Airplanes visibility issue - pool after discussion

[Han]

Hello everyone.

 

So here was a great discussion about airplanes visibility issue:

 

We allready have read, investigated, understood, used and counted all opinions were posted there. But it looks like that some kind of "summarize" is needed to "finish this talk".

 

A pool - is a good way for such kind of summarization. So please, no replies, just votes here.

[blitze]

1.6km is not the issue for myself, it is more beyond that to the 5 to 7km range.  I can spot them at far distance but then there is a no mans land between spotting dots in the the distance and fighting them up close.

 

Will report updated findings next week when new VR headset arrives.

[Alonzo]

2 minutes ago, blitze said:

1.6km is not the issue for myself, it is more beyond that to the 5 to 7km range.  I can spot them at far distance but then there is a no mans land between spotting dots in the the distance and fighting them up close.

 

Will report updated findings next week when new VR headset arrives.

 

Han used 1..6 which I believe means "from one to six km distance" -- you wrote 1.6 which I think means "1600 meters". So I think you misunderstood, Blitze. Unless I misunderstood your misunderstanding. ?

[6FG_Big_Al]

Thanks for the poll and investigation

[GAE_YaniBarto]

the problem is that they don't use modifiers to see better, that's what really gives the advantage

[Talisman]

The current between 1 and 6 km distance seems fair to me.  I like the recent improvements to visibility and look forward to more of your good works; thank you    I use a VR headset Pimax 5k+.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

Han used 1..6 which I believe means "from one to six km distance" -- you wrote 1.6 which I think means "1600 meters". So I think you misunderstood, Blitze. Unless I misunderstood your misunderstanding. ?

 

Suggest Han quickly amends choices to make clear from one to six km, as quick reading makes the choice look like 1.6 km!  I nearly made this mistake and others may have already made the mistake.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited August 31, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[SharpeXB]

Spotting aircraft between 1-6km seems ok to me. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Anyone care to tell what "IPD" means? Anyhow, not extremely important. I get, and fully agree with, the gist of the first option - that visibility is OK, if certain issues get fixed.

 

I think it also would be interesting to see if a correlation exists between the votes and certain hardware, e.g. if people with VR or 4k screens are more likely to vote for one of the options.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Spotting against terrain is a challenge and occasionally the aircraft can seem to just blend in and get lost. I'm not sure if this is a contrast or anti-aliasing issue. Maybe some dynamic reflections from the cockpit and prop would help?

[blitze]

Yeah - my bad, I didn't notice the extra . in there.

 

1 - 6km would be easier and yes, well it is an issue but will confirm with updated  headset in just over a week.

[[DBS]Browning]

Edit: Han requested no replies. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[RedKestrel]

16 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Anyone care to tell what "IPD" means? Anyhow, not extremely important. I get, and fully agree with, the gist of the first option - that visibility is OK, if certain issues get fixed.

 

I think it also would be interesting to see if a correlation exists between the votes and certain hardware, e.g. if people with VR or 4k screens are more likely to vote for one of the options.

IPD means Interpupillary Distance, i.e. the distance between the pupils of your eyes.

[=TU=flynvrtd]

What about the numerous requests for ensuring parity across platforms. So that guys with VR have the same experience as the guys on the 65" 8k displays??

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

20 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Anyone care to tell what "IPD" means?

 

Probably a typo from "DPI", or "dots per inch" of displays.

 

Interpupillary distance is relevant when adjusting VR hardware, but it's not directly related to spotting.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Floppy_Sock]

Sorry, didn't read the request for no comments. 

 

Spoiler

 

I personally would like this simulation to match the various publications and testing that has performed by the US military over the years. 

 

There is a plethora of data that is cited in chapter 2 of the following PhD thesis by Gary Serfoss. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

It provides considerable insight into the visual capabilities of pilots. I will outline a few of the cited data points:

 

Quote

A total of 759 training engagements at the Naval Air Station Oceana Tactical Air Combat Training System (TACTS) range revealed that in 624 of the engagements the pilots first sighted the target as a dot against the background at an average distance of 5.67 nmi (Hamilton & Monaco, 1986; Monaco & Hamilton, 1985). In the remaining 135 engagements exhaust smoke, contrails and sun glint off the aircraft allowed the pilots to detect the aircraft at even greater distances. In the 122 engagements where exhaust smoke was the primary cue, detection distances averaged 7.64 nmi.

 

Quote

study by Hutchins in 1978 at the Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR), which is the earlier name of the TACTS, involved 45 air combat training engagements. The mean detection distance of the A-4 targets was 3.09, with a range of 0.38 to 6.23 nmi.

