|
Nice to know that cheats will be enabled from day 1 :D
Not everyone has to understand this ;) |
Quote:
|
OLEG WROTE: Perfect answer really....
I would also add for all, that we can't track the size of pixel for the different physical size of monitors with the same resolution in pixels. For example I have two monitors with the same pixel resolution at home... both full HD, however one is 13 inches of high end ligth weight carbon noterbook, but another is 24 inches standard monitor... Cheat? Definitely cheat speaking about size of the dot in this case ! Quote:
Thank you for the greatest laugh of all time on this forum. LOL Honestly. Comedy doesn't write itself as well as that. Ohhhhhhh the irony.... the IRONEEEEEEEEEEEY |
I currently play Il2 at 1920X1200, Obviously the dots are a little harder to see especially against terrain, but they can be seen you just have to look real hard, which i imagine the most successful fighter pilots would be good at. In fact I have found that sometimes you can see the dot but when you zoom in you lose it, I have also found that darker dots tend to be the enemy and lighter ones are usually friendly, as anyone else noticed this?
|
Instead of increasing the 'dot' size under higher resolution, how about we decrease the apparence of dot at low resolution?
I say we have the dot (1 pixel) gradually fades into the surrounding depending on distance. This way there is no apparent advantage by having lower resolution. |
Oleg can you please say something about the gauge output for simpit builders.
Or just guys who use 2nd monitor on their desk for gauge output. How wil it work in Cliffs of dover? Official drag and drop style like flight sim x or menu option to have instruments on your 2nd monitor? Or will it be do it yourself style again like IL2? And if its do it yourself style, will online use be supported? http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17057 |
Quote:
Quote:
It could be AA related, don't know. Don't really care either. |
Only Tuesday and the dot discussion has resurfaced. I see this thread hitting 100 pages before Friday...
BTW, Luthier and Oleg, I think you should get off the forum and hand over the updating to Ian Boys. Ship him a copy of CoD and let him do some mission reports. It was wonderful in the months before Forgotten Battles came out! |
BTW, ship me a copy aswell, I'll capture some high res vids with everything maxed out and AA and AF enabled. ;)
|
Quote:
I remember those :) Ian should do mission reports for every IL-2 sequel/add-on that is released. |
New interview out:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/08/il...ya-shevchenko/ Finally the explanation for the girl in the Spit.... and Oleg prefers the Mediterranean for a sequel! |
Man, they could at least have used new screenshots. Anyway, interesting interview.
|
There was at least one screenshot I had not seen before!
Its great that now we are on the final stretch,information is coming out fast! |
Who would have thought it?
Both the renegade pilot thing and the love interest turn out to be based on reality!? Could be some interesting missions - "Careful with your joystick, darling";) Wonder if there's a key toggle for that...? |
Quote:
I have a friend who regularly flew in the back of a two seat spitfire (you can probably guess which one) and maintained it at the airshows for the owner. I asked him about this. He confirmed that bounces/skips do indeed happen (like your video clip) and I have seen enough of them close up at airshows. When I asked him about one wheel touching before the other he said it would bounce around a little but no, it didn't lurch around but settled fairly quickly. At the local 2007 airshow a Hurricane crashed during the mock-dogfight. One or two of the landings that followed, just thirty yards in front of me, were a little more shaky than usual but none lurched around like we see in IL-2. |
Quote:
first, when the original il2 came out most monitors were 15' or 17' crt's, using resolutions similar to 1024 x 768, and that is exactly what il2 was designed to display these "distant dots of aircraft" correctly on (being for ex 2 black and 2 grey pixels combined in a 4 pixel dot). the scenery might not have been all that high rez and pretty, but at least you could spot the bogey at 2 km correctly (approximating visibility in real life) fast forward 10 years and run the same game engine (and dot display method) on a nice 30' lcd at 2560 x 1600, and the scenery might look great but that same 4 pixel dot at the very high resolution is now much harder to find (because these same 4 pixels are MUCH smaller now). hence many people with those large monitors will 1/2 their resolution to 1280 x 800 to play online and be competitive, and suddenly those distant dots have become 2x easier to spot. additionally, however good lcd's and other flatscreens are now, they still are not as good as the original crt's in displaying sharp clean video (unless you have some high grade professional ips lcd), so trying to find a small moving dot against a background of forest and other landscape is significantly higher now. further, the most distant lod models in the original il2 did not have "3D volume" to them, they were simple flat clumps of grey and black pixels, making them MUCH harder to identify then a real 3 dimensional object in real life at the same distance (when viewed on a less then perfect pc display technology). the end result is that on a modern pc system in il2 you are flying in a myopic mini bubble of SA which is 2/3 smaller then what it should be, compared to the historical visibility real pilots had to deal with in ww2 aircraft. "harder to spot" might be one ignorant persons idea of playing a game online which is "difficult" , but it is not simulating the environment and visibility real pilots had to deal with in ww2 (and after all most of us here are interested in the "simulation" part i presume). all this has been extensively discuses in the main il2 forums over the years, and oleg is well aware of this problem and has tried to address it for BoB/Sow. as you might have noticed in some of the early video clips we have seen, distant LoD models now have "volume" to them, and these distant aircraft stand out much more as a result. additionally instead of 3 LoD models there are 7 or 8 iirc, so the transition to having pixels represent a distant object is much better there are major compromises we still have to deal with in pc games in 2010/2011, and one of those in BoB/SoW will be "pretty" versus "realistic distant aircraft spotting distances", and obviously the focus should be on the latter. in your statement of "....running a monitor with higher resolution is that you get a more realistic experience - in this case distant aircraft are rendered more precisely..." you were incorrect in assuming a prettier landscape and "more precisely rendered" also meant aircraft were more realistically displayed at far distances, which has never been the case in il2 from FB onwards (when oleg reduced the dot sizes, and the earlier uglier big dots were replaced with "prettier ones" which were MUCH harder to spot). |
Ok Zappa. Thanks for the considered reply. i'll look into it a bit more.
