Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Dot Visibility in COD and Other Flight ims.

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Dot Visibility in COD and Other Flight ims. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=18473)

those were the days, when dot visibility wasn't an issue... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpv7dPTxLj0

Thank you for the explanation CheeseHawk.

I'm more calm now.
When I asked about that on chat and received a laconic answer: ghosts, I really thought I was being screwed by other player and leave the room. :rolleyes:

I was away from combat simulators sims for long time. Since the AH era and the gold years of the il2. The CoD has the potential to be the new watershed in ww2CFS though I hoped more for a sim promised for so long.
Anyway I believe that the game can take off once resolved the initial bugs.

Salute!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk (Post 323580)

Hi Chefer,

Part of the problem is mentioned in other threads. Specifically, on the Syndicate server with the high number of AI, there are "ghost dots". Something is bugged, and the game keeps images of planes that are not actually there in the air. Most of the time, this is leftovers from AI formations, but occasionally its single dots (I presume its from destroyed formations, and the single survivors).

The only way to tell the difference apart from approaching and having the dots disappear (and reappear behind you), is to pay attention to the radar calls as the radar will only call out real contacts. If you suspect a formation is a ghost, pay attention, if the formation neither appears to move, nor changes formations/shape, its most likely a ghost formation. If you are flying with a friend, and he sees a big formation, and you don't see the same formation, also it is most likely a ghost.

Bliss has been working hard to find a fix, but so far has eluded him (although he's made it much better now than it used to be).

Not to be confused with the fact that, at distance/range, a clear dot will seem to disappear in one of two ways:

1. With server dot range set beyond about 8km (often its set around 14k) a dot moving further away than, in my estimation, 8km suddenly becomes invisible, there is no transition to a smaller but still visible dot. On occasions I can still see the greyest hint of a dot on full zoom but there is an unrealistic jump from visible to virtually invisible. On my 1680x1050 I would estimate it goes from a few black pixels (4?) to something possibly grey or blue at about 1 pixel and virtually invisible.

2. With an approaching dot it jumps from the clear black dot to something almost invisible which on full zoom can be seen to be a faint representation of an aircraft. Again an unrealistic visual jump.

By "unrealistic jump" I mean that the human eye would track a faint dot to a clearer one then to an aircraft with some degree of linear progression.

We know its impossible to re-create that on the screen if only because of pixel counts, different resolutiones etc,. but the current arrangement needs revising to something better. It was never quite that bad on IL-2 (in spite of the long lasting "discussions").

I am not suggesting that the visible range and detail of one or other is incorrect, just that there is an unrealistic progression through the various stages. Range visibility of dots, when they should become identifiable as aircraft, etc., are a different discussion that has been beaten to death in IL-2 and not one I want to restart here.

I would just like to see the visual progression of the images improved/continuous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk (Post 323999)

Totally agree with the above Klem. I've noticed that at the ranges when "dots" suddenly become "aircraft", the transition is to a rendered object. Depending on a lot of factors, angle, color, height, haze, etc, makes it difficult to keep your focus on the now harder to see aircraft. Best I can say to help is learn to predict where it was going, and get yourself there. (I try to avoid going "head-on" with something I can no longer track, I find I only pick it up again when its on my 6!) Eventually, all the factors that led to the "disappearance" of the aircraft will work itself out to where you and your monitor setup can see it. This only applies to aircraft that are really there of course.

Well, if I'm going to have to guess where a once visible aircraft dot may be going now that its an invisible aircraft there's not much point in displaying it in the first place. May as well play "blinded by invisible cloud and waiting for a ground directive".

The whole visibility issue needs looking at.

ive tested it and came to the same conclusions as klem.

planes turn nearly invisable as they get closer. it just doesn't make sense.

Actually I think it's much easier to spot distant "spots" in CLoD than in '46.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellonet (Post 324072)

Actually I think it's much easier to spot distant "spots" in CLoD than in '46.

Define 'distant'. They are great up to about 8km then they vanish.

Try a server or offline mission with map icons on and estimate their distance from the map grid when they appear/disappear.

Check the server dot range in the console using the command mp_dotrange and see if you really can still see them when they approach the max dot range.

Some days ago I was talking about this matter with one of my teammates who's in the logistic sector of the italian airforce and often he pilots the MB-339.

He said that it's easy to lose a contact who's flying on side of you, above all if he's on the skyline... but from 6+ miles of distance: instead ingame is more difficult than in real life also because the missing natural "haze" of the horizon.

Whiners ;)

i play in high resolution in Il2 all the time, maybe a smaller one would help with the dots and sure its not always easy especvially against the ground, but if i would want it to be easy i would play with icons on anyway.