Jump to content

Discussion on the plane visibility issue


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

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.  

It was at that time I stopped flying online

I never really recovered the interest. 
 

11 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

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


I agree in this, but seeing the alt. vis. Solution we have. How high is the chances we get a solution that will benefit all types. 
 

The situation we have now is in my opinion not good, as you seem to agree upon. But I am highly doubtful a solution will benefit bombers in any good way. 
Just flying a allied plane low will make you a beacon for all to see, like tracers and nav lights. 
This spotting issue is a huge problem for the devs to solve. I think the fix we get will not be ideal

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Han, thank you for bringing the “spotting issue” to into the public domain for discussion. It means a lot to the whole community.

 

I just wanted to say that I respectfully don’t believe historical evidence about soviets being shot down “without ever seeing an enemy” is not evidence as to why, WE the players do not see enemies, and neither is it evidence to say that current spotting is realistic.
 

There is a lot of evidence now on this thread alone that there is an issue with being able to spot and maintain “visual lock” on an enemy and this seems to be down to the lack of contrast of colours, aircraft against the lower horizon.

 

I think sorting out this “contrast issue” will be fundamental to making everyone happy. It will satisfy both the people who want realism and those who just want to have fun.

 

CSGO has this issue for a very long time and was solved using a simple (on paper) solution: https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2020/06/30428/

 

They increased the contrast between the player model and the environment. I have no idea what coding obstacles this creates as I’m not a developer, but maybe if we go down this route, we can make everyone happy?

 

Tipsi

 

image.png

Edited by Tipsi
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want, you can read it

 

I think this thread is throwing balls out !!
CoD many will see it as a wonder! but I see it with bad eyes! her FM is terrible!
On the other hand, complaining about the visibility of this simulator is like complaining about the lack of Ambient Mode in CoD! it does not have any clouds. Has anyone seen a more beautiful sky than IL-2 GB?
okay! Well this answers everything else.
IL-2 GB visibility is a Visibility practically what you would find in a real flight if the planes used camouflage.
For me, everyone who is here asking for more visibility in the simulator, is that they want to convert a WWII FLIGHT SIMULATOR, to a semi arcade ... I hope for the sake of those who seek reality, that nothing of realism is touched that this simulator has. many may need to go through the eye doctor?
I myself need glasses, and I don't have them, and I see contacts constantly? on-line!! Offline in the same way!
Greetings but this thread does not make sense, seeing the great effort that the team of developers have made to make it realistic! REALISTIC..
Perhaps, the only point that I would add is that the crystals, made bright reflections in the airplanes ... it is the only thing!

 

By the way, I am not a military pilot, but I am an ULTRALIGHT pilot, and the little that I have been able to spend on renting a plane to make my exits I have enjoyed a lot, and of all current combat simulators, the one that is closest to the reality of vision, is this.


I fly simulators like many here, almost three decades ago.
Now there are simulators like this, which is the worthy successor of the IL-2 Forgotten Battles / 1946, we have the DCS, which is very real in the Start-up and manipulation of systems, but the FM of WWII aircraft is Horrifying, no, the following!
So in my point of view, if someone finds it very difficult to see a contact "it is not my case" I think they should ask themselves if it is a problem with the simulator, or is it a problem of what type of product expected from a simulator .. I don't know ...
I don't know everything in this life! But if I need glasses and don't wear them, am I able to see the contacts? I do not understand what people expect to see the contacts? That they are huge balls, as they go away? Many Pilots outnumber! they used a crazy dive and they used their camouflage, waiting for the enemies to lose sight of them ... and that are constant stories from many pilots.


among them Adolf Ferdinand Galland. that on an outing with his FW190 he tried to evade some P51s, plummeting to confuse the colors! I did not succeed, because they followed them, until their own artillery began to shoot at him as at the p51s.
What cannot be expected is that we have 6 simulators, and one of them does not like how the contacts look and we want it to be like the other 6!
Sincerely! I just fly this simulator, I don't have more hours in my life to fly others, will my eyes have adapted to this? it's possible.

