Jump to content

Discussion on the plane visibility issue


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

So_ein_Feuerball
8 minutes ago, kendo said:

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

 

These two don´t really matter at all since this discussion is about visibility, not about detection or SA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, kendo said:

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.

You misread the report- The actual observer did not know exactly where to look within 15 degrees. The early warning was that accurate, but the observer was only given a general clock direction, so they only had a general idea of where to look. This would be further exacerbated by offsets and depending on when it was seen, the actually relative clock position could shift by the time this happened.

 

image.png.f0e4b5757f463883248835804f6ccbe7.png

 

image.png.4bc2b7aaf3fc8c56ed1d6df2f89c3d91.png

 

However, this is all largely irrelevant. The point is at what range the aircraft could be seen. This is about visual acuity, not the average distance possible after including every conceivable condition that would push a curve one way or the next. IRL pilot will miss a contact because they are looking at a gauge or flying formation. But it is not relevant. What is relevant is how well the human eye works. This data shows what human observers can actually see, and removes factors that have nothing to do with the capacity of the eye as a sensor. If the game was adjusted to make contact spotting more realistic (meaning relatively easier) actual distances would vary based on a variety of factors that have nothing to do with the sensor itself. I have posted several other reports on this subject and ALL of them agree with each other in the general data. Average distance of spotting and T-38 with only a vague notion of direction resulted in the same variations of mean spotting distance, about 4-6nm. The other report linking in this thread shows  that even with terrain masking distant aircraft could still be detected. Another person in this thread linked the picture on eye fixations and how they relate to the peripheral vs foveal scans. What you will see from that chart is that the high detection chances in the paper you commented on match the transition from foveal to peripheral vision more more or less precisely. Once over the 3nm mark contact detection probability goes down from about 80-90% to much lower numbers, which is exactly what we would expect. The clear conditions of the test are also irrelevant, since the problem in Il2 has never been about not being able to see a contact in bad weather. It is taken for granted that conditions will change things.

 

Pointless assertions like this is one of the many reasons this debate has done on for so long. The contact visibility in the game needs to be fixed, other factors like the scan area take care of themselves.

 

I will also point out that since the planes based on the flight paths in the paper were traveling known routes heading towards the observers, all of these observations were at or near head on.

Edited by [TLC]MasterPooner
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit put off by all the people saying that voting for better spotting is somehow indicative of (people like) me actually wanting to play war thunder and accidentally stumbling in to a 'real sim', or something like that. I spent hours online trying to find my wingmen, even though we were constantly telling each other exactly where we were. It's a huge problem, and has absolutely nothing to do with realism VS arcade. On top of that, there should be a robust system that makes spotting easier than real life, through better icons or whatever, but of course that should be an option, just like engine management is. Having these options does nothing to diminish the Sim.

 

Cheers!

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TeufelHunden

Spotting use to be better before you guys tweaked it with the 2 different options. I had no trouble in BOS or BOM the problem came in after BOBP was released. The rendering of contacts is Random. Contacts appear for me with wide FOV and when I zoom in they will disappear . Once I got back to wide FOV they appear again. Im using 3440x1440  21-9 Planes use to be visibly bigger and show more detail for me also before BOBP now they are tiny with alot less detail. 

Edited by TeufelHunden
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TeufelHunden said:

Spotting use to be better before you guys tweaked it with the 2 different options. I had no trouble in BOS or BOM the problem came in after BOBP was released. The rendering of contacts is Random. Contacts appear for me with wide FOV and when I zoom in they will disappear . Once I got back to wide FOV they appear again. Im using 34440x1440  21-9 Planes use to be visibly bigger and show more detail for me also before BOBP now they are tiny with alot less detail. 

 

The issue we have now with spotting is because some individuals wanted to get rid of the "bubble" - it was not "realistic". The dev team reacted to these complaints

and changed the rendering distance to get rid of the "bubble" and eventually introduced the "alternative visibility" - still the almighty customer is not happy...

 

The spotting was far better before these changes, I had no problem spotting other airplanes etc. despite being in this "bubble" - I know it's not realistic...

 

What is realistic then?

- Being able to fight for an hour at full speed and high g-loads without being exhausted?

- Being able to be killed and to pick the next airplane 5 min. after you are dead?

- Having GPS and a "digital" map to navigate?

- etc.

