Target Dot

[JG52Krupi]

I made i quick post about this in furbs beta patch bug thread but I think this topic needs a bit more of an open discussion.

The dot markers are starting to annoy me a bit. In my opinion they appear at far too long a distance for ground units, especially ships and they also show through the clouds and land.

For aircraft it would be nice if they shrunk the closer you got rather than just disappearing, they also hinder aircraft type spotting from certain distances, due to there size they cover the target!

Anybody else think they should slowly reduce in size depending on how close you get to the aircraft or does anyone else have a good idea to replace the current design?

Discuss!

BTW love the new patch :D

[LoBiSoMeM]

I made i quick post about this in furbs beta patch bug thread but I think this topic needs a bit more of an open discussion.

The dot markers are starting to annoy me a bit. In my opinion they appear at far too long a distance for ground units, especially ships and they also show through the clouds and land.

For aircraft it would be nice if they shrunk the closer you got rather than just disappearing, they also hinder aircraft type spotting from certain distances, due to there size they cover the target!

Anybody else think they should slowly reduce in size depending on how close you get to the aircraft or does anyone else have a good idea to replace the current design?

Discuss!

BTW love the new patch :D

I liked your suggestions, and MG need to solve the "x-ray" thing fast... It's the major graphic bug now.

[SEE]

For the first time last night I was able to spot very low flying ac against terrain and Sea whilst maintaining a respectable altitude advantage, in that respect the new dot markers worked well for me.

Spotting and identifying ac at altitude/longer distances was very confusing and more diffficult. I heard other players (on ventrillo) discussing and commenting on this aspect of the patch (but were positive in every other respect).

I don't see the need for dot markers in any form for ground units and they should not be visible through clouds - that would help.

[steppie]

Like these
ship that you see through the ground
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/161/ships.jpg

and aircraft

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7159/aircraftd.jpg

this sucks

[pupo162]

flying online i had one issue, i was behnd a plane and he suddenly disappeared in the idstance. and reappeared after he turned into me. We were probably 4- 5 km appart, in the limit to see a plane.

[SNAFU]

Like these
ship that you see through the ground
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/161/ships.jpg

and aircraft

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7159/aircraftd.jpg

this sucks

I had this since the first release. At least some consistency. ;)

[PissyChrissy]

Here's the problem i have with the floating target dots...

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff407/pissychrissy50/Clean.jpg
Here the cluster of dots looks like they could be the same range as they are all identical in size in colour.

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff407/pissychrissy50/labelled.jpg
But here, we see that the dots are in fact at various ranges - 1km intervals.

I'm sorry, but an aircraft that is 4km away is not going to look identical to the same aircraft that's 8km away.

I find these dots kill the immersiveness. They're like these little artificial sprites floating around in an otherwise realistic looking 3D environment. They need to go.

And besides the aesthetics, these dots make it unrealistically easy to detect targets. It's almost like having a radar. It means you don't have to carefully scan for enemy planes in the distance, and it likewise makes it difficult to sneak up on people.

I think the option should be there to turn those off completely.


[EDIT]

Sorry, i guess my pictures came out a little small.

Here's a zoomed in view. Those aircraft are 4km, 5km, 6km, 7km and 8km away respectively from right to left. Yet they all appear to be relatively the same size an colour because of these artificial looking target dots. There's no way that the 4km plane and the 8km plane should look the same like that.
http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff407/pissychrissy50/zoom.jpg

[ATAG_Doc]

For me personally I like it as real as you can get.

I saw a post from someone (I think it was you Krupi) that said most of the action is on the deck...that is terrible and totally ruins it for me - a beat down - nails on a chalkboard - whatever you want to call it. Perhaps if one flew knowing their life really depended on them surviving it would be different. Perhaps if you die during the mission you're out until next mission. I donno.

I like the idea you have though. But I will always favor what ever is most realistic as can be achieved in this sim.

Let me edit this up a bit. To be honest if I could fly the 1940 channel map and I knew there were 50, 60, 70+ others on the map and it was a free hunt and I didn't know where the others were and I had to l@@k for them the entire time knowing I was burning precious fuel and not seeing anyone that would be fine with me. That's the truth. That way when you are lucky to spot the enemy and shoot them down without them even knowing you were around that would be a real thrill.

