Jump to content

Discussion on the plane visibility issue


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also, if someone hasn’t stated it. Contrast is extremely important. Faraway  LODS should be dark if not black to be seen. As they approach nearby, they should begin to revert to true colors. In between LODs can be drawn with a black border(?) to add definition.

 

i would strongly suggest any changes be phased in slowly.
 

Best of luck. I hope you aren’t disappointed you brought up the issue, you do understand that you’ve created expectations.

 

jokkr

.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good conversation here. My thoughts:

 

1) Read Requiem's post above, he hits it on the head. Big issue is CONTRAST; and lighting, which right now are not realistic in this game compared to real life.

 

2) I think the Dev's could do well to look at their other game, IL2:CLoD which is much better and closer to real life .. I just flew some CLoD real quick, the issues that seem much better there:

  a) contrast between A/C and environment better, lighting is better accounted for

  b) you can use antiailaising w/o destroying your ability to spot distant contacts.. in IL2:GB you must disable A/A which then results in a "Crawly" ground and makes it hard to spot contacts against the ground. by contrast in IL2:CLoD the ground is very smooth with no artifacts; you can more easily discern the relative movement

  c) in GB they contacts definitely flicker in and out of visible range; in CLoD they are more "stable"

 

Those of you that have both games I encourage you to go spend some time back-to-back in both and would be interested to hear from everyone about which is more realistic regarding spotting.. bottom line we all should want more realistic spotting, but the point is that right now in IL2-GB the spotting is unrealisticly HARD because of poor lighting / rendering and I am glad the devs are looking into this

 

 

2020-08-23.thumb.jpg.f1ef3a9bc6e26d9a51a4b74c670fffee.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by TX-Zigrat
more info
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SARFlytitus said:

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

 

The problem is they are not in the same boat, some people abuse from reshade, make their game uglier to spot better, is that okey to you? I refuse to play at 1600x800 because you will spot everyone easily.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
23 minutes ago, TX-Zigrat said:

I think the Dev's could do well to look at their other game, IL2:CLoD which is much better and closer to real life

 

2020-08-23.thumb.jpg.f1ef3a9bc6e26d9a51a4b74c670fffee.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I definitely agree with that. In late 2019 and early 2020 I still was mainly a "Great Battles" user... but now the situation has changed. This year I simply noticed that "Cliffs of Dover" got really improved thank to the BLITZ version. In addition, I recently purchased the add-on "Desert Wings - Tobruk" and I'm very happy with both scenarios. One may think that it is poor content compared to the Great Battles series' theatres of operations... but thank to the add-on's release (Tobruk map and the Dewoitine D.520) now, with "Cliffs of Dover" we can play the Battle of France, the Battle of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the siege of Tobruk... and even Operation Torch or the Tunisia campaign, simply using the Tobruk map as if it was those mentioned areas in North Africa.

 

Cliffs of Dover offers more photorealistic cockpits and landscapes and, definitely, doesn't present any distance visibility isssue.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ABr=Jambock_Polaco

Couldn't this help them? https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration

This technology is about 15 years old and BoX developers still use archaic methods of visualization, you can see how lagged they are in technology, stop being lazy and make every penny your customers invest in this series worth!

Sorry my google translator english

Edited by =ABr=Jambock_Polaco
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So_ein_Feuerball
18 minutes ago, =ABr=Jambock_Polaco said:

stop being lazy and make every penny your customers invest in this series worth!

Not very helpful.

 

Ignorant? Perhaps. 

Entitled? Most definitely.

 

You bought what was advertised, it´s not like the devs promised anything additional.

I´d even go as far as saying that any additional effort on the devs' part is just an extra that they´re adding to the whole ecosystem that is GB series.

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

8 hours ago, THERION said:

 

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.

 

Who knew they gona do more then just get rid of bubble ? :) they dont even know why things got change in 0-10km range.

To me its great to be able to spot things more then 9,5km, and if they fix bugs with mid ranges that got messed up since that update then they would get rid of most complains about visability and you can still call it realistic, but to me it looks like they dont see problem there, if question is we have realistic now and if we change it will be fun but not realistic.

If they said we can get rid of bubble but we cant keep same visability in 0-10km as before, no one would be for get rid of bubble, who would know they will try to do this.

 

3 hours ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

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.

 

 

10km bubble dosent exist since 2019 september update:
"26. Aircraft and ships are visible much farther than before - theoretically, they can be spotted as far as 100 km away if there are fire, contrails or a ship wake;"
You can see airplanes with not big problems since then from 10+km, problems are mostly in mid ranges.

 

Edited by CountZero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big problems in game is the high altitude visuals behave exactly the same as low, same difficulty in seeing and tracking, that in no way should be the case.  As you climb light and atmospheric distortions decrease exponentially.  You will have less haze and distortions, have an increase in relative speeds, along with increased light levels, all making for superior spotting.  That's simply not the case currently.  That alone blows the realism argument apart, and is a major defect.

 

I got no problem with difficulty spotting on the deck, but at altitude, you got to be kidding.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Stick-95
2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

...if there are fire, contrails or a ship wake

 

That's a big "if".  Standard fighter a/c still disappear at about 10km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

I definitely agree with that. In late 2019 and early 2020 I still was mainly a "Great Battles" user... but now the situation has changed. This year I simply noticed that "Cliffs of Dover" got really improved thank to the BLITZ version. In addition, I recently purchased the add-on "Desert Wings - Tobruk" and I'm very happy with both scenarios. One may think that it is poor content compared to the Great Battles series' theatres of operations... but thank to the add-on's release (Tobruk map and the Dewoitine D.520) now, with "Cliffs of Dover" we can play the Battle of France, the Battle of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the siege of Tobruk... and even Operation Torch or the Tunisia campaign, simply using the Tobruk map as if it was those mentioned areas in North Africa.