But surely the most distant depiction of any aircraft at maximum range will be a single pixel? This is what i understood, and a post earlier today from Oleg ( I think - could've been Luthier?) said as much. For newer high-res monitors that single pixel will appear smaller on screen and thus be harder to spot. My point was that real-life pilots had to contend with similar issues - and that the max distance depiction of a near-invisible single pixel would be closer to that reality than the larger, more easily visible pixel on say an 800x600 screen? ---- ok, home now, and had another look. Yes - I can see what you're getting at. Part of the problem too was a bit of sloppy use of language in my original post - as you identified concerning 'rendered more precisely'. Seems I have made a few assumptions which may not have been correct. Seems the key issue as to whether it is more realistic or not is when the lod-switching is triggered - and I can see that in the move to higher res that could skew the original balance. Basically, I'm not a competitive online flyer, so it isn't something that has been an issue for me |
Must be nice. ;) I see Oleg has bought the Devs the new Thrustmaster Cougar Warthog stick and throttle setup.
Can't see getting it... no rudder pedal connection or support. |
Quote:
And even then - how much better did it get ? So I can't see the devs working on something new for 5+ years which is going to be rubbish, for all the features that didn't make the final ( initial ) cut. But that's just me using that pesky logic again. Your opinion may differ. :)[/QUOTE] IL-2 (pre-FB) has been out awhile when I bought it. My Microsoft CFS3 has been broke :( ;) and I have been reviews about IL-2. So I think that maybe I try it...and been hooked... Yes sir. Been reading a lot WW2 battles but they all are about ground war, but IL-2 has got me interesting about air war and especially about East Fronts air war. Then comes IL-2 FB and here I am, spending many hours with this great sim, has been upgraded my rig many times ( by bought new components ) etc. etc. And when look over my shoulder to bookshelf... there are lot a books in air combat and IL-2 games (IL-2, IL-2 FB, 2xIL-2 FB AEP, PF, IL-2 Complete Edition FB+AEP+PF, 2x IL-2 1946 & add-ons: The Last Days, Battle Over Europe, Ostfront and Der Stern Von Afrika). And yes, I have real life too :grin: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Aye, you keep telling yourself that Sunshine......*pats the squarehead on his square dome sympathetically* :grin: :grin: :grin: |
Quote:
|
It was directed at Suef, who should have been quoted in the whole post.
I see humour is not one of your strong suites either, it was a frikkin joke I know you are Swiss mate. :grin: Still, you are a squarehead because you are guilty by association, and thats final. :grin: :grin::grin: (Hope thats enough smileys so your feelings aren't hurt sweetness.....LMAO :grin:) |
The Gap Band-You Dropped A Bomb On Me:grin::grin::grin:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Most of all, these caught my eye: Quote:
The crucial point is, will people who don't take the time to learn some new things be at a disadvantage when flying full switch? The answer is obviously yes and that's good, because it gives us more variety. Up till now we had virtual pilots with good SA, pilots who shoot well, pilots who know how to maneuver or manage their energy and pilots who rely on superior tactics. It seems than in CoD we'll have a new category, pilots who really know their airplane inside out and get an advantage from this. Quote:
For the rest, the system is very accurate. A lot of aircraft during the war had only a 3-way lever with neutral, up and down positions instead of predefined notches and the pilot usually had to look to the sides and read the degrees marked on the flaps themselves as they extended (in the P47 for example), or on some kind of mechanical indicator on the wings (eg, in the FW190). This means no more selecting combat flaps with a single keypress while focusing on the bandit, we'll have to either look at the wing and lose sight of him or just do it by feel while looking through the gunsight. Quote:
It's all these little details that will make full switch flying closer to what usually happened in real life. We rarely hear about protracted engagements and when they happened, it was usually either a small duel isolated from the main fight (where pilots can afford to devote their entire attention to one bandit), or a group effort to make one pass and disengage but being caught by the rival group and having to defend. Most of the times, pilots preferred to configure their aircraft for what they would try to do the next minute or so, execute their attempt and try to get out as fast as possible, simply because it was not easy to manage both the aircraft and the enemy at the same time. Also, the talk about how easy it is to lose contact with bandits during an engagement will also reinforce this style of fighting. All this might seem less inviting and certainly less frantic to those who like action packed dogfights, but it's not a problem because we have the difficulty options to tweak to our taste. Personally speaking, for me these features are not only welcome but also a huge step towards more realism, where preparation and knowledge counts as much as, or even more than, reflexes and talent. Like i already said, the added complexity will give us the ability to use some new flying styles, variety is good ;) |
OK just trying to get this aircraft dot idea straight in my head. At what distance is the one pixel dot enabled in COD, or is the dot always there, and only appears to the user depending on their eyesight, and display resolution? I heard that IL-2 was designed so that the dot appeared for the average pilot at a relatively proper distance when viewed at the 1024x786 resolution.
|
Your attention to detail is just plain awesome!
|
As usual, I agree with Blackdog.