But I hate comparisons


I don't want anyone to be offended! but we are in a unique moment in the IL-2 GB simulator.

 

Create for rOEN911 Antony..

antonis-roen911-karidis-me-109f.thumb.jpg.994cf1b43fde11c4cb97b39e13e39de0.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play SP or private server MP with a bunch of friends, and we always use alt visibility. It's a bit better I guess but also the problem of inconsistent spotting is the same or even more apparent. We just have labels turned on. I have them mapped to a joystick button. When I feel I lost a contact that I should have been seeing I briefly turn the labels on until I re-acquire. House rules :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meplanes1969

Just a question to those in the know,I have supersampling set to 2x and it seems spotting is better I can judge friend from foe much easier from short distance.

i know supersampling kills FPS but mine set on 2x makes difference of 3-4 FPS,which I can live with.

maybe it’s one of those things that make it better for some people and worse for others,I really do not know maybe it’s just wishful thinking.

with my eyesight I need all the help I can get,I can see a group of planes from a distance ( black dots in sky) which is realistic I would need a telescope to make them out from friend or foe,my personal view is spotting has improved a lot ( for me anyway) I do not have VR so can not judge that experience.

just turn your landing lights on and you can be seen😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
1 hour ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

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.

 

I have no issue with disappearing or shrinking  planes when using standard visibility on a 2560 x 1440 monitor. However everything you describe here was happening on my setup with alternative visibility that is why I hate it so much. I do find however that aircraft are much harder to spot if they are low over terrain and you take your eye off for a moment, it can be very difficult to reacquire them.

 

Could this be more of a contrast issue I wonder?

This

 

48 minutes ago, Tipsi said:

this seems to be down to the lack of contrast of colours, aircraft against the lower horizon.

    

And this

 

54 minutes ago, Tipsi said:

I think sorting out this “contrast issue” will be fundamental to making everyone happy. It will satisfy both the people who want realism and those who just want to have fun.

 

Because we have so many varied setups with folk using all sorts of different equipment and personal preferences  I think Tipsi has made a very strong point about the devs looking closely at contrast settings.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I have no issue with disappearing or shrinking  planes when using standard visibility on a 2560 x 1440 monitor. However everything you describe here was happening on my setup with alternative visibility that is why I hate it so much. I do find however that aircraft are much harder to spot if they are low over terrain and you take your eye off for a moment, it can be very difficult to reacquire them.

I think you might be missing my point on the difference between the two systems. Both systems definitely have the problem, but is much more obvious on the alt setting because of how huge contacts can be, especially at very long ranges. The shrink is smaller on standard, but it exists empirically. Some people didn't notice it at first, but over time after standard was made standard online, the complaints became more and more frequent. Contacts at longer ranges are scaled more dramatically than at 10km and below. And from 10km to 2km, there is practically no difference in contact size. They are just a few pixels or even a single pixel depending on aspect. This experience is somewhat better at 1080p but it is still poor.

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Could this be more of a contrast issue I wonder?

Its both, and I have mentioned contrast in just about every single post Ive made on this matter. And so have many others. But it is also a size problem. It is literally impossible for the contacts in the game to be the correct apparent size without substantial scaling which, if it exists, is practically non-existent. This is due to not only resolution and factors like sub pixel aliasing, but also the effects of how the eye perceives things. The serfoss paper explains this in depth.

 

It is also a contrast problem however. As I mentioned in my first post in this discussion, some sort of adaptive contrast needs to exist, or planes over a certain distance should just be rendered as black. Monitors do not have the contrast ratios or color gamut to reflect reality, and there are all sorts of abstractions in game engines (how the do light for example etc) that means that they are poor equivalents to reality. You can partially see this in photos or videos, which while videos and photos have the same size issues due having a single non-binocular field of view etc, contacts are clearly more visible than in the game since at least there you are getting a closer analogue to how things "look" in terms of color, light, contrast,  etc.

