Target visibility

[6S.Manu]

I would like to open a new discussion about this subject.

It's great having a sim where the aircraft's 3D models are close to reality, where performances are very similar to the real ones, where we act on the strumentation as the WW2 pilots did.

When we're infllight the complete picture is really photorealistic. The effects are great and it's almost like flying in a real aircraft (with physical limitation impossible to simulate, like G force,flames ect...).

But IL2 (1946 and CloD) is not only a flight simulator... it's a COMBAT simulator.

Here DMs are detailed enough and the weapons should be already modelled in the correct way.

But you can shoot at an enemy only if you see it and here we have a serious problem: visibility is the most important thing in WW2 air warfare.

I'm not talking about tracking a contact: I'm talking of DETECTION and IDENTIFICATION.

With the help of 3D Studio Max we have reproduced a picture of a 109 at various distances. Then I've taken a pair CloD pictures from the "screenshot" thread (I hope the authors will not complain about this) and from these I've built new images. The error should be in the range of 1 pixel (I'm working with a 24" monitor, 1920x1080)

As first we have the image taken with a 50mm (39.6 fov) to have what the human eyes see.
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/39fov-lato.bmp
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/39fov-sopra.bmp

Below is what we have in IL2's normal view (fov 70):
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/70fov-lato.bmp

Note that planes at 3km are already dots...

But at which distance can a pilot detect a flying object?
There are many variables: camouflage (already proved that it's not a magical tool http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD850688&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf), human eye's threshold of acuity, eye's accommodation, glare, atmospheric haze, target speed differential, target profile, ect... some are really important, others are modest factors.

I was looking for an analysis and here's I found something interesting:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005594
Howell [5] carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. Of greater relevance to this study, the subject aircraft also carried an experimenter who knew exactly the approach angle of the target aircraft, and “kept constant vigil with his naked eye” until he detected the intruder aircraft. This “threshold distance”, over the same conditions, averaged from 17.3 to 23 km, about three times larger than the detection distance. We will return to these results later in this paper. Analyzing these data, Graham and Orr concluded that see and avoid failures were due primarily to failure to detect the target [1]. No attempt was made to predict aircraft visibility.

It says "over various conditions"; we don't know the color of the dc3 and the background's color (that's the real factor in target detection, not the plane's color but the contrast between it and the background), we don't know if the persons are professional pilots or not (or better, trained military pilots), but the distances are really higher than the ones in IL2 and they still SEE contacts...

But what's the problem? Dots can replace the flight object but what about identification?
A Dot is always the same at +3km, it does not give to us the profile of plane, its direction, the model of that plane. And more Dots are not always plane... in CloD ships are showed as dots at very long distance.

Additionally dots are merging with the background and in the case of the detailed ground we don't have our eyes focusing on it and "excluding" the objects around it: the wider is the speed differential the easier is for our eye to focus on the target...

Don't misread me... target identification is not a easy thing to simulate: they are still studying it and there are dozens of variables. Maybe one we all will be playing on monitor with amazing resolutions and it will be a lesser problem.. but in these days I think that Luther and Co. need to find a solution to it.

Otherwise CloD will be a great flight simulator but an half WW2 combat simulator.

I think that Dots are not the answer. What your opinion?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Perhaps dots are not the answer but I doubt that one can compare the visibility of a comparatively large aircraft (DC-3) to the visibility of a small aircraft that is only half the size or less.

To be honest I sometimes look up when I see some condensation trails and I do see the plane but could not tell its type (well they all look the same anyway) nor do I distinguish many details knowing that they fly at 11 km and basically are huge compared to the planes we consider here.

[LoBiSoMeM]

In IL-2 1946 dots works. We neen bigger dots in CloD (fixed size, for ANY resolution) and better AA. Maybe some "reflection" too in far objects...

Just that.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Mh. Not sure. Actually I think the difficulty to see planes is an improvement over IL2.

There are numerous accounts that pilots just missed each other despite passing not too far from each other.

I understand the optical issue brought here by OP but IL2 is not a realistic example. With the old IL2 logic one could have as well made the points blinking with a pink arrow painted on top of them accompanied with the tag "Here! Here!"

One can spot planes from a quite a distance (4 km) in Clod if one is attentive and in a good position. Which btw is about in accordance with what Manu wrote on the experiments done by Howell remembering that the plane in Howell's experiment were at least double the size of a fighter. So my guess is visibility limit of 4-5 km for a small plane such as a fighter is fine.

What could be perhaps discussed if at 3 km one could not paint a small trait instead of a dot. I think this is the major concern of OP.

If a better solution of the optical distortion is found without going arcade I will be happy. Old IL2 is imho not the way to go.

[LoBiSoMeM]

To do some testing, we can have an option of "no artificial dots" at all. Maybe in next beta patch?

"Realistic Target Visibility"!

The first LOD will be REALLY pixel size. And people with lower resolutions and big monitors will have some advantage. But we can test.

[Insuber]

To ensure some playability, and avoid boredom killing this game, we need above all to improve DETECTION range by increasing the dot visibility and contrast to 15-20 km, with normal visibility (as in the US Navy document posted by Manu earlier), and also solve the issue of disappearing contacts - linked to the LODs probably. A darker dot would do, imho.

Then, as far as IDENTIFICATION, I agree that in RL you can tell a Spit from a Bf from a longer distance than in this game (I think to events like Duxford, where the plane's silhouettes and colours are identifiable from very far away, let's say 3-5 km). Color of camo helps a lot, and in old Il2 the LOD's at far range were typical of a certain model (more squared for Bf, thinner for Spit); working on LODs to differentiate them a bit may be a solution. Skilled players could then ID a distant contact from the predominant color of the camo and the form of LOD.

Cheers!

[Untamo]

I have never undestood the use of these artificial dots. Why not just use a really simple 3D model (just a few polys) when the aircraft is far away, the 3D engine (if it works correctly) would render the target as it should be seen. What we are after here is the right amount of degrees/radians the aircraft occupies on our screen at given FOV.

When an aircraft gets further away, eventually it is rendered as one pixel, and as it get more distant, this one pixel gets more faint (opacity drops).

At lower resolutions the aircraft would be one pixel at closer range and at higher resolutions further away. Detection wise neither one would have advantage against the other, as at lower res the pixel is larger and at higher res smaller but the target may still be several pixels at the same distance when the lower res screen shows just one pixel. But the size (the degrees/radians it occupies on the screen) of the target would be the same on both screens (assuming the physical size of the monitor is the same).

[ZaltysZ]

There's got to be a way for the game to grab your monitor size and resolution from Windows device manager. Then calculate 100% correct size for each object.

If you talk about real life scale, then you also need to know distance from observer to screen for this to work. Windows device manager does not know that.

[Untamo]

If you talk about real life scale, then you also need to know distance from observer to screen for this to work. Windows device manager does not know that.

Indeed. Nor the physical size of the monitor. Say a 17" monitor vs. a 32" low res TV (used as a monitor) might have similar resolutions but a wholly different viewing distance.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

To ensure some playability, and avoid boredom killing this game, we need above all to improve DETECTION range by increasing the dot visibility and contrast to 15-20 km, with normal visibility (as in the US Navy document posted by Manu earlier), and also solve the issue of disappearing contacts - linked to the LODs probably. A darker dot would do, imho.

Then, as far as IDENTIFICATION, I agree that in RL you can tell a Spit from a Bf from a longer distance than in this game (I think to events like Duxford, where the plane's silhouettes and colours are identifiable from very far away, let's say 3-5 km). Color of camo helps a lot, and in old Il2 the LOD's at far range were typical of a certain model (more squared for Bf, thinner for Spit); working on LODs to differentiate them a bit may be a solution. Skilled players could then ID a distant contact from the predominant color of the camo and the form of LOD.

Cheers!

Keep in mind that the aircraft to be spotted in the US Navy experiment was about or even more twice the size of the planes we discuss here (why do I have to repeat myself?). So I have very very strong doubts that you just can take the findings there and transpose it to fighters here.

I think the dot contrast is fine so I do not need a change here. If you have some difficulties finding the dots due to contrast please first tweak your own monitor settings or the graphic card settings before requesting a change in game that is fine for many others :)

I agree that something should be done with the presentation between first appearance as dot at 4 km and a presentation as a scaled down model at 2 km). I'd propose to use a something like a dash or so (could be a bold dash at a certain distance).

Sorry but I think it is absolutely unrealistic to see a fighter plane in 20 km distance even as a dot. These fighter planes have a wingspan of about 10m only. Do not compare it to airliners that have 6 or 8 times that wingspan.

The 4 km may be to pessimistic but the 20 is imho unrealistic. Please keep in mind that the 15-20 km in the US Navy experiments were obtained with a bigger aircraft and with the pilots knowing EXACTLY where to look. Both conditions (big aircraft, exact knowledge of position of plane to be spotted) do not apply for fighters in the situations we discuss here. So probably if you knew exactly where to look for a plane you could see a fighter at 7-10 km. But only if you knew exactly where to look.

The only real big issue that I see is that planes with a 3d model suddenly disappear into a dot or what I frequently experience that when zooming my view on a dot or a small plane (at about 2km) it gets invisible (perhaps a smooth zoom in function could work).

[Insuber]

Stormcrow the US Navy document I was referring to was in another thread, and it treated about fighters. I will look for it later for you.

Cheers!

[6S.Manu]

I've found a gem!
"Visual Search in Air Combat" (1990)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA241347

Here a really interesting graph (page 6 of the original document):
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/searchrange.jpg

Of course there are factors like camos, sunlight, haze ect...

I'm going to do some calculations to get the positions of ww2 fighters on that curve.

I would only remember to you that it's not a personal problem: all this discussion its to greatly improve the sim.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Great find, Manu.

This is quite in accordance to what I guessed would be a reasonable limit for fighter visibility (when seen from the side) that is about 7-10 km. From front one would see it from perhaps 3-4 km. From belly perhaps from 15km. From top view over land my guess is that the visibility will be worse.

Interesting is also that apparently aircraft type plays a big role in visibility ranges and tendencies can get reversed depending on view angle.

[adonys]

The main problem is game's FoV.

If you look in game with the 30 FoV, you'll see the aircraft at the correct real-life size. Problem is, we're using the 90 FoV most of the time.

to solve this, they need to scale the models to appear in 90 FoV as they appear in 30 FoV.

Also, aircraft models should be rendered at longer distances than they are atm in game, instead having them replaced by dots.

[Flanker35M]

S!

This..the FOV. I fly most if not all of the time with wider view so I can easily glance at the gauges. Maybe the FOV should change only your distance withing cockpit, not the actual zoom and then tune the LOD/whatever accordingly. Frankly I have never understood the need to give us a "zoom" when IRL you can not do that..but this is propably one of the gaming vs realism compromises.

[Insuber]

Here is the Manu's post with US Navy study I was referring to (Naval Air Development Center, Guide to Aircraft In-Flight Camouflage, 1969), : it speaks about fighters, not airliners, and 10-15 miles under "moderate visibility", or 30-40 miles under "high visibility". This matches better with the day to day experience.

Cheers!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=351591&postcount=43

[6S.Manu]

The main problem is game's FoV.

If you look in game with the 30 FoV, you'll see the aircraft at the correct real-life size. Problem is, we're using the 90 FoV most of the time.

to solve this, they need to scale the models to appear in 90 FoV as they appear in 30 FoV.

Also, aircraft models should be rendered at longer distances than they are atm in game, instead having them replaced by dots.

This could be a good solution and I was talking of it with my teammate about this last night. As you see in the opening post a 109 at 3km would appear 8 times bigger at 39 FOV (50mm, human eye) than at 70 FOV (normal view in IL2, the 90 FOV is the wide one).

It would be nice to use degrees as ratio unit, but I don't have the possibility if not making real photos...

There will be problems with the real speed perception but it should be an improvement nonetheless.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Here is the Manu's post with US Navy study I was referring to (Naval Air Development Center, Guide to Aircraft In-Flight Camouflage, 1969), : it speaks about fighters, not airliners, and 10-15 miles under "moderate visibility", or 30-40 miles under "high visibility". This matches better with the day to day experience.

Cheers!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=351591&postcount=43

ty. Will read it soon.

I just hope we do not go back to old IL2 times with its ridicuously high visibility.

[JG52Krupi]

Stormcrow u should try out the ATAG server bliss recently changed the settings and it's much better than what it was like before :D

[6S.Tamat]

talking about the FOV actually to have a feeling like the real one we should have a grid of monitors with the single monitor FOV calculated on a certain standard distance from the head.
Probably the Fov could be less than 40.
Modifying the lod to see like the reality would be impossible tecnically i suppose and would mess everything and probably let us feel to be in a platform game for the perspective aberration.

My thoughts changed alot studying with manu the difference between the real sight and the monitor one.
I have to say that despite my own dislike about icons we should think more about that.

First of all the black dot is an icon, because on the monitor without the help of the "artificial dot" the contact would have been invisible also for reasonable distancies. Talking in the wing someone suggested that if the dots are appearing too close a solution could be to give for further distancies a dot with a more gray colour, to let it difficult to see, but not impossible.
That could be a solution, but for greater ( in degrees) contact like a ship from far or an airplane from closer we should think about something different. The label "ship" with the distance is horrible and helping too much, but everyone understand the difference between a ship and an airplane also at 20 km away and between a spitfire and a wellington from 4 km. something like one dot for fighter, two for bomber and five for ship could be something.

I know that everything added ruins a bit the feeling to be in a simulator, like the speed bar in Il2, but we need to think also that some instruments like the compass are really more difficult to understand on the simulator than in the real life, and anyone that flew once in a real little aircraft can say that without problems.
We (as we can be help, but really the developers) should think more about a simulation than a feeling, because we need to think on the precedence list:
physic simulation, manouver simulation, navigation simulation, feelings etc etc etc.
At the end it is the same that everyone does comparing different simulators like xplane and flight simulator each other.
Let me give another example: i don't think that in the reality there were alot of people able to physically sustain a long dogfight at high G like all we do in il2.. so now, should we calculate that or not? Should we do real aircraft limits and let us feel all like superheroes hartmanns (like it is) or should we avoid with some limits (the dark sight is not enough, cause don't simulate the physical stress and the muscle fatigue also in pulling the bar)?
Obviously i don't have the perfect answer, but would be interesting, retourning to the sight argument, to fing a compromise that would let us to "see like in the real world" but without hurting nobody's feeling..

[6S.Manu]

Update...

I've done some calculations today...

From the blueprints of the planes and the help of some tool here's what I got.
Sadly some weren't really detailed (he 111 was a image of 1400 x 1000) so there could be some marginal errors.

squared meters squared feet
Plane front side belly front side belly
bf109g6 7,9 9,9 23 85,03 106,56 247,56
spit mk1 8 11,3 28 86,11 121,63 301,38
He 111 17,2 36,5 124 185,13 392,88 1334,72

Our engineer has drawn a mathematical function for the graph:

y = 1,833 + 0,0167x (100<x<190)
y = 0,011x + 2,9 (200<x<300)
y = 0,009x + 3,5 (400<x<500)
y = 0,007x + 4,6 (600<x<700)
y = 0,007x + 4,5 (800<x<900)
y = 0,006x + 5,3(1000<x<1100)
y = 0,005x + 5,8(1200<x<1300)

Here is the new graph with meters and the new planes:
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/searchrange2.jpg

FV = front view
SV = side view
BV = belly view

[6S.Manu]

Let me give another example: i don't think that in the reality there were alot of people able to physically sustain a long dogfight at high G like all we do in il2.. so now, should we calculate that or not? Should we do real aircraft limits and let us feel all like superheroes hartmanns (like it is) or should we avoid with some limits (the dark sight is not enough, cause don't simulate the physical stress and the muscle fatigue also in pulling the bar)?
Obviously i don't have the perfect answer, but would be interesting, retourning to the sight argument, to fing a compromise that would let us to "see like in the real world" but without hurting nobody's feeling..

During the development of SoW:BoB (not cliffs of dover...) there were many discussion about combat fatigue... some posters were claiming that it could be interesting to have different avatar with different skills: the one with more visibility skill, the one with more stamina and so on... like it was real life. And looking at the AI settings in FMB this should not really be a problem for the developers.

I think that this could be interesting, but before having different skills for each pilot I think we need that the sim works correctly with the default skills (average pilot).

[CaptainDoggles]

For those, like me, who couldn't read the list


Plane front side belly front side belly
bf109g6 7,9 9,9 23 85,03 106,56 247,56
spit mk1 8 11,3 28 86,11 121,63 301,38
He 111 17,2 36,5 124 185,13 392,88 1334,72

[Insuber]

This thread is very interesting, I like the quantitative arguments. Manu and Tamat show a big love for CloD, otherwise they would not take the time and pain to do all the research, math and graphs ;).
My only concern is that probably the developers will drop all this good work down the pipe.

Cheers!

[Kodoss]

If it doesn't comes is this sim, then maybe in the next one:confused:

[robtek]

If it doesn't comes is this sim, then maybe in the next one:confused:

This opinion takes much, much, much optimism, as insubers opinion takes pessimism.

[Kodoss]

It shouldn't be so complicated to let the cpu do some small calculations for the visibility and use it for the distance DOT.

For the distance where the dot becomes a model, you could use the box of the whole A/C and calculate the angle according to the resolution and FOV.
Also add a softer change from dot to model, by putting them on top of each other until the model becomes bigger than 6 dots in length equal which angle (horizontal/vertical).

And to free it from "I can see you clearer in 640x480 Res" just make it lesser visible to the background (contrast) according to resolution. Which means the higher the Res, the higher the visibility one tiny dot.

[proton45]

During the development of SoW:BoB (not cliffs of dover...) there were many discussion about combat fatigue... some posters were claiming that it could be interesting to have different avatar with different skills: the one with more visibility skill, the one with more stamina and so on... like it was real life. And looking at the AI settings in FMB this should not really be a problem for the developers.

I think that this could be interesting, but before having different skills for each pilot I think we need that the sim works correctly with the default skills (average pilot).

I took part in some of those threads...we did come up with some interesting ideas.

Modeling fatigue into the "AI's" damage model was a good idea...one solution, was to have the AI's skill level lower as he grew tired. Some people thought that "loosing" the joysticks reaction time was a "democratic" way of modeling the players fatigue. In other words, as the player pushed the G-Limits, and/or is involved in an extended scenario of physically demanding combat maneuvers...he (or she), would start emptying a physical energy "bank". And as the player empty's their physical energy bank they start to experience a looseness in the joysticks feel (and reaction time). This bank could also be refilled after a realistic "rest" period. Obviously veterans would have a larger energy reserve then rookies...One (realistic) advantage that this would have on game play, is that it would force players to use more "Low G" combat maneuvering, when it is appropriate and effective.

[6S.Manu]

I took part in some of those threads...we did come up with some interesting ideas.

Modeling fatigue into the "AI's" damage model was a good idea...one solution, was to have the AI's skill level lower as he grew tired. Some people thought that "loosing" the joysticks reaction time was a "democratic" way of modeling the players fatigue. In other words, as the player pushed the G-Limits, and/or is involved in an extended scenario of physically demanding combat maneuvers...he (or she), would start emptying a physical energy "bank". And as the player empty's their physical energy bank they start to experience a looseness in the joysticks feel (and reaction time). This bank could also be refilled after a realistic "rest" period. Obviously veterans would have a larger energy reserve then rookies...One (realistic) advantage that this would have on game play, is that it would force players to use more "Low G" combat maneuvering, when it is appropriate and effective.

Yep, it was a really good idea. I'm sure that in the future this can be modelled, once the game reaches a good state as flight simulator and can focus on the combat.

Sure the fatigue is really important in a fight, maybe secondary to the target visibility.

As Tamat writes, sadly "not invasive" icons seem to be the only real solution IMO...

[topgum]

Hi Manu and all the other mates,
I am realy thankfull for this thread and I apprichiate a lot all your comparing screenshots, us-navy graphs and your further to the sim related calculations, as I am thinking about this subject since a while. When I went out for a walk 2 weeks ago in good visibelity conditions (not optimal), the sky was crowded by a lot of low flying a/c (400m; pov 200m). First, I detected AND identified a pair of paragliders in a distance of 7km at their usual starting place. They have a similar wingspan like a 109 & spit, 10-13m. I can tell you exactly because I took notice of my pov and, back at home, I had a look in the wanders-map. So did I, when suddenly a squadron of Canadairs CL-145 Fire-engines came allong to get water: They apeared behind a mountin in 6 km distance (half front/half side). It would be easy to distinguish them from DC-3 (both wingsp 29m) at that distance. Not enough, I spotted an Ultralight in 750m and discern all important details. At that distance you will recognize a marking, while in the sim at 300m the marking of the 109 is just a dot! I draw a map with all observations, and - sigh- there's big difference to RL (and I need glases) and the sim, independend if I run it on 1920x1080 on 15"screen or on 1024x768 res, projected by my video projector, in front of me. I get use to fly without objectsymbols and found out, that the size of the screen does matter, but a dot is dot or not:-(
Otherwise, if you run a mission with 40ish a/c, better you red a book than your display, it is simply to much text, which you can't reduce like in IL2 1946. This would be the easiest way to fix it. Personaly, I could live with an (sub)option where you can decide from which distance a (text)info appears and when it disapears again.
Example: Realismsettings/objectsymbol: on or off:
when "on", 4 sub-settings available:
"allways on", like it is now
"easy": Info appearance in a Range from 300m to 10 km
"normal": 1km to 6 km and
"hard": 2km to 5km
Further in-gameoption: the option just to select a SYMBOL of the marking (like Ironcross + or cocarde O) instead of the whole book (like this post;-),
that does it for me, for instances.
What do you think?

[proton45]

Sadly...with the differences in screen resolutions and pixel density from one monitor to the next. I'm not really sure that there is a universal solution.

[Untamo]

Sadly...with the differences in screen resolutions and pixel density from one monitor to the next. I'm not really sure that there is a universal solution.

IMHO the "technique" I proposed earlier would be a solution for this particular problem. Doesn't solve the difference between RL and in-game detection range though....

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Interesting thread - relevant and great work.

Whatever would come of this - visibility option should ultimately be scalable, for adjustable gameplay.

I remain a bit sceptical regarding the true fidelity possible. It seems that your nailing the size vs aspect vs distance - and will achieve something to that end.

Where I'm concerned is the inclusion of high fidelity specular (glint) effects, properly represented. Significant impact to the detecting aircraft when located is upsun in the early morning and late evening. While small-area scale games like BF3 are making efforts in this area - how do you imagine this will work over a large area, like our CoD maps? The BF3 mechanics aren't even tied to time-of-day and atmospherics as these are static on each of the tiny maps.

Canopy and metallic glint can be seen a very long way off. While there are accounts and studies of minimum detectable range - what of long range detections, made at altititude? How do you propose to simulate this?

Imagine when bare metal skinned aircraft are introduced?

Maybe someday, very high level systems may be able to render these necessary effects - but low level systems might not. I'll even go out on a limb and say that probably no current computational system can do justice to this type of ray-tracing physics, in real-time - to match the level of LOD detail you are discussing. If there is not a balance between the effects - then there will be less reality - not more.

That's my concern - but please don't let that dampen your work. Again, great job, knoble pursuit.

S!

Gunny

[Insuber]

Hi Manu and all the other mates,
I am realy thankfull for this thread and I apprichiate a lot all your comparing screenshots, us-navy graphs and your further to the sim related calculations, as I am thinking about this subject since a while. When I went out for a walk 2 weeks ago in good visibelity conditions (not optimal), the sky was crowded by a lot of low flying a/c (400m; pov 200m). First, I detected AND identified a pair of paragliders in a distance of 7km at their usual starting place. They have a similar wingspan like a 109 & spit, 10-13m. I can tell you exactly because I took notice of my pov and, back at home, I had a look in the wanders-map. So did I, when suddenly a squadron of Canadairs CL-145 Fire-engines came allong to get water: They apeared behind a mountin in 6 km distance (half front/half side). It would be easy to distinguish them from DC-3 (both wingsp 29m) at that distance. Not enough, I spotted an Ultralight in 750m and discern all important details. At that distance you will recognize a marking, while in the sim at 300m the marking of the 109 is just a dot! I draw a map with all observations, and - sigh- there's big difference to RL (and I need glases) and the sim, independend if I run it on 1920x1080 on 15"screen or on 1024x768 res, projected by my video projector, in front of me. I get use to fly without Objectsymbols and found out, that the size of the screen does matter, but a Dot is dot or not:-(
Otherwise, if you run a mission with 40ish a/c, better you red a book than your display, simply to much text, which you can't reduce like IL2 1946, this would be the easiest way to fix it. Personaly, I could live with an (sub)option where you can decide from which distance a (text)info appears and when it disapears again. To make it multiplayer-playable by using Object symbol setting on/off:
when "on", 4 sub-settings available:
"allways on", like it is now
"easy": appearance 300m to 10 km
"normal": 1km to 6 km and
"hard": 2km to 5km
Further in-gameoption: the option just to select a SYMBOL of the marking (like Ironcross or cocarde) instead of the whole book (like this post;-),
that does it for me for instances.
What do you think?

My concern, apart from the immersion-breaking effect of icons, is that stealth approaches and surprise attacks would not be possible.

[335th_GRAthos]

Yesterday I flew for 2hrs 5min (the time before CTD due to the usual memory leak bug) on the ATAG server.

My whole flying was devoted into intercepting incoming bomber formations.

I did not intercept a single formation for two hours.

The worst moment was watching a Wellingtoin (BIG bomber) formation of nine planes flying above me (distance xxxx - how can I judge in this game... ;) ), following from behind while climbing in order to reach their altitude. Then, I moved my eyes away from the sky while checking my fuel gauges/ switching among fuel tanks ... and I completely lost sight of the bomber formation (9 big bombers)!

Then flew for 30mins circling around trying to find them again, without success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course I may be a noob and ignorant* but based on my 7+ years IL2FB in full real online flying, this is complete and utter XXXXX³\#~ **

I like that it is more difficult to trace airplanes, but this is not realistic.

~S~




*always debatable... :D

** Moderators, please add the word of your choice, suitable to a 2-3 week ban... :D

[Insuber]

As I'm not convinced about the icons, so I thought about a more historical and immersive approach.

IMO Luthier should perfection the radio vectoring to the targets, as it was in reality (both sides, actually Brits achieved it few months before Germans). For instance:

The sector control center gives the usual alarm:

1 - Incoming fighters in M14, 3500 m, hdg 160
2 – Incoming bombers in K17, 4000 m, hdg 180

The player can either select a target, lets say by a keyboard combination as Ctrl + 1, or the sector control center assigns him a target depending on his position.

The sector control center takes then care of vectoring him to the target with more precise and frequent directions, such as:

<Leader, Hornchurch calling, 12+ dorniers coming in over Folkestone, vector 120, angels 25, 12 miles from your position>

I believe that this is what we expected originally from BoB: SoW, and this alone can solve the enemy spotting and avoid the hatred icons. Of course dots and LOD's must be improved as well.

http://www.battleofbritainbeacon.org/faqs/images/battle-of-britain-reporting-organisationLG.jpg

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/NewsImages/NewsImage23_6.jpg

[pupaxx]

BoBII was nicely immersive in reproducing what you (Insuber) suggest, it was nice to pick your preferred mission among the several tasked by Ops center. The phone ringing and announcing the incoming raids was amazing too! my thought is Clod, sadly, maintains the monolithic appearance of Il2 series.

[AMVI_Superblu]

i really can't stay with the 'icons solution'.
It would kill immersion while flying.

The dots over LOD at the point where they now disappear would be ok, not perfect as in RL, but this is imo the best solution, unitl devs can't find something more realistic at least.

This, added to Insuber radar vectoring stuff, would be great.

S!

[TomcatViP]

Interesting thread.

TopGum said it all for me.

