Jump to content
Han

Discussion on the plane visibility issue

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

My screenshots were at 98 FOV, slightly below the max which is 105, you can check the fov when you activate the fps to show on screen. The default key for that is Backspace I think.

Thanks, I'll take a look later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good discussion here and thanks to the developers for engaging in a difficult topic.  

 

My $0.02 is that as long as the spotting is a level playing field for all users then I support any changes. 

 

my experience with a high DPI VR head set (hp reverb) is that spotting an tracking contacts is VERY difficult.  It always seems that my wing men on monitors are able to better spot and track contacts more effectively than those of us using high DPI VR headsets. 

 

The issue of looking backwards in VR is also a real dis advantage, as we literally have to crane our necks around to check six, i think a "snap to 6" button for VR users would level the playing field a bit as monitor users can easily just move their perspective to look backwards with ease.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, =SFG=capt_nasties said:

Lots of good discussion here and thanks to the developers for engaging in a difficult topic.  

 

My $0.02 is that as long as the spotting is a level playing field for all users then I support any changes. 

 

my experience with a high DPI VR head set (hp reverb) is that spotting an tracking contacts is VERY difficult.  It always seems that my wing men on monitors are able to better spot and track contacts more effectively than those of us using high DPI VR headsets. 

 

The issue of looking backwards in VR is also a real dis advantage, as we literally have to crane our necks around to check six, i think a "snap to 6" button for VR users would level the playing field a bit as monitor users can easily just move their perspective to look backwards with ease.  

Problem with VR headsets is the myriad of super sampling options with little regard to the native resolution of the panels being used.  The higher the Super Sampling  when not at a factor of 2 to the headsets native resolution - the more issues visually you end up with.

 

Also, with a few exceptions, most headsets have narrow FOV which leads to the needing to be possessed alla The Exorcist to be able to see contacts on your 6.  That being said, there is a work around that allows one in VR to check 6 with a snap view action.  Check out the VR section for details under Hardware support.

 

With wide FOV headsets, this is less of an issue.  With my headset - I have 2 x 4K panels that are limited in the RGB strip and then the signal from GPU to the headset is downscaled to 1440p and then up-scaled again via a scaler chip in the headset. While is does an ok job on the screen door effect, it does leave the image soft and one needs to push Super Sampling to get a clearer image.  Looking forward to a 2 x 4K native headset soon which will overcome these issues and still give me a decent FOV but with clarity.

 

My main issue currently is clarity over distance and alaising which is inherent to the scaler system of the headset. Spotting though is not one.  SteamVR's suggestion SS target is quite good for me.

 

I also think people have too much expectations as to how spotting was in a WW2 environment.

 

Ones millage may vary. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spotting has to improve in the sim...no matter how pretty the game is, spotting makes it at times no as enjoyable as it could be. If you could spot in it like in Cliffs of Dover, that would be great.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts to share

 

objects should be perceived as same size as in real life. This odd idea of higher pixel density creates smaller objects does not seem reasonable.

 

use eyeball fovean focal length so aircraft look realistic.

 

at short and intermediate distances, object contrast should be increased to aid in tracking re: ground impacting the visibility and hiding objects that can clearly be seen in real like

 

use contrast to approximate atmospherics by lowering contrast as distance increases. To the point over ??? Km the object does just fade away. You shouldn’t be able to see a plane 50 km away on a normal day. This might have the added benefit of making systems level. Ie 2D vs VR

 

get rid or dramatically lower glare from sun. It’s over the top now. And clean the windows, do not have to be spotless, but there outright dirty now. Flying through a cloud should clean them btw.


let me add one more thought - if we get the visibility up, having the ability to magnify the image should disappear.

 

 

jokkr

 

 

Edited by WB_jokkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little KISS!

 

Just sharing (per my present and past experience) the way I see it using some quotes...

 

Primary Target

15 hours ago, -332FG-REDMAN said:

Yep spotting is horrible. Fix the Camel

 

 

Secondary Target

12 hours ago, phillabust said:

...Balancing the spotting between different resolutions is gonna be an important factor to the spotting system...

 

Possible good Mission Outcome

6 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

...Copy the clod spoting and done, problem fixed...