 

No scaling

image.png.697cc0643b1f01e1ed780676e781dc0a.png

 

Scaling

 

image.png.e460f82f7f1954f6622c9c98ff4f6cbc.png

 

 

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

meplanes1969

yes I agree with so many people with different systems it must be a nightmare to solve,anyway you can please some people some of the time but not everyone all of the time, but the devs do a grand job of making the improvements constantly

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Testers of this game have the same opinion as III/JG52_Lothar29 
which demonstrates an absolute insensitivity on the issues of visibility, now I understand why this Product is the WORST SIMULATOR of those existing, from the point of view of visibility, that DOESN'T NEVER COME CLOSE TO THE REALITY.

I continue to 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.

stukablr: “ History in formation ” One martyr and five liberators.

 

 

Edited by ITA_Cipson
  • Confused 6
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answering to the original post asking for feedback on the issue:

 

The main objectives in my opinion should be two:

 

1) Simulate the ability or RL pilots to spot and track contacts. Even by using mild augmentation, if needed.

In order to correctly simulate air combat, we should be able to spot, identify and keep track of contacts with similar results to what is achievable by a pilot using his eyes.

A monitor has many disadvantages compared to our eyes. no perception of depth of field, no ability to focus on small details while maintaining a very wide FOV.

We currently have zoom in game, which i suppose is not there to make the game more ''comfortable'' but to allow target identification at realistic distances, simulating the ability of the eye to see details. it would not be ''realistic'' to remove the zoom and have to come within 200 m of a plane to be able to identify it.

In the same way, if adjusting LODs, contrast, scaling, lighting or whatever is needed to achieve the same results of a RL human eye, thwn it should absolutely be done.

 

We cant simulate the human eye or the image it transmits inside our head, we have to simulate the results it can achieve.

 

I'll let someone else decide if the current visibility needs a buff, but the fact that i can spot plane shadows before the real object at 3km tells me that something might be off.

 

 

2) Balance the spotting ability between people with different hardware

This i realize could be tricky and involve a lot of qualitative testing; but for the survival of a healthy MP scene, it should absolutely be a priority.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

. Contacts at longer ranges are scaled more dramatically than at 10km and below. And from 10km to 2km, there is practically no difference in contact size. T

 

On my setup I see a marked difference in contact size.

 

Yaks around 10K

1586348151_Yaksaround10k.png.38a9ec44a6b8ff435ec6c27b794ffee0.png

 

 

 

Yaks around 2k

 

 

122092281_Yaksataround2k.png.89cbd6d62449e01df957224d107f8e8c.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

On my setup I see a marked difference in contact size.

 

Yaks around 10K

1586348151_Yaksaround10k.png.38a9ec44a6b8ff435ec6c27b794ffee0.png

 

 

 

Yaks around 2k

 

 

122092281_Yaksataround2k.png.89cbd6d62449e01df957224d107f8e8c.png

 

 

So like I said....there is basically no difference between 10 and 2. As was shown by the screenshots at the beginning of this thread. We all know they become markedly more visible at 2 and below.

 

image.png.4ce28e8808db0e009a191d087fd60a74.png

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

6./ZG26_Custard
Just now, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

there is basically no difference between 10 and 2.

I must be dumb there because there is a huge difference for me.

4 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

As was shown by the screenshots at the beginning of this thread. We all know they become markedly more visible at 2 and below.

 

looking at your shot of the aircraft at 2.5 k it looks like a dot. This is what I am seeing at around 2.5 k

2.5.png.ff1df4aa44da58723a73645d75dd7284.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG52_J-HAT
2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I must be dumb there because there is a huge difference for me.


There is a clear difference, sure. It looks like it was zoomed in in your screenshot. I assume this was not the case in the comparative shots from before.

 

If your shot was with a narrower FOV, how does it look with it being wider?

 

And if it wasn’t, it just shows more about difference in setups having a huge impact on visibility.

Kind of like my online/offline comparison shots. No difference aside from that and still the contacts are rendered in extremely different ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I must be dumb there because there is a huge difference for me.

Right....huge difference between 10-2km....