 

Cliffs of Dover offers more photorealistic cockpits and landscapes and, definitely, doesn't present any distance visibility isssue.

 

You see we can have realistic and fun visability when it works bug free, and map area in Channel map is same as we will have in BoN or have now in parts of BoBp map, so its not that its easyer to spot and maintain as its desert, just compare how hard it is on BoBp to see stuff to how normal is on Clod france area. But for some range is : GB has realistic visability, and if you wont better there is only WT and nothing els exists.

2 minutes ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

 

That's a big "if".  Standard fighter a/c still disappear at about 10km.

 

no i can see them up to 40km, tested with wingman start together and then slowly separat and call on coms position by gps icon. With alternate vis you can see up to 100km as it makes far contacts mutch bigger.

But you can easy lose contacts in 2-6km ranges on both.

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

=621=Samikatz

Imo one of the big problems with spotting is sometimes aircraft get less visible as they approach you. I think the anti-aliasing can mulch them up, sometimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO if spotting becomes too easy I think we all can say a big goodbye to those fellow bomber pilots and mudmovers.  If all servers becomes a giant furball of only competitive dogfighters maybe there are best arenas to join , players at 800 x 600 only to acquire spotting advantages , others in 4K to enjoy this GAME in all his glory, some others in VR and in the middle those with “only” fullHD ... possible solution?

porting in toto on XBOX or  whatever PS and voila,  end of complaints!

BTW, as usual, i’m The last of dumb morons and it’s only my point of view !

😉

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

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

"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 🤣

 

I'm thinking about VR Headsets mostly which have a long way to go. Or ultra wide 40" screens people would use in sim pits instead of VR.

 

In any case, my point is that Han mentioned there's been a change in high DPI. The engine hasn't handled that. Object size needs to be increased to match the picture size instead of a fixed pixel size.

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

216th_Jordan

1.) I want a sim that allows hardcore realism as well as customizable gameplay (Icons, simplifications) so more people fit the boat and newbies can start low and work up

 

2.) The current spotting situation is WORSE than reality from all experiences I could gather from being a glider pilot and living close to Frankfurt airport.

(where I often get the possibility to detect and trace planes coming in and going out)

 

3.) Never has real-life flying been as tiring for me as Il-2 has with visibility and in real life my life literally depends on it.

 

I do not want unrealistically easy spotting, I want the game to acknowledge that HIDs can not (yet) replicate what we can experience with our sole eyes and that in the result spotting in a game should at least not be worse than reality.

With a perfectly tweaked Nvidia Profile for Il-2 I find the absolute spotting ranges to be about what I would find in reality or a little less. What REALLY is a problem is losing track of planes that have been aquired and that are just a few km away. In all my real life experiences it was rather seldom to not find a plane again after looking away for a second. (Sometimes in Il-2 you even lose the plane when you look at it)

 

Also one thing for the realism comparison: We sit behind a desk in a safe environment, a scared pilot afraid of his life might not have the situational awareness or the experience to know how to scan the skies or to know how the enemy usually attacks.For many their first enemy encounter ended in their death - like it did when we started simming where we get a second chance.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
1 hour ago, SARFlytitus said:

IMHO if spotting becomes too easy I think we all can say a big goodbye to those fellow bomber pilots and mudmovers.

 

My tag stands for Dedicated Bomber Squadron. We fly bombers exclusively and all of us would like better spotting.

Currently, we can fly in a straight line from the home base to the target and whilst it is not unusual to be attacked at the target, we are almost never engaged on the way there or the way back.

 

Back in IL2-1946, we flew the same bombers, but we had to make detours in our flight plans to avoid being spotted. We had to attack the target from a direction the enemy would not expect to avoid being spotted on the way. We regularly made 30-40km  or even longer diversions to avoid enemy patrols. Flying straight to the target along a predictable path was a sure way to be spotted and engaged.

 

In IL2 GB, we can completely disregard such tactics and just fly straight to target every time, safe in the knowledge that we almost certainly won't be spotted on the way. It's not as fun; it's not as realistic.

When we have escorts with us, they tend to either fly close in our formation or at the same altitude because unless we are over water, it is not possible for even very experienced pilots to keep track of the bombers and be able to spot the enemy before it's too late. Almost always it is our AI gunners that spot the enemy before any of the human bombers or escorts.

 

We know that easier spotting will make our flight harder because the enemy will spot us more, but also, our escorts will be able to use real tactics and be more use to us. Also, we will go back to planning detour routes to avoid enemy patrols. These are all things that enhance the experience.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

1.) I want a sim that allows hardcore realism as well as customizable gameplay (Icons, simplifications) so more people fit the boat and newbies can start low and work up

 

2.) The current spotting situation is WORSE than reality from all experiences I could gather from being a glider pilot and living close to Frankfurt airport.

(where I often get the possibility to detect and trace planes coming in and going out)

 

3.) Never has real-life flying been as tiring for me as Il-2 has with visibility and in real life my life literally depends on it.

