Discussion on the plane visibility issue

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

IMHO I would like a balance between realism and playability because looking at a screen isn't, and never will be, as a real human eye looking at a real sky or ground.

 

In many occassions, we take off from the same aerodrome and we try to get all together in formation to proceed to the target but we waste too much time trying to find each other even though we are telling each other where we are over the RT. This is ridiculous. Spotting in this sims is way to much harder than in real life, at least in short distances. Sometimes it is difficult to fly in loose formation because I just don't see my wingman. It is very frustrating.

Edited August 22, 2020 by =gRiJ=Roman-

[AirWolves=CutCut]

First off thank you to the devs for soliciting feedback from the community on this. At least this will allow you to make decisions that are predicated on user feedback. My feedback is as follows...

I feel it is less an issue of simply spotting, and more an issue of inconsistent spotting across the player base. I think a lot of it has to do with the hardware any given player is using at any given time. Of course the realism argument can be made here that some pilots eyes worked better than other pilots eyes and this adds to the realism, but at that point you no longer have a flight combat simulator you have a spotting simulator. If there was a way to ensure an equal level of spotability (is that a word?) across the player base then I would be all for that. It would then allow fights to be dictated more along the lines of piloting and gunnery skills than spotting skills.

The only true solution I can see to this is to turn icons on with a varying level of intensity based on the distance a player is from another player. This would still allow for the advantage of a difficult long range spot, and the ability for a diligent pilot to set up a sneak attack, but also put all player on a level playing field when it comes to spotting. Now of course I know it is sacrilege to many of the player base to even consider icons. But I have been playing online combat sims since the  early 90's. Back in the days of Air Warrior 3 and Aces High. Both of those played with the icon settings like I mentioned, and I can guarantee you you that plenty of pilots got bounced without ever seeing the pilot that bounced them, or that bouncing pilots icon. I also felt there was still a huge emphasis put on spotting in those sims, but it was more equal across the board. And way more of my fights there were a contest of pilot skills, not spotting skills. 

In summary, there needs to be some form of equalizer that can ensure that spotting is somewhat of a level playing field. Without that there is a certain level of enjoyment that is missing from the game. I want to fly a combat flight simulator, not a spotting simulator. 

[sniperton]

6 hours ago, Requiem said:

Now I would never expect something like what I'm showing below as I'm sure it's extremely difficult to do, but an interesting spotting enhancement could be that once your eye catches relative movement of an aircraft during your scan you can press a "focus" toggle button which would make the sky/ground blurry, but keep airplanes close by (within 5nm (9km)) sharpened to simulate focusing on a target at close range (cockpit would also stay unblurred obviously). It's subtle but it could be an effective option to improve spotting at close ranges when coupled with the other improvements to contrast and rendering. I made these as a quick example of what I mean.

Original

Focused

Thank you for bringing this into the discussion. If we talk about realism, zooming is artificial and unnatural, but this is exactly how human eyes work. I'm very much for it, and I doubt it would be that hard to implement. Instead of zoom, we need focus distances from close (canopy and instruments) through mid-range (formation) to far-away (contacts and targets).

[Jade_Monkey]

As mentioned by others, one of my biggest gripes with visibility is losing contacts you aready acquired. It's incredibly frustrating to not see someone you just saw 2 seconds ago and cannot see anymore even when you have a good sense of their direction and where they should be. It is one of the reasons why I stopped playing MP a month or two ago.

 

I tried to represent graphically where IL2 should strive to position itself. Please take the numbers with a grain of salt, i put it together in 10 seconds and "fun" means very different things for different people.

The main takeaway us that fun drops drastically when getting close to the ultrarealism in the spectrum and starts becoming a chore to fly.

To answer the main question, I think we should be closer to realism than arcade but right before it stops being fun.