I am re-posting a doc abt Pilot detection range that I think belong to this thread.

IMHO plane glowing had been completely put aside in the game and shld play a huge part in visual acquisition (SoW and RoF had this feature correctly modeled) .

For example, all camo blend totally with the backgrd what is not achievable at close range.

[Insuber]

Interesting thread.

TopGum said it all for me.

I am re-posting a doc abt Pilot detection range that I think belong to this thread.

IMHO plane glowing had been completely put aside in the game and shld play a huge part in visual acquisition (SoW and RoF had this feature correctly modeled) .

For example, all camo blend totally with the backgrd what is not achievable at close range.

Tomcat, your diagram looks nice, but it appears as the detection range against the sun. In today's CloD this range is N/A because you are completely blinded by the sun glare.

[TomcatViP]

Tomcat, your diagram looks nice, but it appears as the detection range against the sun. In today's CloD this range is N/A because you are completely blinded by the sun glare.

I don't think so. It's a chart that plot the range at witch the F16 pilot has detected at 90% sure an other F16 regarding its position to the sun in two different luminosity conditions : when the sun is at 30deg above the horizon and when it is at 60deg.

If you are afraid abt the low range value (1.6 +-0.1 NM), keep in mind that speed greatly affect detection range. The merge speed here being probably over 1000knots ;)

[6S.Tamat]

Tomcat Insuber is right; for the sight range see the documents that we found about it wrote by the U.S. Navy.
As simple example i would remember you that a runway of an international airport is from 1,6 nautical miles (3000 m) and 2,2 nautical miles (4000 m).
If for seeing a contact with for example the sun behind your back you need to barely enter in formation with him we are really unlucky without radar..
About the contact visualization of moving objects it is simpler, cause the human brain (and of the animal in general) is made for enlight the moving objects.
But i need to say that the image that you posted is really interesting because add to the discussion something that we lacked: info about the contact seeing in one of the worst situations, the one with the sun behind the contact.

[6S.Manu]

Using the document let’s see the other factors who take part in the sim's "detection" algorithm, starting for the function of the curve above.

1)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/1.JPG

In simulation: in CloD there should already be a model for these atmospheric/weather features, haze is reproduced on our screen, clouds are not there yet but they are working on it (and I hope that the dynamic weather is calculated before the mission as an event map, having the priority on the CPU only in that moment... it would be crazy to simulate that in real time!... I think Falcon 4 does something similar)... any way if you can reproduce it on the screen it means that you have the position of the modeled effect and its values. Did airplanes disappear behind a cloud already?
Anyway oil smoke, sand, fog HAVE to matter on the windshield who have to be a factor too!
These values can be used to weigh the atmospheric variable on the visibility algorithm.

2)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/2.JPG

Yesterday I was talking with our military pilot about that: in fact it's true that in tactical formation (3km between aircrafts) with a not uniform background (low altitude) it’s difficult for him to detect his wingman... this is because he and his wingman are on the same vector at the same speed and the eye doesn't catch that airplane because practically "it's not moving". If his wingman accelerates or changes vector (some degrees of pitch are enough) he can be found again. I've read in WW2 pilots' books that sometimes they've lost the enemy because of this.

In simulation: we are already living with this problem since in game our eyes don't focus on moving objects (all we see is moving pixels)... so many time we are going to lose a contact and here the fisheye camera (70 FOV) is helping us a lot!
Anyway what's the problem in simulating relative motion in the sim? We already have speed and vector of the planes... it's all in the sim: we need only to weigh this factor in the visibility algorithm as difference between the observer speed/vector and that he has around him.

3)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/3.JPG

In my opinion every model of plane in the game (not every instance of that plane in the sky) needs a visibility array that includes pre-calculated contrast values based on its aspects.
Example:
1. A new skin is applied to the 3D model (you change skin on the plane's setting page)
2. The algorithm starts and calculate the average color of the model, the average brightness at EVERY aspect (30° or 45° differences are enough I think). Sure it should be better to include not the average but more ratio values.
3. The application save that array in the system.

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/5.JPG

Build an abstract map like the one above (but with not aspect index) for the terrain... it’s a big matrix and having the full map you can easily create an algorithm to calculate this value... more or less detailed (USE THAT RAM!)...
Use these in game to see the contrast and you have a simulated visibility that doesn't base itself on "pixels" and better camos are now working (sure not at 100% as camos are intended but sure better than now).
It's better if CloD allows the player to use his custom skin only if it's been supervises by 1C itself... like RoF does. No more BS skins please. In this case the pre-calculated array can be stored in the server and no more recalculation is need at every change of skin.

4)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/4.JPG

In simulation: do we have light sources? I think it's enough... no more black dots looking in the direction of the sun: "Beware The Hun In The Sun!", even an average combat simulator should take care of that.

As the document about camouflage says, light and reflections is a important factor on target visibility (as TomcatViP says too above, thanks for the addition!) and they need to be variables.
As above if every plane has an array of surface reflection by aspect we are near to the solution.
Light and its color its a multipler that puts a strain on the "contrast" value of that aspect...

6)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/6.JPG

In simulation: let’s talk about vapor trails... I hope that they don't disappear suddenly like in the old IL2... did you see them? So there is a plane on its apex…

7)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/7.JPG

In simulation: I’ll put it on the atmospheric model…





Sure there are not real numbers for these factors. It’s all approximation and a tweaking matter.
It’s not that we need target visibility to pass from 20% to 100% fidelity with reality. Like the realistic bombing/torpedo Mod of IL2 1946: we were at 40% with the stock 1946 and thanks to the mod we passed to the 80%... some were claiming that this feature was not complete (fixed 2 seconds for the activation), sure, but it was still more realistic than the stock one!
We need to see on our monitor what the average fighter pilots see (one day maybe we could also set his visibility skill fatigue ect…) : we are not supposed to hunt pixels.

IMO at the moment CloD is only a collection of beautiful pictures (Oleg is a photographer)... the sounds are coming, but this is intended as flight sim and COMBAT sim. The procedures that you are forced to follow are still not many. CEM is not a great thing neither: it can be difficult to be managed by the ones who come from IL2, not by players used to racing simulators for example.

- If I want to see amazing pictures I watch at a Discovery Channel documentary at 1080p
- If I want to have a great flight simulator I fly with Condor
- If I want to do long and realistic procedures I fly with DCS A10 or Falcon 4
- If I want an air combat simulator I'll play with both games above and probably IL2 1946 (I want to be clear here: my love for it started to decrease the day I bought a 24" monitor and ultra detailed maps were released)

I’ll post something that I think could be a valid solution (without taking account of resolutions, setting configuration and player's own eyes). It will be with labels BUT I assure you they will not be invasive and will keep a nice flight immersion.

[TomcatViP]

Tomcat Insuber is right; for the sight range see the documents that we found about it wrote by the U.S. Navy.
As simple example i would remember you that a runway of an international airport is from 1,6 nautical miles (3000 m) and 2,2 nautical miles (4000 m).
If for seeing a contact with for example the sun behind your back you need to barely enter in formation with him we are really unlucky without radar..
About the contact visualization of moving objects it is simpler, cause the human brain (and of the animal in general) is made for enlight the moving objects.
But i need to say that the image that you posted is really interesting because add to the discussion something that we lacked: info about the contact seeing in one of the worst situations, the one with the sun behind the contact.

ok you 'r right. Damn, seems I hve read that chart against the sun :rolleyes:

Regarding human brain. Detection of mvmt Ok but tracking no. WHat I mean is that for a positive identification you need to hve your eyeball locked on the moving object and this is more difficult when the speed is increased.

For example, fighter pilots flying fast jet at low alt experience a tunnel vision. It the same phenomena but inversed.

So IMHO it wld be translated that way in the sim: once target in POV, plane image is blurred to the point that we see only that there is "something" there. Then the intensity of the blur decrease progressively to a neat image depending on target range and time on focus (the time the pilot head look in that specific direction)

It's a bit different to what Manu excellently said but I am more focused :rolleyes: on the merge case

[pupaxx]

guys,
your disquisition is cleverly conducted with high technical competence, you have my cheering and regard,..but my question is...would be relistic in CloD and contemporary flight sims reproduce a convincing target spotting considering that a contact, spotted 5 miles away, (considering at the common resolutions we actually play) is rendered by no more than 4-5 pixels?
I mean, if you consider 4-5 pixels (but even with 15-20) with all the permutations they can be arranged in and color gradients they can assume, can be possible differentiate a me109 from a spit or mustang or F16; and reproduce all of them in all brightness conditions? I think the res is the limit.
Cheers

[6S.Manu]

guys,
your disquisition is cleverly conducted with high technical competence, you have my cheering and regard,..but my question is...would be relistic in CloD and contemporary flight sims reproduce a convincing target spotting considering that a contact, spotted 5 miles away, (considering at the common resolutions we actually play) is rendered by no more than 4-5 pixels?
I mean, if you consider 4-5 pixels (but even with 15-20) with all the permutations they can be arranged in and color gradients they can assume, can be possible differentiate a me109 from a spit or mustang or F16; and reproduce all of them in all brightness conditions? I think the res is the limit.
Cheers

You are right pupaxx, it's our initial problem.

The solution is a background function that give you informations about that the virtual pilot see even if you (the player) are not able to see anything in your monitor (in reality you can not see the 3D model or its lod if you don't detect it).

We need to show to the player those informations: it has not to be something arcade as tha hated IL2's F6 key or full time labels.

[pupaxx]

For me would be satisfactory a linear scaling of LODs, with no holes approaching, and ensure the visibility of the target by a clever usage of contrasts (balancing the contrast of the background and A/C based on color/camo and brightness).
I consider natural to sniff the contact to ascertain the nature of it before consider a reaction; when my opponent is Human, whatever is the condition of advantage or disadvantage( in terms of tactical position or visibility), I'm assured by the fact we both have equal footing. Against AI, and this make me crazy in all sims, we are eternally in disadvantage, AI knows all of us since 15 miles away.GRRRRR.... and it never lost sight of us (behind a cloud...ops.. in CloD clouds are not modeled yet eh eh..another thread...or sun blinded)
Ciao, thanks

[6S.Tamat]

pupaxx indeed that is the problem: the limit of the rendering-monitor and the real life.
So there are people that want not a real life sight system because an icon system is hurting their feelings.
I understand perfectly that the icons are terrible (at least as they are in Il2 and Cod), invasive, immersion killing etc etc, but i felt also with manu that there were things not realistic in the way that the contact were simulated.

But for beeing sure and stop all the "i think that you are wrong" we searched for documents wrote from reliable sources.
The collecting is still in going and the scheme about the f-16 contact seeing is interesting ( where did u take it?).

At the end i think that, once a reasonable and verified data collection is made, we should test out the results on Cod and, if the results as it seems now are different from the reality ones, start to think about how to solve that problem in a way that is affordable from the community and implementable from the programmers.

Obviously nothing is assuring us that the programmers will not throw everything off as junk or simply not reading at all about it, but our goal is to have a correct simulator to fly and to enjoy, without pretending to be aces because we see contacts 100 km away or to be blind because we see barely at 3 Km..

[Insuber]

BTW with the new settings, in ATAG the dots are now visible (sometimes) from far away, but they still tend to disappear suddenly.
Farther dots are grayish, a nice effect imho, and closer dots are darker. Maybe as a stopgap measure it's just enough to improve and debug the present dot system (contrast, visibility at all distances, LOD) as pupaxx was suggesting, and adding the radio vectoring system for historical and playability reasons. Then the long term solution could be further evaluated, but with a more playable (and sellable) game.

Cheers!

[Anders_And]

rHey guys, I work as an airline pilot and I read this post before I went to work this morning and thought that I will try this out today while on cruise altitude. We have a so called Multifunction display on the flight deck that shows all the traffic around you as you fly.

This is my conclusion (My eyesight is perfect... so far...)
At 5nm (9.2km) I can usually easily spot an AC and i can even tell what type is it is. However at thi distance its very difficult to tell if is a 737 or an Airbus as the share similiar shapes. Smaller planes are very difficult to ID at this distance. You can usually tell, if its a Kingair (due to its T-tail) or smaller, but to know exactly is almost impossible.
Remember that a 737 or Airbus are alot bigger than the planes we talk about in game!!
Also these planes are white against a blue or green background and that makes them alot easier to spot! many times someone is passing you, according to your instruments, at say 15km and same altitude and both of us try hard to see him but in some light conditions u see noone even though u know he is there somewhere! Obviosuly at night its alot easier with the strobes and beacons flashing.

Im not so sure i would be able to even see a 109 at 10km or maybe even 6-7km and I certainly would not be able to ID such as small plane untill ALOT closer!

[6S.Tamat]

I obviously agree totally with you; indeed we were talking about seeing a contact, not identificating.

We can think also about identification but perhaps is a slippery slope..

[6S.Manu]

Hi Anders, thanks for your addition to the thread.

With your experience can you help us to better understand the result of the test on the document? Note that the ones on the graph are max distances, so they could only decrease.

In the first post we have a test where pilots look for a DC3 and detect it (unassisted) in collision path at 5,5-8,7km (being in a collision path I assume that they are looking at front/side). According to the graph the DC3 should have a MAX distance of detection of 9km FV and 14,5km SV (FV = 226sf, SV = 592sf... measures taken with not so detailed blueprints). If they are not trained in spotting ACs I think it can be a truthful result and anyway it's probable that optimal conditions are not available.

A 737 is bigger than a DC3 and in the same conditions it should be more visible.

Can I ask if you are using a specific method to scan the sky? Is it like the one explained in the doc?

[6S.Manu]

It's not an official document but I think the site's name is notable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-early.htm

During World War I (!!!), visual detection in daylight did not exceed 15 miles. Experiments with stealth capabilities occurred as far back as the early part of the 1900s when Germany tested an aircraft with a transparent wing, designed to make it difficult to spot by observers on the ground.

During WWII, The US Navy's Project Yehudi used lights mounted on the leading edges of the wings of a torpedo bomber to successfully hide the plane in broad daylight when attacking a submarine. Visual detection range in the tests dropped substantially from 12 to 2 miles.

EDIT: About Project Yehudi, in the test they used an TBM 3D Avenger.

http://books.google.com/books?id=q06Jw1lgcF8C&lpg=PA41&ots=8e5EN3KpR3&dq=Project%20Yehudi%20bomber&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=Project%20Yehudi%20bomber&f=false

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Yesterday I flew for 2hrs 5min (the time before CTD due to the usual memory leak bug) on the ATAG server.

My whole flying was devoted into intercepting incoming bomber formations.

I did not intercept a single formation for two hours.

The worst moment was watching a Wellingtoin (BIG bomber) formation of nine planes flying above me (distance xxxx - how can I judge in this game... ;) ), following from behind while climbing in order to reach their altitude. Then, I moved my eyes away from the sky while checking my fuel gauges/ switching among fuel tanks ... and I completely lost sight of the bomber formation (9 big bombers)!

Then flew for 30mins circling around trying to find them again, without success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course I may be a noob and ignorant* but based on my 7+ years IL2FB in full real online flying, this is complete and utter XXXXX³\#~ **

I like that it is more difficult to trace airplanes, but this is not realistic.

~S~




*always debatable... :D

** Moderators, please add the word of your choice, suitable to a 2-3 week ban... :D

I think the situation is not so unrealistic. There are numerous accounts that say after a very short dogfight they were first surrounded by many ac then all alone. Alone probably just because they could not spot the others despite still being in visual range. It is a difficult task to scan the 360 deg sphere around you and spot everything.

[6S.Manu]

Another gem, really detailed: "The probabilty of visual detection of reconnaissance aircraft by ground observer".

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM4562.pdf

Sadly it is only for altitude from 500feet to 10k feet. But there are interesting data about effect of altitude, luminance ect...

[Insuber]

I think the situation is not so unrealistic. There are numerous accounts that say after a very short dogfight they were first surrounded by many ac then all alone. Alone probably just because they could not spot the others despite still being in visual range. It is a difficult task to scan the 360 deg sphere around you and spot everything.

I've read many accounts of this type, mate. But I tended to explain it with the high speed that planes reached at an height. For instance, in 3 minutes a plane at 400 km/h runs for 20 km. And planes running in opposite directions at the same speed separate by 26 km in 2 minutes.
Or maybe they could not spot the others because of thick layers of clouds, as it happens frequently ... Who knows ... but instead of subjective opinions, we can have a look at the experimental and quantitative approach of Manu and Tamat, and at the US Navy documents.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

[6S.Manu]

I think the situation is not so unrealistic. There are numerous accounts that say after a very short dogfight they were first surrounded by many ac then all alone. Alone probably just because they could not spot the others despite still being in visual range. It is a difficult task to scan the 360 deg sphere around you and spot everything.

I think stress, adrenaline and fatigue can have a role in these anecdotes.
And of course the pilot can find himself in a different fighting area: think about diving, about the speed of these machines and the distance that they cover in some dozen of seconds (that surely seem to last minutes) (EDIT: as Insuber writes).

I really can't believe that in RL you can lose a formation of 9 bombers... above all if they are still flying in formation at medium-high altitude (and no stress, no fatigue for me). Airplanes of that size are visible at great distances and after some minutes you should have find them if you were circling in that area...

Two days ago on Repka I've found a bomber over England.. I did 2 attacks, the bomber was smoking: I looked at the fuel gauge and could not find my victim anymore (btw after 5 minutes CloD CTD)
Probably at 4 km it was just a pixel.

[topgum]

My concern, apart from the immersion-breaking effect of icons, is that stealth approaches and surprise attacks would not be possible.

Hi Insuber, therefore I proposed 3 gegrees of difficult settings:
"Hard" (2-5km-labelding) for example, would not break a surprise attack. On the contrairy, normaly it happens to me that I am approaching friendly a/c inadvertently and I only can stop the attack in the last moment. A waste of fuel and energy. At happens to often that I have to fiddle arround, not able to identifie anything in the mid and far range :( To me this is also immersion-breaking.
Of course, I agree, every other solution renderingwise is prefrerabel, but will it ever come? Lets hope .... I love that sim!

[TUCKIE_JG52]

I don't understand where's the problem.

Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD.

What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator.

Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature.

The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day.

Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane?

[Insuber]

We are approaching a hard spot of this discussion, that is the compromise between a pure simulation and a pure game. This wasn't OP's point, who was more concerned about the unrealistic invisibility of contacts, which often disappear even at close distance.

I underline my opinion, based also on my real life experience: close contacts and contacts against the terrain are too hard to spot with respect to reality. Far contacts against sky are a mixed bag, sometimes easy, sometimes vanishing. LODs are to be revised here, among other things. Playability is at stake.

Cheers,
Ins

[TomcatViP]

Tuckie pls note that small planes are harder to see and this is aggravated by flying at low alt such as you probably do in your Cessna 172 (152 ?).

Note also that there is no mate camo in 1940 and large portion of wings shld reflect sun glare at certain angles.

[pupo162]

I don't understand where's the problem.

Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD.

What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator.

Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature.

The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day.

Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane?

well, i have to disagree tuckie. while flying, decteting contacts is hard, harder than il2 yes, but once found they are easier too keep sighted, and are actually easier too see.

lets say that if i had a plane 8 km from me, i wouldnt find him, becouse its hard, but when he said "im at XX place going north" and i restringed my search to that area, i would easely find him, and see what kind of plane it was, the color, how many engines etc...

also the bug is rather a bug and not a feature as i udnerstood, since from 2 km to 3 km hte plaen turns invisible for some time, wich is a pain in the ass.

cheers

[zapatista]

interesting thread !

the very poor object visibility (planes, ground vehicles, etc..) in the original il2 was its single biggest downfall as a "simulator" of a ww2 pilot experience. you simply couldnt see objects at their correct distances (compared to RL and ww2 pilot accounts), resulting in us flying in a mini-bubble of situational awareness (approx 30% of normal visibility, as if the pilot we represent was severely myopic)

i had high hopes this would be addressed in BoB as a matter of priority, and during the last few years before release oleg stated several times this had been addressed for BoB (there have been lengthy threads on this over the years in the main il2 forums). in pre release BoB beta video's bomber/fighter visibility seemed to have significantly improved, its worrying to hear from current users the old same visibility problem is back again in BoB/CoD and the old frustrations resurface.there is no excuse why this cant be sorted out in a modern sim/game in 2011

i expect that if a rational logical argument (based on facts, such as those presented so far in this thread) can be made to luthier, he will address this (once the immediate "playability bugs" issue is solved, which is hopefully with the next gfx engine rework to be released in the next few weeks). object visibility is a critical issue to get right, if BoB/CoD is going to make any claims to being the simulator it was intended to be. 80% of engagements rely on correct spotting, tracking and identifying of planes/vehicles AT THE RIGHT HISTORICAL VISIBILITY DISTANCES, if luthier and Co cant get this right we might as well all go home and not bother imho. solving some of the main issues isnt that complex either :)

There's got to be a way for the game to grab your monitor size and resolution from Windows device manager.

exactemoundo ! give the man a cigar :)

this is one of the very basic things to get right at the start of this type discussion. there are some very simple things that can be done to get correct "object visibility". and at the heart of this is the fact that to start out with, objects need to be displayed at their CORRECT SIZES ! the BoB sim is already programmed to do this (il2 had some object size discrepancies, but the same principle was valid), the problem is that most users use the incorrect FoV setting as "normal" view (because they have small monitors and want to see "more") and somehow still expect object sizes to be correct (wide view and zoom view imho are only intended to be used for brief moments to make up for the fact we sit behind a single monitor in our living rooms, rather then in a cockpit with +/- 270 degree visibility all around us, allowing us some way to partially try and represent what a real pilot could see/do).

point 1: "normal view" (which in the old il2 was set to 70 FoV, which is only "normal" if you had a 30' monitor), should be set to represent the monitor size in front of you, and the number of degree's it occupies of your field of view (FoV). for my 27' lcd this is about 50 FoV, if you have a 22' it might be 35 FoV, and if you have a 30' monitor it could be 70 FoV. there is a simple formulae that allows you to calculate this for your monitor size.

note: several older games already do exactly that during initial installation setup. it asks you to enter data for your monitor size and resolution, that is all that is needed. nothing needs to be "calculated" from that point, no code modification or complex new programing anything, just let the game set the right "normal" FoV for your monitor size at the start !

your wide view can still be set to 90 FoV (allowing you to snap to it during close combat to improve SA briefly), and when aiming at a specific point of an enemy target you could briefly snap to a more zoomed view to improve gun accuracy. but most of the time people would be able to fly in their correct "normal view" for their monitor sizes and see objects in their correct sizes, and have the right visibility of distant objects (some of the more distant objects will need "visibility enhancements" that allow them to be spotted at the right distances if required (types of solutions for this is a side discussion)

note 2: some people will find this "correct FoV" to narrow because they have a small monitor, and nothing should prevent them from reassigning a new choosen FoV for their normal setting, but they then shouldnt complain that when using 70 FoV on a monitor that normally only should use 45 FoV will shrink all onscreen objects and make distant objects nearly impossible to see (because you just zoomed out by 2x by setting an artificially large FoV to gain peripheral vision).

note 3: there were a few flightsim games in the late 1990's which gave you a wider FoV on a small screen and compensated for the shrinking objects by artificially enlarging them, allowing you to see objects in their closer-to-correct sizes while using a wider FoV. this had an odd effect since more objects had to be squeezed onscreen, and it is probably to complex to implement for BoB/CoD with al the other cpu/gpu loads

conclusion: if at least have all people start in this discussion with their correct FoV's for monitor sizes, and then look at the distant-object-visibility problem again to see what kind of "visual enhancements" are needed to keep these objects visible at the right distances, then imho we are on the right track from the beginning.failing that you start with a distorted view of reality, and fail to use what is already possible/intended to correct the visibility issue. keep in mind many of us (if BoB lives up to expectations) will soon add a 2e or even 3e monitor to our main screen for gaming (24' lcd's are down to 200 or 300 $ now, and the future of simulation is in multi monitor setups)

note: the fact we are trying to represent on a lcd monitor in 2011 what an individual can see with the naked unaided eye from a cockpit, means that having correct object size on the screen might not be enough to make it correctly visible onscreen as it would be in real life, eg e few extra or darker pixels could be added to these different distant objects (no idea if this is a simple task, but all it might need is for the smallest LoD models to be altered and made artificially more visible, making "right visibility" a priority over "right color and shape"



If you talk about real life scale, then you also need to know distance from observer to screen for this to work. Windows device manager does not know that.

not true

for most flatscreen lcd's from 19' to about 27' the correct viewing distance is about an arms lengths away from the viewers eyes (video geeks have very straight forward methods to determine correct viewing distances for screes/tv's/projectors etc, plenty of info available on that and its pretty simple). for ex most 30' monitors significantly go up in resolution and have smaller pixel sizes, allowing the viewer to sit closer. larger then 30' usually means the person is using a lcd tv (which have lower resolutions and larger pixels), so the viewer usually should/would sit a little further away then the average pc monitor (or the blockyness of the onscreen image would degrade what you see)

[Prime Time]

zapatista is exactly right. I have a 55" Samsung monitor (http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consumer/computer-peripherals/lfd-series/led-large-format-display/LH55CSPLBC/XK/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail). I sit about 30"-36" away, which approximates a 80 degree FOV as shown in the following formula:

HOW TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO SEE A 1:1 REAL-WORLD IMAGE SCALE.

view dist. = (scrn width/2) / TAN(FOV/2)

Example:
Screen width = 50" (the measured horizontal display size)
FOV = 80 deg.

view dist. = (50"/2) / TAN(80/2)
view dist. = 25 / TAN(40)
view dist. = 25 / 0.839
view dist. = 29.8"

At this setting objects are their real-life sizes, there is never a need to zoom in or out. Its certainly easier to spot enemy a/c, and there is never a need for icons etc. Its very immersive.

[6S.Tamat]

zapatista is exactly right. I have a 55" Samsung monitor (http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consumer/computer-peripherals/lfd-series/led-large-format-display/LH55CSPLBC/XK/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail). I sit about 30"-36" away, which approximates a 80 degree FOV as shown in the following formula:

HOW TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO SEE A 1:1 REAL-WORLD IMAGE SCALE.

view dist. = (scrn width/2) / TAN(FOV/2)

Example:
Screen width = 50" (the measured horizontal display size)
FOV = 80 deg.

view dist. = (50"/2) / TAN(80/2)
view dist. = 25 / TAN(40)
view dist. = 25 / 0.839
view dist. = 29.8"

At this setting objects are their real-life sizes, there is never a need to zoom in or out. Its certainly easier to spot enemy a/c, and there is never a need for icons etc. Its very immersive.


That is the problem of the people like me that have a 21 inches monitor... i should be attached to the monitor for seeing in real dimensions..

[zapatista]

That is the problem of the people like me that have a 21 inches monitor... i should be attached to the monitor for seeing in real dimensions..