 

I'm for realism because we mostly talk about simulation. I want to simulate the conditions of this historic period as close as possible with the hardware available

and normal people can afford. There are limits we cannot overcome, because we're all sitting at home in front of our desk.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2020 at 11:05 AM, Han said:

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.

 

My opinion is that the issue isn't a question of the difference between fun and realism, but a difference between hardware.

There are people that buy a Rift S VR headset instead of a HP Reverb because they are terrified of High Resolution killing their spotting ability. There are people with 4k monitors cutting them down to 1080p.
 

 

On 8/22/2020 at 11:05 AM, Han said:

Secondly, there is the problem of 4K monitors, where the DPI (pixel quantity per square inch) is much higher. The existing algorithm for increasing long-range LODs of aircraft takes into account only the size of the aircraft on the screen, expressed in pixels, but DPI is not taken into account. This means that on monitors with increased DPI (which are 4K monitors), the linear (in millimeters) size of the aircraft at a large distance (with all other things being equal) will be smaller than on a fullHD monitor. This happened because 4K monitors entered mainstream use not so long ago. 

 

This is the problem I think, and not just against the background of the ground. Also against the sky it is hard to see small pixels on high DPI.

 

A solution I'd be satisfied with would be for the contact to be rendered at a size based on the percentage of the view size, not a size expressed in pixels. If the landscape and sky are extended across more pixels to cover the height/width of a large monitor - can the objects size also be extended to a larger size with more pixels as well?

 

Monitors and VR HMDs are only going to improve in the future - do we want object size to keep getting smaller and smaller in mm size and staying the same pixel size forever? I think to make this sim for the future needs to account for current hardware improvements and show objects relative to the resolution height instead of fixed pixel size.

Edited by Dan_Taipan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case it has not yet been brought up, while on the subject of spotting:

 

please remove the super visible nav light beacons during daylight.

 

They mostly serve to circumvent the spotting issues presented here, and are in stark contrast to the spotting difficulty we have now.

 

 

3 hours ago, kendo said:

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.

 

Replicating an ideal solution is needed in order to benchmark and further tune for not ideal weather situations.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a lot time fyling around not seeing anybody. In replays, I can see that there were contacts nearby that I did not see during flight. I have lost targets due to difficult spotting. Normally i don't fly above 1,5 km so that I still can spot enemies. I simpy can't fly at 4k and still see a plane on the deck although I had my gamma and graphic settings adjusted after reading about spotting problems in various forums.

 

If I attack ground attackers,  I approach ground targets at tree level so that I can spot attackers skylighting against the horizon. I have almost given up on the game due to spotting issues and feel at disadvantage towards players having more experience or owning better computers. Therefore I would warmly welcome a better/ easier spotting implementation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ram399 said:

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: 

  Reveal hidden contents

Beechcraft.thumb.jpg.c51563e339921a1bf63688e4d9a4c071.jpg


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.

In case you didnt see this in SuperEtendard post:

"I set up a quick test, 1v1 quick mission me in P-51 vs AI Bf 109 G-6. I run away in level flight then I cut throttle and let the 109 come closer, in high fov which is the fov I and most players use to scan the sky, given the monitor size limitation compared to our eye field of view, and take screenshots as it comes closer to compare:

unknown.png

These are the results:

unknown.png

You can see that from 5km to 1.5 km there seems to be a problem with the rendering, the distance is significantly closer yet the LOD doesn't really scale up, the contact flickers as well, for example at the 2.5 Km picture it was rendered as a single pixel only! Note this is with the sky in the background."

 

And most ppl complain just about that bug, this is bug not realistic when contacts are so small at thouse distances, while they are easy to spot from far and extra small. In what real world airplane at 5km is displayed 5x bigger then same airplane at 2,5km. But hey lets call it realisam and not bug.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted. Did not answer the OP question.

 

Anyway, what could be cool is a reshade type of program to set color and contrast inside IL2GB and also an option to zoom in and out  ( settable increments) by using keys so one could control the magnification progressively and quickly without having to bind it to an axis.

Edited by Caudron431Rafale
off topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest problem for me is when i spot plane few hundred meters away and it goes down and disappear once having terrain background bellow it, despite camo i don't see that being realistic or fun by all means!

Moving object that eye already spotted will still be visible despite camo and background IRL due to it's movement and variety of ground vegetation which is impossible to recreate in game.