 

 

[Requiem]

2 hours ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

\No need to invent new ways to track and „focus“ contact (no offense @Requiem, I found your proposal interesting but workload / community acceptance?), just get a logical and consistent framework in place. Maybe the solution could be as simple as making the long distance cons just darker, avoid these being diffused through SS, adding more contrast and sharper edges to mid-range cons and working on colors to avoid planes being sucked-up by the background (obviously taking into account the camo effect)? Maybe improved and upgraded alternative visibility? I don’t know, but I saw how the team reacted and implemented the solution for VR zoom quickly and successfully and I am confident that something can be done here rather quickly.

 

None taken as this is a thread to throw things out for discussion. Focusing the field of view like that was just an idea that popped into my head as I was writing my post when evaluating how I spot contacts in RL and how that affects what is, or isn't, seen around me while focusing on a single airplane.

 

I'm just glad to finally see an official avenue recognisng the issue so hopefully we get a good result from this discussion.

[=RS=Stix_09]

1)You have to agree on what "realism" actually means to use that as a basis of a discussion (and opinions vary wildly on what that is)

(but I tend to agree with @Requiem discussion in his post on real life)

 

2)You have to take into account how the human eye works and adapt  how a 2d Monitor works and then to simulate something approximating this.

(it will will not be the same as how a human eye sees in real life as this is not possible on a 2d Monitor, it will need some enhancements, like contrasting)

 

3)It has to be the same regardless of the hardware being used , (its not easy as for exmple VR users also get a sense of depth , non VR users do not, and in general a lower resolution, but they also have other problems , like FOV is generally less)

4K, 1440p,1080p, 720p, VR , experience should be the same(or as close as possible). There are also some issues at present regarding zoom and spotting, that are not very realistic, with things popping in and out of view, appear/disappearing)

 

(Also ww2 planes are camouflaged, they were designed to make it hard to see them, I have flown remote control war birds and they can be damn hard to see or determine orientation against vegetation, or low contrast backgrounds, so that has to be taken into  account when people are making real life spotting comparisons to  civilian planes, which in general are made with high visibility in mind)

 

And finally saying "do this" or "do that" involves development work, and that has a cost, and of course only the developer can decide if they will make it a reality or not. "talk is cheap" (and its a technically challenging problem to solve too).

 

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
clarity

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

I'd be your best friend for life if you gave us a simple in-game bind for snap-view checking your six while using VR. 

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

I would rather as much realism as possible.  Weather (clouds/haze) should be realistic.  If people want fun, turn on labels and unlimited ammo.

 

I mainly fly single and use PWCG in VR.

 

With the new GPUs and the G2 coming out soon, I would live to be able to see the plane in more detail at distance that IS realistic depending on weather and conditions. So support of the 4k monitor gets my vote.

 

This should be a combat sim. If you want to fly around either go QM and no opponent or you know where...?

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by CDRSEABEE

[=RS=Stix_09]

Forgot to add (In addition to my above post about more sim like spotting system)

I would also like to see a more configurable icon system to what we currently have.

 

Something similar to what you can do in il-2 Cliffs of Dover and DCS, and to able to be set on the server too.

 

This would cater to both types of player: The more pure simmer and those wanting something more than a huge icon and tag like we have now.

Il-2 1946 and COD used a similar system to DCS for icon use.(LINK)

Edited August 23, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[=RS=EnvyC]

I've said my thoughts on a variety of discords but I thought I should add my voice here.

 

I mostly agree with everything [TLC]MasterPooner said in his first post and subsequent posts. There appears to be a problem with the way 1C defines "realism" and "realistic". Realism =/= difficulty. Eyes aren't monitors, we don't see in pixels via a 27inch window to the world, we don't zoom in to make things bigger, we don't see in framerate that can smudge an image on a LCD screen.

 

The goal of a simulator is to simulate the human experience, not realism at any cost. Making it outside the realm of the human experience is by definition unrealistic.

 

Set your FOV to your natural FOV (this video by Empty Box is a great example of how https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbxkX7kS_M) and just notice how much you don't see anymore compared to what you would with the human eye. Therefore we must fly with maximum FOV to gain a closer to life peripheral view, at which point unless you fly with alt spotting (which I personally prefer because it does work) you just won't see anything until its either shooting at you or you're head to head at 500m, especially on 1440p or higher.

