that webpage you gave does not have much information, but i looked it up on prad.de and it is definitely a TN based monitor (so 6 bit and not 8 bit color). this means it will have been reasonably cheap and will serve most purposes well, like web surfing, gaming, reading office documents etc.. . but for more demanding color fidelity based applications like photo or video editing (for professionals who need great color accuracy etc, or normal users who want colors onscreen as closely represented as real life) these TN based monitors are not as good. on your monitor viewing movie's with black/grey area's willl probably also lead to some visible artifacts (light glittering) in those black area's.

your monitor is perfectly fine for general use, most people wouldnt even know the difference unless they know what to look for. also as one of the articles i referred to points out, there is now great variation i quality in TN monitors and some have significantly improved from 5 yrs ago when they had major problems (but all current TN monitors are obviously still 6 bit color and have similar limitations)

now the good news is that currently in the il2-1946 based sim series you will be able to see distant aircraft dots much better then people with higher end and more expensive monitors. given that they might well have paid 2x (or in some cases 10x) what you did for your monitor, enjoy what you have and use it for what you intended. the next monitor you might buy, look a bit more into the technology and you should be able to get a decent 8 bit monitor for a bit more then you might pay for a 6 bit one :)

note: when you say "flikker" dont confuse that with the 50 hz screen flicker on old televisions (something removed with 100 hz crt models and most current flatscreen tv's), that had to do with "screen refresh rates" and was very annoying and fatiguing on the eyes. the effect is described for these 6 bit TN flatscreen lcd's is mainly relating to:
1) when viewing large uniformly black/dark-grey area's on screen, like when watching a movie with very dark area's in it (in which case you will see a light "sparkling" pr "glittering" in that area
2) when viewing a small black/dark-grey dot/blob move across the screen with a static background (like forest or other terrain textures in the il2 flightsim), in that case the moving little dot will stand out much more and will probably be visible from 2x the distance then somebody with a normal 8 bit monitor

A Basic description of the visibility problem for distant aircraft in the il2 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/attachm...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 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 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 3 dimensional little object standing out against the background more (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: after repeated previous "complaints" in elaborate "discussion threads" on the main flightsim forums. oleg does recognize this problem and now hopefully has implemented the "little 3D blob" method to make them stand out a bit more (the little blob takes much less computing power, and visually more closely represents what the human eye can detect). this new implementation by oleg was visible in one of his early bomber formation video's

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/attachm...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/attachm...1&d=1297259136

so instead of seeing a solid "aircraft looking pixel group" coming your way, you catch intermittent glimpses of a jumbled shape of loose pixels coming your way instead (and this is against open blue sky).

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.

the good news is Oleg seems to understand this problem, and the fact in il2-1946 the smaller LoD models still create "invisible aircraft" (at distances you would normally be able to spot them in real life), and by all early indications of some of the preview videos we have seen so far, these distant small LoD models are now represented as little "3D bubbles" (like a water droplet). this means the object keeps its volume and visibility much more, and is an elegant solution to trying to represent a distant aircraft on current 2D pc display technology (which has significant limitations in representing distant 3 dimensional objects).


II: 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/attachm...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 now have (in 4.08 ) a "4 pixel dot" representing a very distant aircraft (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

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 inferiour 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 so they are 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 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 (and by some indications oleg has now partially addressed this)

So, without wishing to debase your excellent and genuinely helpful post it seems that we need a 'leveller'. A means of ensuring that everyone can see a distant aircraft at a range that would allow RL-type tactics to be determined even if that means an unrealistic dot or LOD size but no dot beyond that. And I don't mean identifying what it is because the Mk1 eyeball will see a dot before it can be identified and tactics will have to be decided at that stage too.

Arguments about when the dot can be seen by different resolutions would then be meaningless as the range will always be the same and the opportunity for tactical choice will have been resolved. What other reason can there be for worrying about the dot visibility (e-peening apart)?

Of course this will lead to disappointment over realism but perhaps thats the choice: uniform maximum spotting capability with non-realistic dots/LoDs or more realistic non-uniform spotting capability with continued argument.

For me its the more realistic approach as I don't want such magnificent visuals marred by out of scale big dots (but hopefully improved in CoD). I'll take my chances agaiunst the low resolution "must see you first even if its not real" crowd. Or put another way, "I should be able to see you earlier than I can in 1280*1024 or greater resolution but I'm not willing to take you on on a level playing field so i'll magnify you". Shame on you :)

for a quick comparison, go to an airport and watch passenger jets take off (yes, they are a lot larger than a WWII fighter plane) and follow them out 'til they can't be seen anymore. Watch also how jets flying overhead can be unrecognisable due to viewing angle and whether or not a wing is in shadow..