 

image.png.1269b74eb3f64ce0ad5f2456e12a4b77.png

 

image.png.67d7e44f65090ad42f4c3a25e9d9ce25.png

 

image.png.4fb65694b030fca679983d4d554546cb.png

 

 

image.png.6b47f8543393b5ea21abaf6f4b8a72a7.png

 

image.png.90b5d57c1b67d762e8644f6bcb830db8.png

image.png.141042e0c3ddd64e4b0bb286f9cd2e73.png

 

 

 

 

image.png.ed5ee18abb66f7fea0e3756ebd50b9bd.png

 

image.png.24f97e2b395d255012caf8c545002a5f.png

 

image.png.e83ca8297001300914e9c84f61f962be.png

 

image.png.ab13bed1505e0fbf66c907e84054b499.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
1 minute ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

Right....huge difference between 10-2km....

On my set up there is.

 

lets look at your shot from 0.60

image.png.4ce28e8808db0e009a191d087fd60a74.png.2969434c8952f8fbbf5eaca1af914f40.png

This is on my system from 0.60

0.6.png.971982658d781563aec7a1318fa90103.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet

In these the aircraft in viewed from the side

 

image.png.99bb0d15879a7efe3ab2299113357f26.png

 

image.png.58bf90d149c6891395ca9ec927516f45.png

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

On my set up there is.

 

lets look at your shot from 0.60

image.png.4ce28e8808db0e009a191d087fd60a74.png.2969434c8952f8fbbf5eaca1af914f40.png

This is on my system from 0.60

0.6.png.971982658d781563aec7a1318fa90103.png

 

What exactly are you trying to show here? that the 0.60 shots are the same size? Also not my screenshot. No one said the planes were not bigger at 600m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What exactly are you trying to show here?

I could ask you the same question because on my setup there is a marked difference in scale between aircraft at difference ranges.

 

19 minutes ago, J-HAT said:

If your shot was with a narrower FOV, how does it look with it being wider?

 

And if it wasn’t, it just shows more about difference in setups having a huge impact on visibility.

Kind of like my online/offline comparison shots. No difference aside from that and still the contacts are rendered in extremely different ways.

 

 

Two screens for comparison

around 10k

20200824115758_1.thumb.jpg.91b3056dd574353c494f2169832d0152.jpg 

 

around 2k

 

20200824115730_1.thumb.jpg.85c45dc648c896fd4c4074f65c1de8cd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I could ask you the same question because on my setup there is a marked difference in scale between aircraft at difference ranges.

 

 

 

Two screens for comparison

around 10k

20200824115758_1.thumb.jpg.91b3056dd574353c494f2169832d0152.jpg 

 

around 2k

 

20200824115730_1.thumb.jpg.85c45dc648c896fd4c4074f65c1de8cd.jpg

So you took a screenshot at the edges of the two ranges....right at 2km where it is implied that it changes....and this is supposed to show a difference in setups? Also your FOV between shots does not appear to be consistent, you can tell from the size of the cloud sky texture which is clearly larger in the second image. That texture is a backdrop texture and would remain constant as you moved closer. And you also appear to have additional post processing running aside from the in-game sharpen filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Untamo

As said, do what CloD does.

In CloD (as it did in old-IL-2), server admins can determine the dot (spotting) range and icon range separately for friendlies/enemies.
The icon color and composition (what info is given) can be set.

In short:

Give us the power to decide for ourselves.

Personally, as a server admin, on our server I would most likely enable short (<1km) icons for friendlies for enhanced wingman cooperation.

Edited by LLv34_Untamo
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think we should be pasting and discussing  screenshots here. Like Jason said a hundred messages back, the point of this discussion is to see what the community expects of an updated rendering method focused on spotting. To summarize what I see most people saying:

 

1) we want realistic spotting, but the current system is not realistic, it is flawed. And also, in the real world, there are quite a few things that help with spotting that can’t be render on a screen (e.g. depth of field, way larger contrast ratios, etc.). So there should be some augmentation in terms of #pixels rendered being a bit more than what would strictly by true in a physical sense if you try to recreate what one would see in the real world. This should of course be done tastefully so that the game does not become an arcade game.