 

After setting the game to a natural FOV state, I don't believe it is realistic to be able to only view the world as such (pic attached). It is also unrealistic to narrow your FOV even further to see a speck at range. I believe alternate spotting is a viable alternative as it comes halfway to BMS's smart scaling, though it could use some work. This isn't a discussion exclusive to IL2, its a discussion found on any combat flight sim and consistently communities have held BMS's smart scaling up as the perfect compromise. I believe a solution more along those lines, taking into account user hardware, is the best solution.

No one wants it to be so easy as to turn the sim into an arcade game, but we don't really want it to be unrealistically difficult either.

 

 

[A_S]

If i find time, i will make a demonstrating, elaborating and CLEAR post about this generally "over-complicated" topic "simulating visibility realistically" (regardless resolution, screen-size or fov).

It will be "eye opening", because it will be as divine and as simplex logical as it gets. However, i have to prep material (gfx) to "show" it and explain it in the right way.

I can not post this just like that (while reading along here).. has to be explained and shown propperly - but i am tempted/motivated now to do it.

The reasons why it failed and fails over many sims and over many years .. is due to the approach of "how to do it", or the traditional ways of "how it was done".

 

Yeah.. i should definitly do this once in full.  (former DEV on that matter).

Edited August 23, 2020 by A_S

[JG7_X-Man]

Thank you all for some very constructive and insightful input!

 

Nothing more for me to add!

 

[=TBAS=Bruno-]

Thank you for addressing this ongoing issue with your flight sim.

 

In your opening statement you said that many Soviet Air Force shoot downs were simply because the pilots did not see the opposing aircraft in time.  This is commonly referred to as "The Bounce" where the attacking pilot is set up perfectly for the kill.  This is the essence of air combat. Indeed,  situational awareness is just as critical a component in surviving in an air combat sim as is in real life .

 

The problem, however, is that your sim makes it incredibly difficult to see or track an aircraft that is easily within 1000 meters right in front of you.  Too many times I hear call outs of enemy activity (or otherwise) in my AO and the first words I usually utter are "no joy" because I cannot locate the fight that is right in front of me or below me.  Mind you I am looking right AT the area in question outside my canopy.  To me, this is not even close to being realistic and if you have modeled this sim to be accordingly THAT difficult then you're sucking the fun out of the game.  And remember, that's all this really is. Many of those who fly your sim have resorted to after market image enhancing programs as a work around and are tweaking their monitors to somehow, give better viz.  I have to say, if every one is struggling with this sort of remedy, then your problem is real and not imagined. 

 

There's an old saying, "If ten men tell you  you're drunk, then....you better sit down".  In other words, if there is a consensus of opinion on something, then there must be something to it.

 

Look, I certainly want it it to be challenging but I don't need it to be the rubix cube of air combat sims either.

 

Fella's just please try to be a bit more reasonable with your visualization algorithm's so that we may spot aircraft just a bit more easily.  I am sure there is something you can do to help this great sim be even better.

 

Thanks for listening,'

 

Bruno

Edited August 25, 2020 by 14./JG5Bruno-
grammar

[ATAG_SKUD]

12 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Han, thank you for opening this discussion, I prefer realism definitely, and this is what differentiate Il2 series from other sims that are easier and less detailed, which also has their popularity, and their following, the farther away IL2 series goes from those type of games the better.

Spotting like many has said before in this thread, the difficulty is a closer distance when contacts disappear, with that being said, I rather we stay the way we are (its difficult for all, so even) than an arcade solution like bigger planes or icons of some sort.

As a pilot IRL, I can tell you spotting is difficult, we have ADSB which shows the traffic in the screen, and when trying to locate the planes knowing where they are its difficult and we are talking GA planes which the majority are white, but once you see them (usually 3km or less when against the ground) they are not that easy to loose.