Looks like we are getting closer to realistic dogfights. No more F16-like HOTAS flying and care free handling. According to Ilya, fighting with complex engine management set to "on" will be pretty hard. That´s going to be interesting :) It will also be interesting to see how people will react to the increased realism level. At the moment even in Il2 most people fly with arcade settings (no cockpit, externals on, etc.). I wonder if "full real" will still be played online. |
only after ALOT of offline full real to work it all out :)
|
I guess we'll have to remember to always lock our tail wheels and do three point landings in our 109s.
|
Quote:
flown the YAK-52 in formation with another 52 and you sure hear the engine (and that is the "most" WWII plane I've flown - and the engine in the YAK is really far from an over reving DB601 ;)) ... Which goes for a bunch of other aircraft I've been formation flying with IRL. Anyone that has heard a Warbird close can try to shield the sound with some plexiglass ;) Sure - the own engine is loud - but as it is in one resonance band the other engine never will be in the same "sound spectra" and you will hear it if near even with a thick helmet and headset. I just read "First Light" by Geoffrey Wellum where he mentions hearing the engines of the first He 111 he attacked (and nearly crashed into while being to eager to keep firing as long as he could). We know that from IL2 online, don't we? ;). Sorry! Noob! wft? Etc.. |
Quote:
no noseovers.. practice makes excellence ;) |
The fairly limited planeset will not matter at all,because I have a feeling that people are going to have to pick a plane and learn it inside out before being any good at all.
I think the days of multiple kills per sortie in full switch servers will disappear.It will be hard enough just to fly a mission and get back in one piece. Brilliant! :) |
For thoose who is eager for details, here is Youss's (he is expirienced il2 pilot) first impressions from CoD:
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=66721 Use google translator please, as my english is not good enough to give you good translation of his exciting impressions, but hopefully I can clarify some things if google translator would be hard to understand. Some features: - "Press I button" doesnt start engine with "complex engine management on". Rotation starts and then stops very soon - Bf-109 tends to roll during takeoff, no heavy yaw movements as in il2 - There is no runway as in IL2, there is just flat field surronded by hangars and other buildings. You can takeoff in any direction. - lots of details on airfield makes it much easier to take of and landing as you feel speed better - he was amazed with low altitude flight. Its feel of speed is much improved compared to IL2. Main thing is there is no flat surfaces. Whole ground is non flat, and his first thought was "how can I do emergency landing here?" He wasnt able to find any flat and big enough area. - contacts visibility is very good if they are on same level as you. If you are above them you lost them immediately. Sea is very noisy because of waves and you cant see enemies. If contacts are above you they are blended with sky and its hard to find them again. - on a high G (he did vertical loop) heads tends to move down and sight (aiming device) goes up on your screen, you have to correct your view direction. - you need to turn on sight illumination, otherwise its hard to use it. Cabin lighting is amazing. - bots behaviour is very diffrerent from IL2. He knows Il2 bots very well , but he wasnt able to shot down any one. They lowered from 4 km to sea level and still no one was heavily damaged - he wasnt able to hit a spitfire with cannons, very very hard to aim. Guns fire slightly unsynchronously and BF-109 starts to yaw right and left. Hard to continue to fire for more than 2-4 rounds. - even slight roll without proper work with pedals make airplane to slide and its your tracers start to drift away from sight center. - smoke tracers are very very beautifull - sound is amazing, huge "BAANG" on every cannon shot - Airplane is very sluggish, stalls start immediately without any pre-stall shake - on low speed airplane doesnt react on you controll. It seems that stall fighting is not possible anymore - he wasnt able to hear spitfire on his 6. Once he saw a tracers he immediately did roll and jump into clouds - once he jumped into clouds all windows become misted. When he goes from cloud it was hard to tell where is sky and where is ground, he had to wait some time whiled windows became unmisted - he approached 2 spitfires on his way back. He missed in his first attack then he went up and after that he lost spitifires. He flew in that aread for a while but wasnt able to find them. - airfield visibility on a shore is very good: big field surrounded with buildings - use flaps you have to press "F" once and then hold it again until you satisfied with flaps angle - he pressed "G"once to extend landing gear, but as it appeared later he failed with that - there was no speed bar or other text on screen, neither for flaps nor for gears - he landed without gears. Propeller was damaged and airplane was covered with cloud of dust once he stopped to slide - after mission stats showed the Do-215 was shot down, 2 spitfires and one Bf-109. He had 3% fire accuracy for 1 spitfire and deliver 10% damage to him. - His Bf-109 had 15% damage. There are no details how much of that damage came from enemies and how much from his langing or other wrong actions - In "zoom view" you cant pan too much, just +- 20 degrees (maybe +- 30) Does anyone know who this guy is and how come he got to try out COD? |
Quote:
Russian expo? |
Youss was ROSS_Youss,now in BY squad I think.One of the big Russian online squads.I would not be at all surprised if they were beta testing CoD.