 

Quote

With visibility conditions spanning 7 to 10 miles over an 8-day testing period, O’Neal & Miller (1998) found detection distances for approaching T-38 aircraft to ranged from 4.77 to 6.73 nmi.

 

Quote

Another ground observer study used 400 visual detections of a T-38 aircraft (Provines, Rahe, Block, Pena, & Tredici, 1983). The aircraft was approaching from a known direction and a distance of 9 miles and mean detection distance was 4.55 miles over the 400 trials.

 

Now - similarly important, is the ability to identify aspect, heading, etc. This was tested rigorously with both the f-15 and f-16. (Yes I am well aware that these birds are considerably larger than that the aircraft present in this simulation but I'm simply trying to provide some data to ground the discussion.)

 

In the left column is a target orientation. Pilots were asked to identify the orientation of the a/c out to 3 nautical miles. The value in each entry is the percent of participants who were able to correctly identify the orientation. Maybe this can be an approximate grounding for future visibility models. 

 

 

It seems that the currently proposed 6km detection range seems to be in good agreement with the above data. However, I think the goal must now be to ensure that the average player in IL2 BoX is able to spot aircraft out to 6km without too much effort, setting manipulation, etc across all resolutions. 

 

just my $.02.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Floppy_Sock

[SJ_Butcher]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Spotting against terrain is a challenge and occasionally the aircraft can seem to just blend in and get lost. I'm not sure if this is a contrast or anti-aliasing issue. Maybe some dynamic reflections from the cockpit and prop would help?

 

Antialisaing make it worse.

30 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

I personally would like this simulation to match the various publications and testing that has performed by the US military over the years. 

 

There is a plethora of data that is cited in chapter 2 of the following PhD thesis by Gary Serfoss. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

It provides considerable insight into the visual capabilities of pilots. I will outline a few of the cited data points:

 

 

 

 

 

Now - similarly important, is the ability to identify aspect, heading, etc. This was tested rigorously with both the f-15 and f-16. (Yes I am well aware that these birds are considerably larger than that the aircraft present in this simulation but I'm simply trying to provide some data to ground the discussion.)

 

In the left column is a target orientation. Pilots were asked to identify the orientation of the a/c out to 3 nautical miles. The value in each entry is the percent of participants who were able to correctly identify the orientation. Maybe this can be an approximate grounding for future visibility models. 

 

 

It seems that the currently proposed 6km detection range seems to be in good agreement with the above data. However, I think the goal must now be to ensure that the average player in IL2 BoX is able to spot aircraft out to 6km without too much effort, setting manipulation, etc across all resolutions. 

 

just my $.02.

 

 

 

 

The average player is old enough to not have a perfect vision, many of us have sight issues. Everyone should be able to spot planes without damaging their eyes more than they already have. I don't play because my eyes can't tolerate that stress.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Just now, Floppy_Sock said:

I personally would like this simulation to match the various publications and testing that has performed by the US military over the years.

 

The Devs have requested to not put any replies here:

1 hour ago, Han said:

please, no replies, just votes here.

 

 

It's definitely some interesting data you provided, but if everyone starts posting again why he/she thinks a certain option is the best one, we're back at the mess that the original topic was. As the Devs have stated, this poll is meant to get past the discussion and find out what "the community" wants. Not to start the discussion all over again.

 

 

 

[Floppy_Sock]

1 minute ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

The Devs have requested to not put any replies here:

 

 

It's definitely some interesting data you provided, but if everyone starts posting again why he/she thinks a certain option is the best one, we're back at the mess that the original topic was. As the Devs have stated, this poll is meant to get past the discussion and find out what "the community" wants. Not to start the discussion all over again.

 

 

 

 

Was just trying to back my vote up with some numbers - but I didn't actually see the no replies just votes. Thanks for pointing that out. 

[Guest deleted@134347]

I have no idea how "realistic" is supposed to look, so personally number 2 and 3 are about the same. I went with 2 thinking the devs done their work, but if 3 becomes the winning poll I won't be upset.

[Creep]

Sorry in advance; I know you don't want replies. Everyone is comparing apples to oranges as you get wildly different results for contact visibility depending upon hardware (monitor vs VR) and software (in-game and external graphics settings).

[Lusekofte]

Exactly what measure is going to be taken to make planes visable over 6 k against terrain? 
I want to know how it is realistic seeing planes from that distance. 
Ofcource if you fly a 109 you want this. Be safe at 6 k and get easy prey easily spotted. Servers going to be full og 109 with no prey

[Guest deleted@134347]

27 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Sorry in advance; I know you don't want replies. Everyone is comparing apples to oranges as you get wildly different results for contact visibility depending upon hardware (monitor vs VR) and software (in-game and external graphics settings).