Tamat,

so when you set the correct FoV for your monitor size, do you now see distant objects correctly ? (like planes and ground vehicles). your original argument was well put and legitimate, but your monitor must be set to the right FoV to make any observations to determine how well visibility is simulated in CoD/BoB. so far this has not been closely examined in BoB/CoD since its release (and it was a major problem in il2 with 30% of normal visibility distance)

with the documentation and facts presented in this thread we have the basic facts now to determine if this is still a problem for BoB/CoD.

some basic points before comparing observations from different users
- have your monitor set to correct FoV for monitor size
- if possible at least use some basic software monitor calibration (several available for free on the web)
- be aware that cheaper 6 bit color monitors (TN based technology) in il2 had a significant advantage in dot/LoD spotting ability compared to the medium/higher end 8 bit color monitors (MVA/PVA and IPS based technology). this might not be relevant anymore in BoB/CoD, but good to be aware of in case major difference in spotting/tracking ability arise btw different users.
- differentiate between spotting an object at a certain distance, being able to track it once spotted, and object identification
- differentiate between spotting/tracking against sky background, and seen against the ground or water

note: since oleg/luthier now have increased the LoD models from 3 (in il2) to about 8 or 10 in CoD/BoB, and the "LoD to dot transition point" is at a much greater distance (it was 1.5 km approx for a small fighter, and around 3-5 km for a larger bomber in il2), and the fact LoD models now have "volume" (represented as small 3D object "blobs", versus a flat cluster of moving pixels as was the case in il2), this means that spotting/tracking of distant aircraft and ground objects should be significantly improved in CoD/BoB (but is it close to realistic now ?)

what are peoples observations now in BoB/CoD ? it would be good to have some feedback on observations from different users. lots of good facts already presented in this thread, lets standardize the observation variables now, and then compare peoples findings.

to keep it simple initially:
- set monitor to correct FoV (see earlier formula)
- try and record at what distances you can spot or track very distant planes (as dots, anywhere from 3 to 10 km), or closer planes at about 1000 to 3000 meters (most of whom would be LoD models). for ex, if you are tracking an enemy fighter agains terrain background, how easy/difficult is it to keep track of him while ?
- try and observe from what altitude you can locate/spot individual ground vehicles (on open roads or in fields), either with them stationary or moving. allied pilots in normandy described spotting them in fields or on open roads from 1200 to 1500 meters (in il2 this was extremely poorly "simulated", and you needed to be at 250 or 300 meters)
- dont use zoom views to look for these object, stick to the right FoV setting determined for your monitor so a correct comparison can be made between users.

note: in early preview video's of CoD it was clearly visible that oleg/luthier had given the smaller LoD (level of detail) models "volume" to make them stand out more against the background, as an attempt to improve visibility. this was a pretty ingenious method, and i dont think the effect was caused by simple bump mapping features from the gfx card. i havnt seen the same effect as strongly visible since release in user posted video's, and i hope oleg/luthier havnt turned that down again while they were dealing with gfx engine problems (because it was pretty effective at making these distant objects/targets stand out more).

what are your observations ?

[KeBrAnTo]

I don't understand where's the problem.

Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD.

What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator.

Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature.

The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day.

Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane?

I agree with you, but ....

don't talk too loud about this things m8 or someone might drop on your head the thousand-pages-navy-visibility-instruction-manual-study, which you're supposed to agree with 100% blinfolded, or you'll be considered as a traitor !!! :lol:

I got tired of trying to speak to the stones a few posts ago, mate.

[6S.Manu]

I agree with you, but ....

don't talk too loud about this things m8 or someone might drop on your head the thousand-pages-navy-visibility-instruction-manual-study, which you're supposed to agree with 100% blinfolded, or you'll be considered as a traitor !!! :lol:

I got tired of trying to speak to the stones a few posts ago, mate.

Look here! You can find it interesting... :D

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

[SharpeXB]

It would be great if the game allowed the zoom view axis to be mapped. Last I tried it, it was set on the mouse axis which is pretty much unusable.

[Insuber]

It would be great if the game allowed the zoom view axis to be mapped. Last I tried it, it was set on the mouse axis which is pretty much unusable.

I have it mapped on my X52pro, but distant dots are much less visible in zoomed view, at high res. Pretty much like 1946.

[SharpeXB]

So far I haven't been able to find a simple zoom command in the settings that just allows you to zoom your view from the cockpit. This should be available as; zoom in, zoom out, toggle zoom, reset and also an axis which is the best way to use it if you have an extra wheel or something, I prefer using the toe axis on the pedal to keep my hands free. Being able to zoom in and out easily solves much of the target visibility problems. That is how it works in Rise of Flight.

[Insuber]

So far I haven't been able to find a simple zoom command in the settings that just allows you to zoom your view from the cockpit. This should be available as; zoom in, zoom out, toggle zoom, reset and also an axis which is the best way to use it if you have an extra wheel or something, I prefer using the toe axis on the pedal to keep my hands free. Being able to zoom in and out easily solves much of the target visibility problems. That is how it works in Rise of Flight.

Maybe I misunderstand your problem, but in Options>Controls>Visual Settings (I go by heart), you find the zoom controls, ranging from the classic 30°/70°/90° views to the various continuous zoom in - zoom out.

Cheers,
Ins

[MBF]

You are right pupaxx, it's our initial problem.

The solution is a background function that give you informations about that the virtual pilot see even if you (the player) are not able to see anything in your monitor (in reality you can not see the 3D model or its lod if you don't detect it).

We need to show to the player those informations: it has not to be something arcade as tha hated IL2's F6 key or full time labels.

No, the solution is to increase your screen resolution if you want improved detection.

You cannot compare real life values to game values if your screen resolution is within regular commercial ranges (1920x1200 or lower). If they changed the dot to be whatever you'd see ingame at a given range and the aircraft model at that range had less than 1x1 pixels^2 projected surface, you'd still see a dot.

So if you want better detection and better viewing range, get more screens :-P

[SharpeXB]

Maybe I misunderstand your problem, but in Options>Controls>Visual Settings (I go by heart), you find the zoom controls, ranging from the classic 30°/70°/90° views to the various continuous zoom in - zoom out.

Cheers,
Ins
I see under "camera" the FOV commands for 30/70/90 and a "hold to zoom" which by default is a mouse button which I can't get to work.
but I'm looking for a way to smoothly zoom in and out with an axis (a wheel or stick)
under "Axes" there are settings for all types of axis controls like ailerons and throttle but I don't see a "zoom" there.

[topgum]

interesting thread !

conclusion: if at least have all people start in this discussion with their correct FoV's for monitor sizes, and then look at the distant-object-visibility problem again to see what kind of "visual enhancements" are needed to keep these objects visible at the right distances, then imho we are on the right track from the beginning.failing that you start with a distorted view of reality, and fail to use what is already possible/intended to correct the visibility issue. keep in mind many of us (if BoB lives up to expectations) will soon add a 2e or even 3e monitor to our main screen for gaming (24' lcd's are down to 200 or 300 $ now, and the future of simulation is in multi monitor setups)

ZAPATISTA made a very good proposal by standardizing our FOV and continueing this discussion here. Using PRIMETIMEs formular to adapt my personal FOV while I am sitting usualy 100cm in front of my screen on which the projected image has a width of 96cm, so the RL-FOV is about 25°. Selecting the INGAME 30° is a little bit to "close to my nose"- the sideview is too limited. For a better allroundview, I thought, my german ass on my reallife-seat of today would need approximately the same space as a virtual seat of the 40s. So a VR-seat should appear on screen as big as I can see the real seat from my actual point-of-view in RL. Therefore I used the "Hold&FOV adjustement"-Key + mouse in the Option/Camerasetting-menu. I guess the seat in a 109/Spit should be the same size as my chair, which has 48cm (any Infos?). The seat on the screen has 68cm. I did some dogfighting with this setup:
First, the estimated 55°FOV is still quite narrow, but still playable.
Second, detecting & identifing a/c is much easier now, and the "55°"-FOV gives a good fun!
Third, identifying an a/c in CloD is not that, what you could do with your eyes in RL.

After landing I had a look on my vr-squadmates, and with the aid of the map and its scale I compared what I saw in 500m distances with my RL-a/c-spottings.
What shall I say?
As I wrote allready on page 4, spotting a Ultralight in 750m allows to discern every important detail, ingame I can discern easily the yellow nose of the 109, but only with troubles the undercarrieage, the canopyfront, and the wingguns. Of course the INGame 30°FoV allows to discern much more.
Finaly, but only temporary, I would say, spotting planes in RL is about twotimes easier.
By the way, why is the seat of a 109 in 30°FoV appearing on screen so much bigger then a seat in a Hurri. Were in the 40s german fighterpilotasses so much unsexier ? Or is it just another bug in the wall? At least I hope so!

(It is important to now, if every VR-aircraft-cockpitwiew of CloD is in the same scale.)

[Insuber]

Good post Topgum! Another bug in the wall ... eheheh!

[pirke]

I don't understand where's the problem.

Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD.

What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator.

Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature.

The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day.

Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane?


when i change in cofini :

MeshShowLod=1 and

[rts_joystick]
FF=0

i agree with you about visibility in real life because i am military pilot and its hard to see camouflaged plane in air and VERY hard on low altitude flight.

but here is problem you see dot very good in far distance and when is closing about 2-3km dot and aircraft disapir (didnt see att all) in view zoom all way out. in zoom all way in you dont lose con and airplane, but i can't fly plane and maneuvering with telescope on eyes :)
when i change confini i see contact like i should view but with FPS drop :)

wait new patch to see performance BOOST and some bugs fixed :)

S!

[SIDWULF]

Yes it's almost impossible in this game to spot aircraft over terrain when you are at altitude. Boom and Zoom tactics when your prey is below is almost out of the question. It seems they have to at least be above the horizon to follow. It doses not seem right, it gets frusturating trying to search for aircraft below. Having reflections off windscreens and other parts of the aircraft may help but i think there is more to this issue as others have described. Target visibility was not an issue in IL2 1946.

[topgum]

Good post Topgum! Another bug in the wall ... eheheh!

a one a two dreivier
dm
we don't need no simulation
we don't need no steamcontrol
no dark sarcasm in the cockpit
Luthier leaves us weeks alone
G
Hey, patchers, leave us kids alone.
F C
All in all it's just a
dm
another bug in the wall.

Solo in d-minor

Insuber, it is only your fault, that I am going offtopic. I dont hope that are going to bann me now!!

[drewpee]

Because of my lack of ability to spot lower targets over land I tend to dive low so I can look up and spot targets from below, then I zoom again to regain hight. No an smart way to maintain hight and E. To often I end up in low level fights or giving up my hight advantage.

[drewpee]

Hehe Pink Floyd tragic. Now do Queens Bohemian Rhapsody, I dare you.

[KeBrAnTo]

i agree with you about visibility in real life because i am military pilot and its hard to see camouflaged plane in air and VERY hard on low altitude flight.


At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns. :D

[jimbop]

Because of my lack of ability to spot lower targets over land I tend to dive low so I can look up and spot targets from below, then I zoom again to regain hight. No an smart way to maintain hight and E. To often I end up in low level fights or giving up my hight advantage.

Exactly right. It is so hard to spot planes that I usually end up giving up a good position just to find a a target.

I don't have much patience with people saying it is realistic. After all, pilots might have gone on patrol several times in a row without engaging the enemy but this isn't what I go online for.

There needs to be a balance between sim and playability.

[6S.Manu]

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns. :D

If you find on HL (IL2 1946) a guy named 6S.Marte you have to know that he's a military fighter pilot too. I asked to him before starting the research and he agreed about irrealistic target visibility (too difficult to spot and ID at long distance, too easy to spot and track at short distance).

Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.

We are talking about military fighter pilots who have a specific method to scan the sky. To my knowledge the ULM pilots and the glider pilots are not teached this method. Some posts above I asked about this to a poster who claimed himself as civil pilot but he did not give an answer.

So I ask Tuckie and pirke the same thing: what method are you using to scan the sky? And in which circumstance are you searching?
And Tuckie, I think losing a previously spotted contact because you're occuped to do something else is a realistic thing (as many civil pilots do... I've read on a document that they are looking at instruments the most of the time): it's different if you are actually tracking that plane and this one disappears in the sea of pixels (because of the many things explained in this thread)... Can you really 100% confirm that in RL you lose a contact even if you're constantly staring at it?

If there was "no sign" of me in this thread it's because I've promised to not expound my ideas anymore on this subject since the most of the people did not care. They want a "simulator" who does not simulate real target visibility ("Look I see a dot! Let's turnfight at 300m!").

If you really want to aid this discussion, proving to me and to the others that the studies made by the US military scientists are wrong and useless, please post some official documents.

This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using serious arguments...
I also found more accounts made by real pilots who spotted enemies at longer distance than the document states, but I discarded it because it was a "only" pilot's accounts... in the same way I discard the opinions of WW2 pilots claiming that the 109 could outturn a Spitfire and all the WW2 myths based on pilot's accounts.

I don't claim to be right (I'm not the teacher as you childishly claims), but still I've found out documents and the ingame test I made (the first post of the thread) proves that target spotting is very different from what we see on our monitor. I would be glad if somebody else can find me documents who claims the opposite because I'm not an expert too.

Anyway, KeBrAnTo, I hope you understand that nobody here cares about your statement about the "tall building" that you can't see. Add to this your "US Navy documents are BS" statement (where BS is not our new friend BlackSix) and we have a bingo of credibility fail. People don't care about your getting along with the other posters.

[drewpee]

Perhaps if we are unable to simulate what should recognizable due to the lack of resolution then at that distance(recognition) the game should use what ever number of pixels are required. The AC will appear larger than it should but at least it would be recognized as it should(a choice of one or the other). The need to have objects larger than in reality would lessen the nearer it got. It would solve the object identification problem but might hinder judgment of closure speeds. But like loosing an eye the brain will soon adjust.

Sorry it seemed simpler to try to explain in my head.:confused:

[TomcatViP]

Falcon used that artifact if I remind well.

[zapatista]

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

except of course that you are completely wrong, and you have failed to understand the information he posted. in fact, he said exactly the opposite of what you think, and validated the spotting/tracking problem of aircraft in CoD (for the limited set of conditions he described)

hint: this "non native english speaker" poster was referring to using a "cheat" to enhance LoD model visibility in CoD (but at significant cost in fpsec) discussed here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28085&highlight=MeshShowLod%3D1 and he stated that when using the cheat he can see some LoD models at some distances roughly correctly now, but ...... [against open sky (where they should stand out like dogs balls most of the time)
hint 2: no opinions provided by him regarding spotting/tracking moving objects below him while in flight when looking at them against a terrain background (of which there are various types), or locating stationary objects (vehicles/aircraft) on open roads or in open fields (other then him saying they are generally harder to spot then against open sky eh)
hint 3: people in some of these posts are also seeming to refer to a bug of some sorts which makes some LoD models almost disappear when you close in on the distant aircraft and loose sight of it (against open sky !), which is what he seems to be alluding to

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though[only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns. :D

eh meaningless jibber jabber like most of your previous posts on this topic. but kind funny to see you put your foot in it so enthusiastically

now lets see if you swallow your own snake oil when its dished out to you instead. since this person who you by your own words decided was a conclusive authority on this matter, and he said exactly the opposite of your "opinion" , does that mean your going away now and leave it to normal posters to exchange meaningful factual information ?

lemme guess.............. i feel a psychic revelation coming on that allows me to predict the future.......if only the rest of life was so easy

you fail to grasp that if you are so happy with how you can see distant objects in the sim, then good for you, go play and leave the rest to discuss what problems they are experiencing and try and arrive at some meaningful numbers to compare spotting/tracking distances to real life experiences in ww2 aircraft another point your missing is that not everybody in il2 (or currently in CoD) is seeing the exact same thing on their monitors, even when viewing the same objects and scenery, eg what you see is not what others see for a multitude of reasons and variables. neither does it need your approval, or even understanding of the topic being discussed, for others to be able to discuss this issue.

it took literally several years to narrow down in il2 what the main problems were with "distant object visibility", given the information amassed in that debate we can cut through the same problems we now experience in CoD much faster

[zapatista]

This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using serious arguments...

Manu,

have you now tried to standardize some of your observations (eg with correct FoV for your monitor setup etc) to see how good/bad visibility is under specific circumstances (and looking at different types of objects) for distant aircraft or ground vehicles ?

[KeBrAnTo]

except of course that you are completely wrong, and you have failed to understand the information he posted. in fact, he said exactly the opposite of what you think, and validated the spotting/tracking problem of aircraft in CoD (for the limited set of conditions he described)

Thank god I've got you round to explain to me other people's thoughts, even my own!, LoL.

Im not gonna try to explain to you what it is written in the post i was referring to, you should be able to understand whatever fits to your own requirements as you showed already.

Be water my friend. :D

[KeBrAnTo]

Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.


This was all my point since the beginning, pal. Contacts are very difficult to be spotted, full stop.

Then all this technical stuff started to fly in all directions, that human eye is designed to focus on movement, etc .... stuff I've not discussed, but I'm not very interested about either, because I don't need to read about some kind of things to form my very own opinion about them, specially if that is realated to things I'm actually seeing by my very own eyes and thank god I stilll believe in them.The day they fail me maybe I'll start diving into some kind of documentation in order to find out what I'm actually seeing.

Some of you guys really need to chill out, honestly, in fact, that Zapatista actually bites !!!!! :rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, you're not the teacher Manu. :grin:

[zapatista]

This was all my point since the beginning, pal. Contacts are very difficult to be spotted, full stop.

wrong again ! try and use specific words to give meaning to what you are trying to say, instead of this meaningless superficial self gratifying banter your producing which doesnt contribute anything

let me try and rephrase it for you correctly the statement you just made " some contacts are very difficult to spot under some specific circumstances and visibility conditions ". and that is the starting point of the discussion, not the end :)

hint: as a starting point the comparison has to be made in near perfect visibility conditions. once that is done other observations can be made as to how correctly certain weather and atmospheric conditions are represented and how correctly/badly it affects visibility in CoD compared to real life (but that is much more complex, first we need comparisons under near perfect visibility conditions)

Then all this technical stuff started to fly in all directions, that human eye is designed to focus on movement, etc .....
try and at least read the previous posts before you "contribute". the difference between static and moving target identification is very significant, and has been listed as a variable that needs to be differentiated when comparing different observations or historical account. we already knew that much, thanks !

[6S.Manu]

Perhaps if we are unable to simulate what should recognizable due to the lack of resolution then at that distance(recognition) the game should use what ever number of pixels are required. The AC will appear larger than it should but at least it would be recognized as it should(a choice of one or the other). The need to have objects larger than in reality would lessen the nearer it got. It would solve the object identification problem but might hinder judgment of closure speeds. But like loosing an eye the brain will soon adjust.

Sorry it seemed simpler to try to explain in my head.:confused:

I understand what's you are thinking and I think it's valid!

We can still live with the real distance gap. The only problem might be for the purist of the ingame immersion. Think about a seaport: all the ships would be bigger than the whole port, probably of the city too.

This problem can be solved by a using this visualization as a flight mode, for example pressing a key button; because of their size relative to the map, ships and planes would still be icons but at least their model and their vector can be recognized at long distances.

Manu,

have you now tried to standardize some of your observations (eg with correct FoV for your monitor setup etc) to see how good/bad visibility is under specific circumstances (and looking at different types of objects) for distant aircraft or ground vehicles ?

I didn't, Zapatista. I think it's not useful to test ingame circumstances since having the "black dot" as visual target rappresentation is IMO enough to discard the validity of every simulated "visibility" process.

In IL2 you see black dots on every surface or condition: reflections, camos and the rest are not taken in account. I've not really much experience with CloD, but ships and ghost contacts let me assume that nothing is changed since 1946.


Then all this technical stuff started to fly in all directions, that human eye is designed to focus on movement, etc .... stuff I've not discussed, but I'm not very interested about either, because I don't need to read about some kind of things to form my very own opinion about them, specially if that is realated to things I'm actually seeing by my very own eyes and thank god I stilll believe in them.The day they fail me maybe I'll start diving into some kind of documentation in order to find out what I'm actually seeing.

The Earth is flat!!

FLAT!!! I TELL YOU!!!

:-)

[6S.Manu]

Ok, I've spent some time to explain my idea.

First of all it's only an idea and I would like to discuss it with you all: I know that I can be wrong (but still I know that the earth is not flat).

This is not about having a 100% truthful visual spotting algorytm: probably it's a 70% realistic method, but still better than the original IL2's one. Here I'm not claiming that 1c, Luthier and his men suck! This is an idea about something that NOBODY did in years of combat sims and could be the one that only IL2 has and nobody else.

It's not a easy thing to develop.

Let's start from the beginning: speaking about both world wars air warfare one of the most used statement is "Beware The Hun In The Sun".
Before the radar appearance the sun was a very important variable. In IL2 we usually try to have energy advantage and a partial positional advantage (being on enemy's rear sector for example), but do we really fly to gain a useful position to not be spotted by the enemies (and so ambush them)?
Do we really care to have the sun behind us?
Do we follow the correct guidelines for our camouflaged plane? Time of day, altitude and surface tipology?
Why was the "Finger-four" a great idea but we use it only because it's "cool"?

For years many of us have been great lone wolfs because of the IL2's easied SA. We are still searching for black dots since they appear at all events.
A white plane over a cloud? -> A black dot.
A plane in front of the sun? -> A black dot.
A light brown plane on the desert surface? -> A black dot.

The only useful thing about this contact representation was for lower planes: a black dot between a myriad of moving pixels could not be easily seen (remember: watching a picture on the monitor our eyes' functions are limited).

And more the visual recognition of the dots is actually instantaneous: Do we really have to patiently scan every point of the sky searching for the enemies? We move our head and quickly we see the threats; all we need is to remember of looking behind us every X seconds... So of course being ambushed is really difficult: how could real pilots still been unawares of enemies when they were flying in multiple plane flights when we, alone, can do better?

So these issues made me think about a correct algorytm about visual contact. Please read again the studies in the first pages of this thread about the target visibility variables and think about what we currently have ingame.

I know that some of you claim IL2 the most realistic WW2 flight sim, but how much realistic is it? Above all about the visual search that was the first and most important task of the fighter pilot? Add to this the sound radar too... I would easily favour average graphic but a great realistic combat sim than the opposite: I know... it's always the same problem: CoD3 or Arma2? But I agree with most of the software developers when they head themself for the greatest market... I'm part of a little market's corner and I know that a developer can't live with so few customers.

Part 1:
The real fighter pilots have a method of scanning the sky... they don't act like us: a plane can be seen if they know where to search even at long distances and, of course, if the conditions are not a malus for them (fog, sun ect). The planes don't appear istantly at their eyes but it have to be on the sky's area they are focusing on.

So scanning the sky needs time (look at visual searching sectors on pg 10 of the PDF, and more after): ingame after 5 seconds we have scanned all around us and have actually seen a contact when in reality you need, as baseline, 5 seconds to scan only a sector of 90° x 45° (Hor x Ver).

I have divided the pilot's sight in focus areas. These are dinamic based on the target distance. Look at the PDF: visual acuity decrease with the distance.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3902/fasce1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/fasce1.jpg/)

So the accuracy starts from those values who can be increased or decreased by range plus the variables exposed in the thread ( http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=355023&postcount=44 ).

The application run the algorytm every X msec: it computes the value needed to spot a contact and compare it with a random number (0 to 100): if the random number is lower then the plane can be seen (about the needed value: x<0 plane is always invisible, x>100 plane is always visible).. it's difficult to spot a plane? Keep your sight for 10 seconds and maybe you can see it (if you're lucky).
What I think here is to not let the "dot" appears (call it "dot" so for now) if there is not the visual capability to see it. A plane at 3km can be seen, but normally not by peripheral visual acuity (as, instead, we have now). You can't scan the sky around a mountain's peak at your 12oc and spot a distant plane at your 2oc. Human FOV is larger than the game's one, but the game does not distinguish between visual acuity.
So you don't only need to look at the right way, but you need also the time to actually spot something. If you can concentrate to one spot because they told you something is there, then you can see it like it is in real life. Probably you'll need time to do it, but you can spot a plane at 20km (look the data in the PDF) as missing another at 1km.

Does the plane emit smoke? Greatly increase the value. Does the plane fly in the right camo circustances? Greatly decrease it. What about sun and clouds? What about relative motion? Compare and increase/decrease at every loop (starting with distance and acuity to save cycles of cpu).
In the case of windshield reflections (random event if the plane position and sun are ok) increase drammatically the number also OUT of the ingame camera to simulate the peripherical acuity using a temporary disappearing arrow (PDF pg 9).
So the sum of the variables and the comparative method can reproduce a semirealistic visibility. Think about having to scan the rear sector for many seconds instead of the 200 msec we use now (above all with the ugly wide view: and then they tell my about "immersion".. yes, like a fish in the water!).
Think about it having to watch instruments too because of the CEM (maybe a better one I hope).

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9458/fasce2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/fasce2.jpg/)

The tweaking work behind this algorytm can be hard and time comsuming: I never stated it was easy but even if it's not accurate I think it could the greatest news in the world of the combat sims. To me this is like passing from the easy bombing mode of the old IL2 to the newer detailed one: both are not 100% accurate but who can state that the first was more realistic?

Part 2:
This part is about the limit caused by our monitor resolution and the FOV of the game. Many hate the word "LABEL" but IMO they don't understand that the black dots are labels too (BTW look at the ingame ships). We can discuss all you want about them as "immersion killers" and I agree. So what about using labels in a selective way?
Pay attention; this is not about the magic labels of IL2, the ones that appear instantly at distance, the ones who are detailed on model, distance and appear like arrow on your screen!

Simply combine the labels and what explained in part 1 of this post.

You have to scan the sky for enemies or friendly contacts; but because of the resolution issue with FOV you still can's see them if not as a dot. So you push a KEY BUTTON and start to fly in search mode (I would like to add that visual acuity should be linked to a tiredness value to simulate the actual visual skill of a pilot: think about the 4° mission of the day...).
In this MODE labels appear on the screen IF you have spotted a plane, only in that event.
How can be these labels?
IMO something like this:

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/628/dot1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/804/dot1.jpg/)

Big and visible (customizable?).

Remember: they appear only if you are in search mode and they DISAPPEAR if you lost sight of the contact. So you have to scan again if you lost them, like in RL. Of course if you have to lose direct visual sight for only 2 seconds it's probable that you still know its position and you will search in the same spot... but if in those seconds the guy has changed its position then you lose him.

My idea is that it's not possible to fight at 2 km from a contact and all you see is a dot... in no way! Look again at the real contact size with the one at FOV 70. Talking about IL2 how many times I had to wait for a shooting plane since it was the only thing I could see... "Oh look! somebody is shooting at someone else (maybe, probably, boh)... can't see them DIRECTLY at 2km but I'm sure there is somebody there"
You see the gunfire and you scan that exactly that place and still you don't see anything.

Use this label method: it's not a cheat since you HAVE TO SEARCH for the enemy, but still it renders more realistic the fight because it take away the resolution issues (and nobody have to fly at lesser resolution anymore!).

But there is more. I've already told the issue about FOV: in many games (starting from OFP IIRC, or maybe it was ArmA?) we have the zoom function... we all know that its not like having a robotic eye but it needs to see the true size of a 3D model. All it does is to decrease the FOV (IL2 zoom is at FOV 30).
This work on an infantry sim, where speed is really low compared to planes: A10 and Falcon4 have this feature but it's easier since you have a radar and you actually know where to search in zoomed mode. Instead in IL2 you don't know it... you can search a tank column in zoomed mode, but it's no possible inflight.

How can we use the zoom function? Simply when you are in search mode and you see the dots you can move the visual over one of these so that the green central dot it over it (or near: inside the invisible circle): you press a key button and the game LOCK and ZOOM on that dot giving the real 3D model's size (maybe with labels on the details: model and number)
You release the key button and the visual return to the normal one. The dot get smaller if the planes 3D model is very visible (but not invisible): the more bigger is the lod, me more smaller is the dot.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4396/dot2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/403/dot2.jpg/)

As I said before this is an idea: I would like to discuss with you about the usefulness of this.

Knowing that very probably 1C will not put resources in something similar.

EDIT: I ask the mods if kindly can change the thread's title adding "UPDATE at post #97". Thanks.

[Insuber]

it is a great idea, actually very ingenious and clever. It could be a unique feature of Il2: Cliffs of Dover, something that no other game has ...

[TheGrunch]

One minor problem with your description of this feature is that it requires the player to move the view centre to actually move the detailed search field, where often players will simply move their eyes - it's a bit counterintuitive, but maybe it would only be to start with.