[Warhound]

I find these dots kill the immersiveness. They're like these little artificial sprites floating around in an otherwise realistic looking 3D environment. They need to go.

And besides the aesthetics, these dots make it unrealistically easy to detect targets. It's almost like having a radar. It means you don't have to carefully scan for enemy planes in the distance, and it likewise makes it difficult to sneak up on people.


This is pretty much my opinion ..dots completely kill immersion. I like to find my targets, not have them light up from miles away as if they were lightbulbs.
To see a ship in the distance with a dot over it as large as it's whole midsection makes me wonder what it is, some huge beachball the ship inflated?...just doesn't work for me.
Things show up around Radars, AA etc aswell which makes targethunting alot less fun.
Same for dots on planes, really don't see the need to have them unrealistically highlighted like that. Removes the need for SA completely and imho that's what icons are for if people feel the need.

In short : Say NO to dots!

[PissyChrissy]

....couldn't agree more. They have to go. Period. (no pun intended)

[Raggz]

I like the new dots. For the first time i actually had fun flying online on the English channel map without flying for an hour without spotting anything. I go online to fight and have fun. I'll do the sightseeing offline.
For me it's a keeper. There is no way that i am going to lower the resolution just to be able to spot enemy planes. This game is way to beautiful for that.
I'm all in for realism but not if it kills the fun.

[PissyChrissy]

I like the new dots. For the first time i actually had fun flying online on the English channel map without flying for an hour without spotting anything. I go online to fight and have fun. I'll do the sightseeing offline.
For me it's a keeper. There is no way that i am going to lower the resolution just to be able to spot enemy planes. This game is way to beautiful for that.
I'm all in for realism but not if it kills the fun.


Well then i have to disagree with you there. I'm of the belief that it's the level of realism that makes it fun. Having icons/labels such as these dots completely removes realism. That's why i suggest they be optional, or just gotten rid of. If people want to be artificially/easily shown where the other aircraft are, that's what the labels are for.

[julian265]

definitely should be an option. Sometimes you're after a quick fight, other times the ability to lose your opponent (ie, realism) is important.

[ATAG_Doc]

Yes should be optional.
And an option to disable on the server please.

[robtek]

For me the dots could go, but the planes should appear sooner.
When i approach a group of Wellingtons,i.e., i have dots that switch inti recognizeable Wellingtons at a certain distance,
there should be dots that grow into recognizable planes, giving you a general plane shape first.

[steppie]

for me the dots make the game more arcade in stead of real.

[JG52Krupi]

Yeah, and it appears on everything as wellground units and aircraft.

[adonys]

Thing is, while flying you were able to spot aircrafts from FAR away.

What's the usual spotting distance, if one is looking at the target, and has a normal vision, in a normal weather day?

And if they can't be seen in IL2 CoD's engine from that far away, then dots are more than necessary to help with it.

[recoilfx]

The dots just need to have alpha transparency when subpixel accuracy is needed! After a certain point, it should just fade into background.

[Bewolf]

I like the new dots. For the first time i actually had fun flying online on the English channel map without flying for an hour without spotting anything. I go online to fight and have fun. I'll do the sightseeing offline.
For me it's a keeper. There is no way that i am going to lower the resolution just to be able to spot enemy planes. This game is way to beautiful for that.
I'm all in for realism but not if it kills the fun.

I am with you. Dots have to be adjusted a bit more to make up for distance, 4km and 8km dots could have different shading. You can't make dots smaller then the resolution a PC is able to handle.

But in general aircraft could be a bit more visible anyways. It simply takes the fun out of it if everybody flies at the deck because nobody is able to spot an aircraft from above against the ground. It's incredible hard to follow a Spitfire even in close quarter dogfights because it just vansihes against the ground, no reflections compensating for that.
Realistic or not, if the end result is a completly porked gameplay just because a PC can't handle real life visibility specs, then realism is more a curse then a blessing.