|
Creator of IL2Compare I believe.
|
And of course,if these guys have been beta testing for months,they are going to rip us apart online! ;)
|
Quote:
So, unless you consider anything that isn't "full real" to be arcade, I'd say arcade settings aren't as universal as you suggest. IMO, much of the reluctance to fly "full real" has been due to the limitations of the IL-2 workings. HUD logs where you have no visible indication of flap positions or rad opening - or headings info where you are unable to view the compass - all lead to a difficulty with regard to "full real". Mini-map on is presumably not "full real" but how to avoid this if the compass is not visible? Hopefully the new difficulty settings will be somehow easier to use in the new, highly-detailed cockpits. |
A small snippet from the google translation (right at the end) of Youss's Sukhoi report:
"impressed by the sound of the engine Messer and fire - a mighty roar in the cabin and "bang-bang" really hits the ears." amended :) |
Quote:
Youss is the author of IL-2 compare, guy who known to have good connections with Maddox team. |
Quote:
Now that is good news :) |
Quote:
Quote:
This made me laugh. I'm so happy everyone loves crap planes, because they're my favourite too. The crappier the better - don't forget the Battle of France and beyond (going backwards)! Thanks for a great update thread this week, looking forward to this Friday already. Cheers, Spinner |
Quote:
And by arcade I mean icons on, externals on, cockpit off. There are only a few full real DF servers which only allow speed bar. Of course full real coop missions will still be there. And I am looking forward to it. I hate it when people can take the element of surprise from you because they can hit F2... |
Quote:
No, Il2 flight model was very close to RL, CoD won't be very different from that.:grin: |
Quote:
The stats showing your hitting percentage and percentage of damage on enemy aircraft will also be helpfull. Having flown mostly German aircraft with explosive shells it was easy to tell when you were hitting in IL-2, but non explosive shells didn't give much feedback that you were putting bullets on target. |
I think flying will be very similar to IL2 with some added challenges here and there.
What's going to be the difficult aspect of it all is juggling with all the extra stuff in the midst of combat. Whereas in IL2 i can slam the throttle forward, throw the stick to the side and pull back the moment i hear "break" on teamspeak while getting eyes on the bandit and waiting for the HUD messages to tell me if something is wrong, in CoD i'll have to look at 3-4 gauges inside the cockpit at the same time i'm doing all the above. I guess after a while we'll settle into the habit of preconfiguring every single system on our aircraft for any given incident that might arise in certain phases of flight, instead of waiting for something to happen and then react to it. In this sense i guess that the beta testers will in fact have some slight advantage over the rest of us, because they will have already formulated their mental checklists and picked up on certain good habits that they'll probably proceed to teach us about in a painful way :-P |
[QUOTE=Chivas;221964]It sounds like normal flying will be very close to the original IL-2 but stall fighting will be extremely difficult and it sounds like putting bullets on target will also be difficult.
I liked the old IL-2 Flight Model. |
Quote:
W. |
Im so exited from all the info that i shake in my chair! I hope there is alot of people buying this game so they get funded to continue with patches and real nice updates! If i had more money i would definatly donate money if that is possible.
|
There are A LOT of WWII sim aviation enthusiasts and IL-2 still has a massive following, I'd be very surprised if this sim didn't do well financially. Flight sims in general seem to be making a small come back so hopefully commercial success for this sim follows.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And in such a context, it won't be easy for BoB to take it's place on the market as the graphics will be very poor for a modern simulator (no wheather effects, cartoony clouds, problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far, unrealistic textures ...) |
On the Cockpit Management and the Landing questions you might find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzsJB...ailpage#t=136s Thr RL startup was not so complex as some people might imagine and it adds just a little more immersion if CoD has it. On the landing, if you watch the last minute or so you will see that the Spit does skip, wheels even, on the first touch and lands unevenly on the second, left wheel first, but settles immediately. In IL-2 that second bounce would have the gear off or the a/c on its back as the wobble increased until disaster struck. I am hoping CoD will be more like the real thing. |
Quote:
Might be because FSX is a dead end (for MS)...maby? And the rest, what does "problems with the aspect of trees when seen from far" mean for ex? Feel free to elaborate on the other stuff to, like "poor graphics for a modern simulator". Im particularly interested in knowing what u compare to. (im gonna enjoy this one) |
Like I said, there's a simple solution to the whole resolution dot-size issue - which, due to more LOD's isn't going to be as much of one in CoD.