I think it would help make a lot of this unnecessary if simply the far distance dot changed colour to suit the prevalent visible colour of the aircraft depending upon the angle at which it was viewed. The furthest visible LOD must simply be a cube textured with a really small mipmap of the aircraft skin. Or even just a billboard of the closest to perpendicular face of this cube relative to the camera. This also makes the dots a lot more difficult to see without relying on a lot of scripting to artificially "set" their visibility.

[TomcatViP]

Dear Manu,

this is an interesting search and I am glad your pursuing your own idea.

However let me just give you a quick hint :
1. Speed and size of the con are of utmost importance here regarding distance at witch you can spot a bandit.
In the diag above, you show us that the cone of visual lock (let's call it CoVL) is of a complex shape : widely expended and then narrowing itself when the distance is increased to a point that it is only a narrow pencil.
At first I wld like to make a remark. Tunnel of vision is what a fighter pilot experience flying low at high speed in a jet. The vision in neat only in the far distance in front of the pilot and the surrounding area is blurred.
Rapidly, without demonstration man can understand that the time available for the retina to "print" an object is the leading factor for the neat vision. If you turn your head 30° out of your axis of view, the object on focus will travel beside you at V/sin30 speed (=2*V). The time for the "retina print" (let's call it RP) will be divided per two. Compared to an object directly in front of you, teh time for your brain to act in reconnaissance/analysis mode will be divided per 8 if we consider that it's a volume print (both eyes are simultaneously focusing on the same points).

You see now why it's so difficult to distinguish a rapid object even if he is traveling right nearby.

Now that we hve introduced the volume factor leading to a full recognition, let's hve a look of the variable ctrling an identification of a shape (the leading cause to the "there is something there" sentence)

In order to get a (positive) identification (let's call it PI), you hve only to see that a point (unreal : there is no point in mother nature) or a surface is right where you are looking at. Looking at the RP factor and the difference in speed in the above example, we see that the time required for the reconnaissance is 4 time superior at 30 deg than at 0deg.

And there is where the nasty camo plays its part.

Remember that we are talking here with surface and that this surface is nothing else that the averaged contrast with the background. If I am flyiong above a forest and look at a bright orange triangle, the time the brain has with a given RP depend only to it's size and shape. Imagine now, that the surface is painted with a finely tuned pattern of color that blend quite well with the background. Here the averaged contrast ratio is perturbed by the difficulty to make an identification of what is the surrounding background and was is not in that very specifically part of the image. This add time that hev to be subtracted from the available RP to get a PI.This can be summed in a blend factor (BF) analytically like :
If Cammo : RP:=RP/k with k being the BF

All the above is fairly basic for you and just an other way to say what you hve alrdy explained to all of us in your excellent post.

Now let's take the problem upside down.

Now we are not flying extremely fast low but at WWII patrol speed that said 1/3rd to 1/4th of the speed we were talking in the above.

Time is a function of distance and speed with t=d/v and reciprocally distance is a function of time and speed d= v*t

without looking at anything less and focusing ONLY on the above eq. we can understand that
RP= f(d/v) | eq. (i)
PI= f{(v*t)*(v*t)} | eq. (ii)

Then we we can say that at a given time (and same RP) traveling at 4v while sighting at d is "like" traveling at v and sighting at 4d.... (Wew what a big step ! I hope you are still there - but remember, don't look at the significance of the value, just at the variable and the way they interact each others)

In the above conditions the PI at v (let's say PI(v)) would be "reached" 16 time faster.

What does is says is that your sensor (eyeball) scanned zone for a given surface would be insistently 16 time bigger in volume than at 4 time the speed. We hve seen (or more honestly admitted or even more made the hypothesis) that the axis vision is not imparted by the speed at witch your pilot travel giving is head is contently up and his eyes are focused right on his vector of motion. Hence the corresponding volume is 4 time bigger at the base - the volume of a cone being a function of PIr² the circular base and 1/3 of h its height.

So when traveling at 1/4teh the speed, your PI planar zone for a given RP depending of the time available for the scan is 4 time bigger.

In your picture, the 100% "look zone" wld be 4 time bigger.

Now the hardest part (I 'll let those that hve read the above lines so far solve the volumetric case):

What abt the scanning distance that obviously impart the shape of the CoVL with target being acquired sooner than an other one just right beside her?

Saying that we give the answer. hehe ;)

There is one thing that we are all aware of is the target aspect ratio. We know that teh bigger the shape present a target the more probable our canon will score a hit. Hence size matter.

Regarding the visual acquisition things are similar. The biggest the apparent shape, the earlier it will be spotted.
But let's see what is that apparent shape about.
We saw earlier that de-cluttering the background is what ease the brain for a given RP. Let's imagine a bright orange surface traveling at 30° offset at a speed v. The "de-cluttered" surface is of a size function of it's shape (aspect ratio) and the distance traveled for a given RP. Let's say now that the same surface in the same geo condition is traveling 4 time faster, the de-cluttered surface wld be more than 4 time bigger ("more" and not equal as there is the trapeze effect well known of any artist - but the diff is negligible).

Hence my PI with a target traveling 4 time faster is 1/4th of a time.

Hummm not weird... In the above we concluded that the faster we are moving the less RP we hve hence the decreased PI [huge case of sneaky editing - sry]

In fact in both conditions the speed is the relative speed of both our pilot and his target. Let's say that I am flying slower and slightly above of my target. For a given time t the corresponding RP will be "'bigger" due to the de-cluttered shape swept by the faster move of the target. Hence a lowered PI time

Now let's see what happens if while still flying slightly above my target, I am flying now much faster than the potential contact. As I am travelling faster than him regarding the de-cluttered zone will be smaller and the target shape will evolve more in a volumetric manner - what we hve seen takes averagely more time to be interpreted (8x).

We can admit that it's a matter of balance averaged by a typical Gaussian curve (the rounded mountain like curve).

This is where Manu, your dispersiveness in target acquisition came from ; the relative speed of the observer and the target.

We can analytically summed this with the generalized form of equations :

PI(t) = f(RP, k, q) with k alrdy defined above and q(v) a factor for the Gaussian effect.

Please that note that k and q are kfor a give pilot a given days in given meteorological condition (ok ok you know that just wanted to add some sophisticated word to my rather simplistic demo :oops: )

My guess would be something like PI = k/q*RP (t) with q like 1/v²1 - 1/v²2 and v1 and v2 the relative speed of the pilot and the target.

SO what about the CoVL : That where I thing my demo has some points of interest in the fact that the CoVL is the integrand in time of the PI with the time being the actual time of scanning. Obviously the instantaneous time disappear with the (i) form of the RP like

CoVL = Int.[k/q*RP] from -15° to 15° in a second = Int.1

hence

CoVL= Int.[Int.1]in distance and speed (=Int.2)

or using IntVol [div f] = IntSurf[f] and some mixing magics

we've got something like IntVol = RP (instantaneous)/(ScanedVol in 1 sec)
with RP (inst) = k/q*(d/v) with v the speed of the pilot and d the decreasing dist btw them
and ScannedVol being calculated with the scanned surface and the distance traveled per sec and a cumulative factor.

The cumulative factor hving been discussed somehow by you earlier and translate the persistence of the target in the brain being correlated with it's actual position with its estimated trajectory.

Something like Cf =c*{1-(TAR(t0)-TAR(t))} * PI(t0)/{(t-t0) *R(Ttrj)}
with TAR being the Target Aspect Ratio at a given time
t0 being the time of the initial scan in the zone of the target to correlate
c reflecting the pilot consciousness
R(Ttr) is the rate of change of target trajectory


2. What the hell is the interest to add so much new variables (my demo lack some and prob not in negligible number) ?

At first, let's remind that a sim world is a world where there is no hazard and everything is known and dully characterized.
Secondly let's remind that using the random hard fction consume time.

In your demonstration 6S.Manu, the target acquisition range is supported by a series of calls to the random fction at each frame that will invariably impact the FPS IMHO.

As we know each plane position, the TAR, the speed and all the value needed, it cld be more profitable to use something in the form of the (very long - sry) demonstration.

Once a PI is scored a target reconnaissance process can begin that as I hve alrdy advocated cld be some form of image dilution from blur to neat (a pre-processed sprite ?). But I know certainly nothing on that relatively to our prof devs.

Only my 2 cents ! :rolleyes:

~S!

[EAF331 Starfire]

@Tomcat VIP

Could I ask you to explain this i layman terms!?
I sounds interesting but you lost me which make it hard for me to get the point.
Please!?

[335th_GRAthos]

Very impressive paper you put together there 6S.Manu, I respect the amount of thought and work you put in there !!!!!

I must admit, it looks rather compicated to implement (in programming terms) taking also into account the difference of Graphics Cards (or rather say graphics drivers) that exist on the market.
I somehow have the feeling that the "optimisations" NV & ATI put in the different versions of their drivers will have a massive effect on the result.

Following the tip I found in the ATAG forum I set my AntiAlliasing to 0 and was surprised to see how much easier I can recognise the dots in the distance. And with the other tip (MeshDot...something= 1) the combination is perfect.
Yes, I lose sight of planes very often. This makes it particularly difficult. But it is also what makes the game much more interesting... I can no longer stay at 7Km and watch the fighters crawling at ground level.

Besides, if I want to play easy, I can go somewhere with labels turned on.


I repeat, I admire the amount of work and clarity you put into this concept.
And mabe we will see it one day.
It reminds me the big discussions we had years ago about the ammo belts in IL2 and the people who tried to develop the concept and those days we said "forget it! to difficult to implement" and suddently we have it in CoD so, nothing is impossible! :)

At the same time, I am extremely happy and I enjoy what I have now; Which is a lot more than what I had with IL2FB :)

With the settigs I mentioned above (and the ones I posted in some other threads) I fly my 3072x1024 resilution (three monitors) on a single GTX570 with 80fps high, 50fps low on the ATAG server (big map) and enjoy flying and dogfighting without struggling to recognise dots far and near (and without having to restart my gme after every every mission because of the memory leak).


~S~

[EAF331 Starfire]

It reminds me the big discussions we had years ago about the ammo belts in IL2 and the people who tried to develop the concept and those days we said "forget it! to difficult to implement" and suddently we have it in CoD so, nothing is impossible! :)

At the same time, I am extremely happy and I enjoy what I have now; Which is a lot more than what I had with IL2FB :)

~S~

I know it is off topic, but I really enjoy the ability to change ammo myself. I always wanted to try out a tracerless combination and now I got it. I am no longer distracted by my own tracers :grin:

[6S.Manu]

@TomcatViP
Thanks for your post Tomcat!

I've to admit that I've some difficulties following your argument entirely, I'm asking to one of my teammates to explain some parts of it in Italian. Shame on me. :-)

Anyway as I said in the post above my target is not to have a 100% fidelity with reality, so I tried to keep the things simple. Of course a more detailed algorithm is gladly welcomed!

If I understand correctly CoVL heavily depend also on the observer's speed/altitude and these are the main factor for the tunnel vision. I think that it should be simulated. In terms of CPU usage we should test what it's better: a formula that uses all the real time values (CPU) or a model based on tables with defined and fixed values and approximations (RAM).

The part about the target shape is already explained in the first page of the thread, where is a formula (provided by one teammate of mine) to have the max distance based on aspect ratio.

Also camo is being taken in account in the initial analysis here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=355023&postcount=44

For the part about "relative motion" I think your argument is valid (at least the part I've understood, but I've faith in your work) and its the matter I was mostly concerned about.

As you can note there most of the things are not detailed (for example I don't take care about camo design but only the colors of the skin in that aspect, but it can always be a parameter linked to the skin itself) but IMO they are enough to give us a semi realistic output.

If you focus at the part about contrast you see that it's a function only lightly based on real time values and it's not related to the video drivers (to answer at GRAthos about video driver issues): the algorithm I was thinking runs around a parallel 3d world (matrix here) there the data are mostly fixed and its affected in real time only by really few variables.

For example the part about "contrast":
We constantly have the matrix of plane aspects (A): this one contains the reflections value for each aspect and mostly the ratios of colors of the skin in that aspect. This are not real time calculated values and I would put it on directly the plane model package.

We have constantly the map matrix (B): the map is divided in sectors (area has to be defined) and each one has an array with "ratios of colors" similar to the one the plane has.

A and B (but really only a fraction of A, the array corresponding to the plane aspect) are affected by lighting in real time. Here you compare the resulting colors. The plane is not "spotted" if it exactly passes over a street or a lake like in RL, that would be very difficult to calculate IMO, but if the difference of the colors between actual aspect and map sector gives us a probability value (high difference = 100%, no difference in colors = 0% and some ratios).

Because we have 2 main problems: CPU usage and mainly there are too many variables to calculate in RL and both can be avoided by approximations (data tables) and sadly in this case you have to use the concept of "probability".

This is the reason I used rand() functions (or optimized ones): today is not anymore a cpu consuming function. I read that today it is possible to have 1,000,000 random numbers on less then 50ms. In my algorithm a rand() is called for every plane at the end of algorithm, and only if the conditions are the right ones (if the plane can be really be spotted and it inside the dynamic CoVL).

Then running this algorithm in a different thread (requested every 100ms for example, asynchronous at the main process) and on another core you can have good performance IMO. We actually have PC with high end CPU chipset and 6-8-12Gb of RAM: I think that performance are not a problem anymore.

We all know that today the majority of the issues of a videogame are on the video matter: I think that anything can be done in these days... look at that MODs did with IL2 1946. The biggest part I was annoyed about CloD after the release was the very limited CPU usage and really little RAM needed (but not VRAM...).

The most important thing to remember is that not everything can be simulated and so we need to work by approximations. Your analysis about realitive motion and RP seems very valid and useful for this matter, above all because is the part that mostly scared me.

@GRAthos

Of course this can be complicated above all because working by approximations needs a lot of tweaking and beta testing. But it's in no way related to video driver.

Sincerely it could be in some parts as the one about camo, but here the developers should work like they did for the epilepsy filter (reading the output IIRC): knowing the result of their effort I think that it's not the road to head on (or maybe it is... it could be that it's impossibile or that the developer was not skilled enough, who knows).

Anyway I hope you agree with me that something like this would take this WW2 sim to another level of realism.



I apologize with all the readers for my bad english: I use always the same words. I'm bad in Italian too... Again, shame on me...

[irR4tiOn4L]

Why not, at least for head tracking users, just build in the option to change FOV on the fly to the realistic level (39?) so that we can at least conduct more or less realistic "scans" by zooming in the view and carefully scanning a section of the sky at realistic size? Sure, its not as quick or wide as 70 fov or our eyes in reality, and its not all that elegant, but it'd do the job better than most any other solution I'd think. Even if it would feel like using binoculars at times.

As many have pointed out anyway, it takes time to scan the sky.

[Wolf_Rider]

silly question: Do you zoom or change your FoV?

zooming, should bring the target a bit closer (larger) but switching to a wider FoV will, in effect, push the target further away.

[Strike]

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.

[6S.Manu]

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.

Hi Strike, the "blinking sun glare" is a really good idea.. still in these days me and my teammates are discussing about a good solution and the blinking object is been one of the solutions, provided that this effect is triggered every x seconds because of the resolution problem. ;-)

I mean that if there are 2 planes manouvering at 2km below of me they could be changing their vector many times in a range of 10 seconds. Focusing your sight on that airspace you should be able to spot AND track those planes. One blink should be very near to the next one (talking about time).

[irR4tiOn4L]

I've just put buttons for 30/70 fov on my joystick and use them in conjunction with TrackIR.

While it would be nice to be able to set a realistic fov, say 39 or so, switching between them is easy, intuitive and very quick. It should also make spotting aircraft about as difficult as in reality.

Given this solution, do we really need more complex dots?

[6S.Manu]

I've just put buttons for 30/70 fov on my joystick and use them in conjunction with TrackIR.

While it would be nice to be able to set a realistic fov, say 39 or so, switching between them is easy, intuitive and very quick. It should also make spotting aircraft about as difficult as in reality.

Given this solution, do we really need more complex dots?

It's still not realistic since by using the 30/70 FOV function (who I use too ;-) ) is like looking through a tube. Your SA is too much limited.

The 30 FOV in a sim is there to give the real detail of an object but we can't see anything around us, while the 90 FOV is there to give us more SA but all the 3d objects become too small.

In real life vision skill is an improved version of these both combined.

[irR4tiOn4L]

It's still not realistic since by using the 30/70 FOV function (who I use too ;-) ) is like looking through a tube. Your SA is too much limited.

The 30 FOV in a sim is there to give the real detail of an object but we can't see anything around us, while the 90 FOV is there to give us more SA but all the 3d objects become too small.

In real life vision skill is an improved version of these both combined.

I understand that Manu, BUT I do not believe that functionally this makes a large difference. In reality pilots must undertake systematic scans in order to spot things, and in a sense this is what you do when you switch between 70 and 30 fov to look for planes.

Having just flown with it, 30 fov still leaves quite a large chunk of sky visible and by moving it, you can effectively scan the sky in detail just as you would in reality.

Yes, your SA is limited while you are doing this, but by doing a quick scan at 70 fov beforehand, you already know that there is nothing in your immediate vicinity.


Is this perfect? No, of course not, its not nearly as good as our eyes which see such detail all the time in much larger sections of the sky with peripheral vision. But it is reasonably close and, I believe, a better approximation of a pilot's vision (and more immersive) than just larger dots for 70 fov.

Having said that, I do see the problem with 3km dot size at 70 fov, and agree that some improvement should be made. But by making dots larger, you also butcher the size, camouflage, shape and reflectiveness differences between the planes, all of which make a difference when spotting aircraft at 30 fov.

So changing the dots is going to be a tradeoff that I am not quite convinced is necessary (beyond fixing the disappearing at medium/3km issue)

[Wolf_Rider]

The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.
The flyer there sits looking a screen and it doesn't come into account how close or distant that flyers sits at his screen, the image doesn't enlarge or reduce accordingly... the flyer just closer to/ further away from the screen.
In effect the screen is a window, a window of fixed size regardless of resolution.
That window opens onto the virtual world of the sim and that world is always only going to be relative the the screen, the window. It doesn't matter if the flyer moves closer to or further away from the screen, the virtual world doesn't expand or get closer/ further away... it all remains relative.
In effect, it is almost a tunnel type vision, not literally, but it called be called exactly that - tunnel vision.
Peripheral vision, which is really what detects movement, can't be modelled with today's technology.
The sim, is a 3 dimensional presenation on a 2 dimension screen... even with a 3D screen - because it is still drawn on a 2 dimension screen.
Game developers open with a FoV which, they, feel gives the better visual representation of the virtual world/ cockpit, etc, so that the product "looks right" in relation to the screen ie the Depth of Field... remember, everything ties back to the screen - the window... the cockpit, the other objects, the background, etc and what the flyer sees on his screen

Now, when selecting to go with a wider angle FoV... what happens?
well, the screen doesn't get wider or larger and the flyer doesn't move closer or further away.
What happens is; a wider part of the virtual world is fitted to the screen - the window, that same size window... so naturally, the depth of field is altered and because there is a larger image fitted to the screen of fixed size, everything in a way gets compressed to the scsreen, but because the cockpit, the other objects, the background etc are all still relative to each other in effect and without actually doing so everything gets pushed back.)

Changing the FoV only changes the depth of field.
A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

[irR4tiOn4L]

That's all true but there's a reason we use wider fov's; they may not make the 'window' any larger, but unless you have a 50" plasma right in front of your face (some do, and its an awesome idea) your 'window' wont be large enough to give you satisfactory situational awareness/a usable view.

For example, I have a 22" CRT about a metre in front of me. It's a great monitor for picture quality. But I ultimately have to switch between 70 and 30 fov because the sim is simply not comfortable (and doesnt feel right) at 30 fov all the time. It would be better if i could set a fov closer to 1:1 for this monitor type, but it would still not solve this problem.

It may be just a window and there is great value in being able to zoom to 1:1, but you should still make full use of that 'window' by using wider fovs as well

[Wolf_Rider]

That's just it though... switching to a wider FoV just (perhaps a clearer description) shallows everything out, thereby ultimately losing definition.
The LoD settings don't change with the FoV change ;)

[irR4tiOn4L]

That's just it though... switching to a wider FoV just (perhaps a clearer description) shallows everything out, thereby ultimately losing definition.
The LoD settings don't change with the FoV change ;)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Lod settings DO change with the Fov. Check out the first post - big difference between 70 and 39 fov LODs. Have a look particularly at how differently a plane is rendered at 3km and 4km with 70 and 39 fov - at 39 fov these STILL haven't become dots!;

As first we have the image taken with a 50mm (39.6 fov) to have what the human eyes see.
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/39fov-lato.bmp

Below is what we have in IL2's normal view (fov 70):
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/70fov-lato.bmp

Note that planes at 3km are already dots...


This is why I prefer switching fov's - its simple, results in more accurate rendering of distant objects and presents the most realistic plane scanning that we can do without a huge, high resolution, all-encompassing monitor.

[Wolf_Rider]

You are aware that 70 degrees, is wider than 50 degrees aren't you?

[irR4tiOn4L]

You are aware that 70 degrees, is wider than 50 degrees aren't you?

Of course.. but what is your point? If you are referring to the photos above, don't worry, I haven't mixed them up. They are in the OP's post and are probably crops meant to show the zoom of smaller fovs. The images are different sizes but the actual planes are as they would appear at the relevant FOV.

LOD settings, or at least the way they are rendered, still does change because there are no longer as many pixels available to render a single object, forcing the engine to do things like turn planes into 'dots'.

[Wolf_Rider]

and 70mm is narrower than 50mm, when talking photography... unfortunately, this isn't photography.

Here's some screenshots, taken at the same resolution and screen size for a more accurate comparison ->

[Wolf_Rider]

and two more, just for giggles ->

[irR4tiOn4L]

All I can say is you're missing the point and need to re-read my posts and the OP.

I think you're getting sidetracked by the OP's attempt to find an ingame FOV equivalent to a 50mm photography lens. Ignore that, he was just making the point that 39 fov, for him, on his monitor, made for an almost 1:1 visual representation.

The important thing to note is that the upper picture is taken at 39 FOV ingame and the lower (despite being smaller, again, its cropping, ie, you are not seeing the full screenshots, but part of them! Just ignore that) at 70 FOV.

The thing to look for is the relative SIZE of the aircraft at the same ingame distances (50m out to 4km) - you will note that the aircraft appear SMALLER at higher FOV's despite being the same distance from the ingame camera. You can see the same thing in the photos you have posted - notice how distant planes appear SMALLER at higher FOV's? This makes them much harder to spot at long distance, because their size on your screen decreases more rapidly and they become dots sooner.

Now look at the 3km and 4km distant aircraft in both the photos I provided. Remember, ingame, these are at the same distance. Notice how at 70 FOV both those aircraft have turned into 'dots', and are very difficult to spot, yet at 39 FOV they are both still models/tiny horizontal lines that are much more apparent?

THAT is what I am talking about when I say that the LOD rendering is different between 70 and 30 fov and that aircraft are MUCH easier to spot at 30 FOV than 70 FOV (provided you are looking in the right place).

[adonys]

that's why the models (at least for the airplanes, should be scaled up to 200% in size for the 70 FoV in order to have the same apparent size as at 30 FoV.

they did it that way for MS CFS, and it was good. When flying in formation, you really felt like flying in formation, a feeling you can't get in IL2 unless you are touching the wing of your flight mate.

[Wolf_Rider]

All I can say is you're missing the point and need to re-read my posts and the OP.

I think you're getting sidetracked by the OP's attempt to find an ingame FOV equivalent to a 50mm photography lens. Ignore that, he was just making the point that 39 fov, for him, on his monitor, made for an almost 1:1 visual representation.

The important thing to note is that the upper picture is taken at 39 FOV ingame and the lower (despite being smaller, again, its cropping, ie, you are not seeing the full screenshots, but part of them! Just ignore that) at 70 FOV.

The thing to look for is the relative SIZE of the aircraft at the same ingame distances (50m out to 4km) - you will note that the aircraft appear SMALLER at higher FOV's despite being the same distance from the ingame camera. You can see the same thing in the photos you have posted - notice how distant planes appear SMALLER at higher FOV's? This makes them much harder to spot at long distance, because their size on your screen decreases more rapidly and they become dots sooner.



I believe that is exactly what I was saying and it does this because of the way the image shifts to accommodate the larger FoV on the same size window (screen)





Now look at the 3km and 4km distant aircraft in both the photos I provided. Remember, ingame, these are at the same distance. Notice how at 70 FOV both those aircraft have turned into 'dots', and are very difficult to spot, yet at 39 FOV they are both still models/tiny horizontal lines that are much more apparent?

THAT is what I am talking about when I say that the LOD rendering is different between 70 and 30 fov and that aircraft are MUCH easier to spot at 30 FOV than 70 FOV (provided you are looking in the right place).



LoD (as such) doesn't change though (is the LoD not determind by ingame distances?)... image size gets reduced by the larger number of pixels drawn, as you said earlier " ~ or at least the way they are rendered ~ "


60 degrees is much closer to normal human (looking straight ahead) vision. than 70

[6S.Manu]

All I can say is you're missing the point and need to re-read my posts and the OP.

I think you're getting sidetracked by the OP's attempt to find an ingame FOV equivalent to a 50mm photography lens. Ignore that, he was just making the point that 39 fov, for him, on his monitor, made for an almost 1:1 visual representation.

The important thing to note is that the upper picture is taken at 39 FOV ingame and the lower (despite being smaller, again, its cropping, ie, you are not seeing the full screenshots, but part of them! Just ignore that) at 70 FOV.

The thing to look for is the relative SIZE of the aircraft at the same ingame distances (50m out to 4km) - you will note that the aircraft appear SMALLER at higher FOV's despite being the same distance from the ingame camera. You can see the same thing in the photos you have posted - notice how distant planes appear SMALLER at higher FOV's? This makes them much harder to spot at long distance, because their size on your screen decreases more rapidly and they become dots sooner.

Now look at the 3km and 4km distant aircraft in both the photos I provided. Remember, ingame, these are at the same distance. Notice how at 70 FOV both those aircraft have turned into 'dots', and are very difficult to spot, yet at 39 FOV they are both still models/tiny horizontal lines that are much more apparent?

THAT is what I am talking about when I say that the LOD rendering is different between 70 and 30 fov and that aircraft are MUCH easier to spot at 30 FOV than 70 FOV (provided you are looking in the right place).

Yes.

Those pictures were made with the help of 3DStudio where Tamat (a great 3D modeller btw) made a box to rappresent the 109 size. Then he reported to me his "on screen" length of this object at different fov (we have similar monitors)... so I could use a 2D software to copy/paste the resized CloD's 109s on a screenshot.

[Wolf_Rider]

and a more representative (comparative) view is achieved by using images at the same size, aspect ratio and resolution.

[irR4tiOn4L]

The dots seem to be drawn sooner, and perhaps too early, at wider FOV's.

Hence why we need to switch to a smaller FOV in order to spot aircraft as easily as in reality.

I can take ingame screenshots of distant aircraft at different FOV's in order to demonstrate this behaviour.

Which FOV is most realistic? I don't know the answer to that, but in reality aircraft do seem considerably easier to spot from most angles


Very interesting point on MS CFS, I did not think it was possible to render aircraft at a larger size while still retaining the correct proportions.


EDIT: On the LOD point, from the OP's screenshots, the distance at which dots (which I regard as part of the LODs) were used seemed smaller at wider FOV's.

I don't know exactly how LOD's are used but they could be tied to distance (in which case they wouldn't change with FOV) or size in pixels (in which case they would). It probably isn't all that important a point though since the size in pixels of an aircraft is larger with a smaller FOV anyway, and all that will happen is that we lose a small amount of model detail (no biggie).