[Ze-Jamz]

I am with you. Dots have to be adjusted a bit more to make up for distance, 4km and 8km dots could have different shading. You can't make dots smaller then the resolution a PC is able to handle.

But in general aircraft could be a bit more visible anyways. It simply takes the fun out of it if everybody flies at the deck because nobody is able to spot an aircraft from above against the ground. It's incredible hard to follow a Spitfire even in close quarter dogfights because it just vansihes against the ground, no reflections compensating for that.
Realistic or not, if the end result is a completly porked gameplay just because a PC can't handle real life visibility specs, then realism is more a curse then a blessing.

+1

there does need to be a balance..Hopefully they are working on this and that's not the finished product

[MoGas]

This dots are terrible, they need to go. Plus the "Ghost Dots" this is still there too...:(

[PissyChrissy]

Well it would seem that the opinion on this matter is split into two camps: Those who favour realism, and those who favour gameplay.

Seems the answer is simple. Keep the dots (but adjust them to fade with distance), and make them an option feature that can be turned on/off.

Now, i wonder if the devs will happen across this thread?

[Gollum]

For me personally I like it as real as you can get.

I saw a post from someone (I think it was you Krupi) that said most of the action is on the deck...that is terrible and totally ruins it for me - a beat down - nails on a chalkboard - whatever you want to call it. Perhaps if one flew knowing their life really depended on them surviving it would be different. Perhaps if you die during the mission you're out until next mission. I donno.

.

I would suggest that each server keep track of kills and for rank to be given to each player based on how many kills one has. If you die you while on the server you loose all kills and get demoted back to basic pilot status. This would keep people from flying about as if it didnt matter. Also, if you implemented some type of plane selection limit you could base who gets what plane on ones rank.

I like playing games where you can work on gaining rank while dieing and loosing everything is a possability.

Think that would be really cool and give me a reason to use the "bail out" button.

[Ze-Jamz]

I would suggest that each server keep track of kills and for rank to be given to each player based on how many kills one has. If you die you while on the server you loose all kills and get demoted back to basic pilot status. This would keep people from flying about as if it didnt matter. Also, if you implemented some type of plane selection limit you could base who gets what plane on ones rank.

I like playing games where you can work on gaining rank while dieing and loosing everything is a possability.

Think that would be really cool and give me a reason to use the "bail out" button.

Yes it would and this is a good idea m8

As long as the kill is credited even if you bail out which Im hoping wont be far away..

gaining rank like that would be an excellent idea

[Gollum]

Well it would seem that the opinion on this matter is split into two camps: Those who favour realism, and those who favour gameplay.

Seems the answer is simple. Keep the dots (but adjust them to fade with distance), and make them an option feature that can be turned on/off.

Now, i wonder if the devs will happen across this thread?

I'm all for them being an option but my personal opinion is that its just too difficult to spot planes online. It's almost unrealistic without the dots because viewing the world through a computer screen presents some issues.

I've had situations online recently where my wingman and I lose each other never to be seen again. I was caught low by 3 spitfires at the tip of the german runway after takeoff on isles of doom (mountain top airfield). My buddy was circling above so I called for help. I said "Im at the west tip of the german mountain top airfield with 3 spits at the same level as the airfiled" He said "I'm circling there right now I don't see a thing". I evaded the spits for a good 3 minutes while no help arrived. My buddy couldn't believe he couldnt find 4 planes circling within such a small area and I couldnt believe he couldnt find us either. I burned up like a meteor and he still couldnt' find me.

This has happened a bunch of times. Where are you? IM RIGHT HERE!! I don't see anything...

I'm not sure if the dots are the solution but something needs to happen. Maybe reflections off of shinny aircraft parts?

I'm all for realism but certain things such as spotting planes are less realistic as is just because you cant spot things on the screen as you would in real life. Spotting aircraft should require keen eyes but you shouldnt not be able to find someone whos telling you exactly where they are..

[Gollum]

Yes it would and this is a good idea m8

As long as the kill is credited even if you bail out which Im hoping wont be far away..

gaining rank like that would be an excellent idea

Yes kill should be given for aircraft that dont make it home safely. Bail out feature would either determine you lived, captured, eaten by shark based on where you land. And you might start seeing people shooting parashoots to finish off pilots.