 

2) make a more flexible label system

 

And my personal observation: some people really seem to enjoy how difficult it is to currently see stuff. To you I say: perhaps you will be satisfied flying online wearing scratchy sunglasses or something. But please don’t ruin it for the rest by making so much noise that the devs don’t fix this problem properly ;)

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

And you also appear to have additional post processing running aside from the in-game sharpen filter.

I don't use any filters other than standard in game settings everything is set to maximum. On my setup I see something different to what you're saying. Fov is the same for both shots. 

 

Edit: as it's been pointed out by others already in this thread, different equipment and different setup yield different results. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
See edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I don't use any filters other than standard in game settings everything is set to maximum. On my setup I see something different to what you're saying. Fov is the same for both shots. 

 

Edit: as it's been pointed out by others already in this thread, different equipment and different setup yield different results. 

No it doesn't. If you have the same resolution, same fov, same settings. You will have exactly the same screenshots. Differences in monitors outside of resolution could not even been seen in screenshots. Clearly what you did here was take a picture at 30deg min FOV. Nice try.

 

105

image.png.ef5b1501f3e5091b0f06ecc88e78da50.png

 

60 (65 is default)

image.png.78e6f1aad475186c1a11019dfc79ed14.png

 

30 (min)

image.png.b3f11587f4fbfd7105c2acbdd8faf2b2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Differences in monitors outside of resolution could not even been seen in screenshots. Clearly what you did here was take a picture at 30deg min FOV. Nice try.

Please don't tell what I did or didn't do. I know exactly what I did and the fov settings are exactly the same. Your experience clearly differs dramatically from mine. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

No it doesn't. If you have the same resolution, same fov, same settings. You will have exactly the same screenshots. Differences in monitors outside of resolution could not even been seen in screenshots. Clearly what you did here was take a picture at 30deg min FOV. Nice try.

 

105

image.png.ef5b1501f3e5091b0f06ecc88e78da50.png

 

60 (65 is default)

image.png.78e6f1aad475186c1a11019dfc79ed14.png

 

30 (min)

image.png.b3f11587f4fbfd7105c2acbdd8faf2b2.png

found this on russian forum, showing this exact problem when comparing pictures with differant fov:

STNRhmY.pnglmQ1pfo.png

left is 120, right is 30 fov. Same situation.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13725-ответ-на-крик-души/?do=findComment&comment=792226

Edited by CountZero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

found this on russian forum, showing this exact problem when comparing pictures with differant fov:

I did not alter the field of view, it was set to the same. The only difference being is I was much closer to the targets with the camera slightly angled up towards the sky. What this discussion is actually revealing is how different people's experiences are on different equipment and setup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to the party and buried in the bottom of the thread, but here is my two cents.

 

Firstly, thank you Han for laying out your perspective on the situation and having an open thread on the subject.

 

For reference to my personal experience, I used to play on a 22 inch 1080p display. I switched to a much higher quality 1440p display just recently. To me, spotting is the same or improved on the 1440 display. I play 90% online.


I feel that the design philosophy - that spotting should be realistic and somewhat difficult - is not wrong. But I don't believe that the sim currently achieves this in a fully realistic manner, and I think it can be improved. For me, the switch to deferred rendering improved the situation and I spot better now than before, but there is still issues with losing nearby contacts in situations that I have never seen described in any pilot memoir - namely, while looking directly at a plane that passes over a city or trees, or after checking six and looking back at a contact that is flying straight and level. This, IMO, points to a rendering and contrast issue, as others more knowledgable than myself have raised.

Some of the solutions proposed, I think, miss the point of what the current spotting issues are. Distant spotting is IMO adequate. Spotting at co-alt or even near the ground at great distances is now possible - I have spotted planes at up to 20 km away with no zoom when the lighting was right. It is consistently more difficult to spot and track contacts beneath you between 2-5 km or so, than it is to spot contacts at larger distances. 

