A potential fix for the Aircraft visibility problems?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

As everyone who flys this sim knows, nothing is more frustrating than having your eye on a dot which you KNOW is an enemy aircraft, and then having it disappear from view just as you close to within Identification range.

This is a function of the game's LOD models, these are a step forward in the sense there are 7 of them instead of the 3 in IL-2 1946, but at the same time they are also one of the game's biggest failings.

The issue is the developers have not taken into account the notion of depth of field and the fact an aircraft in 3 dimensions is not going to be at the same focal length as the objects behind it, especially when those objects are quite distant.

When you focus your eye on an aircraft, the background will almost invariably be out of focus, simply because of the separation in distance between the foreground and the background.

Your own eye's focus brings the foreground aircraft into sharp focus, in effect creating a boundary between it and the background, which is out of focus. This allows your eye to separate the object from the background. Conversely, if you are looking at a background, and another object passes in front of your eye and in front of the background, you will pick up the difference in focus, the object will appear initially blurred, and your eye will automatically snap into focus on it.

Of course we are dealing with a 2 D game, attempting to replicate real life. How to do this?

The solution, if the game can handle it, is quite simple.

As it stands now, an aircraft LOD model which is passing in front of a similarly coloured background, ie. a camoflauged aircraft, will blend into the background, there is no depth of field, and no way for your eye to focus directly on the aircraft. This is particularly the case with CoD with its pastel colourings and the fact there is no reflection modelled.

Some players have a solution for this, they turn down the resolution to enable them to spot their enemy easier. And maybe this does make it easier to pick out your opponent, but what is the point of a game with all the graphics highlights of this one having to be uglified to be playable?

The solution is to highlight the edges of the LOD models with a darker colouring. In effect, you are drawing a sharp line around the edge of the object, in the same way your eye does with focal length, and by doing so, you are causing it to stand out against the background, as it would in real life.

Of course the question is, can the game be programmed and can the graphics models be modified?

Hoping this does happen, because right now the current situation is neither realistic or playable.

[SlipBall]

I do not have this problem:confused:

[Wolf_Rider]

You would need a "Focus on Target" setting button, which would boka the background and double vision the foreground... as well as the "target" set as 3d in all LoD's.

But, that only works when viewing in close range... viewing from off at a distance the sim would need to deal with, it doesn't happen that way


even then, some wouldn't find the target and complain...

The eye doesn't put a "black edge" to objects and the further the objects are away from the viewer, the more they go to grey


Basically, what you want is three monitors (at least) with each projection onto each monitor set to 20 ~ 25 degrees. NOT as current when using one, two or three monitors , which has the FoV set to 60 ~75 degrees across the spread

[SQB]

In my opinion the air target's distant spot should be 3*3 pixels, with light pixels on the outside and dark pixels on the inside (or vice versa, doesn't make a difference). Meanwhile, ground targets should still be the current size and shade.

[David198502]

i fully agree with the OP, and in fact it was exactly that what i was thinking about two days ago...how to make the contacts better visible in a realistic manner....

a focus on target button would be horrible in my honest opinion...maybe optional for not full real servers...but definitely not as a "always available option".

the most annoying fact about the disappearing contacts is, that it was not the case with the release version.it was still hard to spot enemy planes, but at least, they didnt disappear completely like spits do now for example.
making the edges darker sounds like a solution...it wouldnt be possible in the case where the aircraft is visible only as a dot of one pixel,...but in that distance, the pixel is visible good enough anyway in my opinion...the real problem starts, when the aircraft is getting closer and switches from being a dot to being a 3d model.

[HR_Naglfar]

Did any of you tried MeshShowLod=1 in conf.ini?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28085

[ATAG_Bliss]

Did any of you tried MeshShowLod=1 in conf.ini?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28085
I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA. We have no crisp images at much over 30m away so at a few kilometers away, while trying to keep track of this dot, it looks like a tearing small blob on your screen. AA would be a start IMO. I do not like the LOD issues at all.

[Wolf_Rider]

~ for example.
making the edges darker sounds like a solution... ~



is far from "realistic :cool: you might as well just ask for a flashing neon arrow pointing to the target

[SlipBall]

Now I am wondering if my 120HZ is a factor

[HR_Naglfar]

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA. We have no crisp images at much over 30m away so at a few kilometers away, while trying to keep track of this dot, it looks like a tearing small blob on your screen. AA would be a start IMO. I do not like the LOD issues at all.

That would be the case with the people that have difficulties to see the dots, when the dots are there... But when there is no dot nor 3D model at all in the transition from dot to 3D model AA would do nothing.

Of course may be difficult to distinguish between one problem and the other...

[David198502]

is far from "realistic :cool: you might as well just ask for a flashing neon arrow pointing to the target

well and your focuse on target button is?:grin:

and it would be at least more realistic than what we currently have to cope with...planes that disappear completley a few hundred meters in front of you.

[Wolf_Rider]

well and your focuse on target button is?:grin:

and it would be at least more realistic than what we currently have to cope with...planes that disappear completley a few hundred meters in front of you.

so would a flashing neon arrow... (did you actuially read the whole post, or just have a knee jerk reaction triggered carry-on to that one part?)

the disappearing trick is a bug - you are aware of that, aren't you??

[HR_Naglfar]

well and your focuse on target button is?:grin:

and it would be at least more realistic than what we currently have to cope with...planes that disappear completley a few hundred meters in front of you.

If you are sure that they really disappear MeshShowLod=1 solves that.

[David198502]

well go ahead with your flashing neon arrow and focus target button!
worthless to talk to you...

[David198502]

If you are sure that they really disappear MeshShowLod=1 solves that.

i know about that,...unfortunately it has a major performance hit on my rig, so its not useful for me.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Original IL-2 had these LOD problems where you could barely see certain planes at distances but Bf109 was always a big blob on the screen making it easy to spot them. This was solved for UP by a guy who checked the LOD values of all planes and made them transition much smoother thus making ID more viable for BOTH sides of the fence.

What I do not understand why is it so damn hard to make it better? You can blame WoP or it's sequels from being arcade but at least you can ID a plane and it does NOT disappear in front of you among other things I won't go into. Future proof game engine does not mean you need a phantasmagorically awesome rig to even run it to get disappearing stuff etc. but an engine that has as solid base to build upon. And CoD does not have that at the moment unless devs pull off a miracle in sequel.

And had to vent, really not inviting to play if I have to drop resolution from my native 1920x1080 to actually be able to see anything while uglifying the game in the process..

[HR_Naglfar]

i know about that,...unfortunately it has a major performance hit on my rig, so its not useful for me.

Your pc is rendering planes that didn't have to render before, I think it's normal...

It's really so big the fps drop?

[Wolf_Rider]

well go ahead with your flashing neon arrow and focus target button!
worthless to talk to you...



Actually... it is your (equivalent of) flashing neon arrow. SOmething else you haven't read fully??

[Flanker35M]

S!

Tested the ShowFirstLod and has no impact on FPS...now testing the other one.

[David198502]

Your pc is rendering planes that didn't have to render before, I think it's normal...

It's really so big the fps drop?

yeah, unfortunately....normally i have around constant ~60fps
with meshshowlod enabled, i get ~15fps and heavy stutters as soon as there are more than 5planes around.

but i have a weak pc....some squadmates have it enabled and report no real performance difference....others tried to enable it, and see no difference in visibility...its strange.
but certainly worth a try for everybody.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Sure has an impact on FPS that one..

[David198502]

S!

Tested the ShowFirstLod and has no impact on FPS...now testing the other one.

yeah that one indeed doesnt seem to affect performance, but it doesnt seem to affect the visibility either...

[Flanker35M]

S!

Could really use some more info on conf.ini on the settings..or the devs could just make the UI use them instead of trial and error we have now. Any decent UI in games has both basic and advanced settings that control the MOST used and featured items in the graphics. Only those HC guys tweak more but as a normal user you should not need this..AT ALL!

[HR_Naglfar]

MeshFirstLod only added some kind of low detail cockpit under the "real" cockpit when I tested it long time ago. It's just MeshShowLod what changes the LOD transitions.

[zapatista]

now that CoD has become playable for many of us in the last few months, it is clear there is a major problem in CoD with distant aircraft/ground-object (like tank/truck) spotting as there was in the il2 series. it is important to try and fix this because for a "ww2 pilot simulator" to be able to have correct visual spotting/identification/tracking distances for these distant objects (crucial in a dogfight or hunting for ground targets), otherwise you end up flying in a myopic mini-bubble of SA. for ex in il2 series you needed to fly at 300 m from the ground to try and spot a tank/truck, yet ww2 reports from pilots doing ground attack state they could spot enemy tanks in open fields or on roads from 1000 to 1250 meters, that difference is HUGE compared to our visibility problems in il2/CoD

note: to get a real sense of the degree of the visibility problem, you need to set your CoD/il2 monitor to the correct FoV setting for the size monitor you have and the distance you sit from it (which in CoD we cant directly adjust, but in il2 series we could). eg using a "zoomed" view is not an excuse/reason to pretend we have correct visibility, you never heard of a hurricane or typhoon pilot using a pair of binoculars while diving in on a ground target (or having one strapped to his helmet). there have been several threads over the years (including in this forum) discussing that in great detail, the facts are fairly simple. for ex the "normal" view we now have (70 FoV) is only normal (ie "correct") if you have a 30' monitor you sit at arms length from, if you use that on a 24' or 20' screen all distant objects will look MUCH smaller (by about 30 - 50%). using the zoomed 35 FoV migh partially overcome that (but will zoom in to much and hence magnify things) but gives a very tunnel vision perspective of the game and is not solution either for obvious reasons.
- the reason i mention this is because if you want to truly solve the distant LoD model visibility problem, for a start your FoV needs to be setup correctly for your monitor size, and only then will all ingame objects be represented 1:1 in their correct sizes

once FoV is set correctly, our problem is that :
- we are using a flat 2 dimensional monitor that tries to represent a small distant 3 dimensional object which moves (or is stationary) against a flat 2D scenery, and it blends in with the background scenery and there is no difference in "depth of focus" or 3D our eyes can work with (as the OP described int he first post of this thread)
- the distant LoD model is under ideal viewing conditions (for ex from directly above or in front) shaped as a coherent cluster of pixels that still represents the shape of the aircraft, BUT if you see it at a slightly different angle (since both you and it are moving) in most circumstances that little cluster of pixels will become jumbled and less coherent and will loose the shape of the aircraft it represents, making it MUCH harder to keep track of (it might have gone from 12 black pixels in the rough shape of an aircraft, to being 3 black pixels in one blob with a few grey ones around it and a couple of other "unattached" black pixels). easier to understand with a screenshot, will try and post one later
- some LoD models might stand out reasonably well against open blue sky, but the same LoD model usually becomes completely invisible against a terrain background (where in RL it would still be MUCH easier to spot). so what we need is instead a "visual representation" (modified LoD model concept) that stays visible against the terrain background more, but doesnt become to glaringly ugly and prominent when the same LoD model is seen against open blue sky

some possible solutions discussed in previous years:
- make all the smaller LoD models much darker (or a bright blue ?) so they stand out more (instead of sing a paint scheme that aims to represent the real color of the object it represents)
- give the smaller LoD models "3D volume" by using something like bump mapping, so they stand out more against the scenery background
- paint the smaller most distant LoD models in "non realistic" colors so they stand out more (or use some highlighting method around the edge of the shape, as the OP suggests)
- instead of focusing on having distant very small LoD models maintaining the shape of the aircraft they represent (which is done very poorly anyway because our smallest pixels arnt small enough to give that level of detail), use instead a "blob" or fixed larger number of black/grey pixels of some shape that makes the object stand out a bit more and overcome the problem we have of using a 2D screen. once you come closer to it, or use the zoom function, the larger LoD models would still keep the shape of the object of course.

note: there is one important variable in people reporting their degree of "distant object visibility" in CoD/il2. in the past, those that had the least problems identifying distant objects were those using the cheapest gaming monitors. these cheap gaming panels are usually TN technology and are 6 bit color (compared to most mid range and better quality panels being 8 bit color and using MVA/PVA or IPS technology).
- because these 6 bit panels are very poor at representing a large gradient in grey scales and color tones, a small moving distant object (which due to constant lighting changes on that object, is constantly slightly changing in tone/brightness/color) is very hard for these panels to recreate in great detail and display these subtle variations, so they have to constantly flip between different steps in the shades of grey (an 8 bit monitor has more "steps" and can display a greater range of shades of grey and color tones, so it is a much smoother transition). the more gross these "steps" in the 6 bit panels in trying to display the small cluster of pixels representing the distant little aircraft LoD model painted in grey/color, this results in a "flickering" that makes the moving object stand out much more against its background (for the same reason these 6 bit screens are bad at representing a uniform black/grey background in movies, where this flickering is very noticeable once you know what to look for)

i would suggest that people who claim not to have a significant visibility problem state
1) the field of view (FoV) they are using, and DONT use a zoomed view (because it is like using binoculars)
2) state the brand/model of screen they use
3) then compare object visibility to what it would be like as seen in a similar real life situation

[SlipBall]

now that CoD has become playable for many of us in the last few months, it is clear there is a major problem in CoD with distant aircraft/ground-object (like tank/truck) spotting as well. it is important to try and fix this because for a "ww2 pilot simulator" to be able to have correct visual spotting/identification/tracking distances for these distant objects (crucial in a dogfight or hunting for ground targets), otherwise you end up flying in a myopic mini-bubble of SA. for ex in il2 series you needed to fly at 300 m from the ground to try and spot a tank/truck, yet ww2 reports from pilots doing ground attack state they could spot enemy tanks in open fields or on roads from 1000 to 1250 meters, that difference is HUGE compared to our visibility problems in il2/CoD

note: to get a real sense of the degree of the visibility problem, you need to set your CoD/il2 monitor to the correct FoV setting for the size monitor you have and the distance you sit from it (which in CoD we cant directly adjust, but in il2 series we could). eg using a "zoomed" view is not an excuse/reason to pretend we have correct visibility, you never heard of a hurricane or typhoon pilot using a pair of binoculars while diving in on a ground target (or having one strapped to his helmet). there have been several threads over the years (including in this forum) discussing that in great detail, the facts are fairly simple. for ex the "normal" view we now have (70 FoV) is only normal (ie "correct") if you have a 30' monitor you sit at arms length from, if you use that on a 24' or 20' screen all distant objects will look MUCH smaller (by about 30 - 50%). using the zoomed 35 FoV migh partially overcome that (but will zoom in to much and hence magnify things) but gives a very tunnel vision perspective of the game and is not solution either for obvious reasons.
- the reason i mention this is because if you want to truly solve the distant LoD model visibility problem, for a start yor FoV needs to be setup correctly for your monitor size, and only then will all ingame objects be represented 1:1 in their correct sizes

once FoV is set correctly, our problem is that :
- we are using a flat 2 dimensional monitor that tries to represent a small distant 3 dimensional object which moves (or is stationary) against a flat 2D scenery, and it blends in with the background scenery and there is no difference in "depth of focus" or 3D our eyes can work with
- the distant LoD model is under ideal viewing conditions (for ex from directly above or in front) shaped as a coherent cluster of pixels that still represents the shape of the aircraft, BUT if you see it at a slightly different angle (since both you and it are moving) in most circumstances that little cluster of pixels will become jumbled and less coherent and will loose the shape of the aircraft it represents, making it MUCH harder to keep track of (it might have gone from 12 black pixels in the rough shape of an aircraft, to being 3 black pixels in one blob with a few grey ones around it and a couple of other "unattached" black pixels). easier to understand with a screenshot, will try and post one later

some possible solutions discussed in previous years:
- make all the smaller LoD models much darker so they stand out more (instead of sing a paint scheme that aims to represent the real color of the object it represents)
- give the smaller LoD models "3D volume" by using something like bump mapping, so they stand out more
- paint the smaller most distant LoD models in "non realistic" colors so they stand out more

note: there is one important variable in people reporting their degree of "distant object visibility" in CoD/il2. in the past, those that had the least problems identifying distant objects were those using the cheapest gaming monitors. these cheap gaming panels are usually TN technology and are 6 bit color (compared to most mid range and better quality panels being 8 bit color and using MVA/PVA or IPS technology).
- because these 6 bit panels are very poor at representing a large gradient in grey scales and color tones, a small moving distant object (which due to lighting changes on that object, is constantly slightly changing in tone/brightness/color) is very hard for these panels to recreate in great detail and display these subtle variations, so they have to constantly flip between different steps in the shades of grey (an 8 bit monitor has more "steps" and can display a greater range of shades of grey and color tones, so it is a much smoother transition). the more gross these "steps" in the 6 bit panels in trying to display the small cluster of pixels representing the distant little aircraft LoD model painted in grey/color, this results in a "flickering" that makes the moving object stand out much more against its background (for the same reason these 6 bit screens are bad at representing a uniform black/grey background in movies, where this flickering is very noticeable once you know what to look for)

i would suggest that people who claim not to have a significant visibility problem state
1) the field of view (FoV) they are using, and DONT use a zoomed view (because it is like using binoculars)
2) state the brand/model of screen they use


I'm not sure that there is a problem with the game itself. I just turned on icon to find the distance I was viewing perfectly fine without the icons on. It turned out to be 1.96 Spit1 the furthest we were separated in this test (so is'nt that 2000 yards), and I had no problem tracking the dot itself. In fact as the AI was positioning for a landing, his wings would clearly show against the darker terrain. I think its very important that if a pilot looses contact, to then look where it should be and it will be picked up again...in short it does not disappear, at least with off-line.