Sweet.

[PissyChrissy]

I'm all for them being an option but my personal opinion is that its just too difficult to spot planes online. It's almost unrealistic without the dots because viewing the world through a computer screen presents some issues.

I disagree. Yes, viewing the world thought a computer screens present s issues, but those issues are solved by having an adjustable field of view. I have a button on my throttle that i use to toggle fields of views. I use wide field of view for broad observation, and a narrow field of view for close scanning. Doing it that way is a heck of a lot more realistic than having obvious artificial sprites appearing over top of objects. That's basically like having a radar alerting you to planes you wouldn't otherwise have noticed. There's absolutely nothing realistic about artificially highlighting aircraft for us.

[ATAG_Doc]

How do you keep people from playing below 300m or lower? Huge map and everyone is in the size of a postage stamp like a swarm of bees. How about you crash / die / bailout over enemy territory you're out until next round and that could take as long as it takes. Hours, days, maybe a week. Depends on the operation.

[Gollum]

How do you keep people from playing below 300m or lower? Huge map and everyone is in the size of a postage stamp like a swarm of bees. How about you crash / die / bailout over enemy territory you're out until next round and that could take as long as it takes. Hours, days, maybe a week. Depends on the operation.

I don't understand the first part of this. as far as the second goes, I would'nt like it because I fly with friends. If I died I wouldn't be able to play with friends for a week? there arent enough servers for this either. 3 deaths and I wouldnt be able to play online for a while...

[ATAG_Doc]

I don't understand the first part of this. as far as the second goes, I would'nt like it because I fly with friends. If I died I wouldn't be able to play with friends for a week? there arent enough servers for this either. 3 deaths and I wouldnt be able to play online for a while...

Hi

No that was a little harsh. I would say that if you had a time out period you could adjust to however long you want it it may make people think twice about deck hugging since altitude is life and you're at a disadvantage low.

No not a week I know but something you can set as a means to bring more realism to those that desire it. Once you're down you're out!

Team A has players low to the grown and soon get swallowed up by fighters for the other side...then their air defenses are gone. Bomb away.

Air supremacy.

[ATAG_Doc]

When you were shot down and done with you didn't come back during the same mission usually :) probably never happened ever - and to do it here - shoot someone down and they just spawn again in air or close by and you have to deal with them again is just silly to me.

You want to achieve air supremacy to destroy airfields, infrastructure and all the other cool things that come with dominating your opponents. Not fending off hordes of players you just downed a minute ago again coming at you interfering with all your hard work and planning :)

What's the point of doing recon and taking photos of bases when you count 20 bombers and 50 fighters on the ground and you plan up a strike on the enemy airfields at 3 locations and hope to destroy them and not be usable again. This happens in the real world. You take it out its broke it doesn't magically get repaired again soon and they're off to go play again.

That is where flight sims and I part ways.

[M1sF1rE]

I like the dots. I can't find sh*t without them. A simple option to toggle them on or off and we can all be happy!!

[ATAG_Doc]

I believe if this were real and you bailed it wouldn't be very quickly you were up and at it again not within a few seconds or even minutes.

You're out and now the other side is less 1. This would suggest a better strategy are in order to high cover your mates. I am more in favor of better organized team play with goals + results - win or not.

They work their butts off to make CoD look and sound as real as it does and you read all the complaints and others quoting plane and weapons specs. Then you get on a full real server with complex engine management enabled and you fly for 20 minutes only to end up in some random spot in a fur ball just feet above the deck.

As I said this is where flight sim MP tends to take a huge detour for me.

[nearmiss]

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

Something along these lines makes sense. I wouldn't care if it was interpreted for a person with best vision. I'm thinking the AI sees the player at around 5 km anyway. '

Real human vision is unbelieveable at times. You can pick up miniscule movement peripherally, yet you can't see a darn thing. A human eye can pick up a miniscule quick flash of light and you know you are not alone. So... in a manner of speaking an 8 km blip or flash periodically would not be unrealistic. So, the tradeoff is a dot or couple pixels at 8km. As I think on it, maybe it's not so bad afterall.