In game knowing his flight vector, position and keeping eye on it....it goes invisible, on very short distance....that's not realistic at all!

Also seeing plane on big distances but not seeing them on short to mid ranges is another problem, another thing is plane LOD where by plane position it goes from clearly visible (rendering in a few fixels) to invisible (zero pixels).

I'm not RL pilot but i do fly a lot in a waterbombers as a AME on alts up to 4km and i can confirm human eye can spot insane details on the ground, especially moving ones, and other planes (not airliners) from 5-15km!

 

From my experience problem is on short to mid ranges where planes disappear and due to hardware limitations implementing RL data results in painful and unrealistic experience!

 

Salute to the devs for keeping communication with the community!

 

Edited by =VARP=Ribbon
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So_ein_Feuerball
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

unknown.png
You can see that from 5km to 1.5 km there seems to be a problem with the rendering, the distance is significantly closer yet the LOD doesn't really scale up, the contact flickers as well, for example at the 2.5 Km picture it was rendered as a single pixel only! Note this is with the sky in the background."

 

And most ppl complain just about that bug, this is bug not realistic when contacts are so small at thouse distances, while they are easy to spot from far and extra small. In what real world airplane at 5km is displayed 5x bigger then same airplane at 2,5km. But hey lets call it realisam and not bug.

 

I don´t think this is a bug, but rather the scaling mechanism working as defined, with an unsatisfactory result.

From what we see here, I suspect that the scaling ends at 2.50 km, at which point the actual 1:1 scale of the plane is rendered.

After that point the plane again increases in size due to approaching the viewer.

 

IMO this scaling should not end at 2.50 km but at 0 km. It would significantly reduce the problems people have with mid range spotting. 

Furthermore, the plane still looking this pixelated at 0.60 km is very unsatisfying, perhaps some Super Sampling could be applied specifically only to aircraft? 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
Just now, Dan_Taipan said:

Monitors and VR HMDs are only going to improve in the future - do we want object size to keep getting smaller and smaller in mm size and staying the same pixel size forever? I think to make this sim for the future needs to account for current hardware improvements and show objects relative to the resolution height instead of fixed pixel size.

"Improve", yes. "Higher DPI", no.

 

The reason is that we're actually on the limits of human eyesight already. The angular resolution of the human eye, and therefore the smallest pixel size that makes any sense, corresponds to about 0.15 mm at an eye to screen distance of 50cm. For a 15.6 inch screen, 1920x1080 is just above that, 4k well under it.

 

Of course, there's always the excesses for those crazy enough to pay for bragging rights without anything else in return. Such as the 192kHz sample rate that Apple offers on its music. It's actually mathematically provable that above a sample rate of around 40kHz (hence 44.1kHz), there is zero difference in the reconstructed signal in the audible range and can in fact cause all sorts of audible artifacts that never existed in the recorded sound. Still, there's people willing to pay for it 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro

From my point of view, the visibility issue in the Great Battles series is resolved. End of story.

 

Please keep reading the thread.

Edited by 343KKT_Kintaro
further statements on the present thread
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely i rarely spot anything beyond 2km with my setup, therefore the visibility issue is not resolved. End of story.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think or rather are pretty sure the rendering problem is never going to be solved in a way everybody would be pleased. 
It is true that spotting close airplane is problematic, we are six mates flying coop. 
Biggest problem is we loose each other even when we are close. 
Historically this is accurate, in all enemy encounters I read about pretty much all ended with spread and individual returns, at least many of them. 
To sum up, many here is not up to go through frustration of war, they will fire up their mounts get airborne and shoot something. 
To me this is description of arcade, a game that will get boring pretty quick. 
I agree there is a lack of continuance in rendering. Both in areal and ground targets.  There should only be weather and general visibility that change a hard set value of rendering. And to me this is the problem. 
By reading some of the post here, I recommend some to fly on servers having labels, because I do not think they want what they ask for. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
5 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I recommend some to fly on servers having labels, because I do not think they want what they ask for. 

 

 

I hate labels... and if I use all of these softwares (DCS, RoF, IL2CoD, IL2GB) it's only because I love and want realistic combat flight sims.