[Wolf_Rider]

The most important point in all this is the rendering behaviour.




yes, which is what happens when switching to smaller or larger FoV in comparison to what is defined as the "normal" FoV
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen, which in effect squishes everything and the inverse when projecting a smaller image onto that same size surface, screen, which enlarges everything - distances all being relative)




The dots seem to be drawn sooner, and perhaps too early, at wider FOV's.




No, not sooner but because of the distortion associated with switching to the larger FoV when switching up from what has been defined as the normal FoV, smaller.
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen... so obviously switching to a larger FoV, from normal FoV, does not help with scanning for targets)




Hence why we need to switch to a smaller FOV in order to spot aircraft as easily as in reality.




incorrect and smacks of the old "we can't spot the dot" whinge




I can take ingame screenshots of distant aircraft at different FOV's in order to demonstrate this behaviour.




Already been done and the distortion associated with the different FoV (in comparison to what has been defined as normal) is apparent




Which FOV is most realistic? I don't know the answer to that ~




60 degrees




~ , but in reality aircraft do seem considerably easier to spot from most angles




eh?




Very interesting point on MS CFS, I did not think it was possible to render aircraft at a larger size while still retaining the correct proportions.




well, there you go




EDIT: On the LOD point, from the OP's screenshots, the distance at which dots (which I regard as part of the LODs) were used seemed smaller at wider FOV's.



There's no LoD (as such) change... its rendering -

The most important point in all this is the rendering behaviour.

- related



*EDIT



I don't know exactly how LOD's are used but they could be tied to distance (in which case they wouldn't change with FOV)




That's right




or size in pixels (in which case they would). It probably isn't all that important a point though since the size in pixels of an aircraft is larger with a smaller FOV anyway, and all that will happen is that we lose a small amount of model detail (no biggie).



due to the distortion of FoV's other that what was defined as normal




Glad you're getting it ;)

[irR4tiOn4L]

Wolf Rider, for someone who has consistently failed to understand another's points you are being awfully cocky and very rude.

You also make broad based assertions such as "60 fov is correct" (and pray tell, how do you know this?) "you are whining, the dots are not too hard to spot compared to real life" (again, how the hell can you say that? Ever flown an aircraft?) and "the LODs do not change at all between FOVs" (did you program the engine?).

I am getting quite sick of debating this nonsense with you considering I have to spell everything out and then still have you come back a jerk. Can you tell me what all that "do you know 70mm is narrower than 50mm" nonsense was about? Don't want to because it would make it obvious that your comprehension skills were severely lacking? Then don't come back saying I am "finally getting it".

Show some respect and make your point, then shut it. If that point is that we SHOULDNT be switching from 70 fov to 30 fov because 60 fov is realistic, then PROVE IT or accept that I will REJECT IT.



Oh and finally, here's a pop quiz - my monitor is some 20 inches across approximately 1 metre from my face. Using your analogy of a window, what is the approximate angle of vision, or "field of view", that such a surface occupies in my field of vision?

What should I set my monitor's FOV to in order to approximate 1:1 representation with my real vision? Does this change if I physically move closer to the monitor?

Here's a hint; it isn't exactly 60 degrees, and in this case its likely to be a LOT less (I estimate about 23.5 degrees of my field of vision is covered by my monitor, meaning that I would need to set my FOV to 23.5 to see 1:1 as I would in a real aircraft - compare this to our almost 180 degree forward facing field of vision and you can see why, as gamers, we have to alternate between a wider fov for situational awareness and a narrower one for 1:1 aircraft spotting).


No, not sooner but because of the distortion associated with switching to the larger FoV when switching up from what has been defined as the normal FoV, smaller.
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen... so obviously switching to a larger FoV, from normal FoV, does not help with scanning for targets)


So what you are saying is that even though the airplane appears smaller at higher FOVs, and thus smaller for any given distance, it will still switch to being a 'dot' at the same distance and will thus not appear as a dot sooner?

So if I have a plane that is 2 pixels across and 4km distant at 39 fov, tell me - how will it look at 4km distance but 70 fov? It will be a dot, wont it! And if its a dot at 70 fov but not at 39 fov, then what I said was exactly right - the dot appeared SOONER, or rather, at less distance from the ingame camera. And thats really what we are talking about. Remember that I regarded this as part of the LODs, because dots are NOT just ordinary rendering - ordinary rendering engines would soon stop drawing even the dot. The game is likely forcing the engine to keep drawing a dot and when that dot appears and dissapears may or may NOT be tied to distance, pixel size or some other criteria like resolution or fov.

To see what I mean, ask yourself these questions;
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance on 1024x768 and 3900x1500 (example) resolutions? (for that matter, are they even the same size or smaller at high resolutions?)
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance at 30 fov and 90 fov?
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance when graphic options are set to high or low?

Etc.

[Wolf_Rider]

I am getting quite sick of debating this nonsense with you considering I have to spell everything out and then still have you come back a jerk. Can you tell me what all that "do you know 70mm is narrower than 50mm" nonsense was about? Don't want to because it would make it obvious that your comprehension skills were severely lacking? Then don't come back saying I am "finally getting it".

Show some respect and make your point, then shut it. If that point is that we SHOULDNT be switching from 70 fov to 30 fov because 60 fov is realistic, then PROVE IT or accept that I will REJECT IT.



who is being rude??


I think, when it come to making a judging on another, what you are really doing is just looking at yourself in a mirror and making the judgement based on who you see there ... "jerk"? ineed

Name calling just suggests you have no firm basis for argument


and if you had of read an earlier post, it was suggested that normal FoV combined with zoom, would be far more effective (when scanning) than switching to a smaller FoV, or... a larger one. Why? for the very same reasons you, yourself, have pointed out.

yet you say 39 degrees is normal and to use zoom... this is just another can't spot the dot whinge thread - pure and simple

The human eye can see up to approx 180 degrees, side to side, without moving the eyes or head - total vision
Vision in each eye is less than this and approx 90 degrees off the side with about 60 to the inside (bridge of the nose gets in the way) inverse for the other eye. up and down varies and is slightly less again. Most have the higher angle though is comprised or the peripheral vision.

put a book in front and you'll be able to read it... put it off to the side, and with holding the eyes straight ahead, you may see the book but you won't be able to read it. The range at which the book will be able to be read consists of an angle of about 60 degrees.

The other bit which needs to be taken into account, is the screen is not photography... it is projection.

If you move closer to your screen... it gets closer, that's all that happens

[irR4tiOn4L]

who is being rude??

Do you REALLY want me to go quoting what you said that was rude, presumptuous and just plain off? I have so many better things to do! Here's a couple just in your last post:
what you are really doing is just looking at yourself in a mirror and making the judgement based on who you see there ... "jerk"? ineed

this is just another can't spot the dot whinge thread - pure and simple

You'd best trust me on this though; there are things YOU said that upset me. Not a mirror reflection of myself, not my own mind. YOU came across as rude when you asked over and over whether I knew what fov and mm specs in photography were, whether I knew what LOD's were, and by suggesting I needed to be re-educated on how LOD's work. Don't divert responsibility for that, because ultimately you did all that intentionally because you failed to see past your own points.

Take your 60 fov assertion for example. Its just astounding that you can ram it in my face as if everyone's monitor sizes and viewing distances led to the same fov setting. To then call me whiny for suggesting I DON'T see aircraft as easily in a game set to 70 fov on a 20 inch screen a meter from my face that occupies just 25 degrees of my vision as I do in real life is just - well, breathtakingly arrogant. By the way, 39 fov is what the OP said was normal for his screen (lucky OP!). On my 22" CRT at a viewing distance of 1m or so, its actually about 25 fov (ouch!). Small monitors need smaller fovs.

Just ponder this - if you look at my posting history, do I seem to anger easily? What do you think it takes to make me upset or angry, apart from what I've just told you, that is?

Finally, why don't you try and find when I last participated in a so called "can't spot the dot whinge thread". Heck, try and spot when I whinged at all that the dot was hard to see! I tell you what, I won't be whinging if I can't see a dot! I will switch to the correct 1:1 fov for my monitor and simply spot the aircraft as close to the way I would in reality as I can get. It seems to me that YOU are the one whining about my suggestion to reduce fov when spotting.


Anyway, let's let bygones be bygones and try and reach some amicable conclusion.

To that end, I wonder about your use of 'zoom', as distinct from fov. Could you elaborate how we can zoom in a game without reducing the fov? Is there a rendering function other than fov used for this purpose?

The suggestion that aircraft be rendered larger than other objects at the same fov as in MS CFS was intriguing although I don't know how that looks or is possible. I will look at videos of MS CFS to enlighten myself, and perhaps that's the best overall solution.

But if Cliffs of Dover and IL2 don't already do that, then in the absence of another solution I can only say that switching back and forth between 1:1 fov's for a person's monitor setup and 70/90 fov for situational awareness is simply the last best solution.

It may be that you are concerned that this suggestion may be regarded as 'cheating' if either people use smaller fov's than 1:1 (say 20 fov when 40 fov is realistic on their monitor setup) and thus effectively zoom their view or if most people stay at the wider 70/90 fov. To this I can only say that it is a valid concern, however, it is really no different than the advantage someone with a 50" plasma a metre from their face has over me with my 22" CRT, and given that it results in reduced SA, it is outweighed by need. Perhaps its also about self control and voluntarily doing what is realistic.

In my case, however, even 30 fov is a wider presentation than what I would see in reality.

[Wolf_Rider]

Do you REALLY want me to go quoting what you said that was rude, .

go on then... let's see if it was rude or not - accept the challenge

at the moment though, it does appear to be just another "the dots are too small and the tracking is too hard" thread


oh, and thank you for the edit on the above... I guess you realised I only asked once

Now, where you and others are getting it wrong, is looking at it from a perspective of photography (and yes the same arguments have come up before (on another "the dots are too small" thread). From the perspective of photography, is wrong. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of projection.... because that is what the monitor screen is - a projection screen.

[irR4tiOn4L]

oh, and thank you for the edit on the above... I guess you realised I only asked once

? Btw, I do edits as a matter of course. Expect them, they happen on almost all my posts within the first few minutes of posting.

go on then... let's see if it was rude or not - accept the challenge

at the moment though, it does appear to be just another "the dots are too small and the tracking is too hard" thread

I provided two examples above and this is yet another. At this point your rudeness has already been amply demonstrated. Yet you persist.

Oh and, have you found an example of my participating in such threads or even complaining about dots, rather than just suggesting that people switch between fovs and YOU whining about my suggesting it?

Now, where you and others are getting it wrong, is looking at it from a perspective of photography (and yes the same arguments have come up before (on another "the dots are too small" thread). From the perspective of photography, is wrong. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of projection.... because that is what the monitor screen is - a projection screen.

As always, I am ready to listen.

What fov should I set my 22" CRT at 1m viewing distance to in order to have 1:1 presentation?

I desire to set my fov to create a window in front of me (the monitor) that will present objects at exactly, or as close as I can get it, the same size as I would see from a similar window in reality. My monitor only occupies about 23.5 degrees of my field of view, however.

To date I have been working on the assumption that I must set the 'field of view' of the game to equal the 'angle of view' that my monitor occupies in order to reach a realistic 1:1 presentation. If you have another methodology, please enlighten me on this. And don't just say '60 fov' unless you can explain how a monitor presenting a 60 degree field of view from a game occupies the same 60 degree angle of view on all monitor setups despite vastly different monitor sizes and viewing distances.

I realise the specification of my problem may be quite complex, so if you'd like, I can draw a quick picture to demonstrate my reasoning.

[Wolf_Rider]

In my case, however, even 30 fov is a wider presentation than what I would see in reality.

30mm focul length I think you mean, what you see in real life ia a 180 degree FoV with an effective FoV of approx 60 degrees. 30 degree FoV in real life would be myopia/ tunnel vision

[AKA_Tenn]

i think anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering play a big part in it, as well as how well you're monitor differentiates between shades in fast-motion scenes.

dots can only be as small as 1 pixel, and on a 27" screen at 1920x1080 1 pixel is fairly big... so the problem isn't the size of the dot, but how fast you're monitor can change from the colour of the water or ground to the colour of the dot.

[irR4tiOn4L]

30mm focul length I think you mean, what you see in real life ia a 180 degree FoV with an effective FoV of approx 60 degrees. 30 degree FoV in real life would be myopia/ tunnel vision

No, I am not talking in photography mm terms.

What I said was this; my monitor occupies 23.5 degrees of my 180 degree field of vision. On this monitor is projected a game (Cliffs of Dover) that presents 30 degrees of view from the perspective of the ingame camera.

This means that I have 30 degrees of hypothetical view presented on just 23.5 degrees of my ACTUAL view - ie, it is wider than it should be, and not a 1:1 presentation.

I have drawn a picture to illustrate this problem. How would you solve it?

http://i40.tinypic.com/34sno00.jpg

i think anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering play a big part in it, as well as how well you're monitor differentiates between shades in fast-motion scenes.

dots can only be as small as 1 pixel, and on a 27" screen at 1920x1080 1 pixel is fairly big... so the problem isn't the size of the dot, but how fast you're monitor can change from the colour of the water or ground to the colour of the dot.

Youre right of course, a very big part of this is screen contrast, blurring/lag, resolution, screen size and how far away from your face it is. Part of it affects the effective size and thus visibility of the 'dot' (assuming it is just 1 pixel), and the other affects the effective size of the surface you are viewing the game on.

There is a wide variety in all these factors which, of course, is why some people have more difficulty (apart from eyesight) seeing the 'dots' or aircraft generally ingame than others.

[Wolf_Rider]

? Btw, I do edits as a matter of course. Expect them, they happen on almost all my posts within the first few minutes of posting.



I provided two examples above and this is yet another. At this point your rudeness has already been amply demonstrated. Yet you persist.



you included something after your original claim?? come now, do get a grip... try finding something before you made your claim




Oh and, have you found an example of my participating in such threads or even complaining about dots,




I never said "you" personally... I said the subject has come up before... and you complain of others' comprehension?




rather than just suggesting that people switch between fovs and YOU whining about my suggesting it?



As always, I am ready to listen.




reading, perhaps would be a better approach




What fov should I set my 22" CRT at 1m viewing distance to in order to have 1:1 presentation?




irrelevant, as now matter how far away from, or however close to your monitor you sit, the same FoV is going to be displayed

I desire to set my fov to create a window in front of me (the monitor) that will present objects at exactly, or as close as I can get it, the same size as I would see from a similar window in reality. My monitor only occupies about 23.5 degrees of my field of view, however.

[/QUOTE]


If you want that, then you'll need a simpit and a multi-monitor/ wrap around screen



To date I have been working on the assumption that I must set the 'field of view' of the game to equal the 'angle of view' that my monitor occupies in order to reach a realistic 1:1 presentation.




the 1:1 representation, you won't get without a simpit and multi-monitor/ wrap around screen.




If you have another methodology, please enlighten me on this. And don't just say '60 fov' unless you can explain how a monitor presenting a 60 degree field of view from a game occupies the same 60 degree angle of view on all monitor setups despite vastly different monitor sizes and viewing distances.



yes, look at from projection and not photography, which I have tried to get across before, yet for whatever reason you seem to not consider that (or at least there has been no comment)
With whatever size monitor the ratio of FoV projected image to screen will be the same.
ie the cockpit will take up just as much space on a small monitor as it will a large monitor, with the only difference being in pixel resolution and staircasing




I realise the specification of my problem may be quite complex, so if you'd like, I can draw a quick picture to demonstrate my reasoning.



Draw away, I would be genuinely interested

[irR4tiOn4L]

Please answer the following question:

http://i40.tinypic.com/34sno00.jpg

(In case this leads to confusion, the window on the right is a view from a real aircraft looking out, and its what I am trying to match on my monitor on the left.)

If you want that, then you'll need a simpit and a multi-monitor/ wrap around screen

the 1:1 representation, you won't get without a simpit and multi-monitor/ wrap around screen.

Why can I achieve a 1:1 representation with multiple monitors - by presumably stacking them until they make up 70 degrees of my 180 degree field of view, but cannot achieve the same thing with 1 monitor by reducing the ingame field of view?

[Wolf_Rider]

Here you go...

[irR4tiOn4L]

Here you go...

What is the answer in degrees.

It is no mistake to say both the window and monitor occupy 23.5 degrees of my field of view.

In fact, it is the specification for the question. The monitor and window are of the same size and distance from the viewer. They occupy the same portion of the viewer's viewing angle. This portion is 23.5 degrees out of the viewer's 180 degree field of view. You must answer with that in mind.

[Wolf_Rider]

What is the answer in degrees.

It is no mistake to say both the window and monitor occupy 23.5 degrees of my field of view.



That is where you are continuing to look at it incorrectly... the monitors sits within your (human eye) range of vision, which is approx 180 (actually a tiny bit les, but 180 for round numbers). It is a projection screen, that is all it is

[irR4tiOn4L]

That is where you are continuing to look at it incorrectly... the monitors sits within your (human eye) range of vision, which is approx 180 (actually a tiny bit les, but 180 for round numbers). It is a projection screen, that is all it is

So does the window. It is just as large and sits just as far from me as the monitor. For our purposes it might as well be a projection screen also. So if I want to see the same thing on the monitor as I would see out the window, what is the required FOV setting ingame?

Come on, its a numerical and rather simple answer. I won't necessarily want to play the game like that, just like I wouldn't want to fly a plane out of a 22" window a metre or so in front of me, but there IS an answer.

In fact, all you need to do is look at the answer you gave me and the lines you drew for 90, 70 and 30 fov there - then compare them to fov lines you could draw out the aircraft window - to know the answer.

[Wolf_Rider]

So does the window. It is just as large and sits just as far from me as the monitor. For our purposes it might as well be a projection screen also. So if I want to see the same thing on the monitor as I would see out the window, what is the required FOV setting ingame?

Come on, its a numerical and rather simple answer. I won't necessarily want to play the game like that, just like I wouldn't want to fly a plane out of a 22" window a metre or so in front of me, but there IS an answer.

In fact, all you need to do is look at the answer you gave me and the lines you drew for 90, 70 and 30 fov there - then compare them to fov lines you could draw out the aircraft window - to know the answer.

It doesn't work that way on a projection though, which is the part I feel your not grasping... because, for one, the screen doesn't take into account binocular (two eye vision). If it did, and when you focused your eyes on a target plane very close to you, the background would blur/ double over depending on how far away what was behind what you focused on and then again behind that.
and you 3rd paragraph relates to two differnt scenarios. Why? because one is proejection and the other is real world

[irR4tiOn4L]

It doesn't work that way on a projection though, which is the part I feel your not grasping... because, for one, the screen doesn't take into account binocular (two eye vision). If it did, and when you focused your eyes on a target plane very close to you, the background would blur/ double over depending on how far away what was behind what you focused on and then again behind that.
and you 3rd paragraph relates to two differnt scenarios. Why? because one is proejection and the other is real world

This is all irrelevant. But who cares; heres the one eye open version.

Solve for result in degrees. Remember, no stereoscopic vision with one eye ;)

And in case you object about being able to see to infinity, lets say both the monitor AND window has a Fresnel lens in front of it ;) (look it up if you dont know what the result of that is)

Do you at least know what answer I am getting at? Can you at least name the answer that is in my mind, in degrees?

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ll0olv.jpg

[Wolf_Rider]

This is all irrelevant. But who cares; heres the one eye open version.

Solve for result in degrees. Remember, no binocular vision with one eye ;)

And in case you object about being able to see to infinity, lets say the monitor has a Fresnel lens in front of it ;) (look it up if you dont know what the result of that is)



No, its not irrelevant. two eyed vision does make it easier to spot movement at distance (and yes, there have threads on bi-ocular vision being introduced come up before)

same result as your previous picture

monitors don't have Fresnel lenses though, as standard, and as far seeing to infinity goes... yes the eye can see a fair way out but detail of objects aren't seen to infinity and those which are on their way there, in moving away, slowly fade to grey.


*EDIT (for your late entry

IF I sit at the window, I see up to 180 degrees... but a monitor isn't a real world window, where how much can seen is determined by how near or distant the person looking out it is and if I have a big big window, I can see much much more without having to be so close, such is the real world. Unfortunately though, a monitor won't display these qualities. Why? because it is no more than a projection surface

[irR4tiOn4L]

No, its not irrelevant. two eyed vision does make it easier to spot movement at distance (and yes, there have threads on bi-ocular vision being introduced come up before)

same result as your previous picture

monitors don't have Fresnel lenses though, as standard, and as far seeing to infinity goes... yes the eye can see a fair way out but detail of objects aren't seen to infinity and those which are on their way there, in moving away, slowly fade to grey.

That result being, in degrees?

Are you saying that the FOV I need to set ingame differs based on whether or not I have a fresnel lens in front of my monitor?

And anyway, surely you can at least tell me what answer I am thinking of?

[Wolf_Rider]

read the above.... go on, its easy

[irR4tiOn4L]

read the above.... go on, its easy



*EDIT (for your late entry

IF I sit at the window, I see up to 180 degrees... but a monitor isn't a real world window, where how much can seen is determined by how near or distant the person looking out it is and if I have a big big window, I can see much much more without having to be so close, such is the real world. Unfortunately though, a monitor won't display these qualities. Why? because it is no more than a projection surface

If I sit in front of a window or monitor of the same size, yes, I see up to 180 degrees, but NOT of what is outside the aircraft or on the screen. How much of my vision, most of which is occupied by the useless interior of my room/aircraft, is actually able to see what is happening outside/in the game?

Yes, if I MOVE in relation to my monitor or the window, I change HOW MUCH of my field of vision is occupied by the monitor/window, and in the aircraft, this changes my FOV OUTSIDE the window. But the FOV of the monitor does NOT change, which is where these two differ. Such is the limitation of technology.

But you forget its not about the window or the fact that you might need to change your fov if you decide to sit closer to your monitor. What this is about is this - if I sit at this distance and angle and look at a monitor of this size, how much FOV do I need to set to get a 1:1 view with a window of the same size and distance?

PLEASE tell me you at least know what answer I am looking for!


EDIT: Here are some resources from valve to help: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View

Note the following;
The player's FOV represents the Horizontal Angular Field of View, determining the angle of a geometrical viewwedge called a Frustum, whose rectangular cross-section corresponds to the player's rectangular screen

Theoretically, an optically correct perspective can be obtained by matching the Camera's angle of view to the angle between the Player's eye and the edges of the image on his screen. Obviously this angle varies according to the actual size of the Player's screen and how far away from the screen he is actually sitting.

Do you notice how they DON'T say the correct FOV is 60 degrees, and they refer, just like me, to the size of the player's screen and how far away from it the player is?

[Wolf_Rider]

If I sit in front of a window or monitor of the same size, yes, I see up to 180 degrees, but NOT of what is outside the aircraft or on the screen. How much of my vision, most of which is occupied by the useless interior of my room/aircraft, is actually able to see what is happening outside/in the game?




you see, your monitor is not your window... different physics





Yes, if I MOVE in relation to my monitor or the window, I change HOW MUCH of my field of vision is occupied by the monitor/window,




nooo... if you move closer to your monitor, it gets bigger and if you move closer to you wnidow, you see more of the outside world through it.




and in the aircraft, this changes my FOV OUTSIDE the window.



No again... you change how much you see, as the restriction of the window bounds reduce




But the FOV of the monitor does NOT change, which is where these two differ. Such is the limitation of technology.



Insert "restriction" for "FoV" here and this is what has been said before




But you forget its not about the window or the fact that you might need to change your fov if you decide to sit closer to your monitor.





You might want to reconsider this bit in regard to your previous postings




What this is about is this - if I sit at this distance and angle and look at a monitor of this size, how much FOV do I need to set to get a 1:1 view with a window of the same size and distance?



you'll need a simpit




PLEASE tell me you at least know what answer I am looking for!




why keep harping, when it has been gone over and over?


https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View
EDIT: Here are some resources from valve to help: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Field_of_View

Note the following;


Do you notice how they DON'T say the correct FOV is 60 degrees, and they refer, just like me, to the size of the player's screen and how far away from it the player is?

[/QUOTE]


they say "set to 75 degrees by default"

[irR4tiOn4L]

Notice also this formula from Valve for an 'optically correct perspective'
viewer distance = (screenwidth)/(2*tan(FOV/2))

I am practically GIVING you the answer at this point.

To allow you to use this formula, here is the general layout of my monitor/viewing distance. Note that this probably won't equal 23.5 degrees exactly, because I calculated in a much quicker and rougher way. But it'll demonstrate the point.

My monitor is approximately 100 cm away from my face. It's viewable area is 40 cm wide. This gives you all you need to solve that formula;

viewer distance = (screenwidth)/(2*tan(FOV/2))

100 cm = (40 cm) / (2*tan(FOV/2))

Solving algebraically comes up with, finally;

FOV = 22.61986494!

As you can see, according to Valve's 'optically correct perspective' formula, I would need to set my FOV to 22.6.

So what does that tell you about my problem?

you see, your monitor is not your window... different physics

Both follow the same optical principles apart from the angles at which the light comes, which can be corrected by fresnel lenses.

nooo... if you move closer to your monitor, it gets bigger and if you move closer to you wnidow, you see more of the outside world through it.


You do realise we are saying the same thing here?

No again... you change how much you see, as the restriction of the window bounds reduce


Which is an increase in the field of view OUTSIDE the window!

Insert "restriction" for "FoV" here and this is what has been said before

No I was talking about INGAME FOV there. Might have been confusing just saying 'fov', sorry.

You might want to reconsider this bit in regard to your previous postings
No, it was correct.

you'll need a simpit


No, i wont. I can achieve an optically correct perspective (aside from screen curvature) at ANY size screen and viewing distance. I just need to set the right FOV ingame.


why keep harping, when it has been gone over and over?

Because you apparently don't get it.


they say "set to 75 degrees by default"

Not for an 'optically correct perspective' they don't.

Remember that FOV in games is a TRADEOFF between WIDE angle views (that are still not as wide as in reality) and 1:1 perspective/detail, which suffers because obviously things get smaller and less detailed the wider the FOV.

Games have generally stuck with 70-90 fov for playability purposes. But this is NOT the optically correct perspective. The optically correct perspective is the one where perspective onscreen matches perspective in reality.

[Wolf_Rider]

Notice also this formula from Valve for an 'optically correct perspective'


I am practically GIVING you the answer at this point.

To allow you to use this formula, here is the general layout of my monitor/viewing distance. Note that this probably won't equal 23.5 degrees exactly, because I calculated in a much quicker and rougher way. But it'll demonstrate the point.

My monitor is approximately 100 cm away from my face. It's viewable area is 40 cm wide. This gives you all you need to solve that formula;

viewer distance = (screenwidth)/(2*tan(FOV/2))

100 cm = (40 cm) / (2*tan(FOV/2))

Solving algebraically comes up with, finally;

FOV = 22.61986494!

As you can see, according to Valve's 'optically correct perspective' formula, I would need to set my FOV to 22.6.

So what does that tell you about my problem?





That you're flying in tunnel vision... pure and simple




Games have generally stuck with 70-90 fov for playability purposes. But this is NOT the optically correct perspective. The optically correct perspective is the one where perspective onscreen matches perspective in reality.





http://artsygamer.com/fov-in-games/

[irR4tiOn4L]

Then you're flying in tunnel vision... pure and simple

Do you have the answer to my problem? What is the optically correct FOV?

http://artsygamer.com/fov-in-games/


Do you understand that video, given that you have utterly failed to grasp even the most basic problem I have presented? If not, don't link to it - do not use the knowledge of others to obfuscate the lack of your own.

Here is the answer to what was a very simple problem:

http://i40.tinypic.com/35n3eb8.jpg

Either you were trolling, or you really need to brush up on your optics.

[Wolf_Rider]

Yes, I do understand it and just very recently saw it ie just before I posted the link...I'm sorry the "lesson" doesn't agree with you but I can understand why you are irrational though. and what it means for you, is to get some more screens.
None of that, however, changes the fact you're flying in tunnel vision with a very small FoV


and again - an edit for your edit....