[recoilfx]

Turn off FXAA if you are using it. I couldn't spot dots for crap till I turned it off. Post processed anti-aliasing will filter out 1px dots pretty easily.

I actually kind of like the how planes get camouflaged against the background, it just takes a lot more practice to spot planes.

My strategy is to move a little, pause my head, and scan the WHOLE screen with only my eyes moving, then move on to the next section of the sky. Kind of like a robot.

When your head is not moving and your eyes focus on one area of the screen, it's much easier to pick out moving objects.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

now that CoD has become playable for many of us in the last few months, it is clear there is a major problem in CoD with distant aircraft/ground-object (like tank/truck) spotting as there was in the il2 series. it is important to try and fix this because for a "ww2 pilot simulator" to be able to have correct visual spotting/identification/tracking distances for these distant objects (crucial in a dogfight or hunting for ground targets), otherwise you end up flying in a myopic mini-bubble of SA. for ex in il2 series you needed to fly at 300 m from the ground to try and spot a tank/truck, yet ww2 reports from pilots doing ground attack state they could spot enemy tanks in open fields or on roads from 1000 to 1250 meters, that difference is HUGE compared to our visibility problems in il2/CoD

note: to get a real sense of the degree of the visibility problem, you need to set your CoD/il2 monitor to the correct FoV setting for the size monitor you have and the distance you sit from it (which in CoD we cant directly adjust, but in il2 series we could). eg using a "zoomed" view is not an excuse/reason to pretend we have correct visibility, you never heard of a hurricane or typhoon pilot using a pair of binoculars while diving in on a ground target (or having one strapped to his helmet). there have been several threads over the years (including in this forum) discussing that in great detail, the facts are fairly simple. for ex the "normal" view we now have (70 FoV) is only normal (ie "correct") if you have a 30' monitor you sit at arms length from, if you use that on a 24' or 20' screen all distant objects will look MUCH smaller (by about 30 - 50%). using the zoomed 35 FoV migh partially overcome that (but will zoom in to much and hence magnify things) but gives a very tunnel vision perspective of the game and is not solution either for obvious reasons.
- the reason i mention this is because if you want to truly solve the distant LoD model visibility problem, for a start your FoV needs to be setup correctly for your monitor size, and only then will all ingame objects be represented 1:1 in their correct sizes

once FoV is set correctly, our problem is that :
- we are using a flat 2 dimensional monitor that tries to represent a small distant 3 dimensional object which moves (or is stationary) against a flat 2D scenery, and it blends in with the background scenery and there is no difference in "depth of focus" or 3D our eyes can work with
- the distant LoD model is under ideal viewing conditions (for ex from directly above or in front) shaped as a coherent cluster of pixels that still represents the shape of the aircraft, BUT if you see it at a slightly different angle (since both you and it are moving) in most circumstances that little cluster of pixels will become jumbled and less coherent and will loose the shape of the aircraft it represents, making it MUCH harder to keep track of (it might have gone from 12 black pixels in the rough shape of an aircraft, to being 3 black pixels in one blob with a few grey ones around it and a couple of other "unattached" black pixels). easier to understand with a screenshot, will try and post one later

some possible solutions discussed in previous years:
- make all the smaller LoD models much darker so they stand out more (instead of sing a paint scheme that aims to represent the real color of the object it represents)
- give the smaller LoD models "3D volume" by using something like bump mapping, so they stand out more
- paint the smaller most distant LoD models in "non realistic" colors so they stand out more (or use some highlighting method around the edge of the shape, as the OP suggests)
- instead of focusing on having distant very small LoD models maintaining the shape of the aircraft they represent (which is done very poorly anyway because our smallest pixels arnt small enough to give that level of detail), use instead a "blob" or fixed larger number of black/grey pixels of some shape that makes the object stand out a bit more and overcome the problem we have of using a 2D screen. once you come closer to it, or use the zoom function, the larger LoD models would still keep the shape of the object of course.

note: there is one important variable in people reporting their degree of "distant object visibility" in CoD/il2. in the past, those that had the least problems identifying distant objects were those using the cheapest gaming monitors. these cheap gaming panels are usually TN technology and are 6 bit color (compared to most mid range and better quality panels being 8 bit color and using MVA/PVA or IPS technology).
- because these 6 bit panels are very poor at representing a large gradient in grey scales and color tones, a small moving distant object (which due to constant lighting changes on that object, is constantly slightly changing in tone/brightness/color) is very hard for these panels to recreate in great detail and display these subtle variations, so they have to constantly flip between different steps in the shades of grey (an 8 bit monitor has more "steps" and can display a greater range of shades of grey and color tones, so it is a much smoother transition). the more gross these "steps" in the 6 bit panels in trying to display the small cluster of pixels representing the distant little aircraft LoD model painted in grey/color, this results in a "flickering" that makes the moving object stand out much more against its background (for the same reason these 6 bit screens are bad at representing a uniform black/grey background in movies, where this flickering is very noticeable once you know what to look for)

i would suggest that people who claim not to have a significant visibility problem state
1) the field of view (FoV) they are using, and DONT use a zoomed view (because it is like using binoculars)
2) state the brand/model of screen they use

+1 Zapatista. Concur with recommendations.

For me, the "dot" issue is one of the 2 biggest issues in the sim at this time. I like your suggestions. There are of course, several related visibility issues which make this spotting problem in VFR conditions even worse:

- Contrails are not rendered at this time.
- When contrails were rendered, the max visibility range was too low. On a clear day one should see contrails many miles away.

The second major issue in the simulation is the inabilty for any of our aircraft to operate at altitudes greater than 6-7 km's.

In essence, the dot visibility issue mentioned here + lack of contrails + loss of contrail visibility, really forces multi-player into an Eastern Front style of air combat. The majority of MP action one finds on servers is below 3 Km.

Why? Practicality. Can't see, can't operate at higher altitudes and even if I could I can't see too well. Too much of that great Channel map is unusable to fairly blind pilots who can't operate their aircraft at typical Western European combat altitudes.

What can you do in this situation: Take bombs, sneak in at low altitude, make attack - go home, land - get points.

[zapatista]

I'm not sure that there is a problem with the game itself. I just turned on icon to find the distance I was viewing perfectly fine without the icons on. It turned out to be 1.96 Spit1 the furthest we were separated in this test (so is'nt that 2000 yards), and I had no problem tracking the dot itself. In fact as the AI was positioning for a landing, his wings would clearly show against the darker terrain. I think its very important that if a pilot looses contact, to then look where it should be and it will be picked up again...in short it does not disappear, at least with off-line.

hiya slipball,
i looked up the monitor listed in your spec list, and altho panel technology is not a perfect predictor, it has been shown in the past that is a major variable. you personally will have significantly less problems spotting dots and distant small LoD models, because the monitor you are using is 6 bit color and has the "advantages" (in il2) that i mentioned earlier

Planar SA 2311W = 6bit TN panel (http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/planar-sa2311w-lcd-monitor/4507-3174_7-34512572.html)
also make sure you are not using a zoomed view when trying to spot/track or identify distant objects (for the purposes of our discussion here)

[SlipBall]

hiya slipball,
i looked up the monitor listed in your spec list, and altho this is not a perfect predictor, it is a major variable. you personally will have significantly less problems spotting dots and distant small LoD models, because the monitor you are using is 6 bit color and has the "advantages" (in il2) that i mentioned earlier

Planar SA 2311W = 6bit TN panel (http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/planar-sa2311w-lcd-monitor/4507-3174_7-34512572.html)
also make sure you are not using a zoomed view when trying to spot/track or identify distant objects


OK Zap thanks, I thought everyone was blind for a minute:-P

[zapatista]

last yr i made a detailed post on the 6 bit versus 8 bit lcd monitor issue, found here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=222576&postcount=58

its a summary of what was extensively discussed in some of the main il2 forums in previous yrs, and this issue was only identified as a significant variable after many yrs of having some people claim they had no problems spotting dots/lod's, when under exactly the same conditions (even with playing a track of the same event) some others could not see anything.

credit goes to the others who helped identify this :)

[PLebre]

I totaly agree with BUZZSAW point of view.
But I have my own idea about how to give a solution to the problem.

First I would like to say that I am 100% to the factor Simulation, as real as the real thing the better.

But we have to agree that the actual interface (vitual reality. Display, grafics, trackir, joystick) have its limitations.

So I will go for the follow possible solution.

First, increase the spot visibility distance (plus than the real spot visibility for a determinated airplane dimensions). This is a point less in the Sim factor, but I think somehow this will compensate the interface limits. At that distance stage the plane will be represented by a black point, and it dimension not related to the current scale distance dimension, just a black point that could be easily spotted on the display.

At closer distances, when the plane begins to be represented by the 3D model first LOD´s, with a over scaled highlight sun refection effect when the spotted plane is to by seen from an above position and no changes when seen from a lower point of view, because we will have a lot of contraste from the object with the lighty sky.

Same process to by aply for the ground target objects.

Just my 2cents.

Regards

[zapatista]

from a previous post i made in this forum a couple of yrs ago. my humble apology for another text wall, but since it is a complex issue we all aim to get resolved, the technical detail in the variables involved does matter :)

A Basic description of the visibility problem for distant aircraft in the il2/CoD sim series:

I: For those who havnt yet seen how the LoD (level of detail) models work in il2
first, you have the close up detailed external view of an aircraft, it shows it in all its glory but also takes a huge amount of cpu/gpu power to display.
- this detailed visual representation will stay the same up to a certain distance (a 100 meters + ?) where the aircraft just becomes smaller and more distant
second, at some fixed distance from the viewer the more distant aircraft will then transition to a LoD model which keeps the rough shape of the aircraft, but gives much less visual detailed information (since you cant see it anyway, and would be a waste of cpu/gpu power to keep drawing it)required)
third, at an even further away distance this previous LoD model will transition to another even smaller and more rudimentary one, it will only have the rough outline of the aircraft it represent (single or multi engine etc)
fourth, at the furthest away distance (usually somewhere between 1000 and 5000 meters depending on how big the aircraft is) that last LoD model will transition to the "il2 Dot". when you are flying as a fighter pilot and expect other enemy fighters in your area, being able to see these "Dot's" from a realistic real life distance is extremely important. eg, if in real life you might be able to spot (and then track) a moving dot somewhere 2000 meters below you, you'd hope this would be accurately represented in the il2 sim series (but this sadly is not the case up untill now)

these 3 shots show the 3 LoD models for the p40 in il2 (for some reason the animated gif wont work on this forum)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4696&stc=1&d=1298118464

the problem this currently creates, aside from some of the errors in some of the LoD models themselves (like the 2e LoD model of the seafire in il2 series having no wings, making it much harder to detect), is that these smaller LoD models are just little clusters of flat little 2D pixles sliding over a 2 dimensional flat image of the distant terrain scenery that your pc already struggles to make look like a real landscape

so problem 1: that distant little p40 might well be the right size, but on computer screens it is MUCH harder to spot (and keep track of) then a real life because it "blends in more" with whatever is displayed behind it. in real life the 3 dimensional little object stands out against the background more (as understood in modern neuroscience, the human eye through millions of years of evolution is very good at tracking those real life little objects in the distance)
the good news:
-more Lod models are now provided in CoD/SoW series, which means a finer transition and potentially more distant viewing distance before it transitions to the small "dot" sadly we now see in CoD this is not a solution in the way the Lod models are currently painted/displayed. the new method of representing distant aircraft/tanks/trucks is better, but its visibility implementation is not.
- oleg seemed to understand this problem when repeatedly put to him, and there were indications (from early preview video's) that he might have implemented the "little 3D blob" method to make them stand out a bit more in CoD (a bump mapped little blob would take much less computing power, and would visually more closely represents an object the human eye can detect and track on a flat 2D computer screen.
the bad news: sadly there was no sign of this new implementation method in the final release. in some of the CoD preview video's released earlier the distant dots of bomber formations on the screen looked like small individual water droplets rather then the previous flat pixel clusters. this would mean the distant object keeps its volume and visibility much more and stands out from the background more on our pc screens, and imho it could have been an elegant solution to trying to represent a distant aircraft on current 2D pc display technology (which has by its very nature significant limitations in representing distant 3 dimensional objects).

problem 2: for the smaller LoD models, the little cluster of pixels that roughly keeps the shape of the intended aircraft, ONLY DOES SO FROM CERTAIN ANGLES, ie it depends what part of the aircraft you are looking at. from many viewpoints this cluster of pixels will fragment and break up, completely loosing the shape of any aircraft it might have been, making it 50x harder to keep track of !
as an example: this is a distant view of the smallest LoD model for the earlier p40 example

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4698&stc=1&d=1298119339

now if you look at a screenshot of a flight of four i-16's heading in your direction (from a similar distance as the last smalles p40 LoD model in the previous illustration), you can clearly see that only one of them looks vaguely like a "plane" (yet it is a formation of 4 planes flying together), the others which are immediatly adjecent to the first one are just seen from a slightly different angle, but have now just become an erratic irregular group of pixels, AND those drawings constantly change shape depending on the view angle !

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4617&stc=1&d=1297259136

so instead of seeing a solid "aircraft looking pixel group" coming your way, in the il2/CoD game series you catch intermittent glimpses of a jumbled shape of loose pixels coming your way instead (and this is against open blue sky), but this is NOT the case in real life when it stays a solid object (because your eye resolution is higher then your pc display resolution, eg look at Mac's newer screens claiming "retina" high resolution (bit of a market gimmick, but you get the idea).

Now if you put this in front of the complex shaped and colored "ground terrain" textured background, the human eye simply cannot track this irregular moving cluster of loose single pixels, due to the lack of well defined shape to visually "lock on". You can intermittently reacquire the target when it changes to something more visible as it comes closer and transitions to a larger LOD's, but in a combat situation where both aircraft are doing 300 km/hr and are rapidly closing (or he is trying to sneak up on you) this is not "simulating" what a real pilot would/could see, and therefore doesnt allow realistic combat engagements because you situational awareness bubble has shrunk to 30% of what it should be.

