Jump to content

Spotting


453=Kinninmont
 Share

Recommended Posts

[LAS]JanMcQuack

As comrade 453 = Kinninmont said, at the beginning a little over a month ago the contacts looked better, but since the last update they are only seen at most 10km against the horizon, against a white cloud they are not visible, and less against the ground . Real camouflage is only effective against fast view panning, not detail view panning. It is a shame that the developers add new things but what was good, they leave it bad again. I had posted a time ago maybe 1 year, on the subject, and I had fixed it and even congratulated the developers for entering just the exact point. But again we went back, and excuse those who say that everything is fine or who defend the visualization of contacts, but it is not right.
I have a 32 '4K screen, it looks worse in 4K, I play at 1080p, since there they look, the contacts are bigger and there and everything became difficult to see something again. You go forward 4 steps and go back two, a shame.

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

Yep, I have to agree with 453 = Kinninmon and [LAS]JanMcQuack that after the last update spotting has taken a hit, as I have noted here in this thread before. I have been flying Career mode for a couple of months and noticed the drop immediately, but got by OK anyway. Fiddled with all my graphics settings and monitor settings for a day or two and went back to my original settings which were good after the spotting patch applied some months ago. But the last 2 days I've been back in Singleplayer QM and it was really evident that spotting is worse. 

 

In QM I often start at 3-6000m, Face to Face, equal altitude, with a distance of 10K approach. Before the last update I could always spot the dots right away, and start setting up for my attack. Now I cannot see anything until about 5K and even then they are little dots like before as if they are at least 10K away. And if the bandits are above me later in the fight, even at distances of only 1000m or so they definitely disappear. I expect them to be harder to spot up there especially if they are edge on or coming straight at me, but before I could still track them reasonably well, while now I have to hope I can extrapolate their course and reacquire visual somewhere down the line. Since I always fight multiple opponents this does hinder my SA a bit as you can imagine. 

 

I am running an Asus VG27AQ, IPS at 2160x1440p and 144Hz refresh (144 FPS average) on the following system spec:

 

Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero motherboard
Superflower Leadex III 850w PSU
AMD Ryzen 5800X CPU w/ Noctua cooler
EVGA 3080 XC3 Ultra GPU
Patriot Viper Steel 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 C16 DRAM
Seagate Firecuda M.2 NVMe Gen 4 SSD 500gb - Windows drive
Sabrent Rocket M.2 NVMe Gen 4 SSD 1Tb - IL-2 GB drive
Sabrent Rocket M.2 NVMe Gen 4 SSD 1Tb - DCS & MSFS drive
Asus VG27AQ 2560 x 1440, 144-165 Hz display
Track IR 5
Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle
Virpil Virpil VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Grip w/base
MFG Crosswinds rudder pedals

 

so I can run things maxed out across the board and the sim looks awesome and responds very well. I don't want to fill this post with all my Nvidia and Monitor settings but they are nominal for my use right now, mostly gleaned from other posts on this forum and the internet resources dedicated to graphics and monitor performance for gaming. I know if I drop the monitor and in-game resolution to 1080p I would get better spotting (and I have done this experiment, it does work), but that kind of defeats the purpose of having 1440p on this monitor and I find that a bit frustrating. Still considering a 32" 1440p as I know that will help and the bigger screen would enhance my immersion, just don't want to spend the money right now when I have a pretty good setup as it is. VR is not an option for me in it's current technological state for reasons I don't need to go into here. I hope the dev team will find time to work on some type of scaling or improvement for the different popular resolutions currently in use.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]TH0R
On 10/18/2021 at 2:54 PM, Props said:

Asus VG27AQ 2560 x 1440, 144-165 Hz display 

 

That right there is your problem. Looks great in almost every other modern game apart from this flight sim (and DCS). We're hunting pixels here. I was in denial for a long time until finally switching to a 32" 1440 screen. World of difference. No longer is the game hit or miss, depending on the patch (and I would add - how much your eyes are rested). @Diggun confirmed the change for the better this switch makes. 🤓

 

@[LAS]JanMcQuack you are hurting yourself even more with 4K 32" display. At this resolution dot pitch is 0.1845 mm vs. 0.2335 mm on 1440p 27" screen.

 

You need 0.2767 mm or higher in order to consistently spot contacts around you. This translates to 1080p 24" / 1440p 32" as already shown here.