A dot system, where the server can set the 'dot visibility' at certain distances, only improves the spotting at a distance which IMO is NOT the problem. I can pick out contacts at co-alt over 10km away quite often, especially since the deferred rendering came into effect. A dot system is just Alt visibility all over again - easy spotting at a distance, hard spotting up close. It also shoves more responsibility onto server owners to find the perfect settings - ensuring constant fights in the forums and Discords over which setting is best, and making headaches for the server admins, when they could be focusing on other things.

 

A focus system, like Requiem suggests, is a creative solution and would probably work. But having the button to press is another key to bind, another thing to remember in a fight or when you get bounced. I think, also, it would be very difficult to make it work consistently and intuitively.

 

Labeling and icon systems made more flexible is certainly a good option to have, but for me personally playing on 'expert' online servers, they will almost certainly never be used by server admins and so the underlying issue is not addressed. It is a bandaid solution.

 

In my opinion, work on the 'contact spotting' problem should focus on a few areas of improvement

-finding and correcting issues with the LODs of aircraft

-correcting the behaviour of the system on high resolution displays (bugs with contacts disappearing or being too small in 4k, for example). 

-finding a way to correct the contrast and distinctness of contacts or prevent them 'merging' with the landscape or sky in a way that wouldn't happen in real life.


TL;DR: I am not looking for a big change in spotting philosophy, icons, labels, dots, etc, I am looking for improvements in the current system that eliminate issues and bring things closer to reality. I think work should continue on the current rendering system to help it reach its full potential.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So_ein_Feuerball
31 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I did not alter the field of view, it was set to the same. The only difference being is I was much closer to the targets with the camera slightly angled up towards the sky. What this discussion is actually revealing is how different people's experiences are on different equipment and setup. 

What is the field of view you are using? What do you mean with set to the same? Would that mean the standard one that we´re explicitly NOT talking about?

We are talking about the fully zoomed out one after all.

 

Please include a full screenshot with the fps counter activated to validate your claim, since that also reveals your FoV.

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

I feel late to the party. I was away for the weekend and just saw this late yesterday!

 

It’s difficult at this time to add something that has not been said in the previous pages of the thread. I’ll start by stating the obvious and cast my ‘vote’ in the realism camp, but without the inconveniences of the boring portions (starting engine with E key, etc). Also, for my personal experience and setup, the issue lies not in long range spotting, but in short to mid-range (disappearing contacts, unable to tally after quick checking of six, etc). 
 

But like many, I think that the subtlety lies in defining what is realistic or not in a flight sim. 
 

Instead of offering a lengthy discussion on technical aspects of spotting IRL vs the sim, perhaps let me just offer up an alternative measure than the one suggested by Han in his original post. Currently, some of the real world tactics used in WWII are not possible in the sim, as stated in other posts. For example, attack or fighter formation have a hard time flying a reasonable combat spread in enemy territory. Fighters have to stay abnormally close to bombers that they are escorting. Some BnZ strategies or higher attitudes CAP are difficult/impossible. 
 

Many of you, with the combat flight time that you are putting in, would have been Uber-veterans in an actual war. So these tactics would be something that should be achievable with good repeatability. I would consider the spotting to be ‘Realistic’ when this is accomplished. 
 

Cheers, and thanks for trying to continuously improve the game. 
 

Ian

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

Ladies and gentlement take it easy please

 

As Han already said, this is a topic for discussion and he adresses both (and probably) many options as valid. Let's not deviate from the main point which is make this sim better if it is possible. Many people have said their opinions and shared their ideas with also some sources and information. 

 

That is great as there are lots of information to choose from and then make the best solution as possible if there is needed. I have had a great time reading great answers full of data of many ideas.

 

Please, don't attack others. Things said such as "If testers have the same opinion as this guy" are a little too far, aren't they? Lots of people work as testers and many of us do work overnight with pure joy as this is their/our passion. Keep it civil.

 

Just wanted to add that

 

Happy skies! 👍

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
22 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

What is the field of view you are using? What do you mean with set to the same? Would that mean the standard one that we´re explicitly NOT talking about?