II: one important issue is that when the smallest LoD model transitions to the "il2 dot"
this is an example of the "3e LoD to Dot transition point", when the il2 sim series represents very distant small aircraft shapes with a "dot" (either 4 pixel clump, or 2 pixel clump)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4699&stc=1&d=1298171510
for the b17 and its wide wingspan, it transitions to a "4 pixel dot" at around 5 km (for a small single engine fighter this lod to dot transition point is much closer, somewhere between 1000 and 2000 meters). as you can see from the illustration, one moment you have a vague representation of an aircraft shape, the next it is just a little dot (this is done to save cpu/gpu power)

- the problem we have is that these 4 (or 2, or 1) pixels might well represent the right size for the distant aircraft, but as illustrated earlier for the smallest LoD models in a 2011 pc game these 4, 2, or 1 dot sizes are not visually identified to the same extent on a pc monitor as they would be visible in real life. so these smallest pixel clumps DO need an enhanced visibility feature as well to make them stand out more (and it needs to be a solution that is equally valid for 6 or 8 bit monitors, so we dont have a repeat of the MAJOR problem this created in il2)

For the il2 "dot visibility" however there are no indications this has been solved for BoB-SoW !! we had in il2-4.08 a "4 pixel dot" representing a very distant aircraft (ie, a distant one that has become smaller then the 3e LoD model), and the game keeps this 4 pixel dot as the smallest representation of the distant aircraft (untill it suddenly completely vanishes at a specific distance). some indications are that in 4.09 this 4 pixel dot was now drawn even smaller as a 2 pixel dot, and from one of luthier's recent comments in BoB-SoW the game engine will even give further more distant visibility and at greatest distances an aircraft will be represented by a single pixel. the dot issue is however somewhat less serious in CoD because the greater amount of LoD models allows (presumably) more accurate distant drawing of very small objects

note: this situation is not helped by the fact that not many il2 users know exactly what a "real life distant aircraft" should look like when seen from a ww2 fighter plane cockpit, and some well meaning (but ignorant) posters will raise unrelated reasons like "but the plane has camouflage paint so you cant see it"
note 2: any discussion on this topic with il2 users is further complicated by the fact that 6 bit monitor users have a much less severe dot spotting problem, because of the inferior ability of their monitors to represent grey shades, these grey/black dots stand out much more and they might be able to see them 2 or 3x better then most other users (an additional factor is that many pc users dont have callibrated monitors, and il2 players dont use a standardized amount of AA and AF on their gfx cards). so not all il2 users are aware of how severe this problem is.

conclusion: some in game enhancements need to be used to make distant aircraft (and ground targets) stand out more and deal with the fact we are looking at a 2D monior rather then looking out a window in real life, so these ingame objects are more visible (and able to be tracked) from similar distances as they were for real life ww2 pilots (and this is needed for both distant small LoD models and the "il2 dots"). currently il2 and CoD has 30% of this visibility we should have, and we fly around in a myopic mini bubble of visibility which completely distorts what your normal situational awareness should be. this problem is the most significant issue in what makes the il2 series a "simulator", and needs to be addressed as a matter of priority for BoB-SoW

[SlipBall]

zapatista, waiting for any changes from the team may take awhile. Why not just buy a Planar SA 2311W, if I remember right it, was only 220.- or so. :)

[zapatista]

Why not just buy a Planar SA 2311W, if I remember right it, was only 220.- or so. :)

because compensating for one error by introducing other errors just leads to further problems down the line :) i, and most people here, also use their pc setup for a whole host of other purposes, and reducing quality has other flow on effects. i agree with you however that for people buying a new monitor for il2/CoD, this is something they should maybe consider. but then again we also need to advise those people to set their monitors to lower resolutions so dots and LoD models stand out more (and distort their color setups, a well calibrated monitor is again a potential disadvantage)

or instead luthier could fix the dot/LoD visibility issue, and we can all enjoy the glory of the new CoD scenery in its greatest beauty possible, as well as our hardware will allow :)

i prefer option b) :)

btw, using a 6 bit monitor doesnt really "solve" the issue, it just makes it significantly easier to spot a small moving dot (eg il2/CoD distant aircraft) against a static terrain scenery. even with that "glitter artifact" present under those conditions it still doesnt provide correct viewing/spotting/tracking/identification distances in CoD. for ex just try and fly over an airfield at 1250 meters and look down to see if you can spot static parked small aircraft or see individual vehicles driving around, i bet you cant :) (dont use a zoomed view, use a correct FoV for your monitor size only !!). yet in real life you could/can, that's the issue. its just that during these debates a small group of people has *less* of an issue with this, and that is where the 6 bit monitors come in

[SlipBall]

because compensating for one error by introducing other errors just leads to further problems down the line :) i, and most people here, also use their pc setup for a whole host of other purposes, and reducing quality has other flow on effects.

i agree with you however that for people buying a new monitor for il2/CoD, this is something they should maybe consider. but then again we also need to advise those people to set their monitors to lower resolutions so dots and LoD models stand out more (and distort their color setups, a well calibrated monitor is again a potential disadvantage)

or instead luthier could fix the dot/LoD visibility issue, and we can all enjoy the glory of the new CoD scenery in its greatest beauty possible, as well as our hardware will allow :)

i prefer option b) :)

btw, using a 6 bit monitor doesnt really "solve" the issue, it just makes it significantly easier to spot a small moving dot (eg il2/CoD distant aircraft) against a static terrain scenery. even with that "glitter artifact" present under those conditions it still doesnt provide correct viewing/spotting/tracking/identification distances in CoD. for ex just try and fly over an airfield at 1250 meters and look down to see if you can spot static parked small aircraft or see individual vehicles driving around, i bet you cant :) (dont use a zoomed view, use a correct FoV for your monitor size only !!). yet in real life you could/can, that's the issue. its just that during these debates a small group of people has *less* of an issue with this, and that is where the 6 bit monitors come in



I took the zapatista challenge:-P, and yes the static aircraft are clearly visible for me 1250m. I had a truck driving around the aircraft, I would spot it, and then loose it at times...I'll edit, and post some shots...let me say that the shots are not as clear as viewed while flying

Sunrise, 1250m, 12 static Bf 109, one truck...just past wing end

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_115026-1.jpg


high noon, just ahead of leading edge

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_114317-1.jpg

[zapatista]

I took the zapatista challenge:-P, and yes the static aircraft are clearly visible for me 1250m. I had a truck driving around the aircraft, I would spot it, and then loose it at times...I'll edit, and post some shots.

lol, great :)

why dont you take this one step further and make it usefull for the rest of us !

make a recording track of your "event" so the rest of us can replay it on our own CoD and see what visibility we have. if i understand correctly how the il2 tracks work, and somebody correct me if i am wrong, playing the track will in effect recreate the event on our pc using our own CoD program (and use its detail and option settings) so the distant LoD and dots are recreated, not just "displayed as a recorded video clip" (if you see what i mean)

if that is correct, it should work fine as a comparison method to determine who can see what on their different systems

SlipBall, please make sure you are at 1200 meters and dont use a "zoomed view", because that is the equivalent of using a pair of binoculars strapped to your pilots head. use "normal view" (untill hopefully in the next patch luthier will allow us to set specific FoV's we are stuck with the 3 pre-defined ones). planes parked on the ground must be stationary (truck/tank can be driving around)

ps: dont have a truck "driving around the aircraft" plz (creates the same repeated movements in one specific location), just have a truck driving from point A to point B somewhere on the airfield, or drive in a wide loop as you might want to overfly the airfield several times. a single or multiple trucks driving on a small open road is also a good sample for our purposes.

[SlipBall]

OK, just one thing though, this will be the first track I ever made (crazy right!). How do you/where will I find it/ how do I package it?

[zapatista]

when you make the track, give it a name that is easy to identify, because you then next need to go look in the folder where il2/CoD saves its tracks. then just rar or zip up the track into an archive file and upload it on the web somewhere :)

[zapatista]

slipball,
i cant see anything there at your wingtip that would specifically represent a small prop aircraft or a truck, and i expanded the screenshots you posted to full size on my 27' monitor and looked over the area just above your wing tip with a magnifying glass :)

i dont doubt you see something, but i dont think it illustrates what allied pilots were describing when talking about going on a free hunt after the normandy invasion, and being able to pick out individual german tanks/trucks stationary in a field, or moving on a road. even if there was something to see in the screenshot you posted, i think it would represent what YOU can see on your setup, rather then have each of us looking at the same scenery from the same distances on our own pc setups.

a ingame recorded track might do that (hopefully somebody here knows more about how they work exactly when replayed on other pc's)

[SlipBall]

slipball,
i cant see anything there at your wingtip that would specifically represent a small prop aircraft or a truck, and i expanded the screenshots you posted to full size on my 27' monitor and looked over the area just above your wing tip with a magnifying glass :)

i dont doubt you see something, but i dont think it illustrates what allied pilots were describing when talking about going on a free hunt after the normandy invasion, and being able to pick out individual german tanks/trucks stationary in a field, or moving on a road. even if there was something to see in the screenshot you posted, i think it would represent what YOU can see on your setup, rather then have each of us looking at the same scenery from the same distances on our own pc setups.

a ingame recorded track might do that (hopefully somebody here knows more about how they work exactly when replayed on other pc's)



edit:
Replaced the broken track file, see below

Wow! you really are blind!:-P...with my monitor, I could have air superiority over each, and all of you:-P...screenshots are like 60/70% of what I see

made a track, photobucket can't seem to get it downloaded all the way:confused: file is below screenshot...how about this shot from 1200m, I moved the aircraft's to nearby the hangers, added 3 He111, and 1 tank on the move...as a side note, even when you get far away from the hangers, and they begin to fade/disappear, the aircraft remain visible!!...another interesting thing Zap, is that the aircraft shimmer just like a target in game. I think it is the yellow paint and the angle of the sun on them.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_133106.jpg

1000m

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_153254.jpg

800m

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_153438.jpg

600m


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/shot_20121015_154741.jpg

[zapatista]

made a track,..how about this shot from 1200m, I moved the aircraft's to nearby the hangers, added 3 He111, and 1 tank on the move

the 3 he111's stand out very visibly as a glittering/shimmering cluster of "something", partic from one angle (at the start of your track) when the sunlight must hit them just right, then the middle part of your track as you round the bottom part of your "go around" loop they are pretty invisible to me, and then again become visible at the end of your "loop" (which is the exact opposite view point where previously they had been so visible, so probably again the sunlight angle reflects off them).

the single aircraft you parked a bit further away is not visible for me (barely if i use a magnifying glass to view the exact spot i think it is in), and the truck/tank is also not visible. i do get a faint hint of it when at one point i think it kicks up some dust, but all the rest is invisible to me (i can sometimes spot where i think he is with the magnifying glass)

for the purpose of our comparison here, the cluster of 3 he111's is probably to large, 2 or 3 single fighters scattered somewhere on the airfield might be a better measuring stick, but the driving vehicle/tank is illustrating the problem well for me, it is basically invisible unless i exactly already know where he is and then use a magnifying glass to confirm it is a small moving object (and neither is the single engine fighter)

..as a side note, even when you get far away from the hangers, and they begin to fade/disappear, the aircraft remain visible!!...

1/2 the time in the video you posted i cant actually see them (the 3 he111's), 1/4 of the time they are very visible (as glittering/shimmering cluster, not as individual aircraft), and the last 1/4 i kinda can see something if i know where to look (but again cant see them as aircraft)

maybe the "remain visible" (to you) is similar or related to the bug that some people reported, where distant aircraft can be seen through clouds ? (which would be a bug)

[David198502]

ok this issue is complicated, but very interesting and some good comments and tests where already made....from my point of view, with my setup, i dont have a problem with spotting targets in the far distance...

but unfortunately because of my weak system, i have to lower my resolution to maintain fluid gameplay.
i tested it a couple of times, how the game looks when playing at native resolution, and even then, i have no problems with spotting those dots in the far distance.

in my view, objects which are really far away, are almost too visible.it seems, that as soon as a plane gets visible on our screen, then the first view moments it will "fade in" as a grey dot...those grey dots look pretty good...
but as soon as they get a little closer to the eye of the beholder, the dot will become black,...its still really far away, and then it looks very unnatural, mostly because the dot is deep black.
objects, even against terrain, somehow seem to pop out and dont look at all realistic.(they are visible through clouds and hills as well).for example if i cross the channel, i can see all the static objects placed on the map at Hawkinge for example easily when im still closer to the french coast...they appear as deep black dots or small lines.

the problem to spot targets starts, when they get their 3d model,....or some seconds before, as some just completely disappear(like the spitfire).

the planes/objects suddenly switch from those deep dark black dots, to grey shimmering/(partly) disappearing objects...
i think that shimmering/disappearing is the biggest problem with keeping track of them.
i think as well, that it only looks like shimmering, but is in fact a temporary vanishing of certain parts of the objects.
(maybe if the devs would change that, and make those invisible parts look like reflections, it could help us tracking targets in a more realistic manner)

on a sidenote, ive noticed on atag a few days ago, that they have indeed reflections modeled sometimes in certain situations...i became aware of that, during a mission which started in the early morning before sunrise...as soon as the sun made its way to the horizon, i saw the pink/red colour reflected on a squadmate's plane...looked good convincing, and was good visible as well, although he was still pretty far away.

anyway, since release, the devs have obviously adressed this issue a few times already....i remember a patch, where suddenly all the planes appeared as white dots on the screen, to resemble reflections...that was way too visible, and didnt look convincing at all...
but i remember as well, that the "disappearing" problem, was not there at the release version of the game.if i remember correctly, planes disappear only since the last official steam patch...before that, they switched from beeing a dot to being a shimmering somewhat...now there is a gap between these two modes, where nothing is visible at all...it as well seems, as they have adressed this issue now with the latest beta patch for most of the planes, but i still have the problem with the spitfire for example..

its annoying, that i can see objects over half the channel with ease, but struggle to track a spit 500meters in front of me, and lose it as soon as it dives above terrain...

[He111]

My problem is losing aircraft in the Haze! as they are the same colour (light grey) as the Haze! This is incorrect as proven with photographs, aircraft as long range appear as black dots, as BOB pilots keep mentioning when talking about German formations .. "a sky full of black dots". This is because the light reflecting off far, dark aircraft loses most of the light before it gets to your eyes. Opposed to that, reflective aircraft (US) would glint brightly.

So .. i like the idea of darkening aircraft @ long range .. shouldn't be too difficult ?

.

[zapatista]

david,

what type of monitor do you use (brand model and name plz) and what resolution do you play ?

using less then native resolution will introduce another variable, since i/we have no idea if that also affects distant LoD visibility. the most distant aircraft 'dots" are then obviously bigger, because dots in il2/CoD are defined as a little cluster of a specific number of pixels

one good thing about CoD is that distant aircraft seen against a backdrop of water/ocean, or the sky, stand out much more then in the old il2 series. probably the increase number of LoD models is responsible for this. but as a stationary or moving object against a terrain background we have a MAJOR problem still (for most users)

[*Buzzsaw*]

its annoying, that i can see objects over half the channel with ease, but struggle to track a spit 500meters in front of me, and lose it as soon as it dives above terrain...

Which is why we need to have the LOD models redone.

I think the Developers should open this issue to allow the community to see what they can do to solve the problem, there is not that much work to be done, and I think people would be motivated.

Right now the developers likely are not interested in spending the time.

Either that or we need to have reflection modelled properly, but that is probably not going to happen at earliest till BoM.

Reflection makes all the difference in RISE OF FLIGHT, you spot the LOD models regularly when sun reflects off a wing.

[David198502]

totally agree buzzsaw!
i think the community would be well motivated....for me right now this is the most pressing issue with clod...
but i think, that it wouldnt be that much work for the devs either...i think only minor adjustments would be necessary to get a somewhat realistic visibility...