 

For a 4K resolution - you need 48" diagonal size or higher, in order to bring the playing field to the same level.

 

All this is with 16:9 ratio. With ultrawide monitors, these calculations are off.

 

 

I too would love this isn't the case, but until further spotting improvements arrive (if any) - your only option is to either lower the resolution or switch to a higher diagonal size monitor for the resolution you wish to play on.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
17 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

You need 0.2767 mm or higher in order to consistently spot contacts around you. This translates to 1080p 24" / 1440p 32" as already shown here.

I think this thread shows that the problem is indeed in the pixel size rather than spotting itself. Unfortunately you need the physical size of the display to solve this, and retrieving this seems to be pretty complicated in Win10 (for example, see https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/Windows/en-US/1a19a278-c296-4d34-ade7-83bf3315db96/how-to-read-edid-data-direct-from-monitor-not-registry?forum=wdk or https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/efc46c70-7479-4d59-822b-600cb4852c4b/how-to-locate-the-edid-data-folderkey-in-the-registry-which-belongs-to-a-specific-physicalmonitor?forum=wdk). There doesn't seem to be a one-size-fits-all solution. So unless Windows makes it possible to easily retrieve the physical monitor size, I think we can hardly expect the Devs to take this into account. Even then, there's going to be obvious problems with multi-display users and some monitors might not even provide this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW

I agree completely - pixel size makes a huge difference.  I'd been running an old 27" 1080p monitor (which was fine as that's all my system could run with good performance anyway) and spotting was pretty difficult.  I replaced it when it started to die with a 32" 4k monitor, still running at 1080p due to cpu/gpu limitations and now I find I can spot better then most people I fly with.  It's massively easier to spot enemies with a setup like this.

 

The bright side is that if you're looking to improve your spotting, 32" monitors are pretty affordable - I got an LG 32" 4K with gsync for $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

you are hurting yourself even more with 4K 32" display. At this resolution dot pitch is 0.1845 mm vs. 0.2335 mm on 1440p 27" screen

This assumes that IL-2 uses pixel sized sprites the way that DCS used to do. Then indeed the smaller the pixels on your screen, the smaller the bandit. I don’t know that IL-2 does this. AFAIK it uses a scaling algorithm but aircraft still just get progressively smaller with distance. They don’t stop at a certain number of pixels. Do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]TH0R

I think it uses some kind of a compromise. Contacts were always getting smaller, the problem with the previous attempt at solving this issue was keeping the larger LOD size past certain distance thus it actually got larger instead of smaller. It looked ugly and unrealistic at super long distances.

 

What I am seeing with the current system is there is always a minimum size that will be rendered. And contacts will no longer disappear on wide Field Of View like before -  which was my biggest remark about the old system. The current, still present problem, is that minimum contact size is tailored to certain monitor size / resolution (see my earlier posts).

 

@AEthelraedUnraed not sure if you saw this, but CloD has recently introduced resolution dependent minimum contact size algorithm which should help with higher resolutions. Most notably 1440p and 4K. Not sure if it can read info about actual monitor size as I've not tried it (just read it from one of the latest patch notes).

 

Windows 10 can recommend a scaling size for you (if you ever plugged in a 50" TV to your PC you will know what I am talking about). Not sure if this info could be made available to game developers to help with tailoring recommended minimum contact size. It sure would eliminate the hunt for ideal minimum pixel size monitor and make things a lot easier for flight simmers...

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

AEthelraedUnraed
On 10/21/2021 at 7:28 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

@AEthelraedUnraed not sure if you saw this, but CloD has recently introduced resolution dependent minimum contact size algorithm which should help with higher resolutions. Most notably 1440p and 4K. Not sure if it can read info about actual monitor size as I've not tried it (just read it from one of the latest patch notes).

 

Windows 10 can recommend a scaling size for you (if you ever plugged in a 50" TV to your PC you will know what I am talking about). Not sure if this info could be made available to game developers to help with tailoring recommended minimum contact size. It sure would eliminate the hunt for ideal minimum pixel size monitor and make things a lot easier for flight simmers...

No I didn't, I fly VR-only so I'm holding off buying CloD until they've released VR :) Interesting, though. I do wonder how they achieved it. It may very well be that they indeed use the Windows scaling size, which was set up by Microsoft to counter this exact problem of decreasing pixel size over the years, and which should be possible to retrieve programmatically.