 

I have to apologize to So_ein_Feuerball, who was right to react "Confused" on my last comment, and to thrila, who indeedly indeed mentions a real problem. My comment dealt much more with silhouette pixelling of contacts when clouds are in the background, and also appearance/disappearance of contacts when clouds are in such a background position. I think that problem is resolved, and I'm happy with the situation as it is. Distance visibility, that's a completely different ballgame, a much more delicate debate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other point is the spotting should be realistic for the AI too. I'm fine with it being difficult to spot contacts and easy to lose them, that's ww2 air combat, but if the AI has god like sight there's a problem.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:


Biggest problem is we loose each other even when we are close. 
Historically this is accurate, in all enemy encounters I read about pretty much all ended with spread and individual returns, at least many of them. 

 

There is a problem with using actual pilot experiences as a reference. In WW2, many pilots were barely trained scared to death teenagers. Me on the other hand, I've been flying combat flightsims since the late 90s, and a bit of IRL GA flying on top of that.* So when the barely trained real pilots lose each other in the really stressful environment of actual combat, that's totally logical. What's not logical is to have a graphics engine that has spotting that is worse than it would look like in the real world, just so that the end result is that our virtual squadrons perform just as poorly as real pilots did when it comes to situational awareness.

 

My point is: realistic spotting should logically lead to much better results in a sim with regards to situational awareness, than is reported for real life combat, for all the above reasons. So aiming to replicate the outcomes of real life spotting/situational awareness during combat should not be the goal of the devs.

 

* of course, if you would put me in a real 109-K4 I'd probably turn into a fireball within minutes no matter how many IL2 hours I have in it, but that's another discussion

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22.08.2020 в 05:58, Jason_Williams сказал:

Answer Han’s question please. All comments here should revolve around that central question. Don’t go off on tangents please with technical essays. When we know what you want, then we can craft a solution or solutions to please more people. Don’t use current conditions as a talking point. It’s a waste of time. We can see the current conditions with our own eyes. 
 

Jason

 

расскажу от себя. взгляд игрока. когда у меня в прошлом году был монитор FHD. то я не испытывал сегодняшних проблем с 2к монитором. сейчас контакты на большой дистанции видны. а по мере приближения они не увеличиваются. хотя должны. может надо что-то сделать в программном коде или в чём там таком, чтоб на мониторах с высоким разрешением на дистанциях 1 км - 2 км контакты были более плотнее чем сейчас.

 

I will tell you from myself. player's view. when I had an FHD monitor last year. then I did not experience today's problems with the 2K monitor. now contacts at a long distance are visible. and they don't increase as we get closer. although they should. maybe you need to do something in the program code or something like that, so that on high - resolution monitors at distances of 1 km-2 km, the contacts are fatter than they are now.

сейчас вопрос не в правильности/не правильности. а скорее в играбельности. отсюда столько недовольства у игроков. нужен какой-то баланс реализма и игры.

 

now the question is not about correctness/not correctness. it's more about playability. hence, so much discontent among the players. we need a balance of realism and play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
9 minutes ago, 40plus said:

One other point is the spotting should be realistic for the AI too. I'm fine with it being difficult to spot contacts and easy to lose them, that's ww2 air combat, but if the AI has god like sight there's a problem.

 

 

The AI in the GB series is not particularly agressive or even efficient. Just use your quick mission builder (QMB) and launch a test. In my case, I get down aces very easily in the QMB... but that's completely different when facing real players in a dogfight server....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Devs to dimostrate interest at the main problem of this sim, the "planes spotting".

I think we are in the right way to solve the problem, writing everyone his idea and focus the Devs attention in solving it.

I love the aim of the sim to a better realism....but now the situation need a real improvement on this aspect.

To me seems since last 4-5 patchs the spotting has been worstening a lot....but I m sure the Devs will find the right improvement.!!

Love this sim anyway

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=FEW=fernando11
1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I think or rather are pretty sure the rendering problem is never going to be solved in a way everybody would be pleased. 
It is true that spotting close airplane is problematic, we are six mates flying coop. 
Biggest problem is we loose each other even when we are close. 
Historically this is accurate, in all enemy encounters I read about pretty much all ended with spread and individual returns, at least many of them. 
To sum up, many here is not up to go through frustration of war, they will fire up their mounts get airborne and shoot something. 
To me this is description of arcade, a game that will get boring pretty quick. 
I agree there is a lack of continuance in rendering. Both in areal and ground targets.  There should only be weather and general visibility that change a hard set value of rendering. And to me this is the problem. 
By reading some of the post here, I recommend some to fly on servers having labels, because I do not think they want what they ask for. 