At some point the devs should probably give us a heads up on whats up.

[Faustnik]

I love the new dots. :grin:

[SEE]

From above the dots seem to suggest 'reflection' (e.g off the canopy) making it easier to see low flying ac and that seems to work well. May also stop hugging the deck syndrome.

A formation flying overhead, or as you approach at a similar altitude, looks like a formation of flying saucers and doesn't work as well. Getting used to them but they could do with a bit of tweaking regards relative size to distance and at what distance they disssappear.

The main problem is ac suddenly disappear as you close in even though they were visible at a longer distance. (Not the ghosts dot problem)

[phoenix1963]

The dots just need to have alpha transparency when subpixel accuracy is needed! After a certain point, it should just fade into background.

+1

And some model for glints off the wings or canopy at certain angles, this was a crucial factor in seeing distant aircraft. A set of glint angles for each 'plane plus a cone angle based on the angle subtended by the sun would be reasonably easy to set up.

56RAF_phoenix

But GET RID OF THE PHANTOM DOTS FIRST PLEASE 1C/MG!

[flyingblind]

I think dots are a good idea in principle. At the moment low aircraft are just too difficult to spot compared to real life. Icons really do look awful. So dots are a good compromise especially as they sort of suggest reflected light off canopies etc. But I agree they need more work such as more variation to give a better idea of distance whether by size or transparency. I also think they should be optional, maybe even for the various object types. And they definately need to be obscured by intervening clouds and land. Also not so keen on white dots in sky.

[snwkill]

LOL yea that is what needs to get fixed ASAP! you can spot aircraft easier through clouds than you can in the blue sky.

I will say you guys are funny... and by funny I mean ridiculous with your quote on "realism." What did WWII pilots do? They did what helped them stay alive... So if hugging the terrain so that enemy couldn't spot you was more of a benefit than having a higher E factor, I am sure they would have done it... But as it happens they didn't fly with 1980x1050 resolution. What it boils down to is that this is a game, and until IL-(whatever) is released in the future with a gun that you can mount on top of your monitor that shoots you dead when you get shot up it is going to be a game...

It reminds me of my buddy; we are avid poker players, we watch all of the WSOP's, we play weekly games, we used to play online (when it was okay to gamble in the US) everyday of the week on 4 different poker sites... But we would do pickup games on the ship (when I was in the Navy) and we would get these guys who just wanted something to do, and had no real strategy... So in this one game my buddy makes a big raise before the flop with pocket Aces, most everyone folds except this one guy... Flop comes 2 2 6... My buddy seeing low cards goes all in with his pocket aces, figuring nobody hit that and he scared everyone off with his pre-flop raise... Well this other guy ends up calling, when he flipped his cards over he had 2, 6 off suit which gave him a full house. My buddy blew up started swearing got completely pissed off, "you don't know how to play, who calls a big raise before the flop with 2, 6???!!!!" And then stormed out of the room.

The point of the story is that, this is a game that is meant to appeal to a wide berth of people, not just the people who are calculating physics every time they pull back on the stick. With that you are going to have to adapt of overcome, it may not be 100% accurate to the emotions that a real WWII pilot would experience, but I am pretty sure that none of us would actually want to experience what they actually went through and the emotions that they actually had... So in the mean time you are going to have to deal with the occasional pilot who decides to call pre-flop with 2, 6 off suit...

[nearmiss]

Yeah, that really makes your heart beat. The AI have been seeing us in the clouds for the past 10 years.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The main problem is ac suddenly disappear as you close in even though they were visible at a longer distance. (Not the ghosts dot problem)Agreed 100%

This is a subjective topic.. but I don't have a problem with the dot size.. it is the dot tranitions and colors.. As SEE noted.. they are ezer to see from a long distance than close up.. Which just 'feels' wrong.. And the problem is the 'sudden' change in the dot color.. it will go from black to light-blue-grayish.. not a transition in colors but a suddent snap change.