Just publish each players resolution settings on the scoring screen for everyone to see. Maybe even let the host discriminate for resolutions below 1280x1024. Either way This let's the point advantage whores self police amongst each other. |
Quote:
|
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
afaik the most distant "aircraft dots" in the il2 series sim do not use a single pixel to represent the distant object, they us a square clump of 4 pixels (2 black and 2 grey ). as you probably know close up aircraft/ship type objects in il2 are represented currently with 3 LoD models, which transition to a progressively smaller LoD model the further you get away from the object. iirc somewhere between 1000 and 1500 meters (depending on object size) this smallest LoD model will transition to a number of pixels drawing the rough shape of the very distant aircraft, and at the furthest distances this will then transition to a single 4 pixel "dot" untill at about 5 km the dot disappears completely. in any discussion like this you need to differentiate between distant aircraft seen against an open blue sky background (reasonably easy to see), and those drawn against a terrain scenery background (almost impossible to see in most circumstances in il2, and very unrealistic in its "aircraft spotting" distances, particularly since in most instances in il2 we fly with near perfect visibility). and to illustrate with 2 simple screenshots how this problem becomes even much worse in il2 when you add a variation in screen resolution, see the illustrations below the initial screenshot is with a 30' lcd in its native resolution, note no faint aircraft dot in the middle of the screenshot (we are searching for a low altitude pghter aircraft somewhere below us), but the snow covered scenery looks fairly good video quality and is "pretty" http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297257927 next shot is of the exact same situation but now we have halved the screen resolution, meaning the pixels now used to display the 4 pixel dot is 2x larger. as you should be able to note now, you CAN see the faint black dot of the enemy fighter below you ! and that is exactly why many experienced flyers *who are into online stat counting) will "game the game" by halving their resolutions. you should also be able to note the scenery quality has gone downhill, and is now noticeably not as pretty or "good". http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297257927 the point of all this is to ask yourself "what could a historical ww2 fighter pilot see from his cockpit in that exact same situation" ? and that is basically what il2/BoB should presumably aim to "simulate". there are other issues and problems relating to this "pixel display" problem representing distant aircraft in il2 . another good example is in this flight of four i-16's heading in your direction (illustrated here with a zoomed clip with these 4 aircraft against open sky). i-16's are at roughly 1000 m distance, 3 km alt, game paused and screenshot taken in external view at 1280x1024 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297259136 as you can see only one of them looks vaguely like a "plane" (yet it is a formation of 4 planes flying together), the others are just an erratic irregular group of pixels, AND those drawings constantly change shape depending on the view angle ! 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 (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 same problem is illustrated by trying to hunt for ground targets in open fields or on roads. during the normandy invasion allied tank busters would scan the scenery for german targets from 1500 m alt, and could see individual tanks/trucks stand out clearly in open fields and on roads. ever tried to do the same in il2 ? you cant, you need to be at about 350 meters or even lower to do the same (which then makes you more vulnerable to ground fire, and because you also have to fly slower it makes you more vulnerable to enemy planes). note: people who "game the game" in il2 will often use an artificial zoom by briefly narrowing their FoV setting to 30 degree's and then scan the ground/sky for targets, but this is not he solution and is the equivalent of using binoculars. in short, when your monitor is correctly calibrated and you have the right FoV setup for your monitor size, you SHOULD be able to see from your cockpit what a real human could see in the same situation from his cockpit, in il2 this was NOT the case this was a major issue, probably the single biggest downfall of the whole series. note 2: oleg was well aware of this problem and in patch 3.02 (iirc) he significantly increased the pixel clump size that represents these distant aircraft. this did correct the problem (but probably made them a bit to visible now), but the whiners got the upper hand at the time and oleg removed his fix in the next patch, and for years didnt want to discuss it again (but i know he has taken it under consideration for BoB/Sow) |
Yeah - pretty conclusive. Nothing much more to say except that I was wrong. :(
...though still have suspicions that you may have photoshopped the second image ;):) |
Zappa:
There must be something wrong. low-res: plane is 6-8pixels high: plane is 2pixels Do you still have the ntrk? If so, please host at somewhere I would like to conduct some tests too, but to do that we need the same picture. |
Quote:
Lets name drop a few other developers releasing sims today; the DCS series is going strong, Rise of Flight is in the mix and Jet Thunder with A2A on board as a developer makes for a pretty strong case, oh and X-PLANE 10, Seven G and Fighter Ops (if it eventually comes to fruition.) Cliffs of Dover is a fort night away; that in all sense of the word..a comeback. You're opinion based on the screenshots of Cliffs of Dover is short sighted, you obviously want a visual simulation more than a high fidelity combat sim otherwise you wouldn't be ragging on the cover art of a complex entity. (And you would know that in all the years of high fidelity combat sims, nothing has ever come out with state of the art photo real graphics). I've been simming for a LONG time and graphically this is what I expect from a new modern sim. Ooh and the weather system is there, just use at your own risk and has been mentioned it is being worked on. Obviously you haven't a clue at the complexity involved behind the scenes whilst developing a game. Your entitled to your opinion of course, but asking me if i read the news when you quote information that's 7 months doesn't disprove my point. Besides, the best sims these days are being put forth by small studio type developers, (Oleg Games, ED, 777 studios, A2A, Bohemia). My point stands, I've not had so many flight sims on my computer at one time since the late 90's...that my friend is signs of a comeback (not saying how FAR it will come back, but it's breathing new life into a previously desolate world). |
Quote:
Quote:
oleg doesnt owe you (or me) ANYTHING. he is however a flightsim enthusiast who has made a great previous sim and deserves our support and constructive input to help him make the best future sim he possibly can. he is however working with a small team under difficult circumstances and with limited resources, and "just because you want it" doesnt magically make 30 million dollars fall out of the sky for him to use during development so he can compete with big bux console type gaming houses (who make products that last 3 months after which the ADD kids need something new to play with). oleg is our only and last best hope for a great new realistic ww2 SIMULATOR, and for that he deserves all our constructive support and deserve to have people communicate to him in a civilized way. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