 

even in VR it's different, depending on the resolution.

 

I tried the Pimax 8Kx, which has a native 4k display per eye (!) and I could see the enemy plane 'pixel' much further out than in VivePro (1600x1440).  That's the same story with 1080p monitors vs 4k ones...

[Ribbon]

For me problem is camo blending in the background too well, on distances less than 1km!

I see it, it's close, i know it's position and direction and still lose it on few hundred meters.

IRL camo is effective on initial spotting, once you notice it it's posibble to follow it without losing it from the sight!

I had a chance to follow military green Kiowa warrior (very small heli) quite easily on few hundred meters up to 1km flying above him and tracking it even pine tree forrest was in his background.

Edited August 31, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[BraveSirRobin]

To me the problem is not spotting.  Spotting should be difficult.  To me the problem is losing sight of aircraft while I am looking at them.  I think there needs to be a little more contrast between the aircraft and the background.

 

So I guess that I agree most with option 3, but I don’t think it should be “much” easier.  I think it should be a little easier.

Edited August 31, 2020 by BraveSirRobin

[Barnacles]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

To me the problem is not spotting.  Spotting should be difficult.  To me the problem is losing sight of aircraft while I am looking at them.  I think there needs to be a little more contrast between the aircraft and the background.

 

So I guess that I agree most with option 3, but I don’t think it should be “much” easier.  I think it should be a little easier.

100% this.

The big issue I find people have is when a very dark green plane is displayed in front of a very dark green background. Clearly if the colours are so close in hue it might as well be an invisible contact. 

Yes planes were camouflaged but IRL no matter how good the paint scheme is matched you can't make something invisible. 



Imagine this plane were moving. It'd still be obvious.

[nighthawk2174]

57 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

100% this.

The big issue I find people have is when a very dark green plane is displayed in front of a very dark green background. Clearly if the colours are so close in hue it might as well be an invisible contact. 

Yes planes were camouflaged but IRL no matter how good the paint scheme is matched you can't make something invisible. 



Imagine this plane were moving. It'd still be obvious.

I mean as Masterpooner pointed out if very detailed camo's like this were really that amazing why has pretty much everyone moved to monotone grey's. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64680-discussion-on-the-plane-visibility-issue/?do=findComment&comment=990980

[Diggun]

I'm very sorry to say this, but my 20p is that honestly, I couldn't care less what the community think. 

 

The devs have access to resource which leaves all but a few of us embarrassed. I trust their conclusions in this matter. 

 

Do you know better? I doubt it. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

16 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

if very detailed camo's like this were really that amazing why has pretty much everyone moved to monotone grey's.

Probably because fighter doctrine in the last few decades, particularly in the West is to fire a missile at high altitude from 20-40 miles away. Russian fighter doctrine still has to a large degree that dogfight mentality of engaging at close range with the highly maneuverable jets that they produce. 

[open_sketchbook]

Honestly I think a big part of the problem is that what we see isn't the plane itself, so to speak, but motion, right? So still images don't really get that across, and I think what's happening is that aliasing effects are tricking our brains and making us lose track of motion that in real life would be more obvious, obscured into the flickering nature of pixels or the screen door effect of our VR headsets. 

 

To me, the issue isn't seeing planes coming in, it's losing track of planes I've already seen. Spotting originally is hard, the sky is big and we can't see all of it. Tracking is the issue.

 

I've routinely been following another plane through a turn, and they pass over some part of the terrain and just fucking disappear: the motion of the plane over the ground, the motion of my head tracking it, and the way that renders out on a flat screen or through a lo-res headset just fucking obliterates the difference that in real life would be more isolated in our vision. That target reacquisition is hard I'm not disputing, it ought to be, but this is a case where a plane just blends into the terrain and even though its in the center of my vision it just seems to wink out of existence.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is there, but it's the issue I face the most. I think it might partially be because the resolution will invariable reduce the plane to a small clump of mostly uniform pixels, whereas in real life some things (like how red roundels infamously stuck out, or the sheen of bare metal or cockpit glass) would still jump even at a distance.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Thanks to @Han for asking feedback about this issue,  because i think the spotting or contacts visibility still been the main problem in game at present day.
I think that visibility of the airplanes in distances within 1 to 6 km are pretty worst than reality. Moreover i'm not able to see in game the predominant colors of the skin of an airplane until it is about 800 m. of distance, even if it have loud colors in the skin, such as, yellow nose, invasion stripes, etc. all the airplane look grey at 1 km, and IRL is pretty easy to see the loud colors in an airplane about 2 km of distance in a sunny day. Any improvement in the way of a realistic spotting will be very grateful.
 