 

 

You want a sim called "IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover BLITZ".

 

"Never has real-life flying been as tiring for me as Il-2 has with visibility"... "as Il-2" you said? Obviously, you talk about the third generation of IL-2 simulators (the "Great Battles" series). The two other generations, "IL-2: 1946" and "IL-2 Cliffs of Dover BLITZ", never encountered such a visibility problem. "Cliffs of Dover" did encounter many problems upon release back in 2011... but all of those problems are nothing but past forgotten history.

 

Jordan, do you possesses "Cliffs of Dover BLITZ"? If not, do not hesitate to purchase BLITZ. It is accurate, serious simulation, with impeccable visuals (landscape and cockpits, and no visibility problem), and it's growing big with new add--ons and new improvements being planned almost permanently.

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and thank you for asking.

 

I probably repeat something that has already been written - being to lazy to read all six pages but here goes...

 

I have spent thousand of hours studying literature, history and biographies of WW2 pilots  during the last 25 years and I agree with most that Han states, like

" The harsh historical truth is that most of the Soviet Air Force pilots died without ever seeing an enemy aircraft in the crosshair of their sight."

"Namely - very often, if not most often, the groups scattered after entering the battle with the enemy and could not find each other until they returned to the airfield. "

 etc...

But there were couple of other factors than poor spotting in play also:

 - newbies (even E.Hartman admitted that he was about to lose hope of ever finding enemies in sky before he learned the skill, he even lost his wing leader a number of times as a new pilot)

 - lack of radios (many Soviet fighters did not have radios and they started to become common around winter 42-43) and you all know how difficult things get without comms

 

If we just consider these two... (and there were other factors, but I try to keep this short)

imagine a player who has just started flying flight simulators, and after 50 to 100 hours has learned to land and take-off reliably and has possibly flown some single missions... throw this player to TAW... and we get a very historical presentation of realism as he dies multiple times before learning to spot and identify anyone. And if he uses no Teamspeak... it takes even longer to learn essential skills.

 

So - I'm saying that eyesight is one thing (mechanism of dot being presented) and actually spotting it (skill of meticulously checking the sky at different distances). Mots of us in this community have flown thousands of hours and are very good at doing it. Yet if the game does not draw the dot consistently - there is little even the best of us can do.

 

Just this week I was flying behind my squad mate, we spotted light flak tracers on the deck and dived in. My mate was lying in front of me, and as our separation grew, his plane started to vanish and then at aprox to 500m - his plane could not be seen anymore, not on any zoom. That is just not consistent. Sure there was some fog and it was early morning - but I could still easily see ground formations, trees etc further than his plane was...

 

Special thanks to MasterPooner for digging and sharing the studies on the topic of spotting. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
2 hours ago, SARFlytitus said:

IMHO if spotting becomes too easy I think we all can say a big goodbye to those fellow bomber pilots and mudmovers.  If all servers becomes a giant furball of only competitive dogfighters maybe there are best arenas to join , players at 800 x 600 only to acquire spotting advantages , others in 4K to enjoy this GAME in all his glory, some others in VR and in the middle those with “only” fullHD ... possible solution?

porting in toto on XBOX or  whatever PS and voila,  end of complaints!

BTW, as usual, i’m The last of dumb morons and it’s only my point of view !

 

This is exactly what happened when alternative visibility was originally turned on in some servers. Aircraft could be spotted from ridiculously far away and they looked like the Goodyear blimp. It just ended up as a massive furball. It's interesting to note that most server admins now have alt vis switched off.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying 30 minutes on combat box before quiting, couldn't spot a single crap on the objectives, I am done with this, I don't want to keep damaging my eyes.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG77_Knipser

Go for Realism please! .. as far as this is even possible :)
my two cents on this whole discussion:
- please fix the LOD issue with dissapearing planes

- add some (of course limited) options to adjust the beautiful images, rendered by your game engine. this could be saturation, contrast, gain for example.

Edited by JG77_Knipser
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

danielprates

Consensus seems to be building towards some change being warranted. Good thing too, my vote is to make spotting easier somewhat. My reason: I have all three sight maladies (miopia, hypermetropia and astigmatismus), and though it corrects well with glasses, the game taxes my eyes somewhat. Later sighting improvements made it that much harder to have a pleasant experience. In my case, I loose track of foes as soon as they drop below the horizon, except at closer distances. Ok I am all for realism, but if we take this to extremes, only fit and fully healthy 20yo men should be able to fly, isn't it? In real life I would be banned from flying on account of my eyesight, but in the game too?

 

Imho seeing other planes should be hard, I do not want it to be "easier" from a tactical point of view. Chuck Yeager's memoirs mentions how the best pilots could see farther and clearer, that's just life I guess and people will have different abilities. But the dev team should try to find a way to make sighting a tactical challenge but not so much that I would have to be a sharpshooter to see other planes. This is intended to be an entertaining game afterall. 

 

PS: whenever I brought up here my desire that we had random engine and mechanical failures, even if at much lower frequency than in RL, this forum mostly rejected the idea - some people rather harshly even. So much for intransigent realism, for that matter!

 

 

Edited by danielprates
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only play in VR, so I can't say what the Monitor version of the game is like.
I also know that playing in vr makes spotting harder due to the resolution and screendoor effect.

I am not going to complain however, as I take this as a growing pain in the technology of VR and as the headset resolution increases, this problem will disappear.  
My choice of VR is due to the increased immersion, and as such, I want all opportunity to seek realism, even at the cost of easy fun.