I was not going to comment at all.

 

But THIS ^

 

 

I have had some if not all the problems people describe. SPECIALY when flying MP alone and/or at first.

The sensation of being in a bubble, not seeing ground targets while level bombing at altitude.

Listening to my squad mates reporting a fight I could not see, until I got close enough and a star wars show apeared. But most of this issues are resolved, and others might be closer to reality than people think.

 

 

One of my questions woud be, whats the setings/hardware of people with and without issues of spoting?

 

MY personal experience: I was having BIG issues with spoting MY wingman at same level, and medium distances. Specialy if he was in front of a far away cloud. Bear in mind, we where in comms and I knew full whell where he was but just could not see him reliably. Zooming in usualy helped. But it's "imposible" to fly combat only full zoomed in...

I was using a 34inc 2560x1080 LG monitor

He was using a smaller 4k.. wtf?!?

 

BUT I was using less ingame AA and on top of that I was using nvida control panel to force FXAA x4 on top of it.

 

Now with the new lighting, I'm using 4x MSAA, without nvida control panel FXAA. And I "feel" at least my spoting is equal to His.

 

So a problem I asumed was a game /resolution problem was in fact my own.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning

Changes that make spotting easier, may produce a less realistic image, but as we can see from [TLC]MasterPooner's videos on page 2 of this thread, a plane that is easy to spot with the eye, can be almost totally invisible on a screen. His video's are 100% realistic, but the planes he easily spotted are more or less invisible in the video.

 

I think the important thing is not how realistic the image is. The important thing is that we should be able to spot the planes that we should realistically be able to spot so that our experience is authentic. Therefore, I believe spotting should be changed to give a more authentic experience by making it easier as it is currently unnecessarily and unrealistically hard to spot planes at close and medium ranges.

 

At the same time, spotting gunfire tracers and nav lights should be much harder in daytime conditions.

 

I think these changes are urgently needed. The current spotting in-game at medium ranges ruins my experience of the game. That said, I don't think big changes are needed. Even a moderate darkening of planes at a distance should be enough to allow us to match real world spotting abilities in-game.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Stick-95

I read the OP but not all subsequent responses so if my comments have already been mentioned or addressed, my apologies.

 

First, I appreciate the approach taken for realism.  Obviously for those of us who have not flown actual combat missions what one sees and experiences can only be imagined.

 

Second, for me personally, using only the game's graphics, spotting is as follows.  On the clear horizon I can see contacts at 9.5km if I know where to look, otherwise I can generally pick them out pretty well at 8.5km.  Spotting planes directly below me over forest is much more difficult even if they are within 2km.  It is what it is and I accept that.

 

So the spotting within the game I have no complaints with.  Some may use third party software to enhance their viewing but they are still restricted by the 10km sighting range.  There are however two points about plane visibility that I would like to make that I KNOW are not realistic and take away from the game's immersion.

 

First, invisible planes.  They exist until they take some action when they become visible and it has been documented by myself and others as far back as 2015.  Having an aircraft in clear weather 30 meters from you than you cannot see should not exist.

 

Second, and this is something fairly recent, is disappearing/reappearing planes.  Do not confuse this with planes going in and out of the 10km sight range.  I am talking about watching planes at 2 to 3km just vanishing and then seconds later reappearing.  No real life condition explains such behavior.

 

Thank you again for all your research on spotting and trying to get IL-2 as close to reality as possible.  I hope my two concerns can be addressed.

 

Edited by VBF-12_Stick-95
Link to comment
Share on other sites

71st_AH_Mastiff
9 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

We already have this

not distance we don't, only with in 3,5 km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So_ein_Feuerball

  

On 8/22/2020 at 4:58 AM, Jason_Williams said:

Answer Han’s question please. All comments here should revolve around that central question. Don’t go off on tangents please with technical essays. When we know what you want, then we can craft a solution or solutions to please more people. Don’t use current conditions as a talking point. It’s a waste of time. We can see the current conditions with our own eyes. 
 

Jason

 

I think you may want to open up a poll then.

There´s just so many differing points of views and opinions that it´ll be impossible to satisfy all of them.

 

Perhaps you want to propose several solutions or targets the community has identified in here,

announce the timeframe in which the poll is held, make sure it is well known amongst the community, 

and then I´d say stick with it.