 

~S~

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want (which may not be what "we" want :) )

1. Enemies should always be bigger when they get closer.  @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard makes a great point in his post: the number of pixels should not reduce from several to 1 between 5 km and 2.5 km with no real change in aspect.

2. Enemies should be rendered in a way that makes the act of spotting realistic on a monitor or VR system.  This might mean a seemingly artificial enhancement.  Remember, we are spotting pixels on a screen and not real airplanes in the real world.   I leave to those with superior knowledge to figure out how, but the fact that we are in front of a computer must be acknowledged.

3. For the SP crowd (yes, this is a problem for us too) and for servers that cater to less than 100% realism: some optional spotting enhancements.  At the moment I use modified icons that are simply a square without everything else.  Would love to be rid of those and just see a plane, even if it is not entirely realistic.  Also remember that a good section of the customer base, including yours truly, is on the older side.  I want to play the game but i want to be able to play it like a 20 year old pilot.  That means I need help.

4. Something that prevents a moving plane from disappearing against terrain.  In the end it is the movement that allows the human eye to determine the existence of a camouflaged plane flying below.

 

At the moment I shamelessly use the GPS map and icons to spot planes.  That is the only way I am able to play.  Would be great if I could get a hand without breaking immersion (like looking for flying red squares).

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

What I want (which may not be what "we" want :) )

1. Enemies should always be bigger when they get closer.  @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard makes a great point in his post: the number of pixels should not reduce from several to 1 between 5 km and 2.5 km with no real change in aspect.

 

 

Completely agree!

...but I am not getting that. I have been turning icons/targeting on to carefully watch what is happening as distances change and watching sizes - and I am just not seeing that on my system (???) - 1080p, monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redwo1f said:

 

Completely agree!

...but I am not getting that. I have been turning icons/targeting on to carefully watch what is happening as distances change and watching sizes - and I am just not seeing that on my system (???) - 1080p, monitor.

 

I suspect that is one of the biggest challenges.  How does one produce a visually consistent experience across an incredible diversity of display devices.  But I tried to do what Jason asked which is "what do you want?" without going too deep into what we have now.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

My screenshots were at 98 FOV, slightly below the max which is 105, you can check the fov when you activate the fps to show on screen. The default key for that is Backspace I think.

I have zipped my screenshots (for anyone to take a look at) as they are rather large and I don't want to clutter up the tread with anymore pictures. You can see the field of view indicator at the top right of the screen.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13T9sK_dKyX1URmR03dpRgRtQpXr2oVxy/view?usp=sharing

 

I would never fly with 98 FOV  but I will I most certainly concede that it is harder to spot with 98 FOV. I fly with default FOV which I believe is 65?  I don't seem to be getting the same scaling issue that many of you have reported and aircraft size will look larger between 5 km and up close on my setup at least. So what do the developers need to looking at. FOV, scaling ,contrast or all three?

 

 

1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I suspect that is one of the biggest challenges.  How does one produce a visually consistent experience across an incredible diversity of display devices.

My feelings exactly. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I greatly fear we are opening up a big can of worms here with multiple different systems, set-ups, preferred modes of play -- and different experiences and expectations. What might work for one subset may not for another, etc. I just hope a solution can be reached that works for most everyone :) 

 

 

Edited by Redwo1f
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you what I don't want if that helps.

 

I can see planes fine against the sky/clouds at all ranges but against the ground planes disappear from view.  Many times iv watched a plane above dive down and as soon as it reaches the horizon it disappears.  At very long range I'd expect this to be the case but at medium and close (5-0k) range I would expect to be able to follow the contact with my eye fairly easily considering I knew exactly where it was when it dropped below horizon.   Planes seem to blend into the the ground far too easily to me.  I always thought this was the case anyway but people saying planes are actually disappearing has got me wondering if this is what I am also seeing sometimes.

 

Give the players a as many options to play with as you can and let them figure it out.  You wont please everyone, the amount of variety of responses to "the spotting problem" shows this.

 Edit: forgot to say in VR Odyssey.

  

Edited by 71st_AH_Macro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I suspect that is one of the biggest challenges.  How does one produce a visually consistent experience across an incredible diversity of display devices.  But I tried to do what Jason asked which is "what do you want?" without going too deep into what we have now.  