Look at RoyRaiden's avatar to see how camouflage really works

Also realize that seeing a moving aircraft against a stationary background is much much easier than seeing a moving aircraft against a moving background. Anybody who has spent time flying planes knows spotting traffic is tricky, even when you're dealing with brightly colored civilian aircraft who aren't trying to hide.

I've always felt the difficulty in spotting aircraft in IL-2 with a high-res monitor was fairly realistic.

A while back I saw a Tiger Moth take-off from an airport. Going on Google maps shows where I was standing was 4km from the runway. I was immediately able to identify it as a Tiger Moth and see its color (bright yellow, which probably helped a bit ;))

My eyesight is quite good but not the best (16-12) but in Il2 at that range all I would have been able to see would have been a dot.

".....where I was standing was 4km from the runway. I was immediately able to identify it as a Tiger Moth...."

What other biplane types might you have been expecting?

B

I wasn't expecting to see a bi-plane, since it wasn't a airshow and I had no idea that the Tiger Moth was in the area. The reason I could make the identification was I could see the shape of the rudder/fin, which is quite distinctive on the Tiger Moth, and the rest of the shape agreed with the first impression.

The Tiger Moth flew a curving path that passed about 2km (going by the map) from me, at which point I could see the pilots head/shoulders, and tell that there wasn't a passenger.

zapatista sir Thanks for the heads up, you certainly know your stuff :)

exactly :)

but this "leveler method" needs to address 2 separate issues

1) have some visual enhancement method added to the smaller Lod models that makes them stand out more.
- ie, instead of having the focus on them being the right color or shape, the focus should be on [b]"in a real life situation viewing this object from the same distance, how well would it stand out against a similar background ?"[b], and then using a visual enhancement method that works better across a range of objects so we are in the "visibility ballpark" instead of the "mini visibility bubble" problem we have now.
- so if in RL you for ex can detect a moving tank (or a single engine fighter in the process of taking off ) on an open field or road from 1500 m altitude, (which was historically the case for allied ww2 fighter pilots in northern france for ex), then in il2 sim under good visibility conditions you should be able to do the same (presuming you as the pilot are visually scanning that sector for targets). but right now in il2 sim this visibility distance is only 300 meters, a HUGE difference in visibility !

note: one problem with any possible "enhancement" approach is that when the same distant object is now viewed against an open blue sky (like that taxing single engine fighter), it might now be to visible and will possibly stand out to much (because our main visibility problem that needs to be corrected is against terrain background, caused by current PC technology limitations in video displays). there are ways around this, for ex the "enhancement method and color" could be chosen so it has less impact against blue open sky etc... i do not know exactly what the best solution is, but i do know what the problem is and how severe it is :)

2) "dot visibility is the 2e and separate problem, that will need a different additional solution (as opposed to LoD model visibility enhancement). the "dot visibility" for the most distant objects that have become very small needs an "enhanced dot visibility" fix. for CoD the LoD models will be more numerous and will therefore already extend further out (according to oleg), so for larger aircraft and other large objects they will transition to dot's later and further away. but with these "il2 dots" we have 2 separate problems that need to be addressed:
a) the current 2 or 4 pixel dots have a BIG difference in visibility on different types of flat panel monitors, with people on cheap TN monitors being able to see them at 1/2 the distance roughly compared to "normal monitors". (hence if somebody in oleg's office has a brief look at this "dot spotting problem" and uses a TN based 6 bit color monitor they might not recognize how severe the problem is for most users (and similarly if they use a CRT monitor this visibility is less of an issue because the quality in video on them is so much better then any current flat panel)
- so issue a) is leveling the playing field and having "dot visibility" equalized by using a dot display method that isnt so different depending on monitor type
b) a "il2 dot" (made of 4,2 or even 1 pixel) might well be the correct size for the distant object, but are currently not as VISIBLE as they would be in real life as discussed earlier in this thread the human eye in real life can track these very small objects rather well (a byproduct of our evolutionary development as hunter gatherers, being able track small moving prey or seeing fruit/berries stand out against a foliage background etc..). so for objects like dots that are within a certain range (eg 2 or 3 km maybe ?) they might need some visibility enhancement that makes them stand out more, even if this means they might have to be a slightly incorrect size or color (fake-real whiners please refrain from commenting and try and grasp the concept being discussed here if you want to participate in a meaningful way)

conclusion: i think the tweaks needed are very minor ones, and need to be quite subtle. i am not arguing for giant blobs flying around the screen so ADD affected people can keep track of them. i am however arguing for a realistic plane/object spotting distance so we can SIMULATE a real ww2 pilots experience, and see what he would have seen, so we can then correctly implement historical tactics, strategies, and flight maneuvers. and i do not know what the best possible solutions are, others here or at oleg's 1c crew will know more about what is viable (but it will take some lateral thinking to come up with effective solutions). i do however know how bad this problem currently is, and it is probably the sim's biggest weakness