Trolling no, seeing another "the dots are too small and too hard to track, so lets make them bigger" thread - yes

[irR4tiOn4L]

Yes, I do understand it and just very recently saw it ie just before I posted the link...I'm sorry the "lesson" doesn't agree with you but I can understand why you are irrational though. and what it means for you, is to get some more screens.
None of that, however, changes the fact you're flying in tunnel vision with a very small FoV

If you understood it, then what did you THINK was the correct 1:1 perspective on a monitor 22" in diagonal at 1m from your face that occupied just 22 degrees of your entire field of vision?

More to the point, how could you HONESTLY TELL ME that 60 fov was the 1:1 optically correct perspective?

I can only conclude that you simply didn't.

That you could not answer the simplest of questions just underlines that point with a very thick line indeed.

[Wolf_Rider]

Ffs

[irR4tiOn4L]

Ffs

I can only assume that means you just realised what I was trying to tell you all along.

In order to be able to see aircraft as easily as a real pilot, we need to try and match as closely as possible the perspective that they have on a very imperfect medium - our monitor.

The easiest and probably best way to do this is to simply switch between a wider, more standard 'gaming' field of view setting that is actually very wide, to a much more 'zoomed in' perspective, perhaps to the point of a 1:1 'optically correct' view. At this 1:1 optically correct view, we see what little is in our view, including distant aircraft, as closely as possible to the dimensions with which they appear to our eyes in reality, but we do so at the expense of situational awareness and a wide view (ie, tunnel vision).

By combining these two views and scanning while switching between them, we are able as realistically as possible scan the sky and spot distant aircraft without the aid of a much larger monitor or sitting much closer to it.

Hence why I recommend it, and posit that it is in no way cheating. And YES, some people DO have trouble seeing the dots, more so than others - it all depends on your screen size, resolution, viewing distance etc.


Here is a very useful formula for working out, according to valve, your 'optically correct perspective'.

FOV = ((((screenwidth/viewer distance)/2)tan-1)2)

By use of this formula you will be able to get the FOV, for your viewing environment, that best allows you to approximate the acuity of our eyes in a real aircraft, abeit for only a small patch of sky.

In my case this works out to roughly 22 degrees, making 30 and 70 FOV good compromise values to switch between.


Trolling no, seeing another "the dots are too small and too hard to track, so lets make them bigger" thread - yes

Trolling was the better option out of the two I had in mind.

And again, which just highlights what a douchebag you really are, I never said anything about increasing dot sizes nor do I support it.

[Wolf_Rider]

And again, which just highlights what a douchebag you really are, I never said anything about increasing dot sizes nor do I support it.



increasing dot size is an unavoidable part of your myopic, dizzyness inducing narrow FoV.
The whole "photography/ 1:1 thing is just an underhanded way of achieving that enlargement of dots




Hence why we need to switch to a smaller FOV in order to spot aircraft as easily as in reality.




reality doesn't exist of a very narrow FoV......

[irR4tiOn4L]

increasing dot size is an unavoidable part of your myopic, dizzyness inducing narrow FoV.
The whole "photography/ 1:1 thing is just an underhanded way of achieving that enlargement of dots

Come on out, agenda, nice to see you in the light! So you WERE trolling then. You seem most aware of exactly what I meant.

So would you support clamping down on monitors larger than 20 inches or using lower resolutions too, because it is an 'underhand' way of increasing dot sizes?

70/90 fov simply does not allow for realistic spotting of aircraft at realistic distances.

Since 30 fov is much closer to realistic visual acuity, it is what I will continue to use, whether you like it or not, to simulate as closely as possible the distance at which a pilot would be able to spot another aircraft.

And, unlike changing dot sizes, it does not hinder your game.

reality doesn't exist of a very narrow FoV......

But it DOES exist with much higher visual acuity, leaving me with the job of choosing either a wide field of view for realistic situational awareness or narrow field of view for realistic visual acuity, BOTH of which are absolutely crucial to a real pilot.

And that choice is down to me, not you.

By the way, you are missing the most valuable part of this, which is it doesnt actually increase DOT sizes - your screen resolution remains the same, and if an aircraft is so far away that it appears as a dot, it will STILL be just as small a dot.

What decreasing FOV actually does is make many aircraft that would be very small models or dots still appear as models - meaning you have to keep searching with all the usual factors, like camouflage, heading and reflectiveness, still affecting your ability to spot the aircraft. This makes for a MUCH more realistic portrayal of spotting very distant aircraft than simply looking for tiny dots.

[Wolf_Rider]

70/90 fov simply does not allow for realistic spotting of aircraft at realistic distances.


And, unlike changing dot sizes, it does not hinder your game.




Actually, its your agenda which has ben shown up... and you said yourself the narrower FoV does change dot size

[irR4tiOn4L]

Actually, its your agenda which has ben shown up... and you said yourself the narrower FoV does change dot size

What's that - that I wish to use two different FOVs to simulate realistic visual acuity and aid in spotting aircraft? :-P

I thought I made that pretty clear!

And no, narrower FOV does not make 'dots' bigger. It makes those aircraft that would otherwise be 'dots' still appear as aircraft models, making it more realistic (and easier) to spot them.

A 'dot' is still a dot (ie pixel), except now it might not appear until 5 or 6km instead of just 3 or so.

And lastly, and I can't overstate this, at the end of the day that really is how big and easy aircraft are to spot for real pilots. Why should I be squinting and straining my eyes to spot things that would be immediately obvious to my eyes in reality? That's not simulation, that's analism for the sake of hyper competitive online afficianados. I can spot BIRDS in general aviation more easily than aircraft in this "simulation"!

[Wolf_Rider]

And no, narrower FOV does not make 'dots' bigger. It makes those aircraft that would otherwise be 'dots' still appear as aircraft models, making it more realistic (and easier) to spot them.

A 'dot' is still a dot (ie pixel), except now it might not appear until 5 or 6km instead of just 3 or so.





It probably isn't all that important a point though since the size in pixels of an aircraft is larger with a smaller FOV anyway, and all that will happen is that we lose a small amount of model detail (no biggie).







And lastly, and I can't overstate this, at the end of the day that really is how big and easy aircraft are to spot for real pilots.



and there it is again... bigger and easier




and some more...



So would you support clamping down on monitors larger than 20 inches or using lower resolutions too, because it is an 'underhand' way of increasing dot sizes?



yes,
its a very underhanded cheat and I pity them




What decreasing FOV actually does is make many aircraft that would be very small models or dots still appear as models -

MUCH more realistic portrayal of spotting very distant aircraft than simply looking for tiny dots.

[irR4tiOn4L]

and there it is again... bigger and easier

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread. Albeit I proved that this is actually more realistic. What on earth did you think I was talking about all this for - to make spotting aircraft HARDER? Would that be more realistic in your warped view?


Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir, do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

All those things can give you a big edge over other players, and in a sense mandate others to do the same. But it would not be sensible to say that they should not be part of the sim. If that is what you are concerned about in the first place.

For my part, I don't even play online, although I most certainly WOULD use 30 fov to zoom in if I did.

[Wolf_Rider]

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?




Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...




Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir,



23" (its in my sig ;) )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ;) ;) ) - but not all the time




do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?





I think you may find I said something slightly different...

unless of course, you gotten yourself a tad confused and where thinking back to this one?



Why not, at least for head tracking users, just build in the option to change FOV on the fly to the realistic level (39?) so that we can at least conduct more or less realistic "scans" by zooming in the view and carefully scanning a section of the sky at realistic size? Sure, its not as quick or wide as 70 fov or our eyes in reality, and its not all that elegant, but it'd do the job better than most any other solution I'd think. Even if it would feel like using binoculars at times.

As many have pointed out anyway, it takes time to scan the sky.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...


Then you acted like an -------- (I will assume its the internet effect) and most certainly were trolling, but that's ok, because I am exceptionally persistent and patient.

Having said that, don't you think it would have been easier and more fair to all involved, not least myself, if you just came out with your agenda from the start?

Then at least we could debate all the upsides and downsides, which obviously are MANY.


23" (its in my sig ;) )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ;) ;) ) - but not all the time

My own setup is 22" 4:3 CRT, 1600x1200 (fps) and about a meter. In both our cases we are going to have a big disadvantage compared to, say, someone with a 50" 1080HD plasma (roughly similar resolution) that is only a meter away.

So given this, why not zoom in to a more realistic visual acuity level to ease in spotting?

I think you may find I said something slightly different

Really? Care to explain the following then;
The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.

A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

and if you had of read an earlier post, it was suggested that normal FoV combined with zoom, would be far more effective (when scanning) than switching to a smaller FoV, or... a larger one. Why? for the very same reasons you, yourself, have pointed out.

Last post for now.

[Wolf_Rider]

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

and the old favourite... falsehoods

And REALISTIC!


I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread.

~ do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?



{wide angle, in reference, is for 90, which is wider than normal FoV 70... but in essence, user adjustable FoV alltogether)



The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.


*body of text edited for brevity


A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

hmmm, yes.. I do believe I did say something different, and with the last paragraph (meaning normal FoV), it seems there is something we may be in agreeance on

[6S.Manu]

"Having objects at real size" was already discarted in my first posts IIRC.

Yes we can use a fixed 60° fov using a correct distance from our monitors... but here are some questions: how fast can our eyes rotate to gain SA on the peripherical vision sectors? How can we be aware of object moving in those sectors?

Eyes' movement speed is not reproducible with POV, mouse or TrackIR. With larger fovs you get a better awareness of the terrain around you, so that you can navigate in a correct way simulating the eyes movement.

All this thread is not about having a correct size on screen: it's giving the player the right informations untied from the current fov the player is using (and configurations as screen, resolution ect...). I just want a virtual hud about the virtual pilot sensations and conditions.

Lets think about the simulation of the virtual pilot's fatigue/stamina: this is a really important thing in WW2 airwarfare because of G effects, mission's length, pilot's wearing, controls' hardness. How can we know how much "tired" our pilot is?
We need a onscreen rollaway "bar" that give the player that information: it does not need to stay on screen all the time ruining the purist of the ingame immersion.

What about the G effect? What about the chaos during a spin? Does stick's hardness still needed to be simulated as FAKE lost of autority of the control surfaces (IL2 109's elevators)?

These are my priorities in a combat flight sim: 3D models' fidelty, the colors of landscape are welcomed, but they are not what distinguishes a simulator from an arcade game. All these ohhhh and ahhhh to the screenshots make me angry since the FMs and DMs are still wrong, with disappearing LOD you can't use realistic tactics... the best simulator... pfff...

Because of this I stated (as many others) that I'm going to play CloD until things above will be fixed (realistic target visibility is no mandatory to just play the game as an arcade one).

So, returning to the issue about visibility, zoom is needed to have the right definition of the object... calling it a cheat is ridiculous since our eyes have not the same resolution of our monitor.
Dots are pixels between hundreds changing pixels and without the focusing capabilities of our eyes they can'be tracked...

The real cheat is the guys flying a low altitude over the forest to literally disappear: no, camo is not so magical...

[Wolf_Rider]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27176&highlight=fov+dots

[6S.Manu]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27176&highlight=fov+dots

?

[irR4tiOn4L]

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

If by 'caught out' you mean someone who didn't know the first thing about FOV and couldn't answer the most basic questions, yabbering on about 'projection' vs 'photography', then yeah, I caught you out.

Otherwise, you are literally the biggest and most obnoxious moron I have met on these forums and you still don't see where you went wrong. That's not name calling. It's calling a spade a spade.

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.


Manu, I read your suggestion and it is interesting but it is not in the game as is and might be obtrusive. Switching between FOV's while using trackir is practical, simple and works well, hence why I think it is the most practical solution at the moment.

As long as we agree on one thing - and that is that objects on screen are NOT being displayed at their real size and are NOT as easy to spot as in reality (depending on monitor size, viewing distance and other factors) - which is apparently beyond some to admit - then I believe we can move forward with suggested solutions.

To be so hung up on multiplayer gameplay that you wish to insult players by suggesting they are cheating or whining when they use narrower fov's or to try and guilt them out of or prevent them from doing so for your benefit is just unacceptable imho. I don't want to play online with players who will reduce the realism of the sim to protect their vested interests. And obstructing more realistic methods of spotting aircraft is doing just that.

[Wolf_Rider]

If by 'caught out' you mean someone who didn't know the first thing about FOV and couldn't answer the most basic questions, yabbering on about 'projection' vs 'photography', then yeah, I caught you out.

Otherwise, you are literally the biggest and most obnoxious moron I have met on these forums and you still don't see where you went wrong. That's not name calling. It's calling a spade a spade.

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.


Manu, I read your suggestion and it is interesting but it is not in the game as is and might be obtrusive. Switching between FOV's while using trackir is practical, simple and works well, hence why I think it is the most practical solution at the moment.

As long as we agree on one thing - and that is that objects on screen are NOT being displayed at their real size and are NOT as easy to spot as in reality (depending on monitor size, viewing distance and other factors) - which is apparently beyond some to admit - then I believe we can move forward with suggested solutions.

To be so hung up on multiplayer gameplay that you wish to insult players by suggesting they are cheating or whining when they use narrower fov's or to try and guilt them out of or prevent them from doing so for your benefit is just unacceptable imho. I don't want to play online with players who will reduce the realism of the sim to protect their vested interests. And obstructing more realistic methods of spotting aircraft is doing just that.





wow... you're certainly rattled and still name calling... wow, and also off target
Spotting other aircraft in real life, is not as easy as you think, or want it to be either, so yeah - do keep trying, or rather crying that you "can't spot the dot".




In IL2 I started to fly at different resolution (1280 instead of 1920) because I can't stand anymore to be a blind pilot... that or I had to uninstall the game.

LoBi, what about my idea? Have you an opinion about that?



I believe that was, effectively, "flashing neon arrows"

[6S.Manu]

I believe that was, effectively, "flashing neon arrows"
What was? What are you referring to?

And what about the thread you linked above?

BTW have you read the documents provided by this thread?

I already had a long discussion with you on another argument, I know well your troll-like attitude, but I'm a patient guy so please explain yourself.

[AKA_Tenn]

the game provides a variable FOV... i think that's really the only compromise that works, since most people don't have 8000x4500 resolution 60" full depth perception giving monitors...

[Wolf_Rider]

I already had a long discussion with you on another argument, I know well your troll-like attitude, but I'm a patient guy so please explain yourself.

hmm, the label has come out early...

anyways - here is your, effectively, "flashing neon arrows".







Simply combine the labels and what explained in part 1 of this post.

You have to scan the sky for enemies or friendly contacts; but because of the resolution issue with FOV you still can's see them if not as a dot. So you push a KEY BUTTON and start to fly in search mode (I would like to add that visual acuity should be linked to a tiredness value to simulate the actual visual skill of a pilot: think about the 4° mission of the day...).
In this MODE labels appear on the screen IF you have spotted a plane, only in that event.
How can be these labels?
IMO something like this:

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/628/dot1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/804/dot1.jpg/)

Big and visible (customizable?).









Hi Strike, the "blinking sun glare" is a really good idea.. still in these days me and my teammates are discussing about a good solution and the blinking object is been one of the solutions, provided that this effect is triggered every x seconds because of the resolution problem. ;-)

[6S.Manu]

hmm, the label has come out early...

anyways - here is your, effectively, "flashing neon arrows".

Not early enough... be sure. ;)

Ok, please explain the reason for which you are against a rollaway icon like that.

[Wolf_Rider]

why not just a developer determined (60 ~ 75 degree), and locked FoV and binoculars?

You want realistic? that's your boy ;)

[irR4tiOn4L]

Manu, don't reason with the trolls, just put them on the ignore list where they belong.

OF all his posts, there is not one I can say I gained from by reading. He has come into this thread, and likely many others, with only one aim, and that is to whine as hard as possible about anyone who uses a fov narrower than his magical 60 degrees.

He has no understanding of piloting and spotting a real aircraft, has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to anything fov related, and has no idea how good a pilot's eyes should be, but he sure as hell WILL come in here to tell us that a 22" monitor 1 metre from our face occupying just 22 degrees of our vision should be set at no less than 60 fov in order to be 'realistic', and that spotting a single pixel on a 22" plane 1 metre from our face which has, for most people, at least 1,920,000 of them is a most realistic way to spot aircraft!

The guy is from another planet.

[Wolf_Rider]

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.










Manu, don't reason with the trolls, just put them on the ignore list where they belong.

OF all his posts, ~


The guy is from another planet.



What happened, that didn't last long... can't you find the buttton for Ignore, or did your list spring a leak or something??

in any regard, that was a dollar I didn't mind losing


Just admit it; you don't really want realism, you just want bigger easier spotting aaand if you really did want realism - you be have a cockpit frame mock up sat in front of your open cockpit view on your screen so you could see around the confines of the cockpit frame.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Having just done a bit more flying and switching between 70 and 30 fov, it is actually EASIER to spot dots in 70 fov, in some cases, than 30.

So the concerns of wolf and ilk are completely misplaced. Zoomed fov can actually make spotting aircraft more difficult, although double checking on the nature of a dot/contact is much easier.

[Wolf_Rider]

FoV doesn't zoom... binoculars do though, bringing an element of higher level flying difficulty (realistic) with them ;) as well as tracking (re-aquiring).

[irR4tiOn4L]

FoV doesn't zoom... binoculars do though, bringing an element of higher level flying difficulty (realistic) with them ;) as well as tracking (re-aquiring).

While being as uncondescending as possible, I suggest you review your understanding of what FOV is, how it and binoculars work and what they have in common.

Let's just say that both 'zoom' by taking a small angle of our field of view and re-focussing it to take a larger portion of that field of view.

Small FOV's do this by rendering only a small part of the ingame view and having it cover the full viewing plane/monitor, which would normally display a much wider view.

Binoculars do this by taking light from a small part of our field of view and realigning and refocussing it to take a larger portion of our retina.

The principle however, in both cases, is the same. And perhaps once you understand why, you will grasp why FOV needs to match the field of view taken by your monitor in order to present a 1:1 view.

Then maybe you can end your insistence on 60 being the 'perfect' fov and opposition to the practice of switching between FOV's and realise that, like all viewing technologies, FOV is a compromise compared to our real world visual acuity. We don't do it to make the 'dots bigger' (it actually makes them smaller relative to everything else and much harder to spot) but in order to prevent things becoming dots in the first place and to see everything more clearly like it would appear in real life.

[Wolf_Rider]

no, its not the same principle (FoV v's Binoculars) not by a long shot - try again

[irR4tiOn4L]

no, its not the same principle (FoV v's Binoculars) not by a long shot - try again

Do you have anything to substantiate this or are you just going off hyperbole?

Please explain how binoculars work, and how FOV works.

[flyingblind]

It seems to me the 30 fov makes the cockpit and frame appear the correct size and removes the distortion seen in the wing angles. Planes flying in formation with you also appear at the correct distance and size along with better detail.

The further away objects and landscapes are then the less difference a change in fov seems to make.

The biggest drawback of a narrow fov is that the view of close to middle distances is somewhat restricted giving a strong feeling of lost situation awareness. Is this problem removed at all when using a three monitor setup with its much increased peripheral vision?

[Wolf_Rider]

Do you have anything to substantiate this ~



Do you? (and derision doesn't count ;) )




The biggest drawback of a narrow fov is that the view of close to middle distances is somewhat restricted giving a strong feeling of lost situation awareness. Is this problem removed at all when using a three monitor setup with its much increased peripheral vision?



The sim would have to be coded correctly for the tighter FoV to be projected correctly onto the wider 3 monitor set-up... else your just projecting the same image as would go onto a single monitor (screen) onto the wider (screen) and cropping the top and bottom.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Do you? (and derision doesn't count ;) )

Yes, I can explain at length with resources.

But last time I did that, it was a waste of time. Do you actually care? Or are you just going to continue insisting that 60 fov is the only 'correct' fov, regardless of user setup?

I think if you took the time to understand what binoculars and fov do in terms of occupying your angle of vision, than you might well see why being able to attain a 1:1 view is at least useful for simulating a pilot's view. And as I said, its not even about larger dots - those are actually smaller - but about more details being visible and planes remaining models farther out.

Frankly, if dots were realistic to begin with, you would never see them at 70 or 90 fov.

[Wolf_Rider]

Frankly, if dots were realistic to begin with, you would never see them at 70 or 90 fov.



Thank you, you've just made a mockery of everything you've said before (especially so considering your edited out "testing the switching" comments, you took out of your prvious post).

[irR4tiOn4L]

Thank you, you've just made a mockery of everything you've said before (especially so considering your edited out "testing the switching" comments, you took out of your prvious post).

What "testing the switching" are you talking about?

And as for mockery - maybe in your mind. With a limited comprehension. And even then it requires an extra ordinary commitment to trolling (which you certainly have).

Let me explain something. Do you know what 'dots' are? Do you know how they work? Do you realise they are a modification of how the engine would normally render a distant object?

In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none. If the renderer were left to its own devices, this would mean aircraft would totally disappear at a range of just a few kilometres.

Of course, if you used a 1:1 lod - like say 23 fov when your monitor occupies 23 degrees of your vision - then aircraft would appear as models much further out and disappear altogether much later, giving a more realistic portrayal of a pilot's view and job of spotting aircraft.

But 1C know that nobody wants to play with 23 fov permanently and that pilots can spot aircraft much more easily than in the game. Let me repeat that - 1C KNOW that they need to make spotting easier in order for it to be realistic. Virtual pilots need a method of spotting distant aircraft from a wide fov like 70 or 90, and the method chosen is 'dots'.

When an aircraft is so distant that it would normally occupy a single pixel or less, what 1C has their renderer do is instead draw the object as a spot of pixels of a high contrast colour, or 'dots', in the hope that these will be easier to spot and roughly represent a pilot's ability to spot aircraft. The important thing to note is that dots are an artificial rendering method.

What this means is that even when players are viewing at wide fovs - which are necessary given current monitor technology - they will be able to spot aircraft (hopefully) roughly as far as actual pilots. So in other words - you are ALREADY being given an aid to spotting, and this aid is ARBITRARY. It is foolish of you to suggest that at 60 fov the view and 'spotting dots' is somehow inherently realistic.

The trouble with dots is that, as most players well know, they are very resolution dependent. And this is where the controversy comes from. It is actually easier to spot the dots at WIDER fovs - like 70 or 90 - than smaller fovs like 30, because the dots appear LARGER and CLOSER TOGETHER - obviously a very counter-intuitive way to display them. What this means is that the higher your resolution, the darker and more contrasty/harsh your monitor and viwing conditions, the smaller your screen and the further you are from it, the harder it is to spot aircraft. Worse, even if you suspect you saw a group of dots, zooming in with 30 fov to a roughly 1:1 view will make it harder to see those dots UNTIL they begin to render as aircraft.

So it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask whether the current dots are realistically difficult/easy to see, and whether they represent reality accurately. It is also reasonable for people to want to be able to switch to a 1:1 view to see the kinds of details that they would be able to see a pilot - hits on aircraft, details in the landscape, etc. It is also reasonable for people to ask whether dots are presently implemented in the best way they can be, and best approximate the spotting experience.

There is nothing in this that mocks my previous input on this. It only mocks your limited understanding and intolerant approach to spotting in IL2/CoD. For much of this thread you have based your vector of attack on the belief that smaller/zoomed fovs, like 30 fov, make spotting dots EASIER. But in actuality, it doesn't. And the people that use them - like myself, don't gain an unfair advantage to spot dots by using them and dont use them for that reason, although they do use them to make aircraft render further out and to see more detail in landscapes and gunnery.

What this means is that your argument is up shit creek without a paddle. Smaller fovs for 1:1 view are useful, have genuine uses and actually don't make spotting dots easier, and don't give unfair advantages for those players that use them. In fact, its harder to spot dots at lower fovs (which I think is yet another reason, along with the resolution-dependence of dots, why the system needs some review).

There is nothing inherently realistic about a wide fov, let alone something magical about 60 fov, and dots are already a crutch by the developer given to aid spotting, making debates about how realistically easy/difficult they are to see and how well they are implemented very much merited.

It is only fools like you, who oppose existing practice and dismiss all complaints blindly, that make a mockery of what spotting means in reality and in the sim.

[Wolf_Rider]

What "testing the switching" are you talking about?

And as for mockery - maybe in your mind. With a limited comprehension. And even then it requires an extra ordinary commitment to trolling (which you certainly have).

Let me explain something. Do you know what 'dots' are? Do you know how they work? Do you realise they are a modification of how the engine would normally render a distant object?

In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none. If the renderer were left to its own devices, this would mean aircraft would totally disappear at a range of just a few kilometres.

Of course, if you used a 1:1 lod - like say 23 fov when your monitor occupies 23 degrees of your vision - then aircraft would appear as models much further out and disappear altogether much later, giving a more realistic portrayal of a pilot's view and job of spotting aircraft.

But 1C know that nobody wants to play with 23 fov permanently and that pilots can spot aircraft much more easily than in the game. Let me repeat that - 1C KNOW that they need to make spotting easier in order for it to be realistic. Virtual pilots need a method of spotting distant aircraft from a wide fov like 70 or 90, and the method chosen is 'dots'.

When an aircraft is so distant that it would normally occupy a single pixel or less, what 1C has their renderer do is instead draw the object as a spot of pixels of a high contrast colour, or 'dots', in the hope that these will be easier to spot and roughly represent a pilot's ability to spot aircraft. The important thing to note is that dots are an artificial rendering method.

What this means is that even when players are viewing at wide fovs - which are necessary given current monitor technology - they will be able to spot aircraft (hopefully) roughly as far as actual pilots. So in other words - you are ALREADY being given an aid to spotting, and this aid is ARBITRARY. It is foolish of you to suggest that at 60 fov the view and 'spotting dots' is somehow inherently realistic.

The trouble with dots is that, as most players well know, they are very resolution dependent. And this is where the controversy comes from. It is actually easier to spot the dots at WIDER fovs - like 70 or 90 - than smaller fovs like 30, because the dots appear LARGER and CLOSER TOGETHER - obviously a very counter-intuitive way to display them. What this means is that the higher your resolution, the darker and more contrasty/harsh your monitor and viwing conditions, the smaller your screen and the further you are from it, the harder it is to spot aircraft. Worse, even if you suspect you saw a group of dots, zooming in with 30 fov to a roughly 1:1 view will make it harder to see those dots UNTIL they begin to render as aircraft.

So it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask whether the current dots are realistically difficult/easy to see, and whether they represent reality accurately. It is also reasonable for people to want to be able to switch to a 1:1 view to see the kinds of details that they would be able to see a pilot - hits on aircraft, details in the landscape, etc. It is also reasonable for people to ask whether dots are presently implemented in the best way they can be, and best approximate the spotting experience.

There is nothing in this that mocks my previous input on this. It only mocks your limited understanding and intolerant approach to spotting in IL2/CoD. For much of this thread you have based your vector of attack on the belief that smaller/zoomed fovs, like 30 fov, make spotting dots EASIER. But in actuality, it doesn't. And the people that use them - like myself, don't gain an unfair advantage to spot dots by using them and dont use them for that reason, although they do use them to make aircraft render further out and to see more detail in landscapes and gunnery.

What this means is that your argument is up shit creek without a paddle. Smaller fovs for 1:1 view are useful, have genuine uses and actually don't make spotting dots easier, and don't give unfair advantages for those players that use them. In fact, its harder to spot dots at lower fovs (which I think is yet another reason, along with the resolution-dependence of dots, why the system needs some review).

There is nothing inherently realistic about a wide fov, let alone something magical about 60 fov, and dots are already a crutch by the developer given to aid spotting, making debates about how realistically easy/difficult they are to see and how well they are implemented very much merited.