 

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

To sum up, many here is not up to go through frustration of war, they will fire up their mounts get airborne and shoot something. 
To me this is description of arcade, a game that will get boring pretty quick. 

[...]

By reading some of the post here, I recommend some to fly on servers having labels, because I do not think they want what they ask for. 

 

The problem with statements like this is that neither is the current implementation particularly realistic, as @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard has pointed out,

 

On 8/22/2020 at 4:14 AM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Personally one of the frustations I have with the current spotting system is at close ranges, and when the target aspect is from the 12 o clock or 6 o clock. Many times for example in planes with armored glass I have lost a plane I was going to shoot at after checking six o clock just before taking the shot, or needing to zoom in considerably to just keep the track on them, even if they are at less than 2 km away in front of my nose. And I have a 1080p monitor.

Like Scharfi says , I think it has to do with the rendering and level of detail of the planes. It doesn't seem to be consistent from 5km to 1km range.

I set up a quick test, 1v1 quick mission me in P-51 vs AI Bf 109 G-6. I run away in level flight then I cut throttle and let the 109 come closer, in high fov which is the fov I and most players use to scan the sky, given the monitor size limitation compared to our eye field of view, and take screenshots as it comes closer to compare:

unknown.png

These are the results:

unknown.png

You can see that from 5km to 1.5 km there seems to be a problem with the rendering, the distance is significantly closer yet the LOD doesn't really scale up, the contact flickers as well, for example at the 2.5 Km picture it was rendered as a single pixel only! Note this is with the sky in the background.

These are my graphic settings:

unknown.png

 

nor is the current icon system particularly satisfying.

 

As many also have already pointed out, it´s quite impossible to achieve realism, since screens just simply cannot and never will be able to replicate human vision.

Every solution will have to be a compromise, and the current compromise is frankly just frustrating to me. A lot of people seem to agree.
 

@=FEW=fernando11 Could you perhaps try out the same thing as @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard and tell us whether it´s repeatable with your settings?

Because if so, I would like to ask whether that is a satisfying outcome to you.

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
Just now, So_ein_Feuerball said:

  I think you may want to open up a poll then.

There´s just so many differing points of views and opinions that it´ll be impossible to satisfy all of them.

 

Perhaps you want to propose several solutions or targets the community has identified in here,

announce the timeframe in which the poll is held, make sure it is well known amongst the community, 

and then I´d say stick with it.

Or just make it another option. Some kind of "spotting ++" for those who want to have easier spotting while they don't want something as intrusive as icons, while those who want it more realistic can keep the current system.

 

That said, some problems with the current implementation have been pointed out in this thread and they'd need to be fixed regardless. That includes issues with different hardware settings and the inconsistent rendering at some distances.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG52_J-HAT

Apparently there is still another issue with visibility which is not necessarily how contacts are rendered in certain situations  (for example against the ground, or in medium distances).

Yesterday I was analyzing some tracks from my own online play and couldn't understand how I had missed such obvious contacts.

 

Then I decided to record an online flight using tracks and screen capture simultaneously.

So basically I have a track file, a tacview file and the video from the original play I can comprare to one another. I then ran the track offline and made a video from that.

 

Offline, contacts are drawn larger and darker. Online, they are drawn very faint and smaller. Making it way harder to see (easiest against the sky in this case) online than offline.

 

This is a side by side comparison in low resolution (as both 1440p videos were side by side on my screen). I stopped the video and took screenshots. It is not the same frame but pretty much the same view with a few milliseconds apart.

I knew where the contacts were and I could recognize three contacts from the offline still. None from online.

In the original video in full resolution the difference is night and day. All contacts are visible offline. None are visible online with the game moving.

 

Ammendment:

Realism settings while playing back the track were everything unticked except for Technochat and Allow Spectators. I left leave the interface (Hud and Technochat) off online and offline though. On or off during the offline track didn't affect visibility.

I have also posted the same offline image with the marked contacts so you know where to look for them. It is two posts down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visibility side by side.PNG

Here the offline screenshot for comparison in full 1440p resolution.

Visibility Track video offline.png

And the online screenshot.

Visibility video online.png

Edited by J-HAT
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to the original question: Please do your best to make a realistic air combat simulator. Thank you.:fly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG52_J-HAT

And now the marked contacts. Not all of them were obvious in the video, but now you see where to look for.

