What "testing the switching" are you talking about?

And as for mockery - maybe in your mind. With a limited comprehension. And even then it requires an extra ordinary commitment to trolling (which you certainly have).

Let me explain something. Do you know what 'dots' are? Do you know how they work? Do you realise they are a modification of how the engine would normally render a distant object?

In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none. If the renderer were left to its own devices, this would mean aircraft would totally disappear at a range of just a few kilometres.

Of course, if you used a 1:1 lod - like say 23 fov when your monitor occupies 23 degrees of your vision - then aircraft would appear as models much further out and disappear altogether much later, giving a more realistic portrayal of a pilot's view and job of spotting aircraft.

But 1C know that nobody wants to play with 23 fov permanently and that pilots can spot aircraft much more easily than in the game. Let me repeat that - 1C KNOW that they need to make spotting easier in order for it to be realistic. Virtual pilots need a method of spotting distant aircraft from a wide fov like 70 or 90, and the method chosen is 'dots'.

When an aircraft is so distant that it would normally occupy a single pixel or less, what 1C has their renderer do is instead draw the object as a spot of pixels of a high contrast colour, or 'dots', in the hope that these will be easier to spot and roughly represent a pilot's ability to spot aircraft. The important thing to note is that dots are an artificial rendering method.

What this means is that even when players are viewing at wide fovs - which are necessary given current monitor technology - they will be able to spot aircraft (hopefully) roughly as far as actual pilots. So in other words - you are ALREADY being given an aid to spotting, and this aid is ARBITRARY. It is foolish of you to suggest that at 60 fov the view and 'spotting dots' is somehow inherently realistic.

The trouble with dots is that, as most players well know, they are very resolution dependent. And this is where the controversy comes from. It is actually easier to spot the dots at WIDER fovs - like 70 or 90 - than smaller fovs like 30, because the dots appear LARGER and CLOSER TOGETHER - obviously a very counter-intuitive way to display them. What this means is that the higher your resolution, the darker and more contrasty/harsh your monitor and viwing conditions, the smaller your screen and the further you are from it, the harder it is to spot aircraft. Worse, even if you suspect you saw a group of dots, zooming in with 30 fov to a roughly 1:1 view will make it harder to see those dots UNTIL they begin to render as aircraft.

So it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask whether the current dots are realistically difficult/easy to see, and whether they represent reality accurately. It is also reasonable for people to want to be able to switch to a 1:1 view to see the kinds of details that they would be able to see a pilot - hits on aircraft, details in the landscape, etc. It is also reasonable for people to ask whether dots are presently implemented in the best way they can be, and best approximate the spotting experience.

There is nothing in this that mocks my previous input on this. It only mocks your limited understanding and intolerant approach to spotting in IL2/CoD. For much of this thread you have based your vector of attack on the belief that smaller/zoomed fovs, like 30 fov, make spotting dots EASIER. But in actuality, it doesn't. And the people that use them - like myself, don't gain an unfair advantage to spot dots by using them and dont use them for that reason, although they do use them to make aircraft render further out and to see more detail in landscapes and gunnery.

What this means is that your argument is up shit creek without a paddle. Smaller fovs for 1:1 view are useful, have genuine uses and actually don't make spotting dots easier, and don't give unfair advantages for those players that use them. In fact, its harder to spot dots at lower fovs (which I think is yet another reason, along with the resolution-dependence of dots, why the system needs some review).

There is nothing inherently realistic about a wide fov, let alone something magical about 60 fov, and dots are already a crutch by the developer given to aid spotting, making debates about how realistically easy/difficult they are to see and how well they are implemented very much merited.

It is only fools like you, who oppose existing practice and dismiss all complaints blindly, that make a mockery of what spotting means in reality and in the sim.

just a keep sake, in case you decide to come back later and do some editing...


----------------`


The smaller the screen, the closer to flyer tends to sit to it - not the other way around...

"Dots" have come about because of monitor technology limitations, in recreating an aircraft dissappearing into the distance... the monitor (at this current technology) cannot reproduce what the eye actually sees - they aren't there to aid "spotting". You've even said so yourself: "In CoD (and IL2), as a plane becomes distant the engine will render it as a model (with LOD steps) until it gets so small that it only covers a single pixel, and then none"... the eye can seeat resolutions smaller than the screen pixel - you're limited by technology for accuracy

You want to do some "realistic" spotting? go to an airport and track the planes taking off (and take your binoculars ;) )


Switching to a smaller FoV, doesn't "zoom" in... it distorts the from the default FoV and slightly "fisheyes" the image, which is projected onto the same screen as the default FoV



age old il2 drama, in play

Run that by yourself again, and again, and again. If they aren't there to help us see aircraft that would otherwise be invisible at the given (generally very wide) FOV and resolution, then what ARE they for?

You do realise fisheye is a higher than usual FOV? Have you even tried to switch between 30/70/90 fov ingame?

You really insist on display a thorough lack of knowledge in the area.

What are you an idiot? Most people set their TV's and monitors at a certain distance given by the geometry of their desk or room, and they don't buy larger monitors and TV's in order to sit further from them! Why do you think people have triple monitor setups? To sit further back?

Just because you decide to sit a foot from your 22" CRT doesnt mean most people do, and that they won't therefore have a harder time seeing the dots than you.

;) keep trying son...

You are clearly a bit senile. I am not your 'son'.

Address the points in question or take it elsewhere. You're standing in the way of reasonable men and reasonable discussion.

who the heck are you to demand anything?? and I'd say (based on your past behaviour) you're anything but reasonable - reasonable men don't descend into derision and denigration

Why don't you keep your eye on the ball and explain how binoculars and fov works, what 'fisheye' means and what dots are for. Preferably with illustrations.

you said they're (binoculars and FoV) the same... and

define: "usual"




... why not you show us how they (binoculars and FoV) are the same? You made the claim... you back it up :grin:

I won't play this game. YOU said that going to 30 fov from 70/90 fov produces a 'fisheye' view! This is clearly wrong. Lower fov's do not produce a fisheye view, not to mention that fisheye implies a very large fov, not low fov. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

For example, fisheye lenses have about 6-20mm focal lengths, with fovs as high as 180-220 degrees. By contrast, telephoto (ie, zoom lenses) lenses have focal lengths of 85-300+mm and fovs from 30 degrees to less than 1 degree. In other words, lower fovs mean a zoomed view, and higher fovs mean a wider, even fisheye view, not the other way round!

Your knowledge is so rubbish here you don't even have the right direction for wide vs zoomed views and fov.

I will, as soon as you show me why I won't be wasting my time explaining it to you - nobody else has questioned this or desired an explanation. Everyone except you seems to understand the concept of a 1:1 view and why it is useful - and you're not exactly receptive to new ideas.

It seems you're the only one "playing a game"



Where did I say this and what did I say?





What... you can't explain how, how FoV and bionoclars, are the same??