[[LAS]JanMcQuack]

For me if it is a problem from 1k to 10Km, I play with a 4K TV although I do not play at 4k I play at 2k, the contacts look too small, almost microscopic, I bought a TV to play only for the il2, and the truth continues Without being of help, I have very good hardware and I have also tested 1080p and the contacts are still too small, to make matters worse, the alternative view is only handled by the server administrators there is no option in play to enlarge the contacts, there is only the zoom That if it is unreal, they ask for realism the majority and we play with zoom.

I have older videos recorded at 1080p and it shows that 2 years ago, the planes looked bigger regardless of the size of the screen, they shortened the scales and there I began to suffer with my eyes, flying online I ended up with eyes in misery later 2hs flying, trying to see something and I have no vision problems maybe if I suffer from fatigue since 40 affects a little more the resistance of my eyes.

 

Sorry for my English, I hope you understand something!

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

28 minutes ago, [LAS]JanMcQuack said:

they shortened the scales and there I began to suffer with my eyes, flying online I ended up with eyes in misery later 2hs flying, trying to see something

+ 1 here,  i´ve same problem,   I'm burning my eyes in multiplayer flights trying to spot a plane. It's shameful that i need to downset my full HD monitor to 1360x768px in multiplayer beacause no way to see a plane in game about 2 km, at 1920x1080px.

Edited September 1, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[[LAS]JanMcQuack]

3 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

+ 1 here,  i´ve same problem,   I'm burning my eyes in multiplayer flights trying to spot a plane. It's shameful that i need to downset my full HD monitor to 1360x768px in multiplayer beacause no way to see a plane in game about 2 km, at 1920x1080px.

I did the same as you Otto, I got to go down 1360x768, but it looked so ugly that I prefer to break my eyes. Now I use 2560x1440, there is not much difference in size from the 1080 planes to the one I currently use.

[Voyager]

I honestly have no idea if it is realistic or not. It would be nice to have a realistic spotting, and know that it is realistic spotting, and an easier mode spotting, if both were consistent, but I have no idea of what we've got now is realistic, not realistic, or even working as intended. 

[[LAS]JanMcQuack]

6 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

IRL camo is effective on initial spotting, once you notice it it's posibble to follow it without losing it from the sight!

I had a chance to follow military green Kiowa warrior (very small heli) quite easily on few hundred meters up to 1km flying above him and tracking it even pine tree forrest was in his background.

100% agree!!!

The camouflage only serves for quick panning, but in a more detailed view if we see an airplane, the camouflage is no longer effective even if you look the other way. But I think that is very difficult to simulate on a screen, a solution to this perhaps, some environmental occlusion effect when the plane is seen, the landscape around it would be more blurred, but how it would be activated that is quite a challenge.

[Mysticpuma]

A summary: Please work out the visibility disappearing aircraft against clouds, this really is the priority. Thanks.

[=BKHZ=Basha]

Suggest an email to all game owners about the vote please ?

Edited September 1, 2020 by =BKHZ=Basha

[453=Yarra]

I would love the option of having aircraft within 1 to 2k displaying a small red or blue dot. Even with a great VR headset - Reverb - I'm still having to spend a couple of minutes flying around a bogey trying to work out whether they are friend or foe. I have to get extremely close, and by that time I see the markings I've usually been shot down.

[[RBRI]Khaela]

I've been playing with a VR headset for quite a while now. And in general it is pretty easy to spot planes on the horizon. Easier than  using a regular screen.
But I would say increasing the "visibility" would still be a good thing. After all, we want to experience dog fights and encounters with other planes.. or spot them early so you can bugger out. So i'm all for tweaking visibility even though it is not realistic.

To be fair, it is pretty easy to lose a plane while looking straight at it. Did it with a large plane about to land in CPH airport two weeks ago.

[norsetto]

7 hours ago, open_sketchbook said:

To me, the issue isn't seeing planes coming in, it's losing track of planes I've already seen. Spotting originally is hard, the sky is big and we can't see all of it. Tracking is the issue.

 

This, always this and very strongly this.

 

8 hours ago, open_sketchbook said:

I've routinely been following another plane through a turn, and they pass over some part of the terrain and just fucking disappear: the motion of the plane over the ground, the motion of my head tracking it, and the way that renders out on a flat screen or through a lo-res headset just fucking obliterates the difference that in real life would be more isolated in our vision. That target reacquisition is hard I'm not disputing, it ought to be, but this is a case where a plane just blends into the terrain and even though its in the center of my vision it just seems to wink out of existence.

 

Even more annoying is when they disappear in an open sky, no clouds, no terrain, at a certain distance pooff and its gone ....