How did other older games achived that then, or just now in clod for example, ppl who play this game can play that one with same vastly differant equipments and no complains about visability as far i know, and contacts ranges are 0-24km, its not some short ranges only depicted there. To me it looks that there is bug with renderings at mid ranges here, long ranges are fine ( talking about expert settings ). Maybe here its same problem as with limited AI numbers posible, they maid visability more complex then neccesary when compared to other games.

Edited by CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that visibility of aircraft in the lower hemisphere (I.e. looking down against the ground) vs upper hemisphere (I.e. looking level or up against the sky) is very difficult/challenging in the Battle of series.

 

As noted, the human eye is very good at detecting movement, which can be difficult in this sim as there is often little or no contrast between an aircraft rendered at (especially) medium to long distances (which might be a single or few dark/black pixels), and the ground below.

 

Something that could help and also represent reality to a degree, are the reflections of the sun on the canopies of aircraft below, obviously especially on sunny days (or at least cloudy days that are not full overcast).  What if an extra pixel were added to aircraft at close, medium and long range (up to a reasonable distance), such that the pixel, if viewed from level or above, were a fairly light color (representing the bright reflection of the sun)?

 

That way, if you are above that aircraft, there would be at least a single pixel (of sunlight reflection) that the human eye could notice, and track below or level with it, while not changing any of the current color rendering for the rest of the aircraft?

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see one thing repeated over and over and I agree with it: "spotting is worst when a plane I'm tracking flies below the horizon, especially if he's over a forest; I often lose him completely." That seems like a contrast issue. It'd be great if that was fixed first, it seems to be both unrealistic AND fun-killing.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

How did other older games achived that then, or just now in clod for example, ppl who play this game can play that one with same vastly differant equipments and no complains about visability as far i know, and contacts ranges are 0-24km, its not some short ranges only depicted there. To me it looks that there is bug with renderings at mid ranges here, long ranges are fine ( talking about expert settings ). Maybe here its same problem as with limited AI numbers posible, they maid visability more complex then neccesary when compared to other games.

 

TBH I have no idea.  i think that one thing they had going for them was less realistic terrain which made pixels of a different color easier to pick out.  But that is probably not all of it.

 

Again back to the request: I am not trying to tell 1C how to do it, I'm just telling them what I want.  In my case I am happy to sacrifice some 'realism" for playability.  If we want to be completely realistic then, as a man in his fifties with not the best eyesight anymore, I need to uninstall the game and do something more suitable.  I don't want to do that :) 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

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

 

Have you asked yourself why is that? Honestly, it is no surprise to me if this is true.

 

The MP interface is outdated and completely not up to today's MP standards. The COOP interface in particular is barely used. Lessons learned from 1946 days and Hyperlobby MP program are obviously forgotten or judged not worthy of development time / benefits IMHO (here is hoping improvements are packed into announced mode we still have no details about).

 

On top of that you have the unrealistically difficult spotting system that doesn't help one bit, except to keep around mostly hard core enthusiasts like us.

 

---

Last but not least, I see people throwing around ALT spotting a solution as "an excuse" / solution for us who wish to improve this flawed system. Three important things to note:

  1. "Inverted zoom" is needed in order for the contact to stay rendered even on wide FOV. You can still use zoom to the same effect, i.e. judging distance. The idea is to be able to spot (i.e. render) what a human eye would be able to see in real life with peripheral vision.
  2. Due to its super long and unrealistic distance rendering (ugly blobs, effect known as "balooning") it is completely unusable, and thus no populated servers use it except to run short tests, that always end in reverting to the default system.
  3. It also suffers from mid to close distance rendering issues that plague the default spotting system.

 

@HanIf we are to have two systems implemented, than please please give us two functioning systems.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a little bit of feedback

 

I run HP reverb through a GTX1080 Ti downsampled to 80% native resolution as the rest of my system is limiting. Some issues that I run into

 

Spotting contacts at long range, then zooming in on them causes the dots to shrink in size and sometimes disappear when zooming. Often my squadron mates can spot contacts that I cannot see in monitors or in lower resolution VR equipment. I beleive this effect is related to super/downsampling.