below a screenshot of a B-17 (wingspan 30 m +) seen at roughly 5 km against blue sky with some clouds. for this aircraft the il2 engine keeps trying to draw the rough shape of the aircraft untill about 5.7 km when it suddenly and abruptly transitions to its generic display of "the il2 dot" being made up of 4 pixels ( 2 black and 2 grey) the left image displays the "4 pixel dot", the right image is with the aircraft just a little closer (by 200 m), when the il2 engine now tries to draw the shape of the aircraft (and we get pop-up of the smallest LoD model being displayed). the sim does it roughly correctly by now showing 15 horizontal pixels for the wingspan (all credit to "lurch", an astronomer il2-flyer who made the calculations) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297264461 for the discussion in this thread the issue is about the "4 pixel dot" and how visible it is, and how realistic this visibility is compared to real life "spotting distances". if the aircraft was a me-109 with a winspan just under 10 m wide, this "lod to dot" transition point would have happened at about 1/3 the distance, being roughly at 1500 meters (which is indeed when it happens for that aircraft in il2). and that is exactly what my earlier screenshots were intended to illustrate. if you have an me-109 below you somewhere at 1700 m distance, and hence he is displayed by the "4 pixel dot" then SCREEN RESOLUTION MATTERS a great deal (because on a monitor changing the resolution changes the pixel size). on the 30' dell the earlier screenshots were taken on (snow scenery), the monitor has a pixel size of 0.250 mm, so the 4 pixels form a little square of 0.5 by 0.5 mm (2 pixels being grey, and 2 black as you can see in the zoomed in gunsight), but if you halve the screen resolution of that same monitor you suddenly have 0.50 mm pixels and the "il2 dot" has doubled to 1 mm by 1 mm. hence on the screenshots i posted earlier this is the critical change from "now you see it" to "now you dont" this is something many online flyers have been using for years to "game the game", you reduce your screen resolution and bogey's are much easier to spot. there is however an even bigger problem then that. these little 4 pixel dots still dont accurately represent what most real ww2 fighter pilots could/would see from their cockpits ! if il2/BoB is claiming to be a simulator then it is critical in my opinion this most important issue has a high priority (and oleg in the last few years has answered positively he is aware of this problem and is trying to correct it for BoB/il2). ps: if anybody wants to play around with their monitor resolutions in il2, try and use exactly 1/2 your native resolution as a comparison point (this will double the pixels used in the 4 pixel il2 dots). using other comparison ratio's will require sub pixel blending of the "dot", creating a fuzzy and less describable outline. nice square blocks of full pixels are much easier to see as il2 dots |
Quote:
Unfortunately I can't reproduce your resolution, I got a 22"/1680 here. However I tested 1280 vs 1680. On both resolution the plane in the distance had the size of two pixels. Maybe I screwed something up while taking the screenshots(dont think so tho')... Anyway; here are the shots and the ntrk, 7.55mb zip http://rapidshare.com/files/447028204/ss-and-ntrk.zip |
can you just post the shots here in the thread ?
easier to see and discuss :) |
Quote:
This pixel doubling does not happen on my screen. Would you mind posting your config, the resolution part? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
1) the distant aircraft you are looking at must indeed be a dot (so past the lod model drawing distance, for single engine fighters this can be up to 2000 m or so) 2) have your monitor FoV correctly set for the monitor size so ingame objects are displayed in 1:1 ratio compared to real life, dont use a zoomed in/out FoV setting 3) use in cockpit viewing of the distant object, external views can distort and magnify 4) use 1/2 your native resolution to compare the 2 screenshots |
Quote:
(Thanks for making me do that :/) http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/6742/16801.jpg http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/8513/8001.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
you need to compare it at 1/2 your native resolution :)
and i am presuming you are changing the resolution in the game not just altering your monitor ;) |
edit:
Why don't you use your 25xx resolution on the screen of a movie theater, your pixel will have the size of a pack cigs(CHEATING!). There is no way to determine who you display the game it within the software. |
Quote:
that is the exact principle at work, and it really shouldnt be the case in 2011 with the next gen sim btw, i just noticed that with the monitor size you are using this probably means it is a 6 bit colour monitor (TN technology based), rather then most other lcd's which are normally 8- bit color (and MVA/PVA or IPS technology). the people who complain the least about il2 distant aircraft visibility are oddly enough often people with inferior monitors (dont mean to diss your hardware there). because these 6 bit monitors have significantly more problems displaying shades of grey, they constantly flip between several states of grey in a more noticable transition (compared to the smooth gradient on an 8 bit monitor), with TN based monitors this is known to add a slight "glitter" effect to the grey/black pixels it is trying to display (and this makes these 2/4 pixels representing a distant il2 aircraft stand out more, particularly if it is a moving object against a differently colored background, like green tree foliage or snow etc) didnt mean to go all technical in minor detail, but i can post some illustrations about this known effect on 6 bit monitors later if interested for now, just notice how the pixel size has increased with the lower resolution, making the 2/4 pixel object physically larger and easier to see on screen (btw my earlier screenshots posted were taken in 4.08 iirc). i havnt noticed anybody commenting the dot's had changed to 2 pixels since then, but it is possible (dot visibility has not increased since then, if anything worsened, so i havnt looked at it any closer since). the argument is still exactly the same however, 1/2 your resolution and the "il2 dot" is 2x the size, giving you a clear advantage online in a competitive environment (if all else is equal) |
Quote:
Cheating, right? Quote:
Unless Oleg sells some standard systems too and locks out everything else. I recently noticed you can exploit the fact some ppl play with crappy GPUs. When they are close on your tail, fly low over the water surface and fire into the sea like there's no tomorrow. In case he really has an old card, odds are he will get a sideshow when flying through the fountains. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/s...eufel/a010.gif You see everything is different. GPUs, screensizes and and resolutions, internet connection etcpp. Quote:
Are you seriously saying the size of a pixel, in relation to displayed distance in game, vs reality is wrong? You had to consult an astrophysicist to notice? This is absolutely of the highest priority! How could anyone possibly enjoy the GAME with such a flaw??? Maybe you should consider moving, a real simulator is not going to fit on your desk. ;) 6bit/8bit: I have no idea what your talking about. In the settings menu it says something about true color, 32bit. :confused: |
Zapatista thanks for posting You last informations (especially screenshots) its reveal the essence of the issue - my English is too weak to describe it so well.