However, I do find the "alternate visibility" option to be a mixed blessing. On one hand, I see the enemy from much further off. But on the other hand, judging distance based on size becomes impossible.

So yeah, my opinion shouldn't hold much weight as i'm knowingly crippling my ability to spot by using VR only. 
But even with terrible spotting ability, I still enjoy the game immensely. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

343KKT_Kintaro
5 hours ago, CountZero said:

10km bubble dosent exist since 2019 september update:
"26. Aircraft and ships are visible much farther than before - theoretically, they can be spotted as far as 100 km away if there are fire, contrails or a ship wake;"

 

 

Apparently not item 26 in the list, but item 23 :

 

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/498/update-3201/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

71st_AH_Mastiff
44 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Apparently not item 26 in the list, but item 23 :

 

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/498/update-3201/

Visual improvements

23. Aircraft and ships are visible much farther than before - theoretically, they can be spotted as far as 100 km away if there are fire, contrails or a ship wake;
24. New 'Distant buildings' option added;
25. Object markers can be blocked by landscape and objects, including own aircraft or vehicle;
26. Static objects rendering has been optimized to increase performance;

27. Sun glare from distant aircraft is visible better;
 

Im on Ultra setting and yet do not see this,

 

 

 

 

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

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

Visual improvements

23. Aircraft and ships are visible much farther than before - theoretically, they can be spotted as far as 100 km away if there are fire, contrails or a ship wake;
24. New 'Distant buildings' option added;
25. Object markers can be blocked by landscape and objects, including own aircraft or vehicle;
26. Static objects rendering has been optimized to increase performance;

27. Sun glare from distant aircraft is visible better;
 

Im on Ultra setting and yet do not see this,

 

 

 

 

The bubble is gone, but I dont blame you for not seeing it. As far as I can tell, when the spotting patch came out they added some kind of scaling or imposter system over 10km. I am not actually sure what the system does from a technical standpoint, but you can certainly see contacts over 10km now. The main problem is that as best I can tell, that system stops functioning right at the 10km mark, and from 10km to 0km the old spotting system is in play. So its not uncommon to pick out a contact 12km and suddenly lost it when it goes under 10km. As some of the screenshots in this thread have shown, from 10km to 2km there is virtually no difference in the apparent size or contrast of the object unless you zoom in to levels that make flying the plane claustrophobic. From 10km down to 2km, you are basically trying to spot 1-4 pixels. So in other words, right now it is sometimes easier to spot something >10km away than it is at 6km. What we need is aggressive scaling out to 10kk coupled with the scaling that is already in place over 10km.

 

 

 

@Han I dont think I put this in my other posts so I will mention it here. I personally really like the aesthetic of the scaling system outside of the bubble with the glint etc. If that system were implemented from 1-10km (or much more aggressively than it is now if it is in fact already in place) I think it would look very realistic. Just my two cents, for what that is worth.

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

I quote 216th_Jordan   
 

Quote

 

Quote

2.) The current spotting situation is WORSE than reality from all experiences I could gather from being a glider pilot and living close to Frankfurt airport.

(where I often get the possibility to detect and trace planes coming in and going out)


3.) Never has real-life flying been as tiring for me as Il-2 has with visibility and in real life my life literally depends on it.


I do not want unrealistically easy spotting, I want the game to acknowledge that HIDs can not (yet) replicate what we can experience with our sole eyes and that in the result spotting in a game should at least not be worse than reality.

 


Developers and many players forget that:

1) In REALITY the eyes have the stereoscopic view that THERE IS NOT IN THE MONITOR.
 

2) In REALITY the Vision is assisted by the DEPTH OF FIELD which is not available in the Monitor.
 

3) In REALITY the eye perfectly perceives moving objects on a fixed background (also thanks to the above mentioned Depth of Field).
 

4) In REALITY the eye perceives in an exceptional way the differences between the lines at the level of tenths of mm, which is impossible on a monitor with a limited number of pixels.
 

5) REALITY has a definition enormously higher than the best 4K Monitor ...

For all these reasons, to bring the vision back to REALITY through a Monitor, one must use Reality AUGMENTATION expedients to the extent that the perception of objects in the visual space of the Virtual Pilot is equal to that of the Real Pilot, if we want to call this a FLIGHT SIMULATOR ...

Otherwise we only get a difficult and NOT realistic Arcade Game, fun only for those who have never really flown ...



(ZOOM MORE TIME THIS IMAGE...TO HAVE A FAR IDEA OF A REAL VISION)
AAMkS_HjXdD5FTYu8qee66VBG-ryjXr-_Gr15GqP

 

Edited by ITA_Cipson
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, [TWB]dillon_biz said:

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.  

 

 

Civilian planes painted to be visible. But in ww2 they are camouflaged and made to be hard to see.  There is a difference. Almost no body has experience with this and certainly not in some of the environments and conditions of il-2 GB. So its still not an accurate comparison and there MAY be some differences

If realism is that important to people, and for some it clearly is.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TX-Zigrat said:

2) I think the Dev's could do well to look at their other game, IL2:CLoD which is much better and closer to real life .. I just flew some CLoD real quick, the issues that seem much better t

 

 

Point of correction , its a different developer team to IL-2 GB,(ie its not their game) and uses a different game engine completely.