I also fly a military trainer and fly with friends, doing dogfights, their cammo planes are harder to spot unless against the sky or water, and once you see them if you turn around to check 6, you can loose them for a bit this between 1km and 3km, when closer than 1km they are not to difficult to find again, which is where it gets difficult in game against the ground, the medium to close distance loosing contacts, sometimes from above the other plane and sometimes at low level flying over forests chasing another plane at close distance, you just loose it against the trees.

Seems to be its a difficult issue to fix, great to see the developers are open to discussing it.

I made a video to show  an idea of how it looks IRL close to medium distance, which IMHO is where the main problem exists.

 

 

 

 This is great. It shows the difference between the game and the video is in the lighting effects on the other aircraft. It's not the dull green object, it's lit up a bit by the natural light and the smooth surfaces. Even when camouflaged with the surround surfaces textures and lighting can improve visibility.

skud

 

[IRRE_Rambokorps]

Thanks to the devs for soliciting feedback from the community on this .
This is a great game !

Going in the direction of realism could be done in conjunction with a more player friendly spotting gameplay:

Reflections flash on the planes could be a solution to increase visibility: Due to the complexity of the shape of an airplane there is a lot of probability that it occurs pretty frequently. This could be treated as a vfx triggered randomly or based on the sun position and will do the trick on every LOD's levels.
https://youtu.be/yle30Ehrcfk?t=45

Smallers LOD's could be a bit exaggerated in their textures and proportions size so the player could get a glimpse of the color and shape of the aircraft in sight.

The atmospheric effect is great but maybe over exaggerating the Z pass on the Y axe could help a bit visibility. It could be associated with natural phenomena like evaporation from water or a bit of hazy fog over the fields.

I'm not sure about it but it seems to me that the specular lights on far planes are not always obvious, maybe cheating a bit in the shader or the texture could help. 

Mixing gameplay,realism and technical constraint is a real challenge. I hope you will find a way to give satisfaction to the community!

[VR-DriftaholiC]

More visibility is needed. The fun of a combat simulator is in the combat and that can't happen when targets can't be found. When I loose targets against the ground it's after I've already spotted them, at that point it shouldn't be so easy to loose. In my testing the spotting at distance does not match real studies I've found on the topic. So what we have now in my opinion is less than realistic and ideally better spotting then realistic would be more fun. Targets at far distances 8-10km sometimes don't even render in and I've found in my testing that horizon draw distance has a big effect. There's some more info on spotting in this thread: 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by VR-DriftaholiC

[SJ_Butcher]

I laught a lot when I saw the Message against MS FS 2020 claiming that this is a combat sim, but to me its just the opposite, its the same because I cant spot the planes, I only take off my plane to take a ride for a while.

[Ram399]

IL-2 has always striven for realism, and in my opinion I see no reason why that should ever change.
The fact of the matter is that, at least for me, spotting small aircraft is hard, and in many cases I have found that spotting in IL-2 is actually easier when compared to reality in terms of extremely long distance spotting- especially if the aircraft are at an altitude above you and you also consider that most human eyeballs don't come equipped with a variable zoom feature.

While I can't speak for the rendering differences in 4K monitors, I have found it this way with my current 2080x1080 monitor- as well as in VR with the Valve Index even without the usage of that controversial zoom mod.

The complaint that its too easy to lose sight of a spotted aircraft after looking away for a second or once it blends in with ground clutter is one that, like it or not, has an extremely firm basis in reality and as such should be accurately represented in something such as a flight simulator. 

Speaking from my own experience as a GA pilot in Central Florida, spotting small single engine aircraft at range against the ground is rarely ever easy, even when you know exactly where to look and the plane you're searching for is painted a stark white.

For a visual aid, here's a photo I took near Lake Okeechobee of an easily visible all white twin engine Beechcraft (about on par with a Hs 129 size wise) around 300 feet below me at a distance of a bit under half a mile: 

Spoiler

Now imagine you were unaware that aircraft existed and it was painted brown.

While this is of course purely relative to my own experience, I have never worn glasses of any type, am currently twenty one years old, and in possession of a first class medical cert.
While I won't make any claims at having absolutely stellar vision stemming from a diet consisting purely of carrots, I would generally describe my eyesight as average at minimum for my age.