It is only fools like you, who oppose existing practice and dismiss all complaints blindly, that make a mockery of what spotting means in reality and in the sim.



just a keep sake, in case you decide to come back later and do some editing...


----------------`


The smaller the screen, the closer to flyer tends to sit to it - not the other way around...

"Dots" have come about because of monitor technology limitations, in recreating an aircraft dissappearing into the distance... the monitor (at this current technology) cannot reproduce what the eye actually sees - they aren't there to aid "spotting". You've even said so yourself: "In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none"... the eye can seeat resolutions smaller than the screen pixel - you're limited by technology for accuracy

You want to do some "realistic" spotting? go to an airport and track the planes taking off (and take your binoculars ;) )


Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV



Yes, I can explain at length with resources.

Frankly, if dots were realistic to begin with, you would never see them at 70 or 90 fov.



age old il2 drama, in play

[irR4tiOn4L]

"Dots" have come about because of monitor technology limitations, in recreating an aircraft dissappearing into the distance...

they aren't there to aid "spotting".

Run that by yourself again, and again, and again. If they aren't there to help us see aircraft that would otherwise be invisible at the given (generally very wide) FOV and resolution, then what ARE they for?


Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV

You do realise fisheye is a higher than usual FOV? Have you even tried to switch between 30/70/90 fov ingame?

You really insist on display a thorough lack of knowledge in the area.

The smaller the screen, the closer to flyer tends to sit to it - not the other way around...


What are you an idiot? Most people set their TV's and monitors at a certain distance given by the geometry of their desk or room, and they don't buy larger monitors and TV's in order to sit further from them! Why do you think people have triple monitor setups? To sit further back?

Just because you decide to sit a foot from your 22" CRT doesnt mean most people do, and that they won't therefore have a harder time seeing the dots than you.

[Wolf_Rider]

Run that by yourself again, and again, and again.



;) keep trying son...

[irR4tiOn4L]

;) keep trying son...

You are clearly a bit senile. I am not your 'son'.

Address the points in question or take it elsewhere. You're standing in the way of reasonable men and reasonable discussion.

[Wolf_Rider]

who the heck are you to demand anything?? and I'd say (based on your past behaviour) you're anything but reasonable - reasonable men don't descend into derision and denigration

[irR4tiOn4L]

who the heck are you to demand anything?? and I'd say (based on your past behaviour) you're anything but reasonable - reasonable men don't descend into derision and denigration

Why don't you keep your eye on the ball and explain how binoculars and fov works, what 'fisheye' means and what dots are for. Preferably with illustrations.

[Wolf_Rider]

Why don't you keep your eye on the ball and explain how binoculars and fov works, what 'fisheye' means and what dots are for. Preferably with illustrations.

you said they're (binoculars and FoV) the same... and


You do realise fisheye is a higher than usual FOV?


define: "usual"




... why not you show us how they (binoculars and FoV) are the same? You made the claim... you back it up :grin:

[irR4tiOn4L]

define: "usual"

I won't play this game. YOU said that going to 30 fov from 70/90 fov produces a 'fisheye' view! This is clearly wrong. Lower fov's do not produce a fisheye view, not to mention that fisheye implies a very large fov, not low fov. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

For example, fisheye lenses have about 6-20mm focal lengths, with fovs as high as 180-220 degrees. By contrast, telephoto (ie, zoom lenses) lenses have focal lengths of 85-300+mm and fovs from 30 degrees to less than 1 degree. In other words, lower fovs mean a zoomed view, and higher fovs mean a wider, even fisheye view, not the other way round!

Your knowledge is so rubbish here you don't even have the right direction for wide vs zoomed views and fov.

you said they're (binoculars and FoV) the same... and

... why not you show us how they (binoculars and FoV) are the same? You made the claim... you back it up :grin:

I will, as soon as you show me why I won't be wasting my time explaining it to you - nobody else has questioned this or desired an explanation. Everyone except you seems to understand the concept of a 1:1 view and why it is useful - and you're not exactly receptive to new ideas.

[Wolf_Rider]

I won't play this game.




It seems you're the only one "playing a game"




YOU said that going to 30 fov from 70/90 fov produces a 'fisheye' view!





Where did I say this and what did I say?




This is CLEARLY wrong. Lower fov's do not produce a fisheye view, not to mention that fisheye implies a very LARGE fov, not low fov. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

Your knowledge is so rubbish here you don't even have the right DIRECTION for wide vs zoomed views and fov!








I will, as soon as you show me why I won't be wasting my time explaining it to you.



What... you can't explain how, how FoV and bionoclars, are the same??

[irR4tiOn4L]

YOU said that going to 30 fov from 70/90 fov produces a 'fisheye' view!
Where did I say this and what did I say?


Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV

Right here. You said it yourself - no zooming and fisheye views! Care to explain?

I could amuse myself by asking you why I would want to switch to a smaller fov if it didn't actually zoom the view (and make dots bigger, as you claimed), but its just so obvious that you won't take the hint.

As for explaining binoculars and fov - I stand ready, if you are willing.

[Wolf_Rider]

Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV




Right here. You said it yourself - no zooming and fisheye views! Care to explain?

I could amuse myself by asking you why I would want to switch to a smaller fov if it didn't actually zoom the view (and make dots bigger, as you claimed), but its just so obvious that you won't take the hint.



From the perspective of PHOTOGRAPHY ~


1.3 Barrel and Pin-cushion distortion
The two typical lens distortion that occur are called barrel and pin-cushion distortion. They are named by the effect that they have upon an image, as shown in Figure 1.4. Barrel distortion is found in wide-angle views and it is the result of the squeeze that is applied in order to fit the image in a smaller space. On the other hand, pin-cushion is found in telephoto because of the stretching applied in the image in order to feet the space. The squeezing and the stretching of images vary radially due to the design of the lenses, making these distortions visually most prominent at the image corners and sides.



http://scien.stanford.edu/pages/labsite/2007/psych221/projects/07/geometric_distortion/distortion.jpg

However... from the perspective of PROJECTION (which is what the image on the monitor is) the opposite applies.





You do realise fisheye is a higher than usual FOV?





Define: usual





As for explaining binoculars and fov - I stand ready, if you are willing.



I'm sorry that you seem to have forgotten that you made the claim - you need to present your reasoning there.

[irR4tiOn4L]

From the perspective of PHOTOGRAPHY ~


1.3 Barrel and Pin-cushion distortion
The two typical lens distortion that occur are called barrel and pin-cushion distortion. They are named by the effect that they have upon an image, as shown in Figure 1.4. Barrel distortion is found in wide-angle views and it is the result of the squeeze that is applied in order to fit the image in a smaller space. On the other hand, pin-cushion is found in telephoto because of the stretching applied in the image in order to feet the space. The squeezing and the stretching of images vary radially due to the design of the lenses, making these distortions visually most prominent at the image corners and sides.



http://scien.stanford.edu/pages/labsite/2007/psych221/projects/07/geometric_distortion/distortion.jpg

However... from the perspective of PROJECTION (which is what the image on the monitor is) the opposite applies.





I'm sorry that you seem to have forgotten that you made the claim - you need to present your reasoning there.

The opposite applies? Bullshit. Link for THAT claim please.

Oh, and - is a lower fov a zoomed image or not?

[Wolf_Rider]

What have pin and barell distortion to do with flat screen monitors and games? Or are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I should be paying attention to the fact that most CRT monitors display a small amount of distortion due to the way the electron gun propagates light onto the (these days flat) glass screen?

Oh, and - is a lower fov a zoomed image or not?




you need to understand the difference between capturing an image (photography) and displaying an image on a screen (projection) as decsribed before with regard to the virtual world on a two dimensional surface




and ahhh, yes - your CRT monitor...



It is indeed a LOT harder, and I suspect harder still given that I am using a CRT which tend to have very dark blacks. Spotting a series of black dots/shapes against a dark blue background on a dark monitor is a challenge to say the least, but I also suspect its about practice spotting which I lack, given that offline missions tend to be much more straightforward.

[irR4tiOn4L]

you need to understand the difference between capturing an image (photography) and displaying an image on a screen (projection)

IS A LOWER FOV A ZOOMED VIEW OR NOT!

Answer the question.

Also, provide a link to substantiate lower fov settings in games increasing fisheye (curvilinear) distortion. We are not talking about distortion inherent to CRT monitor projection. We are talking about distortion induced by changes in FOV INGAME. Do not teach what you do not know

[Wolf_Rider]

IS A LOWER FOV A ZOOMED VIEW OR NOT!

Answer the question. Do not teach what you do not know





tut -tut -tut -tut -tut

Come now, behave yourself - there's absolutely no need to go shouting

[irR4tiOn4L]

tut -tut -tut -tut -tut

Come now, behave yourself - there's absolutely no need to go shouting

Well now isn't that cute, he thinks he's getting a rise out of somebody. That's what you want isn't it?

If you cannot answer the question, it is clear you should not be talking about this subject, so best you move aside, salvage what is left of your reputation and let the reasonable adults that otherwise occupy these forums discuss this without you.

[irR4tiOn4L]

So you got an answer yet, pops?

Didn't think so. But that's fine. I'll end this discussion here. With an explanation of binoculars and FOV.

http://www.binoculars.org/binocular-basics/understanding-binocular-field-of-view/
Magnification and field of view work opposite each other in binoculars. The more you magnify, the smaller the viewing area around the subject, while lower magnifications yield larger fields of view. Some applications are best suited for lower magnification with wider views of the surroundings. Field of view is an important factor to consider when selecting a binocular.

Check and mate.

[Wolf_Rider]

Well now isn't that cute, he thinks he's getting a rise out of somebody. That's what you want isn't it?

If you cannot answer the question, it is clear you should not be talking about this subject, so best you move aside, salvage what is left of your reputation and let the reasonable adults that otherwise occupy these forums discuss this without you.

You've already offered the "step aside" thing before... did you forget? I also at the time explained that reasonable men (now add adults) don't resort to derision and denigration... neither do they shout.

Put up what you have regarding your claim of FoV and binoculars being the same - go on, I double double dare you :grin: Your hand has been called

[irR4tiOn4L]

You've already offered the "step aside" thing before... did you forget? I also at the time explained that reasonable men (now add adults) don't resort to derision and denigration... neither do they shout.

Put up what you have regarding your claim of FoV and binoculars being the same - go on, I double double dare you :grin: Your hand has been called

Already did.

Sure, you can keep at it. But I've already thoroughly debased your reputation and argument.

From this point out its pointless for me to debate you any further. If you want to obstruct mature discussion with your immature trolling, that talks volumes. As for reasonable men - they would not step aside from the duty to deride the despicable.

But I will give you an opportunity to redeem yourself and get some brownie points, if you can explain to me the role of the sensor/viewing medium, in conjunction with FOV, to create magnification. Ie - what IS magnification? Do you know?

[Wolf_Rider]

Already did.

Sure, you can keep at it. But I've already thoroughly debased your reputation and argument.

From this point out its pointless for me to debate you any further. If you want to obstruct mature discussion with your immature trolling, that talks volumes. As for reasonable men - they would not step aside from the duty to deride the despicable.

But I will give you an opportunity to redeem yourself and get some brownie points, if you can explain to me the role of the sensor/viewing medium, in conjunction with FOV, to create magnification. Ie - what IS magnification? Do you know?



well, if you can't put up something to verify your claim... just say so.


and... "what is magnification??

World English Dictionary
magnification (ˌmæɡnɪfɪˈkeɪʃən)

— n
1. the act of magnifying or the state of being magnified
2. the degree to which something is magnified
3. a copy, photograph, drawing, etc, of something magnified
4. a measure of the ability of a lens or other optical instrument to magnify, expressed as the ratio of the size of the image to that of the object

[irR4tiOn4L]

well, if you can't put up something to verify your claim... just say so.

Already did. Check this post;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=415687&postcount=198

and... "what is magnification??

World English Dictionary
magnification (ˌmæɡnɪfɪˈkeɪʃən)

— n
1. the act of magnifying or the state of being magnified
2. the degree to which something is magnified
3. a copy, photograph, drawing, etc, of something magnified
4. a measure of the ability of a lens or other optical instrument to magnify, expressed as the ratio of the size of the image to that of the object

Well that's a start - so it's the APPARENT size of something isn't it?

So apparent to what (ie, what is the sensor detecting the 'apparent' size of something?), how do we measure apparent size and how can we increase (ie magnify) the apparent size of something?

[Wolf_Rider]

Already did. Check this post;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=415687&postcount=198



Well that's a start - so it's the APPARENT size of something isn't it?

So apparent to what (ie, what is the sensor detecting the 'apparent' size of something?), how do we measure apparent size and how can we increase (ie magnify) the apparent size of something?

yes, I saw your cheap trick there.... well done err except, you were saying FoV and binocluars (zooming) were the same thing. All you have explained is the FoV of a pair of binoculars and the properties of maginfication with regard to which end of the binoculars are being looked through.

try again...

[irR4tiOn4L]

yes, I saw your cheap trick there.... well done err except, you were saying FoV and bonocluars (zooming) were the same thing. All you have explained is the FoV of a pair of binoculars

Ahh but there's more to it - FOV and magnification are LINKED, not just ASPECTS of binoculars you see!

Think deeply for a moment about what is happening. Light is coming in at certain angular limits - lets call this the 'angle of view' and in the case of our eyes its something like 90 degree cones for each eye - and the eye is focussing it onto a small sensor called the retina.

What binoculars, telescopes and magnifying glasses do is modify the Angle of view from which light is being collected, then REFOCUS it onto the eye and retina! Actually, so do photographic lenses.

Let me explain that a bit more. A telescope, for example, will grab light from a cone much smaller than our normal angle of view/field of view of 90 degrees per eye, then refocus and shift the light rays to project them onto our WHOLE retina! So it is as if our retina didn't change in size, but our eye focussed light from a much smaller cone - say a 5 degree cone rather than 90 degree cone - onto it.

The result is that the full visual acuity of our retina is focussed on a much smaller part of the world, and that part of the world appears to increase in size - it is 'magnified'.

In other words, they modify the ANGLE OF VIEW, also know as the FIELD OF VIEW, in order to magnify! IT is the very PRINCIPLE by which magnification works!

A related way of thinking about this is that we judge the size of something by its angular size - the amount of our view that it occupies. Our brain then figures out distance to interpolate actual size. OF course, our brain does not know exactly how much of our field of vision something occupies - it receives information from the retina. So it is actually the size of an image on the retina that is used to judge apparent size. This allows us to trick the brain by bypassing the normal cone of vision our eye projects onto the retina, and thus make a small angle of view occupy more of our retina! Thus, we have magnification.

ANGLE/FIELD OF VIEW is FUNDAMENTAL to magnification!


So now games -

Let's step back for a moment. You are sitting in a room with a monitor a certain distance in front of your of a certain size (lets assume you dont move closer/further). This monitor only occupies a portion of your angle/field of view, and thus only a portion of the image being projected by your eye onto your retina.

On this monitor (lets assume no bezel) is displayed a game with a certain amount of the world displaying according to the game's 'FOV' setting. What does this setting do?

Like a telescope or lens, except purely in the mathematics of 3d rendering, the FOV setting determines how much of the 3d 'scene' to render onto the screen (let's ignore perspective, ie, how straight lines appear and how things are distorted in it, which can of course be changed too). Its not actually a cone, unlike our eye, because the monitor is generally square, but it could be of course. But it is like a rectangular cone into the world.

If the FOV is set high, then a larger rectangular cone of the world is displayed on the monitor - but there is a cost - the monitor has certain acuity limits (resolution for example) and fine detail information is lost. Moreover, however, the monitor still occupies the same portion of the viewer's retina, so things will appear SMALLER than they would in reality, and with less detail (because our retina has acuity limits too).

If we set FOV to EXACTLY EQUAL the angle of view (and portion of our retina) that the monitor's image occupies, than projections of objects on the screen will occupy AS LARGE A PORTION OF OUR RETINA AS THEY WOULD IN REALITY. This is what I call a 1:1 view. The result? OBJECTS APPEAR AT THE SAME ANGULAR AND APPARENT SIZE AS IN REALITY! There's still some loss of acuity though, because the resolution of the monitor is likely LOWER than the visual acuity of our retina to discern details in the image of the monitor projected onto it - in other words, resolution on the monitor is not high enough to exceed the capabilities of our eye. But at 1:1, objects occupy as much of our retina and appear as large as they would in reality.

The big drawback is that only a small portion of the world or a few objects can be displayed on our retina - so we get 'tunnel vision', as you pointed out earlier. Such is the cost of 1:1 apparent size.

So what happens if we set FOV in the game LOWER than the angle/field of view the monitor occupies on our retina? Well we get a zoomed, or 'magnified' (and by this I mean a magnification of more than 1x) view, because the portion of the world displayed on our monitor now occupies a LARGER part of our retina than it would IF WE WERE IN THE GAME WORLD ITSELF AS HUMAN BEINGS. Remember that game worlds are basically representations of our physical worlds as if we occupied them!

This is basically as if we stood in the game world as human beings and use binoculars/telescopes. Now, the apparent size of objects is GREATER than it would be with the normal view of our eye, and so our retina's visual acuity and our monitor's acuity is bieng used to discern MORE detail in a SMALLER portion of the world. Just like telescopes.


Now there is an important aspect that I have not mentioned, and that is the tradeoff between realistic apparent size (ie 1:1 view) and realistic ANGLE OF VIEW INTO THE GAME WORLD. Because we are flexible and goal oriented beings, we do not necessarily put a premium on one or the other, and are able to adapt to either.

In other words, we might consider it more important to use our monitors to display a LARGER portion of the world and a LARGER FOV, despite the loss of visual acuity, because we dont actually need to see fine details to play the game!

OR, and this is why we use it in IL2, we might want to display LESS of the game world and use our monitor to display a SMALLER portion of the world to maximise the visual acuity of fine details, because we need these to play the game (for example gunnery in IL2).

Both are compromises that stem from the fact we are trying to play a game with a small monitor. And this is why I keep telling you that you shouldn't look at this in such an inflexible way - FOV is a compromise, THERE IS NO CORRECT FOV IN A GAME WHEN PRESENTED WITH LIMITED DISPLAY SIZE!

[Wolf_Rider]

Ahh but there's more to it - FOV and magnification are LINKED, not just ASPECTS of binoculars you see!

Think deeply for a moment about what is happening. Light is coming in at certain angular limits - lets call this the 'angle of view' and in the case of our eyes its something like 90 degree cones for each eye - and the eye is focussing it onto a small sensor called the retina.

What binoculars, telescopes and magnifying glasses do is modify the Angle of view from which light is being collected, then REFOCUS it onto the eye and retina! Actually, so do photographic lenses.

Let me explain that a bit more. A telescope, for example, will grab light from a cone much smaller than our normal angle of view/field of view of 90 degrees per eye, then refocus and shift the light rays to project them onto our WHOLE retina! So it is as if our retina didn't change in size, but our eye focussed light from a much smaller cone - say a 5 degree cone rather than 90 degree cone - onto it.

The result is that the full visual acuity of our retina is focussed on a much smaller part of the world, and that part of the world appears to increase in size - it is 'magnified'.

In other words, they modify the ANGLE OF VIEW, also know as the FIELD OF VIEW, in order to magnify! IT is the very PRINCIPLE by which magnification works!

ANGLE/FIELD OF VIEW is FUNDAMENTAL to magnification!




well, if you want to use real binoculars to zoom into the narrow FoV (as selected) of the (any) computer game as displayed on your monitor and view the pixels real big... go right ahead.
With regard to the (any computer) game and selecting a narrow Fov, and using in sim (assuming the game has them available) binoculars, you'll find that changing the FoV and zooming in or out are not the same thing.






*Edit


A related way of thinking about this is that we judge the size of something by its angular size - the amount of our view that it occupies. Our brain then figures out distance to interpolate actual size. OF course, our brain does not know exactly how much of our field of vision something occupies - it receives information from the retina. So it is actually the size of an image on the retina that is used to judge apparent size. This allows us to trick the brain by bypassing the normal cone of vision our eye projects onto the retina, and thus make a small angle of view occupy more of our retina! Thus, we have magnification.




Lenses
A convex lens bends the light that goes through it toward a focal point. The light spreads out again past this focal point. Magnifying glasses are convex lenses. When you use one, the lens bends the light rays so that they come together and focus on the lens within your eye. The light then spreads out as the rays continue past the focal point, and they hit the retina of the eye. The spreading of the light makes the image viewed appear much larger than it really is because it causes the image to take up more space on the retina. Moving the magnifying glass closer or farther away from the eye will change how much the light is spread on the retina. The closer the magnifying glass is to the eye, the bigger the image will appear.



Read more: How Does Magnification Work? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4947702_magnification-work.html#ixzz1tF7id261






ANGLE/FIELD OF VIEW is FUNDAMENTAL to magnification!



No... lenses are... but that seems omitted from your addin to your previous post...

FoV (or as you'll interchange them now Angle of View) is the amount (the angle) the lens "sees"... magnification, via a series of lenses as with binoculars, brings that image closer (or further away if you look down the wrong end)

[irR4tiOn4L]

Reread the post, ive added a lot.

well, if you want to use real binoculars to zoom into the narrow FoV (as selected) of the (any) computer game as displayed on your monitor and view the pixels real big... go right ahead.
Ahh now that is an interesting point - I COULD use binoculars to increase the APPARENT SIZE of the monitor FIRST, and thus make pixels BIGGER in apparent size!

But what am I reallly doing? I am actually increasing the portion of my retina that is taken up by the monitor! And even more interestingly, I am actually changing the real world angle/field of view that the that the monitor occupies and thus need to change the FOV ingame if I want to maintain the same apparent size of objects ingame! Do you see now?

With regard to the (any computer) game and selecting a narrow Fov, and using in sim (assuming the game has them available) binoculars, you'll find that changing the FoV and zooming in or out are not the same thing.

Ah but they are!

Let's think of the typical game binoculars. When you 'activate' them, your whole view is suddenly taken up by a simulated 'view' from them. Here is an example;

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/51/128903212_bf05a963c9.jpg

So what's actually happening?

Well, let's break this down.

First, there is a UI texture being applied that creates the 'binocular' outline itself. That's the black bit around the edge. Its basically just a texture like this;

http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/5488/binoculars22cc.png


But objects clearly appear larger when you use the ingame binoculars! So what actually causes the magnification of the image?

You guessed it! FOV!

All the developers do, apart from this black outline texture, is lower the FOV!

Look at what this 3D Game Programming guide for example has to say;
Page 515
Typical first-person point-of-view games use a 90-degree FOV and often have a 60-degree FOV (or even smaller) zoomed-in view for their sniper scopes or binoculars
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cknGqaHwPFkC&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=ingame+binoculars+fov&source=bl&ots=YFzaeddmgc&sig=0s7IJ8fJznQaJ-X1KvLw_XQBC7w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ApOaT-fKK9CciQfB7MG-Dg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=binoculars&f=false

Yep, that is all there is to it!

[Wolf_Rider]

read mine...I added some as well.


keep on trying....

[irR4tiOn4L]

read mine...I added some as well.


keep on trying....

Have you read my post and what you added? Do you realise they prove me right?

*Edit

Lenses
A convex lens bends the light that goes through it toward a focal point. The light spreads out again past this focal point. Magnifying glasses are convex lenses. When you use one, the lens bends the light rays so that they come together and focus on the lens within your eye. The light then spreads out as the rays continue past the focal point, and they hit the retina of the eye. The spreading of the light makes the image viewed appear much larger than it really is because it causes the image to take up more space on the retina. Moving the magnifying glass closer or farther away from the eye will change how much the light is spread on the retina. The closer the magnifying glass is to the eye, the bigger the image will appear.

Read more: How Does Magnification Work? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4947702_magnification-work.html#ixzz1tF7id261


What is being described here is this - the magnifying glass bends light gathered all over its surface toward a point behind it in a cone. The closer you get to that lens, the bigger the image on your retina, and the more magnified the view.

Do you know another way of describing that? That's right! The amount of your retina taken up by the image determines apparent size!

Think back to what I wrote - it is ultimately the size of the image on your RETINA, not your actual angle of view, that determines apparent size. When nothing interferes with your angle of view, your eye does the focussing onto the retina, and thus your actual angle of view correlates with apparent size.

But if we place a lens - such as a magnifying glass, telescope, binoculars etc - in front of the eye, your ACTUAL ANGLE OF VIEW - ie, the view out from your face - is no longer important, because your eye's field of view has effectively been replaced (or supplemented really) by that of the lens! And depending on the lens, it may have a very wide or narrow angle of view.

The fundamental principle here however is the portion of an image that is being displayed on your retina. The more of an object fills your retina, the larger it will appear!


No... lenses are... but that seems omitted from your addin to your previous post...

FoV (or as you'll interchange them now Angle of View) is the amount (the angle) the lens "sees"... magnification, via a series of lenses as with binoculars, brings that image closer (or further away if you look down the wrong end)

Well it actually makes the image FROM the lens take up more of your retina. Its the image on the retina that is important.

Now you might say - well whats that got to do with fov? Why isnt it just bringing the image 'closer'. Well, first of all, its about the size of an image on the retina, not how 'close' it is. Thats why we talk about angular size.

For example, how big is the sun? Our brain knows its very big, but in reality, it appears no larger than the moon! Thats because the moon is much closer, and its angular size is similar!

If we didn't have extra information to determin which is bigger, we could be forgiven for thinking the sun was no bigger than the moon!

More importantly though, LENSES HAVE FOVS OF THEIR OWN, AND IT IS THIS FOV THAT IS IMPORTANT. In other words, the FOV OUT of the binoculars is given by the lenses in it, and this ultimately determines what portion of the world the binoculars focus on our retina. The smaller this slice of the world, the bigger individual objects appear on our retina - and thus the more they are MAGNIFIED.

[Wolf_Rider]

Have you read my post and what you added? Do you realise they prove me right?




Try that one again...

[irR4tiOn4L]

Try that one again...

Its been updated with a thorough explanation.

But let's just double back to a crucial bit of info;


All the developers do, apart from this black outline texture, is lower the FOV!

Look at what this 3D Game Programming guide for example has to say;

Page 515
Typical first-person point-of-view games use a 90-degree FOV and often have a 60-degree FOV (or even smaller) zoomed-in view for their sniper scopes or binoculars

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cknGqaHwPFkC&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=ingame+binoculars+fov&source=bl&ots=YFzaeddmgc&sig=0s7IJ8fJznQaJ-X1KvLw_XQBC7w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ApOaT-fKK9CciQfB7MG-Dg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=binoculars&f=false

Yep, that is all there is to it!

GAME DEVELOPERS USE FOV TO MAKE ZOOMED IN BINOCULAR AND TELESCOPIC VIEWS!

Yep, it really is all about FOV!

If you want, I can even BUILD you 'mock binoculars' in CLoD, by doing nothing more than changing the FOV and introducing a black outline texture! Its THAT simple!

In other words, every time I switch to 30 fov in IL2 CLoD, its as if I was using what most games call 'binoculars' - it's the same zoomed in view and all it is missing is the black outline texture. But even this 'binocular' view still doesn't make individual objects appear at 1:1 apparent size because my monitor is still too small.

[Wolf_Rider]

In other words, every time I switch to 30 fov in IL2 CLoD, its as if I was using what most games call 'binoculars' -



to make the dots bigger ;)






most FPS's are user altered to run @ 90 deg FoV and in those games running a high FoV is considered a cheat... altering the Fov for zoom, is to "assume" a zoom bearing in mind the technical limitations of monitors.


Field of View is associated with magnification yes, I've never denied that, however, they are not same thing as you claimed earlier.

[irR4tiOn4L]

to make the dots bigger ;)


Ok tell me you're just being an ass now!

But seriously, the dots get harder to see at smaller fovs because of the way they work - they remain the same size in terms of pixels, except now they are further apart and harder to see. Try it!