 

I have both titles , and aspects of il-2 COD work in regards to spotting  as it uses contrasting , but it also has problems too. Its very FOV dependent and  it has a much more limited spotting range than il-2 GB. And when/if icons are used it has a better system to customize them which is considerably better than a huge marker and tag as in il-2 GB.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Civilian planes painted to be visible. But in ww2 they are camouflaged and made to be hard to see.  There is a difference. Almost no body has experience with this and certainly not in some of the environments and conditions of il-2 GB

There is a difference. Although not as dramatic as you seem to think. Forgive me if this is not your impression, but I have seen so many posts on this forum on the effect of camouflage that it has become clear to me that some people have the idea that it is some kind of magic.

 

The most useful level of camouflage is simply not being a color like red or orange. After that there are diminishing returns  except in highly specific circumstances. I have seen many posts on this forums that seem to assume that camouflage is "effective" or else no one would use it in war. Not only is this reading a degree of effectiveness into a broader conversation about spotting that is wildly exaggerated, it completely miscalculates the mindset of anyone engaged in conflict. If a camouflage pattern made a soldier even 1% harder to spot, it is plausible that someone would want to use it.

 

Aircraft are always moving, and this dramatically reduces the effect of camouflage patterns. They are also next to useless viewed against the sky (if were referring to a green pattern for example) or if the plane is too far away for the details of the pattern to matter to the observer.

 

Some food for thought on how effective camouflage is at hiding a plane in general: Most Air forces have simply gone to a solid or near solid grey. Sometimes a two tone. Its much more rare to see the complicated patterns that were attempted in ww2. Also, its was very common for American planes in ww2 to remove camouflage paint to save weight. This cost to benefit choice should say a lot about how much those pilots thought camouflage hide them when most people were shot down by something they never saw.....

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

There is a difference. Although not as dramatic as you seem to think. Forgive me if this is not your impression, but I have seen so many posts on this forum on the effect of camouflage that it has become clear to me that some people have the idea that it is some kind of magic.

 

The most useful level of camouflage is simply not being a color like red or orange. After that there are diminishing returns  except in highly specific circumstances. I have seen many posts on this forums that seem to assume that camouflage is "effective" or else no one would use it in war. Not only is this reading a degree of effectiveness into a broader conversation about spotting that is wildly exaggerated, it completely miscalculates the mindset of anyone engaged in conflict. If a camouflage pattern made a soldier even 1% harder to spot, it is plausible that someone would want to use it.

 

Aircraft are always moving, and this dramatically reduces the effect of camouflage patterns. They are also next to useless viewed against the sky (if were referring to a green pattern for example) or if the plane is too far away for the details of the pattern to matter to the observer.

 

Some food for thought on how effective camouflage is at hiding a plane in general: Most Air forces have simply gone to a solid or near solid grey. Sometimes a two tone. Its much more rare to see the complicated patterns that were attempted in ww2. Also, its was very common for American planes in ww2 to remove camouflage paint to save weight. This cost to benefit choice should say a lot about how much those pilots thought camouflage hide them when most people were shot down by something they never saw.....

 

 

No idea , no experience except with flying remote control ww2 aircraft and there it makes a big difference. They do blend in quite well against some backgrounds , also its easy to confuse orientation sometimes, even when u are following a plane with a lot of concentration. I would expect some similarity, as over about 100m they look like real planes, though the weather and lighting also has an impact too on visibility. A lot of factors impact visibility. Another difference is you are not moving , or looking through a dirty or sun glared window when flying a remote control plane, so its not like for like comparison either, just similarities again.

 

So It was a question , not a statement of fact 🙂. Just asking the question and not taking anything a fact , you have to compare like with like to get accuracy, and caution is needed when not using exact comparisons.

 

If you have experience with actual ww2 camo painted aircraft under similar conditions to the game, then you would be more knowledgeable than me.

OPINION:

I would think though that lack of depth perception and limitations of a 2d screen make realism impossible(even if that was agreed upon, which it's not), so we need to simulate something, I like @Requiem train of thought in his post, and I trust a real pilot to have the closest ideas on this.

 

Ultimately we need something the satisfies the sim purists and the gamers (and the latter (the gamers) I think can be done with a configurable icon system like COD, as a server option)

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
added link to post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The major difference between the game and reality is that AC surfaces don't pick up the light when below the horizon to contrast it against the terrain.  If you are viewing an aircraft that is between you and the sun (put another way ...meaning that the AC surfaces you can observe from that angle are shaded or not in a reflective angle to you) then the camouflage does its job and make the AC very difficult to see. Unless the sun is at a low angle <45 deg  (or you are below the other AC looking up which is moot) this rarely happens though.

 

In situations where the light is diffused through clouds like in Motoadve's video, the majority of the time the other AC is reflecting light  (cause it's coming from everywhere above) and is easy to see. However there are a couple of instances where the light and AC angle are just right and the AC disappears. You can see several cases in the video where one wing (and once or twice the entire aircraft) disappears because the light can't catch it.

 

If there was a way to modulate the brightness of the other aircraft depending on the angle of the light relative to you (I thought these new fancy rendering engines already did that) then this would go a long way to making mid-range visibility better.

BoX does this a bit over water but the effect isn't seen above the terrain.