|
What he says is that some monitors don't have the capability of displaying all the colors at the same time, so they flip the pixels in question between color A and color B to give the illusion of color C. Hope it helps ;)
|
Zapa if you're really that hung up on dots quit playing online. This is a moot issue that no one on earth can do anything about. Way to many variables, and continuing to beat the dead horse will do nothing to make the problem go away. Every game where there is competition there will be people that will do unscrupulous things in game to make their small lives feel more important.
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Stuka LOD 2/3
With a resolution of 800x600 or lower these are like flying bricks with lower settings. |
Quote:
It's just like real war - better equipment wins(usually). You feel you get an advantage by using a 60" screen @800*600 - go for it. |
Please could you start a seperate topic on this? I keep coming back to this topic expecting a different discussion. Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting, but there's such a wealth of information here, it'd be sad to see it get lost once a new update comes.
I have to say, I am marvelling at Zaps research into this! top notch stuff. |
I find the discussions on the effect of screen resolutions on the ability to spot planes in game are all very interesting. Personally I would far rather have the highest resolution possible (native res) simply because of the enjoyment of having better, more realistice scenery and planes especially when it comes to making positive ID before firing.
Once LODs kick in I have always found it quite possible to spot a plane against a ground background because at higher resolutions and with a correctly adjusted screen there is noticable contrast between plane and background, even forests. The problem seems to be a natural desire for people to have every edge they can get or at least not to be disadvantaged and so they want to be able to spot the enemy at the absolute earliest. Rather than worrying about how different monitors/setups compare with each other I am far more interested in how what I am seeing on screen compares with what I would see in real life. I don't care if someone on lower resolution can see a dot at 8Km or more if in real life a pilot might not see the plane at 5 or 6km and then depending on light conditions. I would far rather see a beautifully rendered, sharp and antialiased plane at 500m and to make a positive ID when it counts. The discussions are all about what is seen on one screen compared with another but much more rarely about what was actually seen in real life. Lets face it, a common tactic especially of bombers was to fly low to avoid detection from fighters so perhaps not being able to spot planes against the forest is more realistic especially if flying on a full switch server without icons.I have also read accounts of flights spotting lower planes and having to descend to identify them. Mistaken identity and friendly fire incidents were a real risk. Wasn't there a documentary that suggested Douglas Bader was most likely downed by friendly fire and he invented the story of a 109 collision to protect his fellow RAF pilot? There are still a few weeks before we will know how much better the landscape and rendering and visibility of objects are in CoD compared to IL-2 (I don't think any of the promised videos will really do justice at all) but two things in particular I hope will be an improvement. The flare and glint of sun on planes should be much more lifelike and help spot distant aircraft and the dynamically moving shadows in the cockpits will maybe make positioning yourself between the sun and your target much easier. It really will be a case of 'beware the hun in the sun'. |
Quote:
But I have to say, Swiss, the reason I dump cash I can't afford into peripherals for the game is to boost my sense of immersion and involvement in flight and WWII air combat. Honestly, nothing competitive - just to have a good time! (Which is why I'd never lower my screen resolution - talk about cutting off you nose to spite your face!, and probably why I'm generally canon-fodder or "bait" for my squadron mates!). [Edit: And I agree with you, Flyingblind - from what I've taken from the updates, hopefully glints and reflections from targets will make bogie-spotting - particularly those currs beneath you - much easier.] Anyway, as others have said, I feel like a seven-year-old waiting for Christmas! When I finally get a tattoo, it'll read: "Two Weeks - Be Sure". Thnx Oleg, Lutheir and the gallant 22! |
Quote:
Definitely going to have to pay close attention to air speed/speed over ground, especially with any kind of high wind in the mix.:grin: |
Quote:
I just hate conducting a perfect bounce and when coming up from behind and below to have the guy suddenly break. The only explanation is they heard me coming. |
Just my experience : I've flown once in a P3 very near to a DC-3, never heard anything.