[SlipBall]

the 3 he111's stand out very visibly as a glittering/shimmering cluster of "something", partic from one angle (at the start of your track) when the sunlight must hit them just right, then the middle part of your track as you round the bottom part of your "go around" loop they are pretty invisible to me, and then again become visible at the end of your "loop" (which is the exact opposite view point where previously they had been so visible, so probably again the sunlight angle reflects off them).

the single aircraft you parked a bit further away is not visible for me (barely if i use a magnifying glass to view the exact spot i think it is in), and the truck/tank is also not visible. i do get a faint hint of it when at one point i think it kicks up some dust, but all the rest is invisible to me (i can sometimes spot where i think he is with the magnifying glass)

for the purpose of our comparison here, the cluster of 3 he111's is probably to large, 2 or 3 single fighters scattered somewhere on the airfield might be a better measuring stick, but the driving vehicle/tank is illustrating the problem well for me, it is basically invisible unless i exactly already know where he is and then use a magnifying glass to confirm it is a small moving object (and neither is the single engine fighter)



1/2 the time in the video you posted i cant actually see them (the 3 he111's), 1/4 of the time they are very visible (as glittering/shimmering cluster, not as individual aircraft), and the last 1/4 i kinda can see something if i know where to look (but again cant see them as aircraft)

maybe the "remain visible" (to you) is similar or related to the bug that some people reported, where distant aircraft can be seen through clouds ? (which would be a bug)


I did a bit more study at the 1200m level. I added single 109's, 111's, and a medical vehicle on the move.

Observation: everything as a single object will be detected, if you are looking for objects. Once you are alerted by movement or a glitter and then zoom in, vehicle movement can easily be tracked, aircraft shape/identification, is fairly easy to see and not loose sight of.

Conclusion: getting a "true" 120hz monitor would give a person an definite advantage, and solve the loosing Spit??

[Flanker35M]

S!

I saw the planes at ease, the car was a bit harder to spot. I do not use a 120Hz monitor.

[Wolf_Rider]

~ (dont use a zoomed view, use a correct FoV for your monitor size only !!). ~



"the correct FoV for any monitor is between 60 ~ 75 degrees... and "zooming" in or out, is an adjustment of the FoV.

Field of View does funny things with Depth of Field, and that is where your "problem" is.


ATM, the FoV for outside view in the sim is set to (iirc) 30 degrees


Seriously.. if you want the "problem" solved, get three monitors and set the view port on each monitor to 20 ~ 25 degrees... don't put 60 ~ 75 degrees across the whole thing ;).
This puts the monitors into the viewer's 60 degree of vision and gives the more realistic real world seeing without flying in myopic tunnel vision

[zapatista]

S!

I saw the planes at ease, the car was a bit harder to spot. I do not use a 120Hz monitor.
what is you monitor model number and brand plz ?

[SlipBall]

From a earlier release just as a comparison

[zapatista]

I did a bit more study at the 1200m level. I added single 109's, 111's, and a medical vehicle on the move.

Observation: everything as a single object will be detected, if you are looking for objects. Once you are alerted by movement or a glitter and then zoom in, vehicle movement can easily be tracked, aircraft shape/identification, is fairly easy to see and not loose sight of.

Conclusion: getting a "true" 120hz monitor would give a person an definite advantage, and solve the loosing Spit??

slipball,

i ran the 2e track you made and have exactly the same problem.
- on the initial part of your fly by the sunlight hits the multiple object surfaces just right and strongly reflects off them (nice work 1C) and at that point they stand out like the proverbial dogs #$%@!. note that as they gradually become less shimmery/glittery as our view point moves down the airfield, that the houses in the village below the airfield display exactly the same shimmer/glitter artifact (but not the forest), so not all that glitters can be presumed to be an aircraft that we can identify as such (we just presume it is because it is sitting in what we know is an airfield). eg an aircraft parked in the town square would be indistinguishable from the other nearby houses/objects in the glare it currently creates (which is unrealistic, and the glare effect is currently way overdone).
- in the following 2/3 of your track (as you make a U turn around the lower part of the airfield) they are basically invisible and completely blend in with the background. i can NOT make out any aircraft from that part of your loop
- in the last part of the clip they become more visible as the sunlight again reflects off them (from the exact 12 o'clock of the previous high visibility location)

please note:
- adding larger aircraft like the he111 into the mix kinda defeats the purpose, we first need to determine the variability of a standard size single engine fighter (the 109 has a wingspan of exactly 10 meters so is a good object) and use them under good "normal" viewing conditions (clear sky, no special lighting conditions etc)
- using a time near dawn or dusk places the sun at a significant angle in the sky, creats one specific viewing location where the reflecting sunlight will make them stand out very clearly (seen at the start of your track), and another where you can see a similar but milder sun reflection (from the exact opposite end of the field that had the previous high glare ). a better standardized time of day might be somewhere between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm maybe ?
- the fighter aircraft must be stationary, a few small/medium vehicles driving around in different parts of the airfield is a good idea (as long as they dont kick up a big dust trail)
- the FoV of the clip must be kept at "normal" (70), not zoomed in. once people have used the zoom function and get an idea where the objects are, its easy to then later claim on the normal view that they "roughly see something that must be the airplane/truck", which means "i can spot the aircraft's" and win a prize :)

thanks for having a go at it, and for confirming altitude by a glimpse at the instruments. having the very high glare reflecting off the aircraft under those lighting conditions kinda defeats the purpose, since were are then playing "find the glaring object". others already stated in this thread that they can catch glare reflecting of an aircraft halfway across the channel for ex, it affects visibility a great deal. i havnt really played around with the map tools to quickly do it myself, so i cant whip one up in a hurry here either

[Al Schlageter]

(the 109 has a wingspan of exactly 10 meters so is a good object)

No it doesn't have a wing span of exactly 10 meters but is slightly less than 10 meters at 9.900 meters.

[David198502]

here you go zap:

GERICOM 19"
Model: MT9FNK

and unfortunately i have to run clod at a res of 1024x768

[zapatista]

"the correct FoV for any monitor is between 60 ~ 75 degrees...

nope, that is not correct.

you already went 20 pages in this forum with somebody a few months ago who patiently tried to explain to you how FoV works, and i will summarize it here for the benefit of other readers who might not have thought about this issue yet.

basically, however wide your monitor is in front of you, for any given distance you sit from it, it will occupy a specific section of your forward 180 degree vision, that section is the "percentage of your forward field of view it occupies". (ie should be equivalent to the FoV setting in CoD)

for me for ex when i sit approx 60 cm from my 27' monitor, it roughly takes up 55% of my field of view (which you can calculate exactly), and if i only had a 14' monitor from the same viewing distance it would occupy roughly 1/2 of that. note: if you use the formulae to calculate your personal FoV, dont confuse diagonal monitor size measurement with how "wide" it is (which is the value to be used in calculating FoV)
- if you set that "correct FoV" for your monitor in CoD the idea is that you will then be able to see all ingame objects in their 1:1 correct sizes displayed on your monitor (eg, depending on how far away they are from you in the game, and the object sizes). which leads us to out current discussion thread, re: can you in CoD correctly see these distant aircraft/trucks/tanks from the same distances as in real life, well NO you cant currently (but it is less bad then in the old il2 series). hence we are trying to discuss "amplification" methods to make some of these object stand out better (see OP).

using a smaller then "correct FoV" for your monitor in CoD will work like a magnifier (but simultaneously reducing your peripheral vision), because you have taken a smaller part of your field of vision and stretched it across a larger surface (to keep it simple), similarly setting a wider FoV will give you artificially more peripheral vision but everything (in game objects) will be squashed into a smaller display surface and hence shrinks in size (again simplifying the concept).

and "zooming" in or out, is an adjustment of the FoV.

think of it as the other way around, its easier. increasing or decreasing your FoV (from your "correct" setting) is like zooming out and in. and obviously no ww2 pilot had a magic zoom binocular strapped to his forehead, so using that is in effect "gaming the game", or if you want to put it nicer "overcoming partially the limitations of sitting behind a monitor in your living room, compared to looking out the windscreen of a real aircraft".

if you want the "problem" solved, get three monitors ................and gives the more realistic real world seeing without flying in myopic tunnel vision
so your solution for not being able to get correct object visibility on one monitor (correctly adjust for right FoV for that user) in CoD is to put 3 badly adjust monitors next to each other to display a "faulty" game that still doesnt provide correct distant object visibility ? putting 3 monitors next to each other and adjusting the FoV correctly should still uses the same method i mentioned above to determine correct FoV setting across the collective display surface, its just a larger surface with a larger total FoV (and would be calculated the same way)

to not further sidetrack, this current discussion is focused on determining how bad the visibility error is for distant objects in CoD,, to suggest possible ways to improve it (eg make the game more correctly SIMULATE what a real ww2 pilot would see from his aircraft), and potentially try and figure out who here with what hardware has the least problems (with one of the main variables thus far identified being the lcd screen type used)

[zapatista]

No it doesn't have a wing span of exactly 10 meters but is slightly less than 10 meters at 9.900 meters.

lol you want to quibble over 10 cm on a 10 meter wide object ?

from memory, its either 9.98 or 9.89 the last time i looked, close enough :) if you want to be pedantic, with the various 109 models over the 6 years of the war i am sure there would have been some further variation in wingspan, for the purpose of the discussion in this thread the few cm creating a 1% error dont really matter

[zapatista]

...from my point of view, with my setup, i dont have a problem with spotting targets in the far distance...

............in my view, objects which are really far away, are almost too visible.it seems, that as soon as a plane gets visible on our screen, then the first view moments it will "fade in" as a grey dot...those grey dots look pretty good...
but as soon as they get a little closer to the eye of the beholder, the dot will become black,...its still really far away, and then it looks very unnatural, mostly because the dot is deep black.
objects, even against terrain, somehow seem to pop out and dont look at all realistic......

david,
aside from the other issues you mentioned, you seem to indicate you dont have a significant issue with locating and identifying/tracking distant aircraft or ground targets.
i looked up your monitor (couldnt see the exact same model, but all 19' monitors from the Aldi store in the last few years are again TN based monitors), and we can fairly safely assume yours to is a TN monitor (being the type of monitor that has the least problem with distant object visibility

a good place to find monitor specs and panel types is at http://www.prad.de

i dont want to hammer away to much at this TN panel issue, but it is a significant variable, and is used by most people who claim good visibility for these distant objects (and they being the lower cost monitors, are probably also used in the russian office where CoD/SoW is being created (except for the grafix artists who would have higher quality displays so they can correctly paint/illustrate scenery and objects.

[Flanker35M]

S!

My monitor is a BenQ G2750 27" running at 1920x1080 60Hz.

[Al Schlageter]

lol you want to quibble over 10 cm on a 10 meter wide object ?

from memory, its either 9.98 or 9.89 the last time i looked, close enough :) if you want to be pedantic, with the various 109 models over the 6 years of the war i am sure there would have been some further variation in wingspan, for the purpose of the discussion in this thread the few cm creating a 1% error dont really matter

It is still NOT exactly 10m.:) It is approximately 10m. :)

Your memory is faulty, as the Bf109E had a wing span of 9.9m. With the new wing on the 'F' model, the wing span increased slightly to 9.925 m.

[SlipBall]

OK, from 1200m sun high, aircraft can still be spotted, but its more of a particular one that glitters and gets your attention. Moving mid size ground vehicles are easy to spot and track, but you would need to drop down to be able to identify exactly what it is.

[zapatista]

S!

I saw the planes at ease, the car was a bit harder to spot. I do not use a 120Hz monitor.

thx flanker,
http://www.prad.de/en/guide/screen7358.html
so again another TN monitor (giving the better distant LoD/Dot visibility)

[David198502]

david,
aside from the other issues you mentioned, you seem to indicate you dont have a significant issue with locating and identifying/tracking distant aircraft or ground targets.
i looked up your monitor (couldnt see the exact same model, but all 19' monitors from the Aldi store in the last few years are again TN based monitors), and we can fairly safely assume yours to is a TN monitor (being the type of monitor that has the least problem with distant object visibility

a good place to find monitor specs and panel types is at http://www.prad.de

i dont want to hammer away to much at this TN panel issue, but it is a significant variable, and is used by most people who claim good visibility for these distant objects (and they being the lower cost monitors, are probably also used in the russian office where CoD/SoW is being created (except for the grafix artists who would have higher quality displays so they can correctly paint/illustrate scenery and objects.

yeah thats pretty much it, even if i fly in native resolution, the dots in the far distance are smaller, but still good visible....unfortunately i have to fly in low res, but that doesnt give me a real advantage...

as already mentioned, my problems start in medium distances, where contacts start to flicker and disappear...

interesting about TN monitors....as i have no clue about it, it was something new you mentioned.

[zapatista]

OK, from 1200m sun high, aircraft can still be spotted, but its more of a particular one that glitters and gets your attention. Moving mid size ground vehicles are easy to spot and track, but you would need to drop down to be able to identify exactly what it is.
perfect slipball, that one suits our purposes well :) with no low sun, the glare caused by the reflecting sunlight plays much less of an issue, and we can (try) to just make out the stationary single engine aircraft or moving vehicles.

i basically cant see ANY aircraft on that airfield from that altitude and distance on my screen (a corectly calibrated 27' 8-bit color screen). what i can occasionally see is a few little specs that briefly glitter a little and then disappear from view. i cant make out if its a latrine, a lunch soup van, or an enemy fighter, or potentially even a person holding a little survival mirror and reflecting the sun back at me to attract my attention. from some angles i can occasionally see a dark dot in the same spot where there was glitter before, and that presumably is the same object, but then whatever it was is invisible again a few sec later and no black dot or glitter at all.

if we game-the-game, then knowing something glitters on an open enemy airfield i can safely presume it is going to be an enemy fighter/plane, but i cant SEE it is. eg if there were a few vehicles/planes parked in fields somewhere on the map, with other glittering house/objects spread throughout the map, i have no way to identify one of these objects might be a tank or a parked enemy plane. you can then further use our artificial zoom method (narrowest FoV setting) to scan the ground and look for objects, but that is the same as a real pilot using a pair of binoculars (which obviously wasnt used historically).

now compare this lack of visibility with what you can see from a small modern prop plane at the same altitude, looking either at vehicles or roads, or parked aircraft at your local airfield, the visibility is completely different (and much better, allowing you to identify the individual planes shapes and silhouettes, even color often). and that gentlemen, just about sums up our current problem in CoD. from the multiple threads on this topic over previous years, most experienced pilots of small aircraft will concur with that last "visibility summary" of what it looks like in real life in comparison to the visibility problem we have right now in CoD.

it would be helpful if other people could comment on the airfield object visibility in that last slipball track (so see how much it varies from person to person), and if those with real life flying experience in small aircraft at a similar altitude/speed could comment on what they can specifically make out on the ground compared to what they see in that track (IvanK ?)

note: i suspect the slipball scenery detail is set to medium ? it can obviously be another variable if the scenery is set to very high or low, since in a very bland and sparsely drawn scenery these plane/truck objects will stand out more. but at least we are now all looking at the same tracks and can compare apples with apples :)

the good news is that CoD now runs well enough for most people, that we can actually start to worry about these types of issues and focus on creating a SIMULATOR rather then a "game".