:salute:

skud

Edited by ATAG_SKUD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank you Han, an interesting topic. Firstly your ‘you tube’ documentary featuring RAF Flt. Lt. George Beurling. There is no doubt he had fantastic eyesight and he was a master of deflection shooting. George always spotted the enemy first and soon ran up a big score over Malta. I agree with you that our sim gives you the ability to better your eyesight by ‘zooming-in’ and scanning which seems to work very well for me. I know that some of our members don’t like this ‘zooming-in’ ability because it is not realistic – I disagree, it gives you a better chance to see the enemy in the game with all the other changing factors, 4K monitors giving a smaller DPI at distances, possibly increasing the 150km visibility etc.

Moving to your last paragraph. You and the team are definitely striving, on every upgrade, for maximum realism in the simulation of air combat. I would personally hate to think you are striving to get maximum ‘fun’ from virtual air battles. To me you are flying a WWII aircraft in the sim and this is a serious business of personal survival to get you safely to the next mission and support your fellow pilots. I have noticed over the many years I have played the various versions of IL2 Sturmovik, my fighter pilot skills have become much better enabling me to survive most missions and move onto the next. You are keeping up this tradition as computer algorithms and graphics get better and better.

I will finish with a couple of other thoughts for our current game based on the Western front of the European WWII aerial war. I am very keen on simulating real battles and due to you and your teams’ efforts, this is now much more realistically possible.

For my mission builds, I am constantly reading WWII fighter pilots ‘real accounts’ of their combat experiences and it is surprising what you pick up.

About spotting your enemy aircraft first. Using our ‘Bodenplatte Map’ and the upcoming ‘Normandy Map’ during WWII the RAF, USAAF and Luftwaffe had the help of ‘group radar control’ which vectored their flights towards the enemy formations giving fairly accurate height and position. For example ‘Johnnie Johnson’s Wing’ (RAF fighter pilot) had help from 83 Group’s radar, codenamed ‘Kenway’. Once his flight was airborne they would receive instructions direct from ‘Kenway’ –“Kenway to Greycap, Bandits active, 5 miles south of Caen at low level, please investigate.” This information would take ‘Johnson’s flight’ to the right area. To get them even closer to the enemy aircraft, ‘Kenway’ would order them to activate ‘Canary’ which was an early IFF (Identification friend or foe) secret apparatus. The pilots pushed a yellow button in their cockpits and immediately ‘Kenway’ would see their aircraft on the radar screen and any other aircraft were presumed the enemy. ‘Kenway’ would then get ‘Johnson’s flight’ to fly even closer to the enemy using accurate height and position. In most cases the pilots would spot the enemy almost immediately, before engaging. The Luftwaffe had a similar system, if they could get radar coverage.

I noticed in Gambit21’s campaign ‘Hellhawks over the Bulge’ the great customized voice messages and chatter did mention the USAF’s group radar control from time to time. Han, it would be good if radar control could be accurately programmed into the sim. This would mean that you could deviate away from your mission waypoints to a specific area to attack the enemy, hopefully being able to see them quickly, then return back to your original track.

DFLion

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StG77Jeevesovich

Caveats to my thoughts on this:  1) I play using the Rift S and 2) I am not a pilot (and so have no experience spotting objects from the air).

 

I gave this some thought while working outside today.  When I look up and see a small aircraft or a bird, the difference between me looking up at the sky and me spotting in IL2 is the sharpness and clarity with which I see objects in real life.  This is not a negative comment about IL2 (I'm a big fan).  I think it is more a reflection of current technology compared to my good old Mk. 1 eyeballs.  I looked up today and saw a large bird that was high enough to appear no bigger than a fingernail on my extended arm.  Despite the small size, I could distinguish it as a buzzard and not a hawk by the wing shape because I could see a sharp, clear outline.  Similarly, when a small plane passed over I could see that it had square wingtips and fixed gear even though it, like the bird, was distant enough to appear no larger than a fingernail on my extended arm.  Similarly sized objects in a computer game lack the same definition and sharpness around the edges.

 

So it seems to me that one needs something in a game to make up for the limitations of technology as compared to our eyes.  Some way to simulate the clarity with which one sees details in real life.  Maybe that's a zoom, or darkening the contact, or some other subtle device that doesn't break immersion.  Suffice to say I'm for realism that includes a crutch for when the technology cannot provide a realistic experience.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nighthawk2174
2 hours ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

There is a difference. Although not as dramatic as you seem to think. Forgive me if this is not your impression, but I have seen so many posts on this forum on the effect of camouflage that it has become clear to me that some people have the idea that it is some kind of magic.

 

The most useful level of camouflage is simply not being a color like red or orange. After that there are diminishing returns  except in highly specific circumstances. I have seen many posts on this forums that seem to assume that camouflage is "effective" or else no one would use it in war. Not only is this reading a degree of effectiveness into a broader conversation about spotting that is wildly exaggerated, it completely miscalculates the mindset of anyone engaged in conflict. If a camouflage pattern made a soldier even 1% harder to spot, it is plausible that someone would want to use it.

 

Aircraft are always moving, and this dramatically reduces the effect of camouflage patterns. They are also next to useless viewed against the sky (if were referring to a green pattern for example) or if the plane is too far away for the details of the pattern to matter to the observer.

 

Some food for thought on how effective camouflage is at hiding a plane in general: Most Air forces have simply gone to a solid or near solid grey. Sometimes a two tone. Its much more rare to see the complicated patterns that were attempted in ww2. Also, its was very common for American planes in ww2 to remove camouflage paint to save weight. This cost to benefit choice should say a lot about how much those pilots thought camouflage hide them when most people were shot down by something they never saw.....