We are talking about the fully zoomed out one after all.

 

Please include a full screenshot with the fps counter activated to validate your claim, since that also reveals your FoV.

It is the default setting for both screen shots. I didn't change them from the default . Are we now talking about spotting or zooming? I ask this because an awful lot of people hate the zoom function.  In your view would the spotting problem be part-way resolved by having a fixed field of view? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2020 at 7:05 PM, Han said:

strive for the maximum possible realism in the simulation of air combat in all its aspects? Or are we striving to get the maximum "fun" from virtual air battles - which are based on real battles of the Second World War - and where should not be factors (albeit grounded in realism) that will excessively interfere with us in this?

A  contradiction in terms, and  (in this sim IMO) its catch 22....Nothing is real..computer, monitor, I really don't get killed, dead, war. lol

Han forgive me, an interpretation what your wrote, this is not a combat sim by my definitions. (practicing, learning, improving, competing, virtual squadron, tactics,etc.) But a programed history lesson, including a wars "luck of the draw deaths". Because some pilot that DIDN'T see the bandit in RL. (but could of, luck/skill/karma)

With simulating historical deaths, by having poor computer visibility, that emulate the historical statistics. (#% of kills "didn't see it coming, and the sims program is reflecting this?)_

 Or are you telling us the programing is this (what we have), or/or turning it up "is" going to be too much?    Turn it up a couple notches, find the balance.

 

 Han if I and or my team cant "Basic tactical maneuver" , execute Basic tactical air to air, or air to ground Doctrines...

because of game visibility. (When all the pilots have skills and are functioning team tactically)

it isn't fun (define fun) and pointless because you cant tactically emulate where ever you stand on immersion, except getting statistically killed?

Weather your into a complete fantasy, reenactment, Squadron life , dead is dead competitions, or.. I don't give a damn on history, I just like planes, and want to kill something that takes skill.

 The set up, now IMO towards Combat flying, (Im on ATI its worse, switching to nvidia), is just frustrating, and for most everyone I know.

 We/I are not learning, advancing, honing, executing, practicing, looking forward, etc. to what "we" think, or feel what a  combat pilot, in a combat environment is. "Be the best you can" and winning (whatever that is)

 We are tactically adapting to the visibility, (always had to, its a computer) but at a level, that any real life doctrines, ...don't fit this environment.

 

OK

"Strive for the maximum possible realism in the simulation of air combat in all its aspects?" .....Han you cant its a computer.

"Or are we striving to get the maximum "fun" from virtual air battles"..... Define "fun"... everyone "feels" different.

"and where should not be factors (albeit grounded in realism) that will excessively interfere with us in this?

 

My answer: Audio, and visibility...You've have to give pilots what they need on a computer, to overcome what you cant simulate in real life. (to be the best you can)

Peripheral vision= larger FOV,  Zoom = detail, Pixel density at distance=contact spotting, Rendering envelop=tactics.

Audio=alternative sense to what you cant feel.

 

Han when you released the latest big patch(new render api), contact spotting was at 15k, we tested this, and posted how good it felt!

The side line to this whatever the programing was....the rendering envelope (for myself)also felt correct (planes grew proportionally from a certain distance

that fit my feel of something approaching at 400+ kph) I could see......(ATI with Vulcan wrapper, plus reshade to suit my eyes to emulate my monitor to what feels real to my eyes)

 The next patch was at 10 or so Km, lost vis, and the render envelope, went incorrect...............not fun!

 

 

Im still really wondering....you didn't post "Do you want better/clearer  visibility" ...you posted "realism" vs. visibility.

There is nothing real... IE feel, spotting, ID'ing, etc. on the current set up....imo

 

Moxy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

=GEMINI=Hawkmoon98

Never had problems with spotting, for me it's very good and i play in Ultra and with a 1920x1080, on 2D is very nice and i think Devs should continue working on 3D spotting instead 

Edited by =GEMINI=Hawkmoon98
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So_ein_Feuerball
51 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It is the default setting for both screen shots. I didn't change them from the default . Are we now talking about spotting or zooming? I ask this because an awful lot of people hate the zoom function.  In your view would the spotting problem be part-way resolved by having a fixed field of view? 