[zapatista]

interesting about TN monitors....as i have no clue about it, it was something new you mentioned.
TN based monitors were a good choice many years ago for gamers when most lcd's were still pretty expensive. and initially many of the the mid-range better quality panels (MVA and PVA, both 8 bit color) where not quite fast enough for fast moving games like FPS. but within a few yrs these 8 bit monitors also improved in speed and came down to around 8 - 12 msec (and hence speed wasnt an issue anymore), but they always stayed 30 - 50% more expensive then the TN technology. in the last 3 or 4 yrs with prices having come down so much further, still buying a TN screen is not really justified anymore (unless price is the only selection criteria). if you hear/see a sales pitch of how fast a particular monitor is they are trying to sell you, your next question should always be "sure, but how good is it at doing anything else" :) (eg, how good is it at displaying video, the color and tone quality for detailed images, and what problems does it have with "display artifacts"). and even then dont trust the sales person, go and look for some in depth online reviews from reliable sources.

its all horses for courses tho. if you dont want to spend much money and want as large of a display as you can get for your $, you by very definition will land in the TN price zone. but with more careful background reading you could well end up with a significantly better display at 25-30% more money.

the best type of lcd's (with the most true color fidelity) were always IPS, but at roughly 2 or 3x the price of MVA and PVA only professional gfx artists etc could justify the cost initially. in the last 6 yrs or so prices have radically come down for lcd's, and you can now even buy a cheap korean 27' IPS screen for around 300$ or so for ex (but buyer be aware, not all IPS screens are as good as the specs might sugest). btw, one of the things that makes the screens on the recent iphone series (4, and 5 i think) so nice to look at is not just the higher resolutions they started making them, but they deliberately chose IPS technology (same with Imacs). a similar issue with the new high quality samsung lcd tv's in the last few yrs, the series 8 (top of the line, highest price) uses IPS technology, the series 7 (still very good but one notch lower) uses a MVA type panel i believe (and the soon to be released series 9 is also IPS). for the average TV viewer this might not matter much (most LCD tv's are not properly calibrated or setup anyway), but if you look at good quality source material on a well calibrated panel, the differences can be very significant (a bit like the difference between 480p and 720p). for us, hunting little grey/black dots and "little clusters of jumbled pixels" sliding across the screen against a terrain background, that difference in display technology can be all the difference between "now you see the distant aircraft" and "now you dont" (with in our case, "display artifacts" helping to identify that distant aircraft, so the worse the panel, the easier you can see it)

[SlipBall]

My settings,...zapatista did you notice fighters on the hanger pads, are always visible.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/Vis.jpg

[zapatista]

My settings,...zapatista did you notice fighters on the hanger pads, are always visible.

yea i did, having them contrasted against the uniform color of the concrete makes a big difference, but i cant specifically make them out as individual aircraft, or even that they are aircraft. what i can see is that the little black dots (multi-pixel) representing them stay pretty much constantly visible as you fly around the airfield

btw, you seem pretty comfortably flying that me109, no sense of nationalistic guilt bothering you :P

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/Vis.jpg
thanks :)

[SlipBall]

Ha ha funny...I am of full German decent, but the reason I enjoy the 109 is because of the engineering. I fly red very often too, I love the guns, awesome!

[Reaper leader]

Hi all.

Easiest solution and most realistic solution, turn icons on, not red for allies nor blue for axis just plain grey for both sides with aircraft type from like 5 miles out and you would react realistic to what you see. From that distance, in RL, you can even dinstinguish a Cessna 150 from a 172 and even easier a 109 from a Spit or a Hurricane.

Then it wouldn't even matter what kind off monitor people use nor what resolution they use to spot other planes. To me, a long time glider pilot and PPL, "full switch" = full realism is nonsence due to the fact that you can't id anything more than some hundred yards away without icons.

Regards

[4./JG53_Wotan]

One of the most important aspects of WW2 era ACM has to be the visual cues we get from other aircraft prior to engaging.

Going back to the original Il-2 one of the major failings of that game, and more so in CloD, is some planes simply vanish “right in front of you” as the LOD changes. Not only that spotting contacts (read as “dots”) at real life ranges is much more difficult – not just because of our 2-D monitors. Some of the issues with visual cues in CloD rest with the programmers.

Even so there is an idea that, no matter what, more difficulty means more "realism". Given the limitations of our PC hardware the visual cues we get from other aircraft are already significantly less informative and thus "harder" than real life – less realistic.

As a result of the limited visual cues its my opinion that we see less “realistic” air combat in these games as a result. I heard some folks complain about their inability to find combat on a highly populated server – they simply can not find the “dots” and when they do the dots vanish. Some of that has been posted on this forum. Others simply give up on “air combat” and race across the channel to the closest enemy airfield to “vulch”.

Icons are not the answer and I would never fly with icons “on”. However, in a “certain” way icons do allow for more realistic ACM.

I don't have a “solution” but there has to be a better way to represent aircraft at different ranges then what we currently see in CloD - something that would result in better “true to life” air combat.

Wotan

[Robo.]

I don't have a “solution” but there has to be a better way to represent aircraft at different ranges then what we currently see in CloD - something that would result in better “true to life” air combat.

The concept with LODs is alright (and necessary from the technical point of view because the 3d model needs to get less and less complex when further away (= less polygons), it just needs to be tweaked a bit I guess.

[superman]

For the record. Depth of field does not apply for objects further away than about four meters. Not if you want to simulate the way our eyes sees reality.

An enemy aircraft at a distance closer than four metres will definitely stand out against the background, but for a more obvious reason:-)

[PLebre]

The current problem is that when the black spot turn into the first LOD level, the plane is so far way that you just lost the track of it. If they tune that transition (black spot to first LOD level) to a closer distance, lets say about the dist you can start to identify the plane, we will have less problems. I think that will be easy to do, it's just a tunning matter.
Again, an over tuned highlight surface sun reflection effect, will help too.

[PLebre]

Hi all.

Easiest solution and most realistic solution, turn icons on, not red for allies nor blue for axis just plain grey for both sides with aircraft type from like 5 miles out and you would react realistic to what you see. From that distance, in RL, you can even dinstinguish a Cessna 150 from a 172 and even easier a 109 from a Spit or a Hurricane.

Regards

That could be a good solution too.

[*Buzzsaw*]

For the record. Depth of field does not apply for objects further away than about four meters. Not if you want to simulate the way our eyes sees reality.

An enemy aircraft at a distance closer than four metres will definitely stand out against the background, but for a more obvious reason:-)

Not the case according to real WWII pilots I talked to.

According to them, and I have seen this written in other accounts, the big difference between experienced pilots and rookies, was the ability to focus the eye on several different distances on the same patch of sky when scanning for enemy aircraft. This was a learned skill. A enemy aircraft at a given distance might be missed by the rookie who was focusing only at one particular distance.

[zapatista]

The current problem is that when the black spot turn into the first LOD level, the plane is so far way that you just lost the track of it. If they tune that transition (black spot to first LOD level) to a closer distance, lets say about the dist you can start to identify the plane, we will have less problems. I think that will be easy to do, it's just a tunning matter.

i agree with your logic, but there is one problem with that,

when in il2/CoD the very distant "aircraft dot" transitions to the first and then 2e Lod level, it does so because the LoD is actually an object that is LARGER then the previous 4 pixel "dot" (as it should, a closer aircraft should be larger). our problem is that these most distant 2 or 3 LoD levels (getting each time larger as we come closer) are made up of little jumbled clusters of pixels that keeps changing shape (as illustrated earlier in this thread), the end result being your eyes cant focus very well on this cluster of moving pixels and it blends in with the background to much.

keeping these more distant LoD levels as a "dot" for longer will still make them relatively hard to spot (compared to real life situation, because the object should gradually become larger and easier to spot as you get closer). a potentially better solution would be to have them turn into something like for ex a little "blue water droplet" type shape, with the "droplet" getting gradually larger (but lighter in color ?) at the same points in distance that the next 2 or 3 LoD models would engage (blue might be a good choice for this so they wont stand out to much against open sky, because a progressively larger black dot would then stand out to much). that is just one suggestion of how it might work, others here might come up with better idea's

as the object gets closer, it might be sufficient to have the LoD model painted with a black border on its surface (as the OP suggested), so these closer aircraft LoD models stands out more against the background, but this imho would not be sufficient for the most distant LoD models that are just displayed as an incoherent jumble of little pixels (see earlier illustration in this thread)

Again, an over tuned highlight surface sun reflection effect, will help too.
the problem with that is that the same "reflection" effect also acts on other objects, like houses etc.(as seen in slipballs first track posted recently here) the end result is that the effect (currently) is to strong and the distant aircraft stand out TO MUCH, and lots of other visual effects affect the quality of the scenery to. but we'r on the right track, at least more people are starting to recognize we do have a problem spotting/tracking distant aircraft and ground targets like trucks/tanks (compared to visibility in real life).

[Wolf_Rider]

For the record. Depth of field does not apply for objects further away than about four meters. Not if you want to simulate the way our eyes sees reality.



You won't get your "reality" with current technology... sorry

Depth of Field applies all the way out to infinity, sorry to say... especially when modifying the FoV in projecting a 3d image onto a 2d screen. :rolleyes:

[SlipBall]

i basically cant see ANY aircraft on that airfield from that altitude and distance on my screen (a corectly calibrated 27' 8-bit color screen). what i can occasionally see is a few little specs that briefly glitter a little and then disappear from view. i cant make out if its a latrine, a lunch soup van, or an enemy fighter, or potentially even a person holding a little survival mirror and reflecting the sun back at me to attract my attention. from some angles i can occasionally see a dark dot in the same spot where there was glitter before, and that presumably is the same object, but then whatever it was is invisible again a few sec later and no black dot or glitter at all.

if we game-the-game, then knowing something glitters on an open enemy airfield i can safely presume it is going to be an enemy fighter/plane, but i cant SEE it is. eg if there were a few vehicles/planes parked in fields somewhere on the map, with other glittering house/objects spread throughout the map, i have no way to identify one of these objects might be a tank or a parked enemy plane




Yep at 1200m, really only when there is a contrasting back ground such as the concrete, can the aircraft be identified as such. Tanks definitely have zero glitter output so that's a problem, but should be expected to be that way. What I should have done was use a winter skin here and there, and even put a couple of Su 26 on the field.

[zapatista]

has anybody actually looked in detail at the LoD models themselves in CoD ? (i think there are 7 for each aircraft)

if some people are reporting a "vanishing" aircraft (several people mentioned this about trying to keep track of a spitfire) from relatively close up (say 500 meters), it is possible that there is an additional issue with LoD model errors, ie in how correct the LoD model drawings/representations are (this could be an issue with the big rush of getting CoD ready for release). like the infamous seafire in the il2 series that was missing wings on the 2e and 3e LoD model, making it MUCH harder to spot once it transitions to the smaller LoD's.

the only way i know to check LoD models in CoD is to zoom out on a paused aircraft suspended against open blue sky, and take a screen shot of each progressive Lod model, and then magnify these screen shots and see exactly how "complete" each aircraft is represented, and the color scheme used for that LoD. there might be a better way (by looking at specific files for ex), but with the amount of vanishing aircraft problems reported by some, i think that might be worth consideration.

[Arl5555en]

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg

[Lurker_71]

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg

I agree.

[SlipBall]

Since some of us don't have the vanishing problem, that would suggest either a monitor issue, or simply a pilot loosing track. As for the airfield at 1200m while using the zoom, aircraft look like aircraft and no problem to id model, details, colors,...not a problem at least for me, and so 'pilot binoculars' should perhaps be in the realism settings??. Seems to me that Zaps point about the monitor using TN is again something to consider.

[furbs]

Not a snipe but ROF handles the problem of LOD's very well, what are they doing and COD not?

Is it the FSAA?

[zapatista]

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg

some people have previously suggested that lack in AA can be a factor to some degree, but that the effect created would work in the opposite direction. mainly because lack of AA makes the distant LoD models and "dots" more jagged and square, hence they would stand out more against a background scenery that is more uniform in texture (with some exceptions of certain types of terrain textures probably)

i know that in the old days with il2. some online "point junkies" would use all kinds of tricks to make enemy planes stand out more, to the extent of significantly degrading the overall visual quality of the game: lowered resolution, no AA, special color profile configurations for the game etc

with the greatly improved gfx engine in CoD is this still the case ? i have no idea, we cant compare AA on/off to know. but it is possible, in theory the more detail and the higher the resolution the clearer the picture and the more easy it should be to see them (not true in the past with il2)

currently i dont think luthier has looked at this issue in detail yet for CoD, and during SoW development they have mainly focused on "more lod models will provide a more accurate visual representation" of distant objects drawn in the game (which is true), our issue now is "does the visibility of that distant object reflect what a real pilot would/could see under similar conditions", and the answer to this is a big NO, we are currently flying around in a myopic cocoon with about 1/3 to 1/4 the visibility of these distant objects we should have

[gpang788]

I do not have this problem:confused:

How do u do that??

[zapatista]

Seems to me that Zaps point about the monitor using TN is again something to consider.

the reason i brought up the TN panel technology is because there is a small number of CoD/il2 users that will complain the least, and that is a consistent variable with them (and as we already saw in this thread, a few posters that had less visibility issues all had TN monitors so far). but i think even for most of them their visibility is still nowhere near as good as it should be, compared to what it would be in real life

the other big issue is "the right FoV setup" for that individuals monitor, and most people will not know about it or for their own reasons prefer to fly with an incorrect FoV to get better peripheral vision (while flying around in a scenery populated by dinky-toy models, or will use the zoom-cheat to search for objects and say "but i can see them fine". people can use the sim as they like, but to define "what is normal" and how bad the visibility problem is in CoD it is the most important setting to be right at the start of any discussion on visibility.

does anybody know if in the files we can have a look at the individual LoD models, or if this is locked and hidden ? (probably is hidden , otherwise you could give all enemy planes a bright fluro orange skin and make them stand out more)

[Wolf_Rider]

the reason i brought up the TN panel technology is because there is a small number of CoD/il2 users that will complain the least, and that is a consistent variable with them (and as we already saw in this thread, a few posters that had less visibility issues all had TN monitors so far). but i think even for most of them their visibility is still nowhere near as good as it should be, compared to what it would be in real life

the other big issue is "the right FoV setup" for that individuals monitor, and most people will not know about it or for their own reasons prefer to fly with an incorrect FoV to get better peripheral vision (while flying around in a scenery populated by dinky-toy models, or will use the zoom-cheat to search for objects and say "but i can see them fine". people can use the sim as they like, but to define "what is normal" and how bad the visibility problem is in CoD it is the most important setting to be right at the start of any discussion on visibility.

does anybody know if in the files we can have a look at the individual LoD models, or if this is locked and hidden ? (probably is hidden , otherwise you could give all enemy planes a bright fluro orange skin and make them stand out more)

well, what they really want is the bright fluro orange skin... (or flashing neon arrows :)

How bad the visibilty is? the age old "we can't spot the dot" has reared it pathetic head again, pure and simple ;)



http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/masada-flyover.jpg

[SlipBall]

the reason i brought up the TN panel technology is because there is a small number of CoD/il2 users that will complain the least, and that is a consistent variable with them (and as we already saw in this thread, a few posters that had less visibility issues all had TN monitors so far). but i think even for most of them their visibility is still nowhere near as good as it should be, compared to what it would be in real life

the other big issue is "the right FoV setup" for that individuals monitor, and most people will not know about it or for their own reasons prefer to fly with an incorrect FoV to get better peripheral vision (while flying around in a scenery populated by dinky-toy models, or will use the zoom-cheat to search for objects and say "but i can see them fine". people can use the sim as they like, but to define "what is normal" and how bad the visibility problem is in CoD it is the most important setting to be right at the start of any discussion on visibility.

does anybody know if in the files we can have a look at the individual LoD models, or if this is locked and hidden ? (probably is hidden , otherwise you could give all enemy planes a bright fluro orange skin and make them stand out more)


Maybe on the size issue, maybe not...next time you are on that flat straight highway, observe that Porsche that just passed you as it gets further and further away. I know for me being on the water a lot, other boats, or even vehicles on shore get quite small...1200m is what 3/4 mile, should be easy to set up that distance right in your own neighborhood, for someone to try. With some object to view at a known distance, say an airport or a parking lot vehicle.

[FS~Lewis]

I have this problem since the beginning of the sim. As yet I have not found a solution and have given up for the time being. None of the patches have changed this.

For me, as I approach aircraft they first appear at a distance, then as I get closer they dissappear and then as I get closer still they will re-appear.

In the first video the E/A is approached from astern.

Make sure to enlarge the screen and set the vid to HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2K18QZc-TE

In the second video the E/A in a headon pass flickers and then briefly disappears at 2K....It is easier to see with the icons 'on'....As there is a fast closing speed the invisibilty zone is passed through quickly but as you will appreciate going through this zone from behind an aircraft will render it invisible to me for for long periods of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kOjhqmhD38


The solutions I have tried are: Different monitors, MeshShowLod=1, Post processing AA and lower resolution.

None of the above worked.....

[SlipBall]

How do u do that??


Hi gpang
I think there two reasons, the first is I believe with my monitor I have excellent distance viewing quality. The second reason is, I won't continue chasing a dot if I am not making a gain, or it dos'nt feel right for me to devote the time.

