player, the AI's spotting is infallible. This is a great help when either enemy or friendly planes are near.

It is impossible not to see an enemy who will always spot and engage you.

 

For me spotting is no big problem at long range, but appalling at medium range.

Improvements have been made, but there is some way to go.

Edited July 31, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[RedKestrel]

18 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

I've noticed an increase in loading time as well after buying TC and or 4.008.  I'm currently exclusively flying Kuban, the TC campaign takes even longer to load.

Hmm, now that I think about it my loading times are a bit longer as well since 4.008. I assumed it was something to do to switchign to 1440p display around the same time but maybe its something with the game.

[RedKestrel]

7 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I would be interested to know if the people in the thread are playing single or multiplayer.

 

In single player, the AI's spotting is infallible. This is a great help when either enemy or friendly planes are near.

It is impossible not to see an enemy who will always spot and engage you.

 

For me spotting is no big problem at long range, but appalling at medium range.

Well, the last time I was killed it was @JG300_Faucon who done it, so that answers two questions at least.

[[DBS]Browning]

It's interesting that people have such different experiences.

I find it exceptionally difficult to meet with a friend over a landmark, even when we orbit at the same altitude and location.

I can track enemy planes at a distance for some time, only to lose sight of them completely as I start to get closer.

I typically escort bombers from the same, or lower altitude because unless they are over water, I find it impossible to keep track of them and look for contacts. Even if I move my eyes away for 30 seconds, they can disappear and I won't find them until I dive to a lower altitude than the bombers.

 

I've played IL-2 Sturmovik since 2001 and never had anything like these problems in the old IL2 game, in DCS or in MSCFS1/2/3, IL-2 COD or even Rise of Flight.

Edited July 31, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[Legioneod]

Spotting is horrible for me. 1080p max settings. I'll see contrails popping in and out, going invisible, etc. I'll see the contrail yet I won't see the aircraft at the end even though he's within 10km of me. Aircraft will render in and out and sometimes just be invisible even though they are close. If they're head on they are nearly impossible to see due to wings not rendering for the most part and only the fuselage rendering in at 1-2 pixels.

Sometimes pixels are nearly the same color as the background so the aircraft appears invisible or nearly so. Spotting has become so frustrating in this game unfortunately. I enjoy the long distance spotting but recently I've been having trouble spotting anything at any distance.

 

Not much point in having long view distances over 10km if we can't even see aircraft within 5-10km. Currently it just feels worse than when we had the 10km bubble, seems like we've gone backwards instead of improving spotting at longer distances.

 

EDIT: I don't use alternate spotting. I use the "realistic" setting.

Devs are doing a great job, so I don't mean to sound harsh. Something seems to have happened when rendering was switched imo, aircraft render in and out more and appear invisible more often then not. The pixels also flicker alot compared to what they used to. Maybe spotting needs to be adjusted to the new rendering?

Edited July 31, 2020 by Legioneod

[No_Face]

Personally, I can see well from a distance (I have the Alternate plane visibility option), the problem is that the closer I get, the less I see enemy planes.
As a result, I often miss the fight because by moving towards the enemy without seeing it, I end up "overtaking" it and I only find it when I have moved far enough away from the fight and look behind me. So let's imagine I start from point A, the enemy is at point B and point C is where I realize I have gone too far, my fights look like this:
A -> B (I don't see the enemy) -> C (I realize that I am too far) -> B -> A -> B -> C ... ?
So it is not uncommon for me to fly straight ahead, simply, while waiting for the enemy to engage me to make an evasive maneuver and put me in his 6 hours. ?

I only play solo of course.

Sorry for my english.

 

EDIT : As [DBS]Browning just staring at my instruments for a second or two may be enough to make me lose my target, even if it was within my 12 hours.

Edited July 31, 2020 by No_Face

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

Spotting has gotten worse recently. It seems to have gotten worse since the last few updates. Not sure why, but it has.