 

Spotting aircraft against the ground. Often I cannot see aircraft against the ground at all, even at full zoom. Yet I can clearly spot the exhaust smoke trail but not the aircraft itself. I find this to be counterintuitive and a strange effect. Majority of the time, I am alerted to enemy aircraft (which I cannot see) by smoke trails, tracer fire, or AA fire. I have even watched the smoke trail from behind where I know the aircradt is currently flying yet do not see the aircraft.

 

The biggest thing is that I have no ability to adjust the graphics settings for the HP reverb. Where a monitor has brightness, contrast etc adjustments, I have nothing. So I cannot optimize graphics settings to determine if this plays a role aside from the gamma setting in .cfg file, which has its own issues. It would be a very interesting first step to allow VR users to adjust their picture settings for improved spotting in some way.

 

To add to this is that my PC is barely adequate for the task of running il2 in VR, between 30-60 frames per second in multiplayer, which I suspects complicates things even more. I will see how the new PC improves the situation. It is nice to be able to "lose" your tail I will say that.

 

Regarding the argument surrounding first hand pilot accounts of never seeing the enemy, well I would take them as what they are. First hand witness accounts are notoriously unreliable; (this phenomenon is even observed in ourselves RE replay features) then when you add in the fact of combat stress, mortal fear, and depending on the account may have been given decades after the fact... 

 

It isn't that useful information cannot be gained there, but I personally would be hesitant to draw any scientific conclusions based on them.

 

As far as my personal experience with this phenomenon, I die by unseen enemies almost exclusively due to low/poor situational awareness practices. Not because I didnt physically see the aircraft that was attacking me, but because I was not even looking for him, considering my six, target fixated, assumed I was safely in friendly airspace etc.

 

As far as realism vs fun, well a realistic simulation is a noble goal and I think pretty cool. Its what drew me to this game, to experience as a ww2 fighter pilot. But this is an entertainment activity, so it needs to be fun as well. I am ultimately in my living room with a screen strapped to my head. So some small compromise in this area would be acceptable in the sake of making the simulation more fun and enjoyable. The ability to zoom my vision, or the automated start procedure are examples of such a compromise.

 

As far as a large compromise in realism, I think that other products exist to fill this purpose should remain that way. If I wish to play a dogfighting game where I can spot planes across the map, (even then I am still killed for lack of SA) then there is a game I can go play for that. I enjoy the requirement of skill, and interaction with history involved in a realistic simulation. 

 

Lastly big thanks to the developers. From my time in the software industry I learned to be forgiving of imperfections, and I will say in my opinion you guys really made an excellent product overall. I really enjoy it. So hats off and keep up the great work.

Edited by VA_chikinpickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems the spoting is affected by the fov to, which means rendering issues... Besides antialisaing shouldn't reduce your capacity of spoting planes, something must be done about that...

 

PS: which is the best fov to use? I use it at 90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

TBH I have no idea.  i think that one thing they had going for them was less realistic terrain which made pixels of a different color easier to pick out.  But that is probably not all of it.


FWIW and straying a little bit away from the original topic, but:

Terrain in CloD isn’t less realistic than any other current sim, despite its age,  in a way that would affect visibility. Flying over France or England there are lots of brown, green fields and the textures are very detailed, albeit with I think slightly lower resolution than BoS’s.
 

I think the main points why it is so in CloD are:

 

- The planes only render in a camouflage color below a certain distance (farther with less FOV), the LOD being very dark all the time before that. And even after rendering the camouflage there are still canopy and aircraft skin reflections.
 

- Also, the camouflage doesn’t blend in completely, I guess the way it absorbs light is different than the way the terrain does. Even over the desert (which is basically a huge beige area with very minor or no variations) camouflage helps but planes are still pretty much visible at closer distances because of the way light gets reflected and absorbed by the planes.

Edited by J-HAT
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 11:05 AM, Han said:

We, the gaming community "IL-2 Sturmovik", inside of which I count myself on an equal footing with you, strive for the maximum possible realism in the simulation of air combat in all its aspects? Or are we striving to get the maximum "fun" from virtual air battles - which are based on real battles of the Second World War - and where should not be factors (albeit grounded in realism) that will excessively interfere with us in this?

 

Answering Han's original question by offering my opinion as a consumer - Maximum possible fun. 