[David198502]

Since some of us don't have the vanishing problem, that would suggest either a monitor issue, or simply a pilot loosing track. As for the airfield at 1200m while using the zoom, aircraft look like aircraft and no problem to id model, details, colors,...not a problem at least for me, and so 'pilot binoculars' should perhaps be in the realism settings??. Seems to me that Zaps point about the monitor using TN is again something to consider.

no slipball,....its definitely not a a monitor issue nor a pilot loosing track problem...
if i have a spit in my REVI 2km distance i can see it perfectly...
i gain on it,..still in my REVI 1,8km,...its starts to shimmer...
i still come closer,..still in my REVI 1,6km,...its suddenly invisible(if i zoom into it, it suddenly appears again)
there is a distance, where they will become visible again(cant say exactly what it is now).
the reason i know that its not a monitor issue is the fact, that this bug was introduced with one of the patches last year...this problem didnt exist in the release version.

[SlipBall]

no slipball,....its definitely not a a monitor issue nor a pilot loosing track problem...
if i have a spit in my REVI 2km distance i can see it perfectly...
i gain on it,..still in my REVI 1,8km,...its starts to shimmer...
i still come closer,..still in my REVI 1,6km,...its suddenly invisible(if i zoom into it, it suddenly appears again)
there is a distance, where they will become visible again(cant say exactly what it is now).
the reason i know that its not a monitor issue is the fact, that this bug was introduced with one of the patches last year...this problem didnt exist in the release version.


Maybe I did over state, I assume now that this happens on-line?

[David198502]

Maybe I did over state, I assume now that this happens on-line?

online and offline its the same problem...

[SlipBall]

Interesting, I will look further into this to see if I can replicate. Again though zapatista has found that those using TN monitors seem to not notice this.

[David198502]

Interesting, I will look further into this to see if I can replicate. Again though zapatista has found that those using TN monitors seem to not notice this.

well slipball, according to zapatista i have a TN monitor!

[SlipBall]

well slipball, according to zapatista i have a TN monitor!


I don't really know what to say because I don't have the problem, I'm sure others do though...tell me if the dot disappears for you during the veiwing, there is a point at about 1.8 that it gets smaller, but still visible for me all the way to 5.35

[David198502]

yeah and i totally believe you, and some squadmates say that they dont suffer from this either....
i tried as well every possible combination of graphics settings, but to no avail...
all i can say is, that its definitely a ingame problem,...maybe it has to do with how the game handles different systems and how it draws textures according to it...

for example some of us have problems with almost invisible revis, and not loading textures properly....

[SlipBall]

yeah and i totally believe you, and some squadmates say that they dont suffer from this either....
i tried as well every possible combination of graphics settings, but to no avail...
all i can say is, that its definitely a ingame problem,...maybe it has to do with how the game handles different systems and how it draws textures according to it...

for example some of us have problems with almost invisible revis, and not loading textures properly....


So David you were unable to track the dot in my file?...not sure what system you have but these are my settings, not sure if a factor.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/page1.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/page2.jpg

[GraveyardJimmy]

So David you were unable to track the dot in my file?...not sure what system you have but these are my settings, not sure if a factor.


I dont think those setting will matter as they only apply to the steam client (run off steam.exe) and not to CloD which runs off launcher.exe (you have to manually add this iirc).

[SlipBall]

I dont think those setting will matter as they only apply to the steam client (run off steam.exe) and not to CloD which runs off launcher.exe (you have to manually add this iirc).


Yea but those are my Global settings as well, launcher is in there too I just didn't bother to use the drop down:)...thanks

[GF_Mastiff]

So David you were unable to track the dot in my file?...not sure what system you have but these are my settings, not sure if a factor.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/page1.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/page2.jpg

So why are you pointing the Nvidia panel for user porfile to Steam . exe?

It should be pointed to the IL2, Launcher.exe..... That controls your game not steam, Steam is a user interface for gaming social program not for games exe.

[SlipBall]

So why are you pointing the Nvidia panel for user porfile to Steam . exe?

It should be pointed to the IL2, Launcher.exe..... That controls your game not steam, Steam is a user interface for gaming social program not for games exe.

Yea but those are my Global settings as well, launcher is in there too I just didn't bother to use the drop down:)...thanks

:grin:

[SQB]

Currently having a lot of success with these modifications to the conf.ini file in the steam folders (NOT USER/MY DOCUMENTS!!):

ShowMeshLOD=8 (was 0, 1 gives poor fps)
VisibilityDistance=0 (turned down from original)

Contrast is set to 1.4 and gamma to 0.6 through a custom colour/shade modifier (though CCC or Nvidia control panel will do the same job) .

(I have a bright, 8bit monitor).

The game looks quite nice on these settings, keep in mind contrast and gamma are exponential differences in my program.

[Stublerone]

Just haven't read all posts, but what about resolution? Native resolution? A non native resolution could also draw wrong. It could be that aa draws it out of sight and it could be, that your monitors hardware is scaling like a nap!

My first aim in games is to always run it in native resolution to avoid bad scaling. Just my quick post to that topic ;)

[David198502]

Currently having a lot of success with these modifications to the conf.ini file in the steam folders (NOT USER/MY DOCUMENTS!!):

ShowMeshLOD=8 (was 0, 1 gives poor fps)
VisibilityDistance=0 (turned down from original)

Contrast is set to 1.4 and gamma to 0.6 through a custom colour/shade modifier (though CCC or Nvidia control panel will do the same job) .

(I have a bright, 8bit monitor).

The game looks quite nice on these settings, keep in mind contrast and gamma are exponential differences in my program.

mh thats interesting and definitely worth a try, as i get really poor fps with meshshowlod=1!
i remember i also tried to put other values than 1 into meshshowlod line....but i think i gave up before i entered 8....

why do you adjusted your conf.ini in your steam folder and not in the 1c one?

EDIT: ok i just tried it....if i put meshshowlod=8 into th steam conf.ini,...there is no change in visibility, and planes still disappear
if i adjust the 1c conf.ini,.....then the planes dont disappear anymore, and fps seem to be as good as with meshshowlod=0,....but then i have no cockpit visible anymore, and can see partly through the remaining textures of my plane...

but the game doesnt accept meshshowlod=8, cause when i quit the game, and opened the conf.ini, it was reset to meshshowlod=6

[notafinger!]

I am skeptical that any of these conf.ini changes make a difference unless somebody can post proof. Make a mission in the FMB with planes at different distances and see what is visible with the conf.ini changes. I did this before when people were claiming VisibilityDistance=4 or 5 made a difference and I can tell you from testing the game does not recognize a value above 3.

Making changes to the conf.ini in the Steam folder doesn't make sense as that is a template for creating new conf.ini's in the 1C SoftClub folder. That is certainly not the conf.ini the program is using at start up.

These sound like placebos and the reason you think you are spotting contacts better is because there are twice as many people playing now as ever before.

[David198502]

yeah notafinger,....im also pretty confident, that adjusting the conf.ini in the steam directory doesnt have any effect at all, as its only the backup...adjusting the conf.ini in the 1c softclub folder and the MeshShowLod line does indeed have an effect though...

for me:
Meshshowlod=0 fluid performance, but contacts totally disappear in midrange
=1 half the framerate,stutters, but contacts stay visible
everything above 1 leads to disappearing parts of your own plane....the higher the value, the more parts of your plane disappear...

the highest value accepted by the game seems to be meshshowlod=6
as it will reset itself automatically as soon as you enter anything above 6

the annoying thing though is, that with all those values above 1 the other planes stay visible and dont disappear, while the performance is still fluid...but unfortunately its not of use, as you own plane isnt visible....

[IvanK]

Well I changed meshSowlod=8 in the Steam side of the house, went in and flew then checked after exit and it was still set =8. I have Steam cloud turned off though. So it wont always reset itself.

[notafinger!]

I can confirm what David said. Any changes to conf.ini in Steam folder has no effect. Meshshowlod=8 in 1C SoftClub conf.ini will revert to Meshshowlod=6 and results in no cockpit and 3d externals that look like they are from an early 90's DOS game.

Well I changed meshSowlod=8 in the Steam side of the house, went in and flew then checked after exit and it was still set =8. I have Steam cloud turned off though. So it wont always reset itself.

You can put whatever you want in the conf.ini stored in Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover. The game does not use that file. As a test you can delete it completely and the game will still launch and run just fine. The only conf.ini file that matters is stored in ~\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover. Change Meshshowlod= in that file and you will see what it actually does to your game.

[David198502]

and the disappearing problem is a specific spitfire problem they introduced with a patch...
at least for me, all the other planes stay visible...but the spit disappears completely..

i cant believe that this really annoying bug made it into the last update of clod......gosh im angry

[HR_Naglfar]

and the disappearing problem is a specific spitfire problem they introduced with a patch...
at least for me, all the other planes stay visible...but the spit disappears completely..

i cant believe that this really annoying bug made it into the last update of clod......gosh im angry

To me it happens with all fighters with MeshShowLod=0, it's not just the Spitfire.

[David198502]

the disappearing also depends with with FOV you prefer to fly....i noticed yesterday, that the planes only seem to completely disappear with a FOV from ~80° or higher...
if i fly with the standard 70° FOV, the planes start to flicker in the critical range,and are hard to spot, but dont disappear completely...

[Blennydude]

I'm at a complete loss with plane disappearances so far. I can't remember the last time planes stayed visible from detection to close range.
Now that the game appears at least playable, with some FM components approaching reality, this is the next game-breaking bug that keeps me from having any fun with CoD - it's just SO frustrating I could almost cry.

I run a 1920*1080 resolution (ATI HD 5xxx series, 1GB VRAM), which is the native one for my monitor, and so far, nothing has helped. Quite often, I feel that I can't spot anything at all (which is not a problem of me needing better glasses, if you suspect that ;) - normally, I can spot things from pretty far out). As an example: A few days ago, on ATAG, people reported 6 109s on the deck, right where I was - but the first thing I saw of them was when I checked my 6 after getting fatal hits...
And, at other times, I've got the problem most people report - that I can spot planes from far out, only to have them disappear, and (sometimes) reappear when it's way too late.
As I said, I'm at a complete loss, and it's just soo frustrating. I just want to play a combat flight simulation and I don't see why I'm not allowed to do that! *sigh*.

I tried everything that has been proposed so far, chiefly among it the MeshShowLod=1 setting in conf.ini. Setting this costs some FPS, but it's certainly still playable - except that it does seemingly nothing.
I also overheard(read) somebody mentioning that object detail has to be at "high" - which it is, per defauilt, on my setting - nothing.
Playing with other graphic settings, p.ex. setting texture details to "original", also yielded nothing at all.

I always feel like I'm flying completely alone on ATAG - the "biggest" proof that there are other people in the air are flak puffs over home territory... but, strangely, as long as I am on the ground, things *seem* to work, with fellow pilots being visible, taking off alongside me, and if airspace is busy over the airfield, the action is quite clearly visible...

Sooooo, if anybody has a tip how to finally get rid of this da*** problem, I would be very, very, VERY grateful. I even would fly with a skin with the words "I <3 <helper>!!11" on it, if provided with one! :)


Just one time having a good time in CoD - just one time - please... :(

[SQB]

Well, I think I've found the problem. There's a gap between the fade out range (where the model of the aircraft disappears) and where the dot comes in. This is why FOV appears to make a difference (which LOD to use is a product of distance and FOV). To change this... setting the LOD to run out to infinity (meshshowlod=1) will do the trick, but you'll kill your computer. If I knew what lines changed things I would make it so the dot appears on any aircraft at any distance, it's still to have it come in at a certain range.

[SlipBall]

I'm at a complete loss with plane disappearances so far. I can't remember the last time planes stayed visible from detection to close range.
Now that the game appears at least playable, with some FM components approaching reality, this is the next game-breaking bug that keeps me from having any fun with CoD - it's just SO frustrating I could almost cry.

I run a 1920*1080 resolution (ATI HD 5xxx series, 1GB VRAM), which is the native one for my monitor, and so far, nothing has helped. Quite often, I feel that I can't spot anything at all (which is not a problem of me needing better glasses, if you suspect that ;) - normally, I can spot things from pretty far out). As an example: A few days ago, on ATAG, people reported 6 109s on the deck, right where I was - but the first thing I saw of them was when I checked my 6 after getting fatal hits...
And, at other times, I've got the problem most people report - that I can spot planes from far out, only to have them disappear, and (sometimes) reappear when it's way too late.
As I said, I'm at a complete loss, and it's just soo frustrating. I just want to play a combat flight simulation and I don't see why I'm not allowed to do that! *sigh*.

I tried everything that has been proposed so far, chiefly among it the MeshShowLod=1 setting in conf.ini. Setting this costs some FPS, but it's certainly still playable - except that it does seemingly nothing.
I also overheard(read) somebody mentioning that object detail has to be at "high" - which it is, per defauilt, on my setting - nothing.
Playing with other graphic settings, p.ex. setting texture details to "original", also yielded nothing at all.

I always feel like I'm flying completely alone on ATAG - the "biggest" proof that there are other people in the air are flak puffs over home territory... but, strangely, as long as I am on the ground, things *seem* to work, with fellow pilots being visible, taking off alongside me, and if airspace is busy over the airfield, the action is quite clearly visible...

Sooooo, if anybody has a tip how to finally get rid of this da*** problem, I would be very, very, VERY grateful. I even would fly with a skin with the words "I <3 <helper>!!11" on it, if provided with one! :)

Just one time having a good time in CoD - just one time - please... :(


Try watching my track file up above. If the dot disappears, then maybe it is in your system some where.

[David198502]

Well, I think I've found the problem. There's a gap between the fade out range (where the model of the aircraft disappears) and where the dot comes in. This is why FOV appears to make a difference (which LOD to use is a product of distance and FOV). To change this... setting the LOD to run out to infinity (meshshowlod=1) will do the trick, but you'll kill your computer. If I knew what lines changed things I would make it so the dot appears on any aircraft at any distance, it's still to have it come in at a certain range.

yeah its exactly that, a gap between the dot model and the 3d lod model, where just nothing is rendered...
when they introduced this bug, i thought this was only a matter of a few days until a hotfix will be available...its really puzzling, as this is a major bug and really ridiculous that it actually made it into the final release...

the last two days i was spending much time and fiddled with the conf.ini file, to see if there is a workaroung except the meshshowlod=1 trick.up until now, without any result unforutantely...
having to zoom in to avoid the vanishing is of course possible, but you will lose situational awareness....
i dont believe, that this would be hard to fix for the devs, but what do i know.

[SQB]

yeah its exactly that, a gap between the dot model and the 3d lod model, where just nothing is rendered...
when they introduced this bug, i thought this was only a matter of a few days until a hotfix will be available...its really puzzling, as this is a major bug and really ridiculous that it actually made it into the final release...

the last two days i was spending much time and fiddled with the conf.ini file, to see if there is a workaroung except the meshshowlod=1 trick.up until now, without any result unforutantely...
having to zoom in to avoid the vanishing is of course possible, but you will lose situational awareness....
i dont believe, that this would be hard to fix for the devs, but what do i know.

Well, part of the reason is that back when the game was released the dot was rendered at ALL ranges, even when taxiing next to a spitfire you could see a little 2D dot just under/behind the cockpit. They must've taken that out to make the game more photogenic, but put the distance out too far.

[David198502]

yeah i think you are right....
but back then, the lod model didnt grind my pc to a halt.....now when i put in the conf.ini the line mehsshowlod to 1, i get terrible fps...it would be playable offline for some reason though, online its totally unplayable...fps between 1-30 jumping up and down in split seconds, stutters and freezes for more than a few seconds...

i definitely didnt have that in the release version or in any other version when the lod model was different.

in the meanwhile i seemed to found out, that putting the resolution to the native one seems to cure the probelm....but again, people with weak systems just like me, really dont want to do that....with lowering the resolution i get the biggest performance gain next to disabling shadows...

[Blennydude]

As I wrote above, I run with the native Monitor resolution and I've got massive LoD problems, so this doesn't cure the problem for me, sadly :(
I have disabled shadows, too, though.