 

It's a user-determined size however, and not necessarily related to hardware (although the default value of my monitor seems to be about right). If you'd base spotting on that, it would give rise to another way of cheating, namely set your scaling to 500% (the maximum value) and suddenly your distant contacts are 5x as large as for everyone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]TH0R

Yeah, such a feature would definitely be prime target for cheating and by all means should be hard locked so no one can mess with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lolrawr said:

You know you have a quality product when people start measuring pixels. YEP.

Welcome to flight sims. Distant aircraft are tiny. Pixels even…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]TH0R

While thinking about this issue a bit more, back in IL-1946 days we didn't really have such high resolution monitors or hardware capable of running games on todays resolutions. Thus it wasn't an issue since pixel size was larger when compared to todays monitors and TVs. Just for reference, my long term monitor during '46 days was 19" 5:4 ratio 1280x1024 resolution - translated to 0.2944 mm pixel pitch (size).

 

A hard coded scaling based on resolution, and also dependent on the physical diagonal size would go a long way in solving this issue once and for all IMHO. Until that happens, you're best off buying a monitor tailored for flight sims - according to the preferred pixel pitch.

 

Here is a recommended shopping guide for 16:9 ratio displays according to their pixel pitch / size (not applicable to wide or ultrawide displays):

 

48" 2160 (4K) ... 0.2767 mm

32" 2160p (4K) ... 0.1845 mm

32" 1440p ... 0.2767 mm

32" 1080p ... 0.369 mm

27" 2160p (4K) ... 0.1554 mm

27" 1440p ... 0.2335 mm

27" 1080p ... 0.3113 mm

24" 2160 (4K) ... 0.1381 mm

24" 1440p ... 0.2075 mm

24" 1080p ... 0.2767 mm

 

Red should be avoided, bolded is good / recommended, green is better but you're sacrificing image quality due to overly large pixel size - however, it will give you the edge in spotting ability. :)

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

  • 2 weeks later...
334th_Biffa
On 9/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, JG700_Benek said:

The game had terrible spotting before the changes now its only very poor :D. Biggest problem is the fact that the background you looking at is not static and the contact does not have contour like in real life -when you look at smth moving it clearly stands out from the background. What we get ingame is all bad for tracking as more shadows  are appearing with more zoom, more/different trees, contact looks different depending on zoom (LOD) or changes colour - all in one if you stop looking at it you pretty much lost it unless it is against the sky or you very much zoomed in. Personally I just laugh on how bad that is the devs should just look how its done in Cliffs of Dover the Tobruk part and copy it.

 

From my experience the best thing you can do to help you is to run HDR on (otherwise you will not see vehicles on the ground or planes over forrest etc.), AA x 8 if you can and shadows either off or extreme, also make sure your head tracking is as smooth as it can be. For the last part I am using open track and PS3 eye cam and I can highly recommend getting latest version of open track and using their driver for PS3 cam and also changing the filter in Open Track for Hamilton. Accela which is mainly used causes stutter if lots of smoothing is used. In game I have camera smothness set to 20.

 

 

@JG700_Benek

I have updated Opentrack to latest version 2021.1.3 so that I can try the Hamilton filter and the PS3 Eye Driver (rather than the original CL Eye driver), as instructions found at https://github.com/opentrack/opentrack/releases

 

I followed the instructions on installing the PS3 Eye driver i.e.

 

Use the zadig program <https://zadig.akeo.ie/> to install the libusb-win32 driver onto interface 0 of the camera. Don't use the WinUSB driver!

 

But I am obviously doing something wrong, as the camera isnt tracking in Opentrack (see screenshot). 

 

Any suggestions what I am doing wrong and how fixed?

ot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG700_Benek

Seems the tracker picks many objects as leds click hammer next to point tracker and check settings there make sure new driver is selected in device drop down menu. Next open camera settings (when available) and set exposure to maximum and gain to minimum. AFAIK you should aim to get as big dot as possible (around 10px is perfect) so set point extraction settings to ur lightning conditions. Also check if you uninstalled old driver for ps3 cam but i think u did coz the program works just need to tune point extraction settings and camera ones. I will show mine so u can check:

 

 

 

 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...