We are not directly talking about spotting, we are talking about visibility. The two are related, since the latter aids the former, but they´re still different concepts.

From what I can tell, most participants of this discussion are in agreement that visibility is not as good in GB series as it could be.

 

Furthermore, if you read through this thread it´s mentioned that we´re talking about visibility at max FoV,

as in zoomed out as far as possible to approach the natural FoV of the human eyesight. 

 

The particular scaling issue we were talking about with the pictures from @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard's post on page 1 (the most upvoted comment in this discussion) appears to occur at a certain distance at max FoV. Perhaps you could repeat his test with your particular settings? I suspect the same issue is going to occure, just at a higher distance, since you are at standard FoV.

 

For reference, here is the post in question.

 

 

 

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

 

 
 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add on a bit to what I said earlier.

 

I flew around with a wingman last night, and we had some slight difficulty keeping track of each other, or finding each other when meeting over a landmark, even inside a few km. Some of that was inexperience on our parts, I'm sure. However, on multiple occasions, combat began and I was unable to find anything until tracers started flying. That helped, and then I was sometimes able to make tally. However, what was really quite frustrating and/or perplexing was when I rushed over, dove in, and immediately lost both contacts (my wingman and the enemy) in the ground. This isn't far, less than a km away, and yet the enemy 109 completely disappeared into the forest below, along with my wingman's silver P-38.

 

No reflections, no glare/glint, and no visible motion across the backdrop. (as an aside, the look of aircraft reminds me of old WT rendering. Switching to PBR greatly increased the reflectiveness of most aircraft, even those with camouflage. Have the devs considered implementing PBR for prettier aircraft?) It feels as though aircraft completely derender when they pass over a forest. I can understand some difficulty in acquiring targets, but losing an aircraft that I had positive tally on, am tracking, and know the location/speed/direction of because they pass through a cockpit frame (taking only a fraction of a second to do so)? How does that make sense? Reacquisition is far too difficult.

 

I finally reacquired when my enemy went up (with my wingman giving me a bearing), and slotted in behind them, only to realize I'd slipped in behind my wingman, and not the 109, who was probably ~700m ahead, and nearly invisible. Something about motion doesn't seem to work. Motion should make objects stick out like a sore thumb, but it's fairly negligible. At close and medium range, aircraft just blend into the ground. As far as I can tell I don't usually acquire from motion, rather from the contrast against the background (I suspect this is why spotting is much easier against the clouds, sky, and snow than grass/forest).  For some reason, even when incredibly close, it's often easier to see a shadow on the ground, rather than the aircraft casting the shadow.

 

People can argue that camouflaged aircraft should be harder to see all they'd like, and they're not necessarily wrong, but even bright red and silver aircraft disappear into the forest. If large, fast-moving, non-camouflaged aircraft blend right into a forest from ~600m away, something is wrong.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ala13_UnopaUno_VR

Currently the visibility in my VR case seems to me much better and more REALISTIC than what we had months or years ago, having said that.
would improve:

-Higher contrast of aircraft against environment / atmosphere @Réquiem
-Best LOD @ - = PHX = -SuperEtendard
-REFLEXES IN CRYSTALS according to angle with the SUN @III / JG52_Lothar29

Edited by Ala13_UnopaUno_VR
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
8 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Perhaps you could repeat his test with your particular settings? I suspect the same issue is going to occure, just at a higher distance, since you are at standard FoV

Currently at work but I'll perform a test when I'm back home. Thank you for the link. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, yes we love simulation and not only recreation; but the concept of what simulation is, at least for me, is the developers biggest mistake for find a good solution for the actual situation. Simulation will never be (at least whit this 2020 technology) the real world; and yes, he needs to includes certain kind of flexibility for facilite the problems that in the reality resolves the human eye whit his particular/subjetive limitations. 

 

:::sorry for my english::: 

  • Like 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...