 

But what do I consider fun? in this case, what do I look for in this product that draws me to it?  I believe your priorities should be to strive to achieve that balance which brings the most enjoyment in your target audience, building your brand reputation and thereby increasing your sales.  This leads to your team being empowered to improve quality and creating more content.  I personally look for immersion and I feel that a greater part of your audience is like minded.  Therefore realism MUST be on your agenda but I believe that it must be secondary to enjoyment of the experience.  And that enjoyment may not be a "comfortable" one.  The tension of constant look out for contacts must be there for your audience to be immersed, for they are an educated audience, you're talking to simmers, not gamers. So,

  1. The pursuit of "maximum possible realism" is secondary to "maximum possible fun".
  2. Defining "fun" for your target audience is difficult, but you could assume that it would be synonymous to "immersion"
  3. Therefore, "fun" for your audience can only be had with an immersive level of realism which includes the tension and discomfort that is the hallmark of aerial combat.

My 2c, I hope this helps answer your question.  I dont envy you, tough crowd and you've got work to do, I feel you don't have it right at present.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Han's original question, I look for more 'fun' than 'realism' in spotting.  I play in VR, Rift S, and turn on modified simple icons for single player.  Since VR is already at a disadvantage in spotting, it discourages me from even trying multiplayer.  I would miss 80% of the fights with current spotting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously I don't know what to recommend to improve the situation, but it is certain that the game needs to improve the spotting a lot, many times it is really frustrating to fly in multiplayer, especially if a contact you were following disappears over a forest for example.

Edited by 22GCT_PlaN
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

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.  

 

Configurable icons would be a better solution to alternative visibility, the problem with it is the way it integrates with the standard visibility , which is 10km and less.

The transition is the problem. It would be better solved with an icon configuration system like COD/DCS have, where you can set things (icon size/shape, colour etc) based on distance. 

 

But 

 

That still doesn't deal with standard visibility problems.

 

Fixing both would cater  for the two basic types of players (a generalisation)  . The gamers and the simmers (and those somewhere in between).

 

6 hours ago, ACG_Jaydog said:

Spotting has to improve in the sim...no matter how pretty the game is, spotting makes it at times no as enjoyable as it could be. If you could spot in it like in Cliffs of Dover, that would be great.

 

Also bare in mind COD has no VR , so there are no technical challenges to solve VR related issues at present.

 

4 hours ago, CountZero said:

How did other older games achived that then, or just now in clod for example, ppl who play this game can play that one with same vastly differant equipments and no complains about visability as far i know, and contacts ranges are 0-24km, its not some short ranges only depicted there. To me it looks that there is bug with renderings at mid ranges here, long ranges are fine ( talking about expert settings ). Maybe here its same problem as with limited AI numbers posible, they maid visability more complex then neccesary when compared to other games.

 

6 hours ago, ACG_Jaydog said:

Spotting has to improve in the sim...no matter how pretty the game is, spotting makes it at times no as enjoyable as it could be. If you could spot in it like in Cliffs of Dover, that would be great.


COD does use contrasting depending on FOV and distance, which is why its more consistent and easier to spot things, its trying to do a simulation that is consistent across different 2d viewing hardware, its not perfect and can be improved, but the idea is correct. Its certainly one way to do it.

 

People have to get that something like this is going to be required, to give an artificial simulation of visibility, that is  not going to be 100% like reality.  I don't think its possible on such a wide variety of hardware (with different  limitations, and all 2D hardware is going to have limits) to do it any other way and have a consistent experience regardless of hardware.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
added quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never had any issue spotting fixed wing or rotor craft when flying in a MD 500 D while working in the field, which I did for 20 some odd years.

 Looking up or down, Evan(pilot)and I never had any problems seeing or spotting aircraft at 10 to 15 miles or greater depending on visibility conditions.

We worked from Washington state to south Arizona for the BLM and Forest service, so the terrain went from forest of Douglas firs to desert flat lands and mountains.

   

The eyes make for quick detection based on contrast and movement against the ground or sky and looking away and then picking that aircraft back up was never a problem.

 

Not so in this sim

I have at times, during game play lost a A 20 that I was escorting that was less that 1 k away from me after looking away, this makes wingman flights and fights harder than it should be!