On a related subject.. Not sure why.. but the detail of the dot at a distance is.. well.. a dot.

In RoF they seem to figure out a way to actully render something that looks like a plane with wings at a distance.. not just a dot

[David198502]

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

Something along these lines makes sense. I wouldn't care if it was interpreted for a person with best vision. I'm thinking the AI sees the player at around 5 km anyway. '

Real human vision is unbelieveable at times. You can pick up miniscule movement peripherally, yet you can't see a darn thing. A human eye can pick up a miniscule quick flash of light and you know you are not alone. So... in a manner of speaking an 8 km blip or flash periodically would not be unrealistic. So, the tradeoff is a dot or couple pixels at 8km. As I think on it, maybe it's not so bad afterall.

At some point the devs should probably give us a heads up on whats up.

that is a really good idea i think!that would resemble reflections much more as they are only apparent in certain angles.
at least its a good idea for far distances.a short flash of light,disappearing again.if you are lucky, you will notice it.as you head into the direction, then the "reflections"/dots should appear in higher frequence until they become a stable visible object.
the dots should not change colour at all i think.i think the most realistic look, would be that first the whole plane is represented by this white dot.when it gets closer and therefore is made out of more pixel, the reflection dot should not increase in size, but neither should change the colour.it should remain this one or two pixel white dot, until the plane is fully visible.and even then this dot could remain a little longer on the canopy for example.
i also think that the dots shouldnt dissapear suddenly.it really looks strange, and as SEE pointed out, enemies are much easier to spot in far distances.that is just wrong.
besides that, they absolutely should not be visible through clouds or land.that just looks horrible.

[PissyChrissy]

when trying to track a distant aircraft, if lost against the sky, i'll back the FOV out to a very wide field, which lets me easily pick up the aircraft again because while the image is zooming out, the aircraft's target dot stays the same size on the screen. This is completely unrealistic. Again, it's like having a radar.

[Blackdog_kt]

I believe if this were real and you bailed it wouldn't be very quickly you were up and at it again not within a few seconds or even minutes.

You're out and now the other side is less 1. This would suggest a better strategy are in order to high cover your mates. I am more in favor of better organized team play with goals + results - win or not.

They work their butts off to make CoD look and sound as real as it does and you read all the complaints and others quoting plane and weapons specs. Then you get on a full real server with complex engine management enabled and you fly for 20 minutes only to end up in some random spot in a fur ball just feet above the deck.

As I said this is where flight sim MP tends to take a huge detour for me.

I agree with the description of the trend but i find your solution a bit harsh. I think there are ways to penalize unrealistic tactical behaviors without using kick/ban commands. There's lot's of progress being made with scripting in that regard, a supply tracking system would solve what you describe to a big extend without having to institute deatchkick rules on servers.

I want to jump in a shiny Spit Mk.II or 109E-4 and burn through planes low on the deck? Sooner or later my airfield runs out of aircraft and i have to fly older types while waiting for replacements, or the airbase shuts down altogether due to lack of aircraft. My team mates get annoyed at me for burning through their best fighters and the server admin or the player voted as "commander" for the team gives me a transfer to another airfield where i can only fly Hurricanes or 109 E-1s respectively, or it could just happen via another player throwing up a team vote, just like it happens in other gaming genres to select maps, kick players, etc. Problem solved ;)

All of this is possible with scripting and the ability to have custom in-game menus.

[ATAG_Doc]

I agree with the description of the trend but i find your solution a bit harsh. I think there are ways to penalize unrealistic tactical behaviors without using kick/ban commands. There's lot's of progress being made with scripting in that regard, a supply tracking system would solve what you describe to a big extend without having to institute deatchkick rules on servers.

I want to jump in a shiny Spit Mk.II or 109E-4 and burn through planes low on the deck? Sooner or later my airfield runs out of aircraft and i have to fly older types while waiting for replacements, or the airbase shuts down altogether due to lack of aircraft. My team mates get annoyed at me for burning through their best fighters and the server admin or the player voted as "commander" for the team gives me a transfer to another airfield where i can only fly Hurricanes or 109 E-1s respectively, or it could just happen via another player throwing up a team vote, just like it happens in other gaming genres to select maps, kick players, etc. Problem solved ;)

All of this is possible with scripting and the ability to have custom in-game menus.