Bearing that in mind, plenty of times I've been in the traffic pattern at my home airport following behind Cessna 172 traffic in the downwind leg, at a distance of less than 3 quarters of a mile, and as soon as they begin their descent and dip below the horizon they practically vanish into the backdrop of the Orlando skyline.
In most cases unless I was actively tracking them as they did so, I generally have to focus on where they ought to be for a time to reacquire visual contact- and in some instances don't regain it until they turn base and I'm able to spot them again as a result of getting a direct look at the top of their brightly painted wings.

All of this happens at the blistering speed of 95 knots, on a set rectangular course, with ADS-B equipped aircraft, and a control tower providing call-outs for the traffic's relative position.
To me, it seems that tracking a high speed and camouflaged fighter aircraft which is actively trying to evade you against the backdrop of something like a thick forest or city should in no world be easy- and yet with enough experience in IL-2 is something I have gradually gained the ability to do in game after having played it for four years, albeit with some difficulty.

Its well documented that in most cases of aerial combat in WW2 the winner of nearly any given engagement was the pilot who saw their enemy first, and I'm sure most of us are aware that the most successful ace in history achieved nearly all of his kills as a result of his stellar situational awareness and a reliance on surprise attacks.

The purpose of a simulator is to get as close to a depiction of reality as possible, and the reality of aerial combat and war in general is that it is in no way designed to be conducive to easy target acquisition and fair fights.

I play IL-2 because I value the realism it has always provided, and at least based on my own experiences as a pilot the spotting system currently in existence seems to be an accurately difficult aspect of both the simulator and flying in general to me. 

If I wanted the arcade alternative I'd find a server with icons on or go play War Thunder instead.

[Tycoon]

Like others have said it's unfair to say the issue is realism vs fun, but if that's the word game the devs want to play then fun all the way, call it arcade, call it easy mode, call it warthunder trash, at this point I don't care, spotting is currently the worst problem in this game and I'd like to see it fixed.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Tycoon

[LColony_Kong]

 

 

90% percent chance of detection at 6km for small piston engine aircraft. (3.7 miles)

 

80% chance at 7km. (4.3miles)

 

50% chance at 9km (5.5 miles)

 

20% chance at 13km. (8 miles)

 

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by [TLC]MasterPooner

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

I think adding reflective surface would help a lot.

[Ram399]

22 minutes ago, SJ_Butcher said:

Well,  good luck supporting a Sim with a player base that is dropping. By the way the colors are much better on the image, at least it doesnt stress my eyes

I posted that image because the aircraft was easily visible at a close to moderate range almost entirely as a result of it being bright white.
Had it been half heartedly coated with olive drab I would have had no idea it existed without ADSB.

As of this very moment Combat Box has 77 active players at nearly midnight EST, the player base seems alright to me.

Perhaps I'm not so in tune with the general feelings on the forum regarding spotting difficulty, but again, at least to me based off of my own personal experiences flying, the current visibility system within the game is realistically difficult but nowhere near impossible.

Obviously there's always room for improvement, and better reflections and shifts in long distance rendering could result in easier spotting but it has to be within reason.

Again though, that's just my opinion based off of what I've observed in the game itself when compared to my own experiences flying in reality.

[40plus]

My vote is a vehement focus on realism over fun while attempting to fix the legitimate issues listed in this thread.

[beepee]

14 hours ago, BlackHellHound1 said:

This I totally agree with. I do not see the point in creating a fake and "pleasant" spotting system. It is arcady and part of aerial combat is the challenge of finding your opponent before he finds you

 100 %. Whatever the solution, please don't go for more " gamey" solutions or add icons and dots (and yes I know it can depend on the server admins for icons).

 

[XQ_Lothar29]

Right now is the most perfect moment of the simulator in terms of seeing contacts, it is my way of seeing.
When you fly in the "REAL WORLD" reality, it is difficult to see contacts that are lower than you, even at the same level.
So after the progress that the simulator has made with the issue of contact visibility in the last patches, my conclusion is that it is perfect!