 

Problems that I see which contribute to poor spotting 

Washed out colors

Color banding

Poor contrast ( lack of definition between objects)AKA planes disappear over terrain  

Planes disappear in the blue sky when looking up. I routinely see  F 16 circling above the Tulsa airport at 20.000 to 15.000 feet  as they are descending to enter the pattern

Anti aliasing issues at low resolution(jaggies in 2020 are just plain ugly)

Aliasing limited to 4 X

Anisotropic filtering limited to 8 X

Impossible to spot aircraft at 4 K resolution until its too late (the reason most MP will drop to lower resolution)

Some ground targets can be seen from far away but will disappear when close and zooming in or out. 

Spotting aspects just sucks in general!

 

Its hard to make a 2 D picture look as good as the human eye ball and brain can do, that combination, truly is a magnificent piece of work and has been so for thousands of years.

 

Good points are 

Models and skins look great

More aircraft keep getting added 

FX are getting better

Content keeps getting added 

Multi player works pretty good with 80 in game

Open forum to discuss issue (unless its a spotting topic) Wink 

Development in DM and weapons still going forward.

Ability to submit data from historical references.

 

I really like the sim in general! and I have bought or pre ordered all the modules so far.

 

But the 1 aspect that frustrates most players and myself is the spotting, you constantly hear about it on coms and in the chat.

Pages and pages of post on how to get better spotting or questions on why I cant see anything should be a pretty good indicator of what needs addressed.

I have seen many a new player just give up after a few flights because they were unable to see anyone while online!

 

just My 2 cents

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 11:44 PM, Field-Ops said:

I think tweaking the LOD for 4k monitors should be the goal here. Try to find a way to take into account resolution used by the user and incorporate an LOD scaling into that. Its not perfect, but neither is peripheral hardware in general. 

 

 

I agree with this. I am not even sure if a native resolution of 256x1440 is considered 4K but I do know that spotting planes at that native monitor resolution without labels on is next to impossible until they are dangerously close to you. I used to love going online in IL2 1946 on Hyperlobby, yes back in the day, but now I honestly don't dare go online in a full real server unless I just want to be cannon fodder for some stupid reason.  It seems to me in my simple little mind that there has to be a way for contacts to be rendered according to native monitor screen resolution and make them visible at whatever distance the community deems appropriate, not sure what that is ---> 8 to 10 km???? I hope you can figure it out Han and good luck. My 2 cents worth. Thanks to all of the Team for what you are doing, especially the guy working on the AI. Keep up the good work and thanks for actually asking and listening to what your customer base thinks about this problem with spotting.:good:

 

On 8/21/2020 at 9:05 PM, Han said:

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

 

I invite everyone to share your opinion here.

 

I am aiming to have maximum 'FUN' while keeping it as real as possible, but I am playing this sim on a monitor which cannot simulate the complexities of human sight. In this area of spotting, some give and take are going to have to happen if the community wants a true fix which will level the playing ground for those with 4K and those without. Again, my 2 cents worth.

S!Blade<><

Edited by BladeMeister
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can have some thing like CLOD spotting or the Rendering , then a lots of us would be happy . You can put CLOD into any resolution and still see contacts . ........ 

Realism is key here .  !!! 

We want stable multiplayer campaigns with large tactics . 

 

It Seems the real pilots have an easier time in RL .  

Most has already been said . 

loose track of targets . 

target disappears or vanish up close . 

target vanish into backgrounds and clouds . 

Problem since update to kill 10KM bubble . 

Thank you for listening to us all .  

Edited by KoN_
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I have zipped my screenshots (for anyone to take a look at) as they are rather large and I don't want to clutter up the tread with anymore pictures. You can see the field of view indicator at the top right of the screen.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13T9sK_dKyX1URmR03dpRgRtQpXr2oVxy/view?usp=sharing

 

I would never fly with 98 FOV  but I will I most certainly concede that it is harder to spot with 98 FOV. I fly with default FOV which I believe is 65?  I don't seem to be getting the same scaling issue that many of you have reported and aircraft size will look larger between 5 km and up close on my setup at least. So what do the developers need to looking at. FOV, scaling ,contrast or all three?


Looks like the access is restricted. In regards to the better spotting experience, what is your configuration? in game graphic settings, nvidia panel / radeon wattman settings, monitor resolution, size and type of panel (VA, IPS, TN). Would be interesting to see which could be the more beneffiting configuration.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Han,  thank you for doing this.

