Update...

I've done some calculations today...

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

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

Our engineer has drawn a mathematical function for the graph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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