I never wanted to ban anyone - it was a poor example or choice of words. I just wanted some realistic result to come about for my poor planning or conversely a win for accomplishing the tactical goal. Neither of which can happen when you shoot me down and I magically reappear right away.

Your idea does have merit. I do no want anyone banned at all. I was simply implying if you're shot down over the channel the likelihood of you being airborne that same day was not very good.

If we want planes and sounds to be as real as we always ask for them to be we might want to consider the one overlooked element that would add even more realism. You will spend as much or more time avoiding being shot down as flying with reckless abandon and guns a blazing. Anyone that reads the stories written by persons that actually did this will know that often the other side knew the enemy plane was near they could see it. They were stalked and just waiting for the right opportunity.

Of course this cannot apply to a free for all setting - everyone enjoys that.

[pupo162]

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

.

Problem with this is in Real life you see planes furhter htan that. to give you an example, you can clearly see an airliner 10 km above, a few other km aside and still clearly see the same outlines you get of a B17 at 500 meters in il2.

[adonys]

Actually, dots size and rendering distance might be linked with pilots skill RPG-like progress: the better a pilot is, the easier and further he will see the dots.

This would need the server to keep track of pilots records, and sending individual command to clients regarding to dots size and maximum distance rendering (instead having it enforce a single dots setting for everyone).

This mechanism is a safe way to make pilots wants to live and progress in a MP environment.

you might also link this with individual neg/pos Gs supported, and the amount of force they can pull, also server individually enforced (not big values, but enough to make you want to have them).

[ElAurens]

This is one of the limitations of virtual flying on the computer. We look at the world through a small view port that is really not very accurate. Even the best professional monitors cannot come close to the acuity of the Mk. 1 eyeball.

So, we have to make compromises. Real fighter pilots can spot aircraft quite a long way off, the only way to do this on a computer monitor is to have a dot. There simply is no other way. I'd rather have a long range dot than no visual of the opposing aircraft at all.

As much as we protest to the contrary, there is very little that we do in a sim that is actually realistic. It's all a series of pretty large compromises.

[phoenix1963]

I thought you'd be interested in the following quote from "The Sky Suspended" by Jim Bailey,

"I was learning how to see by night and by day, and the results were surprising. For instance, a properly camouflaged aircraft, flying hard down on the sea, was invisible from a mile or two away. But if you were lower, another aircraft would then be silhouetted against the sky and become apparent at six or seven miles... Again, a properly camouflaged aircraft becomes quickly invisible against the blue of the sky. But if you are higher than your opponent and can set him off against the cloud, he will stand out at seven to ten miles."

And on the sun, "It had once seemed to me to be difficult to come at an aircraft out of the sun.... for the sun is small. But I soon discovered that it fills a quarter of the sky and twenty thousand feet, for at ground level the glare is lessened by the atmosphere."

ISBN 0 7475 7773 0

He comes across as a rather strange man, perhaps understandable as he started on Defiants in the BoB.

56RAF_phoenix

[tintifaxl]

Yeah, that really makes your heart beat. The AI have been seeing us in the clouds for the past 10 years.

Not in IL2:1946 patch 4.11m. :razz:

[Kranak]

Nice necro

[jimbop]

Nice necro

Ha, I flicked through the OP and saw mention of the 'new patch'!

[Untamo]

S!

What I would like to see, is what would happen if you would disable the dot system altogether, and when the plane is a few km away (the distance you can't see the details other than general shape with max zoom), the engine would represent the plane as a crude 3d model of correct size and color for the plane and made of a few dozen polys (not enough to cause a significant impact on the 3d drawing process). What would the plane look like at 5, 10, 15, 20+ km?

In the moment the planes go so far that it is represented with only 1 pixel, and as it goes further away, it starts to fade away. What would be the distance that the pixel would be only a couple % of opacity (the range you can stop drawing it altogether)?

And how much more taxing this would be for the computer?