 

Spoiler

1326293383_VisibilityTrackvideooffline-marked.thumb.png.b0a70cd971d2aac628920f0e9c8dd42b.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Mephisto
20 minutes ago, J-HAT said:

 

 

Offline, contacts are drawn larger and darker. Online, they are drawn very faint and smaller. Making it way harder to see (easiest against the sky in this case) online than offline.

 

 

 

 

Any chance alternative visibility turns on when you play the track offline?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

The AI in the GB series is not particularly agressive or even efficient. Just use your quick mission builder (QMB) and launch a test. In my case, I get down aces very easily in the QMB... but that's completely different when facing real players in a dogfight server....

 

I rarely stray into MP but when I do, I most always bring a tail gunner. Free spotting and ID'ing all in one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG52_J-HAT
10 minutes ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

 

Any chance alternative visibility turns on when you play the track offline?

 

That was also my first thought, but it wasn't on.

It is basically the same settings as the full real server except for technochat (I always turn off technochat and HUD with H in game anyways) and spectators ticked.

 

I will ammend my first post as this is relevant information.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MeoW.Scharfi pointed out in first post another problem. Objects moving should be spotted. 
Now objects aiming at you do not move. 
I can give reference to all National Geographic docus on Air to Air collitions. 
a plane that is in collision course with you appear static, this is a fact, our anticipation of what is realistic is divided and not attached to reality. 
But Meow got a point, we should se a object moving relative to its background. 
we should see in time if targets are destroyed from high altitude and not appear intact until last minute. 
once spotted a object it should not vanish in thin air. All we need is hard set universal limits that can only be obscured by weather and light conditions. Not hardware or settings or rendering problems

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Just in case it has not yet been brought up, while on the subject of spotting:

 

please remove the super visible nav light beacons during daylight.

 

They mostly serve to circumvent the spotting issues presented here, and are in stark contrast to the spotting difficulty we have now.

Replicating an ideal solution is needed in order to benchmark and further tune for not ideal weather situations.

 

It was asked before but no response. But they want to make realistic sim. Sometimes I think somebody is making fun of us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=RMPinheiro
On 21/08/2020 at 23:58, Jason_Williams said:

Responda a pergunta de Han, por favor. Todos os comentários aqui devem girar em torno dessa questão central. Não saia pela tangente, por favor, com ensaios técnicos. Quando sabemos o que você quer, podemos criar uma solução ou soluções para agradar mais pessoas. Não use as condições atuais como ponto de discussão. É uma perda de tempo. Podemos ver as condições atuais com nossos próprios olhos. 
 

Jason

= PHX = -SuperEtendard had the job of illustrating the visualization flaws and did an excellent job, the same aircraft that is seen at 5km is no more than 1 pixel at 2,5km.  if u, Jason who is a developer does not accept criticism, i recommend not creating this type of discussion ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please get one or more polls going for the main choices / trade-offs available. Too much info here.

 

One thing I find particularly relevant: choice is good. Provide good defaults, but allow options both for the single player (this guy should have all the help he possibly wants) and the multiplayer server administrator.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blue_max said:

There is a problem with using actual pilot experiences as a reference. In WW2, many pilots were barely trained scared to death teenagers. Me on the other hand, I've been flying combat flightsims since the late 90s, and a bit of IRL GA flying on top of that.* So when the barely trained real pilots lose each other in the really stressful environment of actual combat, that's totally logical. What's not logical is to have a graphics engine that has spotting that is worse than it would look like in the real world, just so that the end result is that our virtual squadrons perform just as poorly as real pilots did when it comes to situational awareness.

 

My point is: realistic spotting should logically lead to much better results in a sim with regards to situational awareness, than is reported for real life combat, for all the above reasons. So aiming to replicate the outcomes of real life spotting/situational awareness during combat should not be the goal of the devs.

 

* of course, if you would put me in a real 109-K4 I'd probably turn into a fireball within minutes no matter how many IL2 hours I have in it, but that's another discussion


This.  If the player has turned their head and put an aircraft (within realistic range given size, distance, atmospherics etc) in their view, that aircraft should be rendered in such a way that it’s reasonable that the player could see it.  And this needs to be the case at default settings using typical hardware (I.e. a level playing field, without the need to sink hours into tweaking your graphics settings).  As it is right now, a new pilot in game faces most of the historical human factors (training, distraction etc) on top of generally having terrible “vision” and it’s just a bridge to far for many players.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...