The main reason you'd want to use a 1:1 view is not to make dots bigger, but to actually FOREGO (mostly) the need for dots!

By making the apparent size of distant aircraft as close to reality as possible, they disappear at the appropriate distance, meaning that dots are no longer necessary.

Remember, dots are artificial rendering modifications introduced by 1C to make spotting aircraft at long distances possible at larger fovs (70/90) - to simulate a real pilot's spotting ability.

most FPS's are user altered to run @ 90 deg FoV and in those games running a high FoV is considered a cheat... altering the Fov for zoom, is to "assume" a zoom bearing in mind the technical limitations of monitors.

Cheat is a relative term and I don't want to discuss that. Let's put it this way - if a modification provides an advantage to a small number of players (which wider fovs in FPS's do) in a competitive environment and it is not officially sanctioned for whatever reason, it is a cheat. It could STILL be realistic you know - but be considered a cheat.

In IL2 CLoD, the difference is that fov facilities are provided and officially sanctioned so its not a cheat.

When it comes to zoom in games though, FOV is what is used to zoom the view by developers, whether we are talking about binoculars, telescopes etc. Thats just a fact


Field of View is associated with magnification, however they are not same thing, as you claimed earlier.

I know its hard to admit, but what I said was true. Let's go back to what I said;
While being as uncondescending as possible, I suggest you review your understanding of what FOV is, how it and binoculars work and what they have in common.

Let's just say that both 'zoom' by taking a small angle of our field of view and re-focussing it to take a larger portion of that field of view.

Small FOV's do this by rendering only a small part of the ingame view and having it cover the full viewing plane/monitor, which would normally display a much wider view.

Binoculars do this by taking light from a small part of our field of view and realigning and refocussing it to take a larger portion of our retina.

The principle however, in both cases, is the same. And perhaps once you understand why, you will grasp why FOV needs to match the field of view taken by your monitor in order to present a 1:1 view.

Then maybe you can end your insistence on 60 being the 'perfect' fov and opposition to the practice of switching between FOV's and realise that, like all viewing technologies, FOV is a compromise compared to our real world visual acuity. We don't do it to make the 'dots bigger' (it actually makes them smaller relative to everything else and much harder to spot) but in order to prevent things becoming dots in the first place and to see everything more clearly like it would appear in real life.

As you can see, what I said was true - the way 'FOV' in games is used to magnify and the way angle of view in binoculars is used to magnify works on the same principles.

What you've said, by contrast, is things like this;
FoV doesn't zoom... binoculars do though, bringing an element of higher level flying difficulty (realistic) with them ;) as well as tracking (re-aquiring).

Which is just completely wrong - FOV is USED to create 'binoculars' in games!


By the way, FOV is very dependent on how far you sit from your monitor and how big it is, and we are by no means helpless as players when it comes to improving our visual acuity. Remember this formula?

FOV = ((((screenwidth/viewer distance)/2)tan-1)2)

Depending on how large your monitor is and particularly how close you sit to your monitor, the 1:1 (or 'optically correct' according to valve) FOV changes a lot!

Lets use my own monitor as an example. My monitor is a 22" CRT that is 41 cm wide on its viewable area (thats screenwidth). So let's see what my 1:1 (ie, optically correct FOV where objects appear roughly as large in terms of apparent size/angular size as in reality) is for various viewing distances:

1 metre - 1:1 FOV = 23 degrees
90 cm - 1:1 FOV = 25 degrees
80 cm - 1:1 FOV = 28 degrees
70 cm - 1:1 FOV = 32 degrees
60 cm - 1:1 FOV = 37 degrees
50 cm - 1:1 FOV = 44 degrees
40 cm - 1:1 FOV = 54 degrees
30 cm - 1:1 FOV = 68 degrees
20 cm - 1:1 FOV = 91 degrees

Notice the fov's I have highlighted. These are the distances at which the relevant FOV appears as near to reality as possible given my existing monitor. If I sit 80cm away, then at 30 fov objects appear roughly as large (and thus easy to spot) as in reality. If I sit 30 cm away, then at 70 fov objects appear roughly as large as in reality. If I sit at an eye-crushing 20cm, then at 90 fov objects appear roughly as large as in reality. Note that 'dots' are more visible at 70/90 fov, and if I sit very close, spotting them will probably be too easy. Notice also how much the 1:1 FOV changes based on just viewing distance! A larger monitor would also have a big effect.

Now remember - 1:1 FOV is the FOV setting at which individual objects on the screen APPEAR ROUGHLY AS LARGE TO OUR EYE AS IN REALITY. Anytime I go BELOW the 1:1 FOV for any given setting - for example, if I am sitting 50 cm away from the monitor and switch to 30 FOV - I am actually MAGNIFYING objects compared to reality, and making more detail visible than a real pilot could see!

So yes, its very possible to gain a large advantage over other players just by moving closer to your monitor, let alone using a larger monitor! And this is not just about 30 FOV - its the same for ANY fov setting - just by moving closer, my 'dots' are indeed getting bigger ;) Are you going to stop moving closer to your monitor when you fly online? Would you like to prevent others from doing the same?

[Wolf_Rider]

Ok tell me you're just being an ass now!




now you're just being plain rude (I'll bet you vote Labor too ;) )




But seriously, the dots get harder to see at smaller fovs because of the way they work - they remain the same size in terms of pixels, except now they are further apart and harder to see. Try it!



not according to what you said here


In other words, every time I switch to 30 fov in IL2 CLoD, its as if I was using what most games call 'binoculars' - it's the same zoomed in view and all it is missing is the black outline texture





The main reason you'd want to use a 1:1 view is not to make dots bigger, but to actually FOREGO (mostly) the need for dots!





But seriously, the dots get harder to see at smaller fovs because of the way they work - they remain the same size in terms of pixels, except now they are further apart and harder to see. Try it!





In other words, every time I switch to 30 fov in IL2 CLoD, its as if I was using what most games call 'binoculars' - it's the same zoomed in view and all it is missing is the black outline texture






By making the apparent size of distant aircraft as close to reality as possible, they disappear at the appropriate distance, meaning that dots are no longer necessary.





Remember, dots are artificial rendering modifications introduced by 1C to make spotting aircraft at long distances possible at larger fovs (70/90) - to simulate a real pilot's spotting ability.



with regard to the limits of current monitor technology and keeping in with the realism




Cheat is a relative term and I don't want to discuss that. Let's put it this way - if a modification provides an advantage to a small number of players (which wider fovs in FPS's do) in a competitive environment and it is not officially sanctioned for whatever reason, it is a cheat. It could STILL be realistic you know - but be considered a cheat.

In IL2 CLoD, the difference is that fov facilities are provided and officially sanctioned so its not a cheat.



go wider with FPS and narrower with combat flight sims... if its sounds like and walks like, a duck ~




When it comes to zoom in games though, FOV is what is used to zoom the view by developers, whether we are talking about binoculars, telescopes etc. Thats just a fact



because of the limitions of computer gaming/ monitors... notice how pupil exit size isn't taken into account






I know its hard to admit, but what I said was true. Let's go back to what I said;


As you can see, what I said was true - the way 'FOV' in games is used to magnify and the way angle of view in binoculars is used to magnify works on the same principles.

What you've said, by contrast, is things like this;


Which is just completely wrong - FOV is USED to create 'binoculars' in games!

FoV is associated with magnification... it is not, however the same thing

Look down a tube with one eye, what happens?






*and an edit for the incessant edits...



So yes, its very possible to gain a large advantage over other players just by moving closer to your monitor, let alone using a larger monitor! And this is not just about 30 FOV - its the same for ANY fov setting - just by moving closer, my 'dots' are indeed getting bigger ;) Are you going to stop moving closer to your monitor when you fly online? Would you like to prevent others from doing the same?



by physically moving closer to the monitor, the dots are getting bigger?
Slightly bigger yes, but in reality all that is achieved is a clearer definition and perhaps eye damage.

and "let alone using a larger monitor"? well that is part of your problem right there ;) (which was taken care of by the developers regarding using real big monitors as a cheat; as in an unfair advantage online)

[irR4tiOn4L]

now you're just being plain rude (I'll bet you vote Labor too ;) )

Well you were being an ass, weren't you? You know dots get smaller with lower fovs but you still insist on saying it. I'm not talking about your intellectual capacity (though I have my doubts given you still don't get it after 10 pages) and political choices, they are your own concern - I am simply describing how you are choosing to behave (like an ass).

Btw, I don't vote Labour. Stereotypes ey!


FoV is associated with magnification... it is not, however the same thing

Look down a tube with one eye, what happens?

You do realise your Field of View does not change when you look down a tube with one eye right? Most of it is simply filled by the tube ;)

It's important to seperate what you see with what is happening.


with regard to the limits of current monitor technology and keeping in with the realism


Lol what you think they are magic? They are just a bunch of pixels that don't even account for FOV! They don't magically give you the most realistic spotting experience you can get.


because of the limitions of computer gaming/ monitors... notice how pupil exit size isn't taken into account


Garbage. FOV is a rendering property and has nothing to do with the limitations of computer gaming and monitors. The CHOICE of FOV does - but not FOV itself.

If everybody suddenly had wraparound monitors, games could suddenly use much wider fovs. But they would still need to use FOV to zoom in.

Remember also that FOV doesnt have to be all or nothing. Modern games can have a general view with one fov and a display within that (like say a sniper scope) that actually renders part of the scene at a different FOV. But FOV is what is being used, period.

go wider with FPS and narrower with combat flight sims... if its sounds like and walks like, a duck ~

In case we ever doubted you are a grating, unpleasant personality that looks for people to blame, you make it clear once more. You must have a very bitter life.

Are you not doing well online? Feel the need to blame the game's sanctioning for fov changes? Well thats too bad. 1C officially sanctions it so its not a cheat. It also happens to make dots harder to spot although it is very useful in other ways, and widely used.

Anyway, I thought you were against whining? What makes you different?

not according to what you said here


You're a bit slow aren't you :)

Let me repeat once more. In practice and my testing, the dots are actually harder to spot in 30 fov. Try it. You'll see :)

Having just done a bit more flying and switching between 70 and 30 fov, it is actually EASIER to spot dots in 70 fov, in some cases, than 30.

So the concerns of wolf and ilk are completely misplaced. Zoomed fov can actually make spotting aircraft more difficult, although double checking on the nature of a dot/contact is much easier.



by physically moving closer to the monitor, the dots are getting bigger?

Of course!

Slightly bigger yes, but in reality all that is achieved is a clearer definition and perhaps eye damage.
No, MUCH bigger! At least 4 times larger. That is also what 'clearer definition' means - each pixel on the monitor is much larger, and occupies more space on your retina, so it is much easier to tell them apart (and the details they represent).

I agree on the eye damage though. Never said it was practical - just possible.:grin:


and "let alone using a larger monitor"? well that is part of your problem right there ;) (which was taken care of by the developers regarding using real big monitors as a cheat; as in an unfair advantage online)
Aren't you using a 22" CRT also?

A larger monitor can, in the strictest sense of the word, be an unfair advantage. If there were an IL2 professional tournament (in like a tournament hall or something), things like this would need be standardised.

But I am not against people using larger monitors of course! A larger monitor is nicer to look at and covers more of your field of view (while still sitting a decent distance from it) which is ultimately more realistic and comfortable.

As for the developers addressing this. I don't know what you are talking about - but I reckon the developers should have no business telling people what monitors to use online. If I had a wraparound, 360 degree view monitor handy, i'd want Cliffs of Dover to support it no matter what certain online knobs thought about it.

[Wolf_Rider]

We don't do it to make the 'dots bigger' (it actually makes them smaller relative to everything else and much harder to spot) but in order to prevent things becoming dots in the first place and to see everything more clearly like it would appear in real life.




which translates as "make the dots bigger"



Zoomed fov can actually make spotting aircraft more difficult, although double checking on the nature of a dot/contact is much easier.

[irR4tiOn4L]

which translates as "make the dots bigger"

Boy, you really didn't do well in school, did you? I bet corporal punishment was banned when you were a kid. Too bad.

The dots ONLY means the high contrast pixels that appear instead of aircraft at long distances.

And those don't get any bigger. Go on. Try it and prove me wrong!

IF it looks like an ass, smells like an ass and talks like an ass..


Anyway, you've had your fair chance. You want to stay ignorant? Your choice.

[Wolf_Rider]

As for the developers addressing this. I don't know what you are talking about - but I reckon the developers should have no business telling people what monitors to use online. If I had a wraparound, 360 degree view monitor handy, i'd want Cliffs of Dover to support it no matter what certain online knobs thought about it.






5. The resolution of detials and LODs is way higher than in lL-2. How far we we will see the type of the object... I can't say right now. All will depends of the all final resource-eaters....
In Il-2 once we did halfransparent dot for the groun objects that to make some ability to see it from longer distance... howver users dislike this system and preffered to go back as it was.
It isn't definitiopn of the LOD only. It is definition of the screen resolution, and power of a system on which we will run BoB in fuuture in a middle settings.
Also due to online gamplay we will need to make it absolutely identical to medium system for the fair gameplay. Its a rule... Or the player with more power PC and greate resolution of the monitor you would be named as a cheater.... We already have great experience in that and many items of gameplay when we need to go for some middle level of details on middle to high power game machines...



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909

[Wolf_Rider]

Boy, you really didn't do well in school, did you? I bet corporal punishment was banned when you were a kid. Too bad.

The dots ONLY means the high contrast pixels that appear instead of aircraft at long distances.

And those don't get any bigger. Go on. Try it and prove me wrong!

IF it looks like an ass, smells like an ass and talks like an ass..


Anyway, you've had your fair chance. You want to stay ignorant? Your choice.




wot?? and no three minute warning? spin it around all you want....





We don't do it to make the 'dots bigger' (it actually makes them smaller relative to everything else and much harder to spot) but in order to prevent things becoming dots in the first place and to see everything more clearly like it would appear in real life.




which translates as "make the dots bigger"



Zoomed fov can actually make spotting aircraft more difficult, although double checking on the nature of a dot/contact is much easier.

[irR4tiOn4L]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=6909

Clearly you just don't understand any of this topic. I expect you are intellectually challenged. Still, I'll post a clarification;

5. The resolution of detials and LODs is way higher than in lL-2. How far we we will see the type of the object... I can't say right now. All will depends of the all final resource-eaters....
He is talking about rendering distances for LODs and objects. Mostly ground objects, as aircraft are already rendered very far out or as dots.

In Il-2 once we did halfransparent dot for the groun objects that to make some ability to see it from longer distance... howver users dislike this system and preffered to go back as it was.
Again, talking about ground objects. Aircraft already have the system in place.

It isn't definitiopn of the LOD only. It is definition of the screen resolution, and power of a system on which we will run BoB in fuuture in a middle settings.
The decision on how far to render ground objects also depends on performance and FPS hit on middle range systems and how far these objects can be seen comes down to factors other than LOD (including screen resolution).


Also due to online gamplay we will need to make it absolutely identical to medium system for the fair gameplay.

Given the last point, you can't have a LOD system that is switched off on medium systems and does not render objects at long distance, but does on high end systems because of fair gameplay. This is about FPS and performance hits, not spotting and dots.

Its a rule... Or the player with more power PC and greate resolution of the monitor you would be named as a cheater....
Justifying the position above, medium system players should be able to have access to the same LOD rendering system for ground objects as power users and any ground object dot system should scale across resolutions to ensure fair gameplay and to prevent the community turning on players using powerful pc's. This is all meant to justify why the developers are taking their time developing a lod system for ground objects.

We already have great experience in that and many items of gameplay when we need to go for some middle level of details on middle to high power game machines...
They like the way dots and other aspects of the graphics and gameplay systems are consistent across low spec and high spec PC's and intend to continue to develop in this way.

Note that they do not say anything about large monitors or aircraft dots.

wot?? and no three minute warning? spin it around all you want....


How old are you?

[Wolf_Rider]

Note that they do not say anything about large monitors or aircraft dots.



keep up the denigrations, son...
and according to you, I would be 7. what's your next one, perhaps something about special needs?



5) will you correct and improve the "distant object visibility" problem we currently have in il2 ? ie seeing distant LoD models correctly as you would see the the same object (plane/truck/tank) from the same distance with the naked eye in real life
- this is not a problem in il2 when you look at a distant aircraft against the open sky because it is a black (or dark grey) object that is seen against a uniform light blue sky background, but there is a MAJOR problem looking for a small LoD model against the textures of the terrain background, it blends in to much.
- for ex right now in il2 when you fly your aircraft at 1500 meters altitude and you look down to scan the ground for objects, you can not see/locate/track an enemy truck or tank that is standing in an open field or is located on an open road (as you can in real life see it, and historical ww2 pilot reports available), but instead in il2 you need to fly at 500 meters altitude to be able to see it (using the 30 FoV zoom function is not the solution, because it creates tunnel vision and you can only scan a very small narrow part of the ground at a time, and loosing all your peripheral vision it makes you very vulnerable to fly like that). this is because the il2 LoD model blends in to much with the terrain textures (with pc grafix it is a flat 2 dimensional LoD model blending in with the colors of the flat 2 dimensional terrain textures, but in real life it is a 3 dimensional solid object that stands out much more)
- will you compensate for this pc grafix problem in BoB and make distant LoD models stand out more so they are correctly visible ? you mentioned we will have more LoD models in BoB, instead of the 3 currently used in il2, but i am asking about making the LoD model stand out more so it is correctly visible and we can see those objects like tank/truck/planes from the exact same distance as we can see them in real life !


was the question to which O.M. responded... "greater resolution" is in reference to larger monitors (you needed to be there at the time ;)










Remember also that FOV doesnt have to be all or nothing. Modern games can have a general view with one fov and a display within that (like say a sniper scope) ~




Which I suggested before, along with a penalty for in cockpit binocular use. Penalty being one hand off the stick or off the throttle (adding an exit pupil penalty as well) coded in.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Which I suggested before, along with a penalty for in cockpit binocular use. Penalty being one hand off the stick or off the throttle (adding an exit pupil penalty as well) coded in.

Tell you what. Since this is plainly all you want, why don't you go start a thread about it, have your idea rejected on its own merit, and leave what is here to be considered on its? You're clearly not interested in anything I have to say and, well, given that I have already heard the breadth of your input, I would have to say the feeling is mutual.

I'm not sure why I continued the discussion. Perhaps I thought you might be interested, against the odds, in learning something about FOV and its uses. I was clearly wrong. So considering that your only aim is to raise hell about the inequity of fov switching and the perfection to be attained in the 60 fov + binoculars, I can't help you. Why don't you go look for a broader audience?

Sincerely,

Bored and disinterested

[Wolf_Rider]

leaving again??

that's three dollars I've lost already and now it is looking like a fourth...


well you want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees", so those penalties for incockpit binoculars (zoom) would be perfect.

Oh, hang on... you'd only want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees" up to a point, eh

and you're still stuck on the photography aspect, when in reality, you could have learnt something from projection, which is the image on the screen.

[irR4tiOn4L]

leaving again??

that's three dollars I've lost already and now it is looking like a fourth...


well you want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees", so those penalties for incockpit binoculars (zoom) would be perfect.

Oh, hang on... you'd only want "realism" and "what the pilot really sees" up to a point, eh

and you're still stuck on the photography aspect, when in reality, you could have learnt something from projection, which is the image on the screen.

Well it seems to me that you are the one who wants something and are upset that its regarded as something silly that nobody else wants. So you come here and waste my time, and almost certainly waste your time.

Why bother? Just accept that you wont get a riser or support out of me or anyone else. Least of all the devs. Get over it and move on. Or get banned, I don't care.

[Wolf_Rider]

Bugga... there goes that fourth dollar


Banned because I suggested you only want "what the pilot really sees" up to a certain point? nah... you got upset because you got caught out - any more names you want to call me??

[6S.Manu]

irR4tiOn4L, it seems that you didn't follow the advise you gave to me. :D

[6S.Manu]

why not just a developer determined (60 ~ 75 degree), and locked FoV and binoculars?

You want realistic? that's your boy ;)

Ok with your 60fov and real size objects you totally lose your peripherical vision: how do you think to solve this VERY important issue?

We are talking about a combat flight simulator here...

[irR4tiOn4L]

irR4tiOn4L, it seems that you didn't follow the advise you gave to me. :D

I sorely regretted it, I assure you!

The number one rule of giving advice: make sure you follow it yourself first!

Well I do hope SOME of the last 15 pages was useful to someone.

Ok with your 60fov and real size objects you totally lose your peripherical vision: how do you think to solve this VERY important issue?

We are talking about a combat flight simulator here...

60 Fov is actually only marginally more zoomed than 70 fov (which I use for SA). Its probably not 'real size' objects either for most people's monitors/viewing distance.

For example, on my 22" CRT, 22 fov would be 'real size' (which is obviously a huge loss of SA). I would need to sit just 40cm away to make 60 fov display objects at 'real size'.

The basic thing to understand about Wolf Rider's contributions in this thread though is that he doesn't care what you have to say or what problems you have. He actually just wants people to stop switching to zoomed fovs like 30 fov because he blames this for his lack of performance online (bet he flies through trees to escape though).

He feels that people are 'zooming in' with 30 fov and unfairly making the dots bigger. He is so outraged about it that he spites them for it by suggesting the developers should replace 30 fov with ingame 'binoculars' instead. But remember that basic thing - he doesn't actually care what you think or have to say about it.

[Wolf_Rider]

Ok with your 60fov ~ totally lose your peripherical vision: how do you think to solve this VERY important issue?

We are talking about a combat flight simulator here...

exactly correct (in any angle of view used though) , in fact you lose your "peripheral vision" entirely (when using a monitor/ screen), as you would require a full 360 degree screen (ie inside a sphere) and the flight sim would have to be coded to project onto it properly.






and with a change of tac., I'm now a dollar up ;)

[6S.Manu]

exactly correct (in any angle of view used though) , in fact you lose your "peripheral vision" entirely (when using a monitor/ screen), as you would require a full 360 degree screen (ie inside a sphere) and the flight sim would have to be coded to project onto it properly.

It's not an answer.

Since this simulator had to be sold to "average" buyers who can't permit themselves to own such a sphere (if it really exists... but why 360°? 180°h & 120°v is the human fov) we have to reach a compromise. So I repeat: how can you retain real size objects keeping at the same time a realistic peripheral vision?

[Wolf_Rider]

It's not an answer.




re-read the reply... "peripheral vision" can't be recreated on a monitor which sits directly in front of you.




Since this simulator had to be sold to "average" buyers who can't permit themselves to own such a sphere (if it really exists... but why 360°? 180°h & 120°v is the human fov)




the simmer may wish to "look around" and with anything less, they would lose full range. If the simmer just wanted to look straight ahead... a sphere wouldn't be necessary at all and something that fiited with the range of vision would suffice, to maintain "usable" and "peripheral vision".




we have to reach a compromise.




in computer modelling (simming) that is the name of the game, though some of the reasons why a "compromise" is adopted may vary....




So I repeat: how can you retain real size objects keeping at the same time a realistic peripheral vision?




see the above points, you've inadvertently answered your own question

[6S.Manu]

re-read the reply... "peripheral vision" can't be recreated on a monitor which sits directly in front of you.

So here you are showing that you didn't understand what this thread is about: it's not about what you (player) see, it's about what the pilot sees in a combat flight simulator that is not an expensive military simulator (they can have all they want... US army is spending $57millions on an infantry simulator).

When you pull a high G manouvre and the image on your screen blackens what's happening? It's the pilot's G-Lock, not yours.

When a shell pass through the cockpit it's the pilot the one who gets hurt, not the player.

Lets change sim:
In Arma2 your soldier is running and after 30 seconds he slows down: but you (player) are not tired...

Peripheral vision can't be reproduced? Really?

Take one of the old Quake games and change the fov to a great number like 180 (I remember playing at 90 probably)... then you have the same fov of a human being but things are distorted and smaller and you still see clearly enemies at your 3 and 9 o'clock.

It's easy for a graphic engine to reproduce peripheral vision with those settings: the game renders really detailed objects in front of you (60°) while on your left and right it renders approximate objects (like blurred shadows) that you need to put on your focus to recognize them.

Here's a Fisheye Quake image with fov at 170...
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2903/70779523.jpg

You only need to decide which's your priority: a realistic reppresentation of what a real pilot can see while he's looking through a 22" monitor (PPI 92) or a distorted one that give to you more important informations (but still not all of them, and these are the targets of this thread).

IL2's choice is between them. The 30fov and the 90fov are need to balance out the things because:

A) Objects in normal fov are smaller
B) The normal FOV is not bigger enough to have a realistic SA.

And then, about the zoom cheat we could talk about visual acuity, PPI and DPI... but I really got to work now...

[irR4tiOn4L]

post

Well said, I appreciated that explanation.

[Wolf_Rider]

So here you are showing that you didn't understand what this thread is about: it's not about what you (player) see, it's about what the pilot sees in a combat flight simulator that is not an expensive military simulator (they can have all they want... US army is spending $57millions on an infantry simulator).




It is difficult to determine exactly what the OP is about, but what is clear is the topic seems to be on "we can't spot the dots" (yes its a topic which has come up from time to time in various forms over many years now.




When you pull a high G manouvre and the image on your screen blackens what's happening? It's the pilot's G-Lock, not yours.




Yes, that's right... it is simulated




When a shell pass through the cockpit it's the pilot the one who gets hurt, not the player.




That is correct for most games




Lets change sim:
In Arma2 your soldier is running and after 30 seconds he slows down: but you (player) are not tired...




depends on how long the player has been playing the game for... but basically, what you say is corrrect...




Peripheral vision can't be reproduced? Really?




With a full wrap around screen it can, with the correct coding... but not sitting in front of a monitor




Take one of the old Quake games and change the fov to a great number like 180 (I remember playing at 90 probably)... then you have the same fov of a human being but things are distorted and smaller and you still see clearly enemies at your 3 and 9 o'clock.




nooo, that is 180 degree FoV and explains clearly why those simmers want to run at as large a FoV as possible





It's easy for a graphic engine to reproduce peripheral vision with those settings: the game renders really detailed objects in front of you (60°) while on your left and right it renders approximate objects (like blurred shadows) that you need to put on your focus to recognize them.





Its still not "peripheral vision".




Here's a Fisheye Quake image with fov at 170...
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2903/70779523.jpg

You only need to decide which's your priority: a realistic reppresentation of what a real pilot can see looking through a 22" monitor (PPI 92) or a distorted one that give to you more important informations (but still not all of them, and these are the targets of this thread).

IL2's choice is between them. The 30fov and the 90fov are need to balance out the things because:

A) Objects in normal fov are smaller
B) The normal FOV is not bigger enough to have a realistic SA.




Normal in cockpit FoV is 70, not 30 or 90 and the distortion comes from switching to a FoV other than "normal", "what the pilot really sees" can only be "what the pilot really sees" on a full wrap around screen system and really... the snapshot is only a very large FoV projected onto the monitor




And then, about the zoom cheat we could talk about visual acuity, PPI and DPI... but I really got to work now...



as mentioned earlier, that's why FPS simmers want to run as large a FoV as possible






Now, if your above remarks are for in favour of "what the pilot really sees", then your attempted points on peripheral vision should clearly indicate to you that a large Fov compared to your narrow FoV favoured, is also "what the pilot really sees"

[irR4tiOn4L]

So moving on Manu, have you given more thought or developed your idea?

[ramstein]

I use a 46" lcd hdtv, and the supid dot doesn't get bigger, still stuck with a tiny dot up until you can smell the engine.. seriously,, the dot thingy is a big (tiny) problem..

[irR4tiOn4L]

I use a 46" lcd hdtv, and the supid dot doesn't get bigger, still stuck with a tiny dot up until you can smell the engine.. seriously,, the dot thingy is a big (tiny) problem..

Really? How far away do you sit and what is its resolution?