[Blennydude]

Try watching my track file up above. If the dot disappears, then maybe it is in your system some where.

I watched your track. The text, as well as the actual aircraft "dot", is visible all the time; from the starting distance (about 1.20 or so), down to .80, where you slow down, and then up to around 5.30, where the text is no longer readable on my resolution - but I estimate it stays there up to 5.60 or so.

Then, I watched the track again, this time with MeshShowLod=1. This yielded the exact same result; the plane as well as the text remained visible all the time. Exactly the same, with no newly introduced stutters or so.

Meanwhile, on ATAG, I searched in vain for a 14-plane Ju88 formation, as advertised by "Chain Home" - nothing, except for a few flak puffs.
Then, I got shot down over France in the usual manner - Bang, Bang, critical dmg, Pilot dead - and after pressing Alt+F2, I was able to see the corresponding Me109 for the first time...
This must've been a happy time for the Me - Pilot :(

So I'm still at a loss and still begging for help! :mad:


P.S.: That other file, "confs.ini" in the Documents/1C.../il-2 sturmovik.../ folder has an option, under [core], called "LinearObjectManager(=1)". Could this be relevant in any way?

[SlipBall]

I watched your track. The text, as well as the actual aircraft "dot", is visible all the time; from the starting distance (about 1.20 or so), down to .80, where you slow down, and then up to around 5.30, where the text is no longer readable on my resolution - but I estimate it stays there up to 5.60 or so.

Then, I watched the track again, this time with MeshShowLod=1. This yielded the exact same result; the plane as well as the text remained visible all the time. Exactly the same, with no newly introduced stutters or so.

Meanwhile, on ATAG, I searched in vain for a 14-plane Ju88 formation, as advertised by "Chain Home" - nothing, except for a few flak puffs.
Then, I got shot down over France in the usual manner - Bang, Bang, critical dmg, Pilot dead - and after pressing Alt+F2, I was able to see the corresponding Me109 for the first time...
This must've been a happy time for the Me - Pilot :(

So I'm still at a loss and still begging for help! :mad:


P.S.: That other file, "confs.ini" in the Documents/1C.../il-2 sturmovik.../ folder has an option, under [core], called "LinearObjectManager(=1)". Could this be relevant in any way?


That's the thing the dot is there, people including my self will at time's loose track of it. Partly luck, but mostly looking in the right spot is the key. It really is a developed skill over a period of time. For myself I try to not take my eyes off of it, and to determine his heading. Many times if you loose it, look where it should be. If he spotted you, why then he could be anywhere trying to get on your six.

[Wolf_Rider]

A possible recreation attempt??

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

[tintifaxl]

and the disappearing problem is a specific spitfire problem they introduced with a patch...
at least for me, all the other planes stay visible...but the spit disappears completely..

i cant believe that this really annoying bug made it into the last update of clod......gosh im angry

I saw this behavior with an enemy Rotol Hurri, in an offline mission. Label and plane became invisible at 2.4 km distance, guestimated 400 m below me. Vanished for ~2 seconds then reappeared at 1.5 km. This was with MeshShowLod=1 in my conf.ini in the myuser folder.

[Blennydude]

That's the thing the dot is there, people including my self will at time's loose track of it. Partly luck, but mostly looking in the right spot is the key. It really is a developed skill over a period of time. For myself I try to not take my eyes off of it, and to determine his heading. Many times if you loose it, look where it should be. If he spotted you, why then he could be anywhere trying to get on your six.

Hmm I don't really understand your answer. But if you're suggesting that I'm not looking hard enough, I am 100% positive that this is not the case. There's just no way. As I have written, planes which should be VERY close, also elude me... (yes, I check my six regularly).

[SlipBall]

Hmm I don't really understand your answer. But if you're suggesting that I'm not looking hard enough, I am 100% positive that this is not the case. There's just no way. As I have written, planes which should be VERY close, also elude me... (yes, I check my six regularly).


You were able to track my dot in the file, so I cannot say why you continue to have a problem. I hope that you find a cure:-)

[David198502]

ok meanwhile we tested on more systems, and it seems that three things are important to get rid of the disappearing bug...
resolution
model details
FOV

if you fly with a low resolution, use medium or low model detail settings and use a FOV higher than 70° you will be able to "create" a really big range where contacts totally disappear...

[SQB]

Holy hell, so I just jumped in singleplayer to test the colour modifications and... decided to play around a little.


What I found shocked me, there doesn't seem to be *a dot* anymore, for aircraft. Instead we are literally looking at the pixel that is the aircraft, when it was meant to have a dot, like ground forces. This dot literally does not exist. Because of this, the shape and size of the aircraft is paramount, at certain angles an easily visible aircraft becomes invisible and so on and so forth. The worst places is actually near the horizon, because aircraft so often fly straight and level.

I have video evidence (plain as day), but I don't know my way around video editing programs. If anybody could give me a quick how to it would be much appreciated. In the mean time I will build some .gifs, which I know how to make.


EDIT: OH, I almost forgot. Everyone post your settings (conf.ini) here. I'll sort through them and see if any of them actually work! First off, I'll try defaults but showmeshlod=1.

[IvanK]

I agree. In the little experimentation I have done with InjectFX first contact ranges have increased dramatically ... unnaturally so. Aircraft at long range appear as a stark black pixel. To me they are of fixed dimension too. They dont seem to start as a tiny pin prick then slowly grow.

[SQB]

Well shit, disregard my last. Dots do not appear on your own aircraft (even if you zoom out all the way) so my whole argument is invalid.

[Blennydude]

well, my conf.ini:

[BOB]
EpilepsyFilter=0

[window]
DepthBits =24
StencilBits=8
DrawIfNotFocused=0
SaveAspect=0
Render=D3D10_0
width=1920
height=1080
ColourBits=32
FullScreen=1
ChangeScreenRes=1
posLeft=0
posTop=0
Frequency=60
StereoMode=0

[NET]
speed=25000
localPort=3724
serverName=My Server
serverDescription=IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover
serverInfo1=
serverInfo2=
serverInfo3=
serverInfo4=
VAC=1
maxPlayers=16
socksEnable=0
socksHost=
socksPort=1080
socksUser=
socksPwd=
localHost=
host=216.52.148.29
port=27016
SkinDownload=1

[Console]
IP=20001
UseStartLog=1
WRAP=1
PAUSE=1
HISTORY=1024
HISTORYCMD=1024
PAGE=20
LOG=0
LOGTIME=0
LOAD=console.cmd
SAVE=console.cmd
LOGFILE=log.txt
LOGKEEP=0

[rts]
tickLen=30
;ProcessAffinityMask=3
maxTimerTicksInRealTick=20
; 0 - not use, 1 - show cursor and not capture, 2 - not show cursor, and capture
mouseUse=2
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
joyUse=1
; 0 - not use, 1 - use if hardware exist
trackIRUse=1
DisableIME=0
culture=en-GB

[rts_mouse]
SensitivityX=1.0
SensitivityY=1.0
SensitivityZ=1.0
Invert=0
SwapButtons = 0

[rts_joystick]
FF=0

[core]
RandSeed = 0
TexQual=3
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
Shadows=0
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
LandShading=0
LandDetails=2
Sky=3
Forest=1
VisibilityDistance=3
LandGeom=2
DrawCollisions=1
Water=-1
Effects=2
EffFlags.Light=1
EffFlags.SpriteRender=0
Grass=3
CordEffect=1
UseFog=0
UseLandCube=1
UseLandConnectedObject=1
LinearObjectManager=1
Roads=1
Sun=1
Clouds=1
EffFlags.LightSpritesProj=1
ShadowMapSize=5
TexFlags.AsyncLoad=1
TexFlags.ShowTexture=0
SimpleMesh.SWTransform=0
SimpleMesh.QuadTreeClip=1
SimpleMesh.InstancingHW=1
EffFlags.LightContextSprites=1
CloudsFlags.Detailed=1
TexFlags.CreateHDR=1
Decals=2
EffFlags.SWLight=0
TexFlags.CockpitOnePass=0
MegaTexture=0
TexFlags.Reflection=0
RenderTargetQual=3
MSAA=0
MeshStatics=1
MeshStaticsDetail=1
SimpleMesh.QTNoCompose=0
MeshFirstLod=0
MeshShowLod=0
SpawnHumans=1
TexFlags.FastTransparency=1
TexFlags.SSAO=0
TexFlags.VSync=1

[sound]
SoundUse=1
DebugSound=0
SoundEngine=1
Speakers=1
Placement=0
SoundFlags.reversestereo=0
RadioFlags.Enabled=1
RadioEngine=2
MusicVolume=14
ObjectVolume=7
MusState.takeoff=1
MusState.inflight=1
MusState.crash=1
MusFlags.play=1
MasterVolume=14
Attenuation=7
SoundMode=0
SamplingRate=0
NumChannels=2
SoundExt.occlusions=1
SoundFlags.hardware=1
SoundFlags.streams=1
SoundFlags.duplex=1
SoundExt.acoustics=1
SoundExt.volumefx=1
SoundFlags.voicemgr=1
SoundFlags.static=1
VoiceVolume=8
Channels=1
SoundFlags.bugscorrect=0
SoundExt.extrender=0
SoundSetupId=8
ActivationLevel=0.02
Preemphasis=0.8
RadioLatency=0.5
AGC=1
PTTMode=1
RadioFlags.PTTMode=0
RadioFlags.PlayClicks=1
ActLevel=9
MicLevel=10
SoundFlags.UseRadioChatter=0
SoundFlags.AutoActivation=0
SoundFlags.forceEAX1=0
speakers=1
vgMaster=15
vgVoice=15
vgMusic=10

[game]
mapPadX=0.65
mapPadY=0.08055556
mirror=0
mapPadDX=0.35
mapPadDY=0.6

[zapatista]

ok meanwhile we tested on more systems, and it seems that three things are important to get rid of the disappearing bug...
- resolution
- model details
- FOV

if you fly with a low resolution, use medium or low model detail settings and use a FOV higher than 70° you will be able to "create" a really big range where contacts totally disappear...


i think you are on the right track there, but we need to first differentiate what all the different people mean by "having trouble seeing/tracking" aircraft, and from peoples comments in this thread we have a few different issues involved
1) how well people can see distant aircraft dots or the smallest CoD LoD models in the far distance (against open sky or terrain background): lcd display technology is a factor there (TN monitors doing significantly better), but the small dots and smallest LoD models are NOT visible enough against terrain background for most players (due to the flat 2D nature of current monitor displays, it all blends together to much)
2) how well people can see medium distance LoD models: this is i believe the OP's main topic, and he suggests the LoD models need some form of visual enhancement. similar issues as point 1, TN screens have an advantage but their visibility is generally under-modeled compared to visibility in real life from a real aircraft
3) some people stating aircraft in the medium distance can suddenly become invisible (either a LoD model programing error for some planes, or other issue)

for any of these visibility issues, to compare apples with apples it is critical players standardize as much as possible what we are looking at, and how it is displayed:
- monitors need to be set to the correct FoV for their monitor size and distance they sit from it, only then will we know how good/bad CoD is recreating the distant aircraft visibility
- monitors should be set to their native resolutions,
- have object/model detail set to high if possible (but it is well possible that lower detail settings for buildings and aircraft makes them easier to spot/track ?)

for those who havnt considered how to find their "correct FoV" setting (which in the il2 series could then be bound to the "normal" view key (allowing them to see all in-game objects in their correct 1:1 sizes, and hence giving in theory correct visibility for distant objects), with an additional "wide view" (90) that could be briefly used for increasing SA during a dogfight for ex (but shrinks all in-game objects significantly, making them much harder to spot), and a "zoomed view" (35) which is like strapping on a set of binoculars (with tunnel vision) and hence significantly magnifies everything you look at

how to find what is your own personal "normal FoV" for il2/CoD

your "normal" il2 CoD FoV = {arctan [ (horz size monitor/2) / monitor distance ] } x2

for ex, for my 27' screen (58 cm wide), which during il2 gaming i have from my eyes at a distance of 60 cm (note, dont mix metric and imperial, mind your decimal places, and make sure you use how wide your monitor display area is not the diagonal measurement !), this would mean for me:

{arctan [ (0.58 / 2) / 0.60 ] } x2
{arctan [ 0.29 / 0.60 ] } x2
{arctan [ 0.4833 ] } x2
{ 25.796 } x 2
= 51.592

so for me, with my monitor size and sitting at that viewing distance, my "normal FoV" in il2/CoD should be set at 50. and only then will i, or should i, be able to see objects in their correct sizes for the distance they are from me. if I however use a wider then normal FoV (for ex the default "normal" right now in CoD is 70 FoV), then the distant objects will shrink significantly, and my visibility of them will significantly reduce (because now i am seeing LoD model 8 for ex instead of LoD model 5 which is significantly larger)

and my observation, and most il2 series users, was that in the il2 series visibility of these distant aircraft LoD models (against terrain background) was about 1/2 to 1/3 of what it should be in real life, eg instead of for ex overflying fields and roads at 1200 meters and spotting individual tanks or trucks (or parked single engine aircraft at an airfield), you needed to be at 300 meters in this game ! in effect in the il2 series we were flying around in a "mini SA bubble", which didnt SIMULATE a real ww2 pilot experience

from my experience so far in CoD, we are again dealing with similar visibility issues, and as the OP suggested, we need to find some way to get this across to luthier and then get him to adjust the distant LoD model visibility so it makes up for the problem that the gfx engine might well model the distant object correctly in size, but it doesnt stand out as well as a similar object would in real life (on a pc display with current technology the 2D Lod model blends in to much with the flat 2D landscape being displayed

note: currently in CoD as far as i know we can only set our FoV to the 3 preset values they included, and despite numerous requests during the beta patches to provide us with the 5 degree incremental settings we had in il-1946 (where you could set it at steps of 5 degrees from 35 to 90), we are still stuck with this. (note, for most people with mid size monitors they can use the 70 setting and sit closer to their monitors to correct for the excessively high FoV. using the 35 FoV setting is not a valid option however since it works like using a fair of binoculars in the game, and provides significant magnification and cant be used as a "normal" comparison). one forum member (ataros) suggested that the kegetis mod tool allows you to set a specific FoV but i havnt tried it yet (and might not be compatible online ?) (see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=26750&highlight=multi+monitor ). several people tried to edit the CoD files to alter the FoV setting directly, but no luck so far. setting the "correct FoV" is however critical to determine how good/bad visibility is currently in CoD. because with most people flying around with incorrect FoV settings, we cant be trying to compensate with a distorted visibility setup, we need to compare what is a "normal" setting in the sim, and then see how this compares to similar real life situations.

[zapatista]

Well, I think I've found the problem. There's a gap between the fade out range (where the model of the aircraft disappears) and where the dot comes in. This is why FOV appears to make a difference (which LOD to use is a product of distance and FOV). To change this... setting the LOD to run out to infinity (meshshowlod=1) will do the trick, but you'll kill your computer. If I knew what lines changed things I would make it so the dot appears on any aircraft at any distance, it's still to have it come in at a certain range.

interesting

why dont you try the same observation but with your monitor set to the correct FoV ? (without using the "meshshowlod" hack)

i strongly suspect that "gap" does not exist (but if it does exist, it obviously would be a coding error or absence of the smallest LoD models for ex)

[Wolf_Rider]

What you're missing though, is... when you change the FoV from the "default" setting, you are introducing the distortion you allayed to in your post above your last.
and crikey.. you're sitting 2 foot (60cm) off your screen??