Edited August 23, 2020 by III/JG52_Lothar29

[=RS=Stix_09]

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

I think adding reflective surface would help a lot.

 

We already have this

[=RS=ddrake1984]

I want realistic/realism, so make it closer to realism/realistic, because the state of the game is neither of these.

realistic/realism it is actually easier to spot planes and this game is not, therefore, this game is neither realistic/realism.

anyone who says it's fine the way it is, does not know what realistic/realism is.

[=RS=Stix_09]

1 hour ago, beepee said:

 100 %. Whatever the solution, please don't go for more " gamey" solutions or add icons and dots (and yes I know it can depend on the server admins for icons).

 

 

No one said that, we already have icons , the issue is how they are done, when ppl /servers do enable the current icons. Icons are still an option thing , no one wants mandatory icons but they can be done a lot better, and made more configurable if /when used.

7 minutes ago, =RS=ddrake1984 said:

I want realistic/realism, so make it closer to realism/realistic, because the state of the game is neither of these.

realistic/realism it is actually easier to spot planes and this game is not, therefore, this game is neither realistic/realism.

anyone who says it's fine the way it is, does not know what realistic/realism is.

 

Problem is what is realistic? For some its already realistic, for most its not. You have to agree on what is realistic before you can even do that.

And you will not get realistic on a 2d screen, you can only simulate and/or approximate something.

Edited August 23, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[=RS=ddrake1984]

8 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Problem is what is realistic? For some its already realistic, for most its not. You have to agree on what is realistic before you can even do that.

realistic/realism is what you see with your eyes in real life. (i.e. fly a real plane and spot)

If you get into a real plane in real life and fly around in real life, see/spot in real life, this is realistic/realism means.

I want close to this, but as it is in game, it is so far from realistic/realism in it's current state, that it needs to be fixed.

 

[=RS=Stix_09]

10 minutes ago, =RS=ddrake1984 said:

realistic/realism is what you see with your eyes in real life. (i.e. fly a real plane and spot)

If you get into a real plane in real life and fly around in real life, see/spot in real life, this is realistic/realism means.

I want close to this, but as it is in game, it is so far from realistic/realism in it's current state, that it needs to be fixed.

 

 

I think the  problem is still many people don't agree on what that ^^ is AND it still has to be done on a 2d screen , which means a simulated realism, because the eye(and brains interpretation of it) works different to how we see a 2d image on a monitor. You also need to be in the same planes and environments as the game, most ppl have never even experienced that in real life.

 

What ever gets done some will still not agree or like it.

Edited August 23, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[beepee]

15 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

No one said that, we already have icons , the issue is how they are done, when ppl /servers do enable the current icons. Icons are still an option thing , no one wants mandatory icons but they can be done a lot better, and made more configurable if /when used.

Someone did say that further up the thread, they wanted dots for far ranged aircraft. I did not state my case clearly, but what I meant was, if that is implemented by the devs  as a non optional aid to spotting I would be more unhappy with that.

 

I agree it is not perfect now with the disappearing planes at mid range, but it's still playable an not an immersion breaker to me. And it's a game, not reality.

 

Even the scalable side of things like in BMS is unrealistic to me, but as you say, it will be acceptable to others.

 

TLDR : I just hope this thread does not bring about arcadish options.

[=RS=Stix_09]

2 minutes ago, beepee said:

Someone did say that further up the thread, they wanted dots for far ranged aircraft. I did not state my case clearly, but what I meant was, if that is implemented by the devs  as a non optional aid to spotting I would be more unhappy with that.

 

I agree it is not perfect now with the disappearing planes at mid range, but it's still playable an not an immersion breaker to me. And it's a game, not reality.

 

Even the scalable side of things like in BMS is unrealistic to me, but as you say, it will be acceptable to others.

 

TLDR : I just hope this thread does not bring about arcadish options.

 

 

Ok so I get some want that , but also many do not want icons at all, it has to be an option.

(set by the server)

(and icons done better)

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

Difficulties, and the associated frustration, with the new spotting system is one of the major reasons I stopped playing the game. 