Definitely food for thought on the camouflage bit.  While yes something that is painted white or just bare metal may stand out more (in particular in bright conditions where they would reflect more light) I just can't imagine it would make a massive difference, its still going to be a moving object that is separated from it which in all probability won't match the background perfectly either.  That is if your even close enough for that to even really matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the popularity of this game is no doubt due to the realism factor. I will preface this post by saying I play with a rift cv1, which i can't wait to upgrade to a reverb G2. Also, based on the original post, I am now under the assumption that there is a system in place that doesn't render planes until you stare at them for a certain period of time, which could definitely explain why I have some extreme cases of non-rendering planes. (although i could be completely wrong about that, and a lot of it is definitely the lack of pixels stretched across my VR environment) If that's not a thing, HALF of my rambling about invisible planes will be invalid.

 

I definitely think we should aim for maximum realism in almost all aspects of the engine. But, there are obviously compromises that need to be made. In my humble opinion, implementing a system that forces people to stare at an invisible plane for a certain amount of time before it renders is not realistic. The main issue here is invisible planes. I'd be willing to bet that if you remove that issue entirely somehow, you would make most people happy. Even if you remove the system that renders the plane as a darkened black dot when it's somewhere between 6-10km away.

In my humble opinion, there are going to be limitations of any simulator. For example, it will almost always be easier to see planes in the game than it is in real life at most distances, just because the detail of the environment in the background isn't going to be sufficiently detailed to make it realistically difficult to spot planes against said background. But attempting to compensate for this with invisible planes is incredibly frustrating. If i know there's a 190 rolling over the top of me and i know where he is and where he's heading, then i turn to check my six and make sure he doesn't have a friend swooping behind me, when i turn back to look at the 190 again, there's no reason it should ever be invisible. I know where it is and where it's heading, I turn looking directly for it after glancing behind me for a fraction of a second, and it's just not there. It's as if it just vanished out of thin air.

Balancing the spotting between different resolutions is gonna be an important factor to the spotting system. I can confirm that playing this game on a rift cv1 with such a low resolution and a screen-door effect has definite spotting and ID'ing disadvantages, and players with properly tuned 4k displays have hawk-eye vision even compared to 1080p monitor users. This makes sense to me, as the more pixels you have to work with, the more you can see. The key to solving this is to make sure that planes render at the same distance for every player no matter of what resolution they are using or not using. You will have players that will down-scale their game on a 4k monitor to make spotting easier so that the pixels are bigger when a distant plane is rendering as just 1 pixel. If this were properly implemented, then in my cv1 i would be able to spot unidentified targets with the best of them. After all, my pixels are so huge that I can see the red-green-blue separation in each individual pixel on my display. But these planes don't render for me. there isn't a balance with this, because the rendering of planes is dependent on both the resolution and the "zoom" fov. There is clearly a darkened pixel system working, because sometimes i see distant planes as a dot, but when i get closer they vanish. But, if this system was properly implemented to help balance the drastic differences in resolution that some of us are dealing with, I would see a lot more of these darkened dots given the extreme end of the spectrum that i am on. But in a lot of cases, instead of a darkened pixel, i get no pixels.

 

I don't know what the perfect system will be for spotting, but I think that the only time planes should be invisible is when they are beyond 10km (or whatever distance you decide is the most realistic). If they are going to blend in with the ground or the sky, they should be hard to see because the colour of the plane (which should ALWAYS be rendered within a certain distance) is difficult to separate from the background behind it. There's always going to be people who will tweak their monitor contrast/brightness/gamma settings and take advantage of a system to see better than intended. Even with the current system they are doing it still, the invisible planes isn't fixing that, it's just frustrating everyone. another problem with the current system is consistency. I've been less than 2 km away from an aircraft getting shot at by 3 fast-firing AA targets with tracers on the ground, triangulating their position. Even with full zoom they were not rendering for me. 

 

In my mind, there are 2 directions to go if you are going to change the spotting:

   The first is having planes render (as at-least 1 pixel) at the same distance for every resolution/fov combo, which will result in lower resolutions having better spotting, but higher resolutions being able to identify targets from farther away. It sounds like the War Thunder spotting system, but I'm sure this game would implement it much better and with a much higher sense of realism without having giant dots visible from 20 miles away. This method can be used to create a fair competitive balance between every player regardless of their display's resolution and/or FOV. There may be situations where the realism is compromized (especially on lower resolution displays), but the realism on lower resolution displays is always going to be compromised. As long as it doesn't provide a rediculous competitive advantage that will force people to play on lower resolutions to be competitive, I don't see any harm in leveling the playing field.

   The second is to have planes always render as their models, but not darkening a pixel dot unless that model takes up the majority of the space in that pixel. This will be completely unbalanced and will result in higher resolutions having better spotting and better identifying. You could cap the resolution for the game, and this would balance out once everyone manages to achieve the max resolution, but you would still be faced with balancing those in VR with those on 4k monitors. I don't see this method being balanced, because without darkening at-least 1 pixel you are always going to have a plane rendering on one resolution that doesn't render on another resolution.

 

You're not going to be able to get perfect realism consistenly across all platforms/resolutions/FOVs. Even if the current system works very realistically for a few people, there are a much larger number of people who experience much better or much worse visibilty than intended. So for now I think you should aim for a system that provides consistency and a fair competitive theatre of simulated war for us to enjoy. Keep expirimenting with systems of visibility, and if you make a breakthrough you can always increase the realism down the road in a way that doesn't break the integrity of a fair environment for competitive play.