I've also flown sometimes in jet fighters in formation with other jet fighters, never heard anything outside. |
Quote:
Except, thats not a Stuka. ;) |
Quote:
Raybanjocky? That's quite funny. It's like I said, i don't consider myself a "pilot". I do this for fun(I prefer eyecandy over superman x-ray view), and honestly I can't get the slightest bit of immersion sitting in front of screen, no matter what size, refreshing at 60 to 100 times a second. This is program trying to reproduce RL - but being what is it it never can, never will. Before I spend $2k on a new monitor I'll rather get a bigger TV or so, things you can use in RL - with friends and such... However, if someone decides to go the highend this route, I'm fine with it and wouldn't feel disadvantaged at all. But even if you have a $20k system, you can be sure one day you'll meet the young Russian equipped with a 17" CRT and a shitty PC who's gonna whoop your a$$ really bad. Unless you can surprise him(which is not the issue here, as everybody can spot the enemy at 3k) - it will always end in dogfight - the extra 1k visibility come in really handy here, right? ;) |
Quote:
Cool choice btw, shitty SFX vs spider sense. Or - maybe he's an experienced pilot, spotted you and intentionally let you come closer. Breaks work much better if you surprise the aggressor. Quote:
|
All I want is for that bug to be fixed.
I've do not doubt that you would hear something when shooting though, feel would be more apparent (I agree that some sound is needed to give the same sense as feel isn't available unless FFB.) I'm sure you could hear or feel a hit (I've shot steel plates with a rifle) so that I have no problem with that. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) the topic we (you know, the "other forum users" here) were discussing is how realistically il2 can display the visibility of distant aircraft, compared to what a real ww2 aviator would/could see from his cockpit (point being, the game trying to "simulate" a ww2 pilot experience, for which accurate visibility of enemy aircraft and ground targets is crucial). several posters earlier in this thread were raising concerns that they hoped these errors and know major problems in the il2 series would now be corrected in BoB ( it has been raised multiple times before, including in this forum in the last few yrs). oleg in previous years has indicated he is aware of this issue, and is trying to address several elements of it in BoB/Sow (one of these improvements seems to be that distant LoD models now have "3D volume" to them, as can be seen in one of oleg's earlier video clips). this problem has been extensively discussed and debated for years in the main il2 forums, and is well recognized (even if you dont seem to be aware of it, yet you keep blabbering on trying to either dismiss it or interject with frivolous meaningless banter) 2) the problem can be broken down into various elements, some of which are a) how visible the most distant il2 "dots" are. - when the smallest LoD model transitions to just being displayed as a "dot" (which can be anywhere from around 1500 m for a fighter or 5 km for a large bomber), this dot stands out fairly clearly against the open sky, but it blends in way to much with the ground terrain (being just a simple 4 pixel flat little square that slides over a textured background). b) how well/poorly the various LoD models stand out against the background (in many situations they blend in to much, and in some situations planes can become invisible even if only a few 100 meters away and directly in front of you) c) how well/poorly ground targets like tanks, trucks, etc stand out against the background (as mentioned before, you should be able to spot individual tanks/trucks moving on an open road or in a field from 1200 to 1500 meters altitude, yet in il2 this is impossible, you need to be at around 300 meters (a BIG issue !) d) as a fighter pilot the main experience a SIMULATOR should be able to display, is that we as virtual pilots can track objects around us correctly and represent the situational awareness a ww2 pilot would have of objects or targets around him. in il2 you effectively are flying in a mini bubble of 30* of this visibility, AND you have blinkers on because your screen size is limetd. currently as users we are stuck between having a "pretty" sim with nice detailed planes and scenery, but the designers did not deliberately use methods to compensate for the limitations we have imposed on us by sitting behind an imperfect display medium (our monitor in our living rooms) rather then look "out the window" at a live battlefield. yet many of those limitations can be addressed and improved. Quote:
as you might not have noticed, the screenshot i posted of the gun sight showing the distant b17 had some calculations on it, they confirm that right up to the point of the most distant LoD model of the b17 transitioning suddenly to just a 4 pixel dot, that this last LoD model up to that point was indeed the correct size (because at the start of this debate we need to confirm the object itself is correctly drawn by the game engine). that specific post however was to confirm that these distant dots in il2 (4.08) are indeed displayed as 4 pixel blocks, and that you can simply double its size and significantly increase its visibility by halving your ingame screen resolution. now hold onto your socks, because here it comes the punchline ! the only reason that all this matters is because we need to compare visibility in the il2 game to what it would be in a similar real life situation ! eg, if i am looking at an me-109 1500 meters away in real life under good visibility conditions and can clearly see him, i expect a SIMULATOR to allow me to do the same, and if i keep my eyes glued on the little sucker to therefore be able to track him as a maneuver to engage him. and, wait for it, here it comes,........... in il2 currently you cant with the current way the dots work (unless seen against open sky, and even then it is much less clearly visible) hence, in order to have any hope of tracking the me-109 many people with high resolution are resorting to halving their resolutions, and artificially increase the dot visibility (but at the same time make the whole sim virtual world ugly to fly around in, and wasting the precious $'s they spent on their nice hardware). the fact some people use the same method to "cheat" online is completely besides the point. the whole focus of these "discussions" is to end up with as realistic of a visual world as we can to fly in, no more, no less. iirc in the 3.02 patch oleg briefly introduced a fix to address this dot visibility issue, and he made these dots larger and more visible (using more pixels and making them all black iirc). it might not have been "pretty" (for those liking eye candy over realism), but it served the purpose to more closely represent distant aircraft visibility and improved your SA significantly. a large section of the crowd however seem to think "hard to see = i am playing a really neat game", and