 

Hard =/= Realism.  We have to account for the fact that we are looking at a flat panel for tiny moving dots against a background of other tiny moving dots of similar color. It's inherently not realistic, which is where the realism argument kind of falls apart.

 

Several RL pilots have already chimed in that spotting moving objects like aircraft against terrain is fairly easy.  I have some limited time behind a yolk (stuff's expensive yo) and spotting traffic wasn't ever an issue.  

 

 

[WokeUpDead]

On 8/21/2020 at 6:05 PM, Han said:

....

 

But nevertheless, without denying the two points sounded above, I consider it necessary to clarify the main issue on the visibility of aircraft. We, the gaming community "IL-2 Sturmovik", inside of which I count myself on an equal footing with you, strive for the maximum possible realism in the simulation of air combat in all its aspects? Or are we striving to get the maximum "fun" from virtual air battles - which are based on real battles of the Second World War - and where should not be factors (albeit grounded in realism) that will excessively interfere with us in this?

 

I invite everyone to share your opinion here.

Hi Han, thanks for starting this topic and asking us for feedback.
 

I do not want maximum possible historical realism. I want the possibility to fly to my full potential without being limited by realism based on historically average planes and pilots. The game does this in other areas already: the top wing surfaces of my Yak don’t peel off in a dive even though many reports of early Yaks mentioned this; the La5 cockpit does not fill with smoke every time the guns are fired even though that happened in reality; my German bombs never realistically fail to explode due to sabotage from slave labour; my P-51’s .50-cals and my Spitfire’s Hispanos don’t jam at high altitude like they realistically often did. Seems we have unrealistically reliable planes and weapons, not realistically average ones.
 

And so along the same lines, I want the eyes of an above average pilot who could spot and track contacts, not the eyes of a historically average pilot who died before he saw anything.

Edited August 23, 2020 by WokeUpDead

[NiiranenVR]

I want realism one way ..... Important that we can see planes in the short distance - like real life - and the pixel make the plane bigger when the distance get shorter ...

 

But why have possible see a plane 20-30 km away ( if it's not possible in real life ) 

It's allso important that bombers and groundkillers can , maybe take the long way - for not be seen and then sneek to the point for killing 

[-=TW=-BiggieB]

I want fun, realism is secondary. If it were up to me, pilot gforce tolerance would be improved and the guns would sound like a Michael Bay movie. Improve spotting!

[SARFlytitus]

Market is already filled of more arcadeish flight games...

it’s difficult To spot/track contacts ?  If my opponents are in the same boat I can’t see the problem.  Just my opinion btw

[Hawk-2a]

1 minute ago, SARFlytitus said:

 If my opponents are in the same boat I can’t see the problem.

well, there needs to be some sort of middle ground. i fly a combat sim for the combat, not for the sake of flying around for 45 minutes not seeing anything at all. if i wanted to just fly around, i'd be playing MSFS.

[C6_lefuneste]

25 minutes ago, -=TW=-BiggieB said:

I want fun, realism is secondary.

Play War Thunder in arcade mode. It really provides lot of fun and, as you have icon, you won't have problem with spotting. You will have same problem than IL2 GB with other mode.

As you don't care with realism, all WT flaws will not be important for you.

Edited August 23, 2020 by c6_lefuneste

[kendo]

3 hours ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

 

 

90% percent chance of detection at 6km for small piston engine aircraft. (3.7 miles)

 

80% chance at 7km. (4.3miles)

 

50% chance at 9km (5.5 miles)

 

20% chance at 13km. (8 miles)

 

 

 

Given the test conditions used to achieve these results I don't really think they can be viewed as generally applicable. From the test description:

 

Observers were on the ground in a "flat, desert environment" with "excellent metereological conditions" and "little or no terrain masking of aircraft on long, low altitude approaches", an accompanying monitor "provided early warning accurate within +/- 15 degrees of the expected heading"

 

In addition, observers would also be able to hear the sound of the approaching aircraft.

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by kendo