 

As far as making spotting and visibility "easier" than it currently is, I don't think anyone really wants that in the grand scheme of things. Those people (if they do exist) can play with icons turned on if that's what they want. I think the people who are getting frustrated are the ones who play with people who can see 10 times better than they can. The ones who want it easier are the ones who have it worse. They don't want spotting to get easier for everyone, they want an even playing field. The only real issue I have with the current visibility system is having planes not rendering in my VR environment, which I believe is directly related to the way the rendering system works differently with different resolutions and FOVs. I'm really hoping that once i get a reverb G2 this will become a non-issue for me. I don't think people with higher-resolution HMDs struggle as badly with rendering issues. I see the problem that if you make changes to help lower-resolution players spot as well as those with higher-resolution monitors, some will see it as an advantage and downscale the game for a competitive edge of some kind, but at the end of the day it's going to be a trade-off. The lower the resolution, the more difficult it will be to identify targets at a distance.

 

I think the current system works very well under the right conditions. (with a properly tuned monitor) If you could find a way to get it tuned properly for us low-resolution VR players as well as it is for the properly tuned 4k monitor, and bring our spotting/visibility experiences to a point where neither has much of an advantage over the other in the grand scheme of things, then we would truly be a spoiled generation of gamers flying ww2 combat flight sims.

 

As a final note, I think any frustration we have only exists because we love this game. Our frustration and passion is matched by our love for the game, and many of us believe this is currently hands down the best option for WWII air combat simulation. With great power comes great responsibility. I believe I can speak for all of us when i say we appreciate all the work you've put into this game, and especially appreciate you taking the time to listen to what we have to say.

 

P.S. that youtube video you linked was taken down for the US.

Edited by phillabust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard

With regards to the current spotting system, I have found that on my set up (2D monitor  2560 x 1440) when using the alternative visibility setting aircraft look huge from far away but as you get closer the aircraft rendering/scaling seems to get smaller, to the point that they are very difficult to see when closer. There is also an adverse effect when using zoom, as aircraft appear smaller when zooming. If many people are using alternative visibility setting could this be why people are reporting that aircraft disappear when close?

 

When many of the servers were initially using alternative visibility before dropping it, I would often complain to my squad mates that aircraft seemed to disappear when closer.  

 

 

With standard visibility the rendering/scaling seems to work as intended with aircraft scaling correctly.

 

 

I can spot aircraft fairly well when they are above the horizon but it does become much more challenging when they are flying over terrain and it is very easy to lose sight of aircraft. I will also admit they do sometimes seem to just get lost in the background. To some degree  surely this is understandable as we are not looking at a brightly painted civilian aircraft?

 

I hope whatever the Devs come up with  they will not make spotting an arcade like experience and hopefully we will be given a choice of setting that will please the majority of people.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 2 issues with the current spotting:
- It depends on hardware. The right combination of Monitor and GPU seems to give you an advantage. Flying normally with 8+ guys on a sunday campaign in closish formation, no contact someone spottes and telling us exactly where it is can be seen from the 8 guys within 30s. Sometimes it takes minutes until all of us see them.
- Vanishing of contacs.

Both problems indicate render-bugs which should be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

If many people are using alternative visibility setting could this be why people are reporting that aircraft disappear when close?

Haven't used alt-vis since forever, since none of the servers I play on run it. Highly doubt anyone else here is talking about that either. We are very much past the alt vs standard debate....which became irrelevant like a year ago. I dont think there is a single person in this thread that has mentioned alt-vis or asked for it. Nor have any of the spotting threads had anything to do with alt vis either since the decision was made to make it an option and all the servers chose to keep it off. The focus of virtually every spotting thread for a very long time now has been about the problems with the standard variation.

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

6./ZG26_Custard
8 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

Haven't used alt-vis since forever, since none of the servers I play on run it. Highly doubt anyone else here is talking about that either. We are very much past the alt vs standard debate....which became irrelevant like a year ago. I

We are told that the single player base is around 90% of the player base. I have no idea how many single player folk use alt-vis. It could be none or it could be hundreds. I think it's important to understand why so many servers were running alt vis and then dropped it like a lead balloon in quick order I think it is also relevant to know if a large portion of the player base are using alt-vis. The scaling in that setting seems to be completely off. I have no idea if the introduction of this setting could have in some way effected how standard visibility works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

We are told that the single player base is around 90% of the player base.

An interesting point. Although reading the posts in here I think that no one is talking about that. Certainly not without being aware of it. It is rather obvious when it is on, and most people who use it do so for its various qualities.

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I have no idea if the introduction of this setting could have in some way effected how standard visibility works.

The developers stated that it did not back when it came out.

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The scaling in that setting seems to be completely off

It is, but under 10km it is the same. If there is a difference its not observable or nearly impossible to do so. The reason people complain about contacts disappearing is the same reason they are complaining about it happening with the current standard setting: in both settings the scaling is more dramatic over 10km. In fact, I don't think there is any significant scaling at all under that range. Right now in the current game with standard (especially zoomed) it can frequently be easier to spot something 15km away than it is at 6km or 4km or whatever. So people pick things up at 15 or so and then suddenly at 10km the plane shrinks to a few pixels and does a vanishing act.

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...