[zapatista]

when you change the FoV from the "default" setting, you are introducing the distortion you allayed to in your post above your last.

no i am not

it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. if i would be using the 70 FoV as "normal default"(with my eyes 60 cm from my 27' screen as i stated earlier), all ingame objects size shrink around 30% for me, making them much harder to spot, track or identify, THAT is a distortion !

if in a flight simulator the purpose is presumably to see all in-game objects in their correct 1:1 sizes compared to what you would see in real life (ie the same as when looking out of a cockpit), in which case you then need to determine what this "normal" view is for your own monitor personal setup first (size monitor, and the distance you have you're eyes from it.

right now the "normal view" (by default 70 FoV right now in CoD), is only "normal" if you have a 30' screen and sit exactly 54.356 centimeter (21.4 inch ) from it. if that same person then briefly uses the zoomed 35 FoV to scan a distant airfield or road, all in-game objects are magnified by 2x (hence much easier to see), but it does so at the cost of introducing tunnel vision. having snap views setup that are more zoomed (35 FoV) or artificially increase peripheral vision (eg the 90 FoV) are useful to briefly use to overcome some of the limitations of sitting behind a monitor in your living room rather then being in a real aircraft, but both induce significant size and object-visibility distortions

just calculate it for your own setup, and see what should be your "normal FoV" for your current setup.

the purpose of raising this in this thread is because only if using a correct "normal" FoV can we determine if in-game "distant object" visibility is roughly correct (compared to similar real life situations), AND if the "invisible zone" (disappearing aircraft) some players complain of is a real problem or some less serious artifact introduced by not using the right FoV.

[SlipBall]

no i am not

it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. if i would be using the 70 FoV as "normal default"(with my eyes 60 cm from my 27' screen as i stated earlier), all ingame objects size shrink around 30% for me, making them much harder to spot, track or identify, THAT is a distortion !

if in a flight simulator the purpose is presumably to see all in-game objects in their correct 1:1 sizes compared to what you would see in real life (ie the same as when looking out of a cockpit), in which case you then need to determine what this "normal" view is for your own monitor personal setup first (size monitor, and the distance you have you're eyes from it.

right now the "normal view" (by default 70 FoV right now in CoD), is only "normal" if you have a 30' screen and sit exactly 54.356 centimeter (21.4 inch ) from it. if that same person then briefly uses the zoomed 35 FoV to scan a distant airfield or road, all in-game objects are magnified by 2x (hence much easier to see), but it does so at the cost of introducing tunnel vision. having snap views setup that are more zoomed (35 FoV) or artificially increase peripheral vision (eg the 90 FoV) are useful to briefly use to overcome some of the limitations of sitting behind a monitor in your living room rather then being in a real aircraft, but both induce significant size and object-visibility distortions

just calculate it for your own setup, and see what should be your "normal FoV" for your current setup.

the purpose of raising this in this thread is because only if using a correct "normal" FoV can we determine if in-game "distant object" visibility is roughly correct (compared to similar real life situations), AND if the "invisible zone" (disappearing aircraft) some players complain of is a real problem or some less serious artifact introduced by not using the right FoV.

zapatista
109 The view that I prefer is to have all of my gauges in view. Is it possible for me to lock that as my normal view?...maybe a config edit?

[zapatista]

zapatista
109 The view that I prefer is to have all of my gauges in view. Is it possible for me to lock that as my normal view?...maybe a config edit?

hiya slipball,

you have several options to keep your instruments in view in the il2 series
1) if you use your "wide" (90 FoV) to achieve that, you have the major problem that everything in the "game world" has shrunk in size (including your cockpit instruments) and distant aircraft and ground objects will be much harder to spot
2) you could tilt your widescreen monitor to 90 degrees, making it taller then wide :) dont laugh, some people actually prefer that view. they have all instruments in view, and their mirror, and have a good visibility of the sky up in front of them. personally i find it disorienting, but it could work if you have 3 monitors setup side by side.
3) you could use a small 2e display to just have a small cluster of the most important instruments displayed, this was possible with a small addon program in the il2 series. eg you could use a tablet pc or similar 7' or 9' screen for that purpose. this is my preferred option, but untill the most recent patch still wasnt possible in CoD. several people requested this feature, but no idea if the last official patch made any changes to enable this (sadly i doubt they included it)
4) you could setup your correct" normal FoV" for your setup (calculated by above method). and use a track-IR to follow your head movement, small brief downward glances to the instruments become fairly intuitive after a while, and not to distracting. this is probably the best current option for most of us.

i think those are the main options i can see for now, other might have more suggestions

my personal ambition for the future is to add 2 smaller 20' monitors on either side of my 27', the amount of pixels they use is roughly similar to adding one extra widescreen (instead of 2, so easier on the GPU and CPU), and the vertical resolution and pixel count is the same as my monitor (1200) so it blends in fairly well. multi monitor setups in CoD are still not perfectly integrated, so still looking at cost effective options myself :)

it would be great to have a small tablet pc with a few instruments displayed, its resolution is relatively low so no major drain on the pc as a 2e display, and the gaming advantage is significant (compared to the limitations of 1 large screen with no instruments in view during dog-fighting for ex)

so with your current setup, what would be your personal "normal FoV" ? i think you'd be amazed at how low the FoV needs to be (and most people dont use that because it gives them a very narrow visual field). it will give you some idea as to how much distant objects and planes shrink in size when you set ti to 70 or 90, and hence why now suddenly they are so much harder to spot for most :)

[zapatista]

zapatista
. Is it possible for me to lock that as my normal view?...maybe a config edit?

one forum member (ataros) suggested that the kegetis mod tool allows you to set a specific FoV (and "lock it"), but i havnt tried it myself yet (and might not be compatible online ?) (see ...http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=26750&highlight=multi+monitor ).

several people tried to edit the CoD files to alter the FoV setting directly, but no luck so far. being able to set specific FoV's at 5 degree steps (as was possible in the il2 series) is afaik not currently possible in CoD, it was a feature requested several times by many people, but i dont think it was included in the final patch.

knowing what your personal "normal" FoV should be in CoD is however important to determine the amount of distortion in object sizes you are creating as a result of using the "wrong FoV" (and for the purpose of this thread to determine game errors).

[SlipBall]

Thanks zapatista! I will experiment with your advice:-)

[MadTommy]

** post removed while i retest this ***

[David198502]

zapatista
109 The view that I prefer is to have all of my gauges in view. Is it possible for me to lock that as my normal view?...maybe a config edit?

simple answer....no

[David198502]

@ zap....

to have the "correct" field of view is a totally different topic...
as long as the devs offer different FOVs in the game, and in some of them, contacts totally disappear in mid ranges, it can and should be seen as a bug...

try 1024x768 for example, and you will see what im talking about...there is no doubt, that that is a bug....it has nothing to do with distortion, but the game just seems to forget to load one LOD model in that resolution.

[Wolf_Rider]

knowing what your personal "normal" FoV should be in CoD is however important to determine the amount of distortion in object sizes you are creating as a result of using the "wrong FoV" (and for the purpose of this thread to determine game errors).



The "distortion" isn't in sizes as such... it is in how the object/ background/ viewpoint (as in origin of view) relate to each other.





no i am not

it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. if i would be using the 70 FoV as "normal default"(with my eyes 60 cm from my 27' screen as i stated earlier), all ingame objects size shrink around 30% for me, making them much harder to spot, track or identify, THAT is a distortion !



Nooo, objects on the screen don't get bigger or smaller when you move your eyes closer to or further away from your screen





if in a flight simulator the purpose is presumably to see all in-game objects in their correct 1:1 sizes compared to what you would see in real life (ie the same as when looking out of a cockpit), in which case you then need to determine what this "normal" view is for your own monitor personal setup first (size monitor, and the distance you have you're eyes from it.



sounds great if everybody wanted to have their head and shoulders strapped down and locked in to one position... unfortunately people will sit at different distances from their screen. Sit too close and the peripheral (RL) vision gets affected, they may find themselves getting dizzy after a while at the screen... too far away and they might squint slightly causing headaches.

How would plan to achieve your desire and have it also suit everybody else?




right now the "normal view" (by default 70 FoV right now in CoD), is only "normal" if you have a 30' screen and sit exactly 54.356 centimeter (21.4 inch ) from it. if that same person then briefly uses the zoomed 35 FoV to scan a distant airfield or road, all in-game objects are magnified by 2x (hence much easier to see), but it does so at the cost of introducing tunnel vision. having snap views setup that are more zoomed (35 FoV) or artificially increase peripheral vision (eg the 90 FoV) are useful to briefly use to overcome some of the limitations of sitting behind a monitor in your living room rather then being in a real aircraft, but both induce significant size and object-visibility distortions

just calculate it for your own setup, and see what should be your "normal FoV" for your current setup.


Normal FoV is the default setting... change from this value and the distortion comes into play... objects aren't "magnified" by changing the FoV - "maginification" is a completely differtent occurence





the purpose of raising this in this thread is because only if using a correct "normal" FoV can we determine if in-game "distant object" visibility is roughly correct (compared to similar real life situations), AND if the "invisible zone" (disappearing aircraft) some players complain of is a real problem or some less serious artifact introduced by not using the right FoV.



and yes, the "disappearing dot" is a bug apparently... one which wasn't there in > il2: 1946

[zapatista]

@ zap....

to have the "correct" field of view is a totally different topic...
as long as the devs offer different FOVs in the game, and in some of them, contacts totally disappear in mid ranges, it can and should be seen as a bug...

try 1024x768 for example, and you will see what im talking about...there is no doubt, that that is a bug....it has nothing to do with distortion, but the game just seems to forget to load one LOD model in that resolution.

david,

the reason i keep mentioning the need to first set the correct "normal" FoV for your personal monitor size and home viewing setup, is that in any of these "visibility bug" discussions we need to start from a known quantity with most in-game parameters set to represent as closely as possible a similar real life situation.

since that "normal FoV" setup is slightly different for most posters here, at least we will then be comparing apples with apples

as you could see from the earlier tracks slipball posted, some people claimed to have perfectly good visibility of the aircraft on the ground 1200 meters below, but then it was found they were using the zoomed 35 view which is like strapping on some binoculars. others were still able to see the same distant aircraft in the wide view, yet some couldnt see it with a correctly set "normal FoV" for their monitor size.

ie, once we have determined how it behaves under normal visibility conditions then the nest step is to add whatever altered settings can magnify the problem so we can identify its cause more easily

try 1024x768 for example, and you will see what im talking about...there is no doubt, that that is a bug....it has nothing to do with distortion, but the game just seems to forget to load one LOD model in that resolution.

possible, i dont doubt you are seeing some aircraft disappear before your eyes (as an earlier video illustrated very well), my simple question is: is the same problem still present to the same degree when you use the "normal FoV for your personal monitor setup", and secondly is it still as noticeable at your monitor native resolution ?

with you using a non native resolution a couple of things come to mind, for ex you have significantly increased your pixel size, and it is slightly more blurry because the non-native display resolution is not as sharp and crisp. none of that might matter in the bug you mentioned, but we dont know. i just prefer comparing apples with apples, and then progress from there :)

[zapatista]

** post removed while i retest this ***

looked interesting, i could see a difference in the comparison screenshots :)

[David198502]

sorry zapatista, you are wrong, although i appreciate many things you brought up in this thread already...

you said:" the reason i keep mentioning the need to first set the correct "normal" FoV for your personal monitor size and home viewing setup, is that in any of these "visibility bug" discussions we need to start from a known quantity with most in-game parameters set to represent as closely as possible a similar real life situation."

and thats where i have to disagree with you, as this bug seems to be dependent on three different settings:

resolution
FOV
model details

this bug doesnt give a rats ... about "correct" FOV.
you can simply recreate it:

use a resolution of 1024x768
+ FOV 90°
+ medium model details

[Roblex]

Not sure I can use a 'normal' FOV considering I only use the TrackIR 6DOF to change FOV :-)

[mazex]

some possible solutions discussed in previous years:
- make all the smaller LoD models much darker (or a bright blue ?) so they stand out more (instead of sing a paint scheme that aims to represent the real color of the object it represents)
- give the smaller LoD models "3D volume" by using something like bump mapping, so they stand out more against the scenery background
- paint the smaller most distant LoD models in "non realistic" colors so they stand out more (or use some highlighting method around the edge of the shape, as the OP suggests)
- instead of focusing on having distant very small LoD models maintaining the shape of the aircraft they represent (which is done very poorly anyway because our smallest pixels arnt small enough to give that level of detail), use instead a "blob" or fixed larger number of black/grey pixels of some shape that makes the object stand out a bit more and overcome the problem we have of using a 2D screen. once you come closer to it, or use the zoom function, the larger LoD models would still keep the shape of the object of course.



Good proposals all of them. The last one is probably the easiest one to do (like they do in RoF?). It may not be "realistic" - but neither is spotting a few pixels above a landscape of the same "color" :) I have a couple of hundred hours IRL stick time at least, and aircraft in the air are actually easier to spot than many may think, if you manage to spot them first at least ;)

[raaaid]

I HAD THIS PROBLEM REAL BAD BETWEEN 1 AND 2 KM PLAENS WER TOTALLY INVISIBLE

SOLVED IT SETTING TEXTURES TO ORIGINAL AND MODELS TO HIGH WHICH I CAN EVEN RUN IN MY POOR SYSTEM

sorry about the caps but this solved it for me so should solve it for the rest

[David198502]

I HAD THIS PROBLEM REAL BAD BETWEEN 1 AND 2 KM PLAENS WER TOTALLY INVISIBLE

SOLVED IT SETTING TEXTURES TO ORIGINAL AND MODELS TO HIGH WHICH I CAN EVEN RUN IN MY POOR SYSTEM

sorry about the caps but this solved it for me so should solve it for the rest

i assume you use native resolution?

[Redroach]

So... whats the fix now? I run monitor-native resolution 1920*1080, Textures original and Models High and I've got massive problems :(

[Pegasus_Eagle]

I HAD THIS PROBLEM REAL BAD BETWEEN 1 AND 2 KM PLAENS WER TOTALLY INVISIBLE

SOLVED IT SETTING TEXTURES TO ORIGINAL AND MODELS TO HIGH WHICH I CAN EVEN RUN IN MY POOR SYSTEM

sorry about the caps but this solved it for me so should solve it for the rest

i think i will give that a try

ty raaaid S!

[raaaid]

i run the game at 640*480 i just tweaked those two things which solved plane invisibilty between one and two km

also have on high the efects and get 50-60 fps inside the cockpit and 80 outside, all other things have it on minimum, shadows for example half my fps

if i chage res to 800*600 i get 25 fps which i dont like

in fact the game is updating itself quite often, i have proofs

i guess they are doing secret minifixes patches with the advantage of improving the game without the anoyance of people in forums wanting this and that and the moon

[Redroach]

mhh while musing around about this problem, I've got another Idea, because of my visibility problems:
I've switched off the ingame-AA (I thought people said it doesn't do much anyways), as well as shadows (!)
Could that play a part? Sorry, I can't actually test that right now because of *some* other problems :)

[raaaid]

well after playing again i noticed my method doesnt solved it totally but improve it, i will keep tweaking to see

edit:

i think i know why yesterday the problem was solved and now not so well, i tweaked my gpu, it has to be on let aplication decide, testing now

edit:
nope didnt totally solve it in certain positions planes keep being invisible between one and 2 km

[zapatista]

Not sure I can use a 'normal' FOV considering I only use the TrackIR 6DOF to change FOV :-)

hiya Roblex,

using track IR is no problem at all (if you use its main 6DoF feature as intended)

first you set your "correct FoV" (as stated earlier in this thread), then with the 6DoF of the track-ir you can turn your "in-game head" left right and in all directions while the same FoV setting is maintained all the time. instead of using a mouse of Kb keys to look around, you simply turn your head.

and you have the extra benefit with the track-ir 6DoF that when you lean forwards to have a closer look at some of the cockpit instruments they magnify in size and are easier to read (because your eyes are now significantly closer to them), but during the same movement the distant aircraft LoD models and Dots you see in the distance do not change in size because you leaning 20 cm closer to the screen (being equal movement of leaning roughly 20 cm forward in the cockpit) is an insignificant change in distance compared to looking at a 1 cm wide LoD model representing a ME109 about 1 km away for ex. and that is exactly how it would work in real life, and is the purpose of having a correctly implemented 6DoF in a game

[Wolf_Rider]

The gauges don't get magnified though... the FoV changes, which affects the depth of field