 

I like realism.

 

You can not make all people happy.

 

Do what you think is best.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is that the visibility is pretty decent before last few updates. what change was made to make it deteriorated dramatically?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love all the community talking about the long range visual of dots. But I would love to see a stress tracking system for the pilots so we can see when they are " tired " and will black out very fast in a 2G turn or better. Right now you can see you are pulling the G's but have No clue how close you are to being one and done. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play SP only.  In my first few hundred career mode missions I found the spotting very stressful and confusing.  That seemed to match what I read about the experience of RL new pilots, and I appreciated the realism.  In other words, I expected it to be very difficult, and it was, and I felt that to be an immersive experience.  I'm aware that at the detail the spotting is not realistic, but  the overall experience and level of difficulty I think is not far off.  Certainly all the difficulties that I've had in missions are things that I've read were quite common IRL.

 

After several hundred missions, spotting remains difficult for me.  This is also realistic - with my eyesight and reflexes, I would have been pure cannon fodder IRL.  However, it's no longer fun.  I've had the confused new pilot experience, I appreciated it, but I've had enough of it.  Fortunately as a SP player, I can turn icons on and off at will, and I nearly always do turn them on at some point during a mission.  I think this gives me a reasonably realistic simulation of the vision and SA that a young, fit, 20/20 vision pilot would have.  Slightly better for close contacts, and slightly worse for distant (given that icons disappear after 10km).

 

So basically I appreciate having the options for both realism and fun.  Better spotting would be nice, but even with that I'm probably still going to want icons on occasionally, and even with icons on I find this sim more enjoyable and immersive than The Other Sim With Icons.

 

As for MP:  A server full of fearless high-time pilots in immaculate late-war planes all doing their best to look for trouble is pure fantasyland, so the whole realism debate is a bit bemusing.  However: if better spotting improves the MP fun factor, then I'm all for it, but I probably still won't participate.   

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I would never fly with 98 FOV  but I will I most certainly concede that it is harder to spot with 98 FOV. I fly with default FOV which I believe is 65?  I don't seem to be getting the same scaling issue that many of you have reported and aircraft size will look larger between 5 km and up close on my setup at least. So what do the developers need to looking at. FOV, scaling ,contrast or all three?

 

All Three.

 

If I made a mistake in presuming you were being intentionally deceptive before, my bad. I found it somewhat unlikely that you didn't understand that part of the problem with the current spotting is that contacts at what many of us find necessarily wide fields of view too hard to spot since it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread and in other spotting threads.

 

Anyhow I mentioned this, and many others in this thread and others had said the same thing or similar things. The issue is a fov, scaling, resolution, and contrast issue. I have tested the game on 1080p and 4k monitors (I play 1440p), and the problem exists even at 1080p but its not as bad.  If you look at the smart scaling videos I linked, or go to the website to try the demo, you can see that one of the options for smart scaling allows for the scaling method to be altered based on resolution and field of view so that the apparent size of the object remains close to constant regardless.

 

image.png.3ab922b7e7d0291085780b12dafb6109.png

 

image.png.221f93bfccabe3cbc8042589bade7ddd.png

 

image.png.176c8e9bb798e7badc9110fa81743440.png

Edited by [TLC]MasterPooner
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

Anyhow I mentioned this, and many others in this thread and others had said the same thing or similar things. The issue is a fov, scaling, resolution, and contrast issue. I have tested the game on 1080p and 4k monitors (I play 1440p), and the problem exists even at 1080p but its not as bad.  If you look at the smart scaling videos I linked, or go to the website to try the demo, you can see that one of the options for smart scaling allows for the scaling method to be altered based on resolution and field of view so that the apparent size of the object remains close to constant regardless.

 

Wasn´t that one of the reasons why people disliked the alternative visibility?

So whilst I say yay to no difference between resolutions, zooming in should increase the size of the contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

So it seems the spoting is affected by the fov to, which means rendering issues... Besides antialisaing shouldn't reduce your capacity of spoting planes, something must be done about that...

 

PS: which is the best fov to use? I use it at 90

I think you will find people zoom in and out constantly . At the moment to stay tracked you need to be at full zoom to maintain contact .

