|
I obviously agree totally with you; indeed we were talking about seeing a contact, not identificating.
We can think also about identification but perhaps is a slippery slope.. |
Hi Anders, thanks for your addition to the thread.
With your experience can you help us to better understand the result of the test on the document? Note that the ones on the graph are max distances, so they could only decrease. In the first post we have a test where pilots look for a DC3 and detect it (unassisted) in collision path at 5,5-8,7km (being in a collision path I assume that they are looking at front/side). According to the graph the DC3 should have a MAX distance of detection of 9km FV and 14,5km SV (FV = 226sf, SV = 592sf... measures taken with not so detailed blueprints). If they are not trained in spotting ACs I think it can be a truthful result and anyway it's probable that optimal conditions are not available. A 737 is bigger than a DC3 and in the same conditions it should be more visible. Can I ask if you are using a specific method to scan the sky? Is it like the one explained in the doc? |
It's not an official document but I think the site's name is notable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft-early.htm Quote:
Quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=q06...bomber&f=false |
Quote:
|
Another gem, really detailed: "The probabilty of visual detection of reconnaissance aircraft by ground observer".
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_me...006/RM4562.pdf Sadly it is only for altitude from 500feet to 10k feet. But there are interesting data about effect of altitude, luminance ect... |
Quote:
Or maybe they could not spot the others because of thick layers of clouds, as it happens frequently ... Who knows ... but instead of subjective opinions, we can have a look at the experimental and quantitative approach of Manu and Tamat, and at the US Navy documents. Cheers, 6S.Insuber |
Quote:
And of course the pilot can find himself in a different fighting area: think about diving, about the speed of these machines and the distance that they cover in some dozen of seconds (that surely seem to last minutes) (EDIT: as Insuber writes). I really can't believe that in RL you can lose a formation of 9 bombers... above all if they are still flying in formation at medium-high altitude (and no stress, no fatigue for me). Airplanes of that size are visible at great distances and after some minutes you should have find them if you were circling in that area... Two days ago on Repka I've found a bomber over England.. I did 2 attacks, the bomber was smoking: I looked at the fuel gauge and could not find my victim anymore (btw after 5 minutes CloD CTD) Probably at 4 km it was just a pixel. |
Quote:
"Hard" (2-5km-labelding) for example, would not break a surprise attack. On the contrairy, normaly it happens to me that I am approaching friendly a/c inadvertently and I only can stop the attack in the last moment. A waste of fuel and energy. At happens to often that I have to fiddle arround, not able to identifie anything in the mid and far range :( To me this is also immersion-breaking. Of course, I agree, every other solution renderingwise is prefrerabel, but will it ever come? Lets hope .... I love that sim! |
I don't understand where's the problem.
Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD. What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator. Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature. The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day. Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane? |
We are approaching a hard spot of this discussion, that is the compromise between a pure simulation and a pure game. This wasn't OP's point, who was more concerned about the unrealistic invisibility of contacts, which often disappear even at close distance.
I underline my opinion, based also on my real life experience: close contacts and contacts against the terrain are too hard to spot with respect to reality. Far contacts against sky are a mixed bag, sometimes easy, sometimes vanishing. LODs are to be revised here, among other things. Playability is at stake. Cheers, Ins |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.