Zoom out and you loose that contact .

Check your six or look around you loose contact even though in 3D space you know it will be in a certain area but finding it is the problem  . 

So i think FOV has something to do with it . Rendering issues . 

Like i said and others here , go and fly CLOD and your have no issues in what ever resolution you fly 1080 ,2k or even 4k . 

However Clod did suffer early days with LOD and Fov . But they fixed it . Not sure what they did , anyone got any ideas . ?

We all can stand on the ground and look up to see dark flying objects at 20,000ft or even satellites crossing over and them darn UFOs . 😁

Quick one also , Does anyone think the scale is off  too Small . ?

Edited by KoN_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

 

Wasn´t that one of the reasons why people disliked the alternative visibility?

So whilst I say yay to no difference between resolutions, zooming in should increase the size of the contact.

I would prefer a versions of scaling that works evenly across resolutions and fields of view. People who were irritated by the fact that the contacts got smaller when you zoomed strike me as simply not being able to get over their intuition with regards to what is actually logical. I would be satisfied with default Serfoss scaling, but the improved versions would be ideal. The entire point of the scaling is to eliminate the need to zoom except for gunnery, viewing gauges, or perhaps ID. Zooming on a scaled up contact makes it even huger than it should be and allows ID at too far of ranges. Clearly this is trivial problem compared to being able to see the contact in the first place and only adds a minor advantage.  If this the direction the devs went, it would be 1000% percent improvement over the current system but it would be still be ideal to use a scaling that normalizes for FOV. I dont think that placating to what people "expect" to happen when they zoom is a good argument personally.

 

That being said, the default serfoss scaling option would be fantastic regardless.

Edited by [TLC]MasterPooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

I would prefer a versions of scaling that works evenly across resolutions and fields of view. People who were irritated by the fact that the contacts got smaller when you zoomed strike me as simply not being able to get over their intuition with regards to what is actually logical. I would be satisfied with default Serfoss scaling, but the improved versions would be ideal. The entire point of the scaling is to eliminate the need to zoom except for gunnery, viewing gauges, or perhaps ID. Zooming on a scaled up contact makes it even huger than it should be and allows ID at too far of ranges. Clearly this is trivial problem compared to being able to see the contact in the first place and only adds a minor advantage.  If this the direction the devs went, it would be 1000% percent improvement over the current system but it would be still be ideal to use a scaling that normalizes for FOV. I dont think that placating to what people "expect" to happen when they zoom is a good argument personally.

 

There seems to be some sort of scaling in place even with normal visibility. The issue is that this scaling seems to only work until 2.50 km at which point the contact is pretty small at max FoV. IMO the issue with the current system isn´t the visibility at long range but rather the tendency of contacts to become nigh invisible at distances of 4-2 km.

 

Another issue is the tendency of contacts to blend into the ground, something real life pilots in this thread seem to agree should not be the case.

This seems to be due to the human eye being good at tracking movement in a 3D space and the smooth canopy of the plane reflecting light differently than the rough ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me there are other aeroplanes in the sky? That's crazy.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

...The entire point of the scaling is to eliminate the need to zoom except for gunnery, viewing gauges, or perhaps ID. ...

A long and fine debate for me here comes to a conclusion. Three factors:

 

- One standard FoV (adaptable within some limits?) and a limited zoom.  That zoom should be no more effective than concentrating your mind and / or  focussing your eyesight on that spot of interest. Maybe a factor of two - I assume there are quite a few scientific papers about "enhancing" your resolution by focussing on a point. And how much this will reduce your peripheral awareness, too! (for recon-pilots, observers etc an additional "binocular"-view, maybe? Presented like it is - a shaking mess you only endure to check a certain point interest)

 

- Make contact presentation as robust as possible against different technology. Screen resolution, 2D or 3D, screen gamma, AntiAliasing, Reshade etc pp should become minor factors. As an ideal: one should be able to use a lot of strange settings and still be able to see a contacts 90% as good as anyone.

 

- A much advanced contact presentation in the lower hemisphere - advanced spotting against the ground. But this has been DIFFICULT all the time, there's a thin line to arcade-gaming here.

 

PS: and all that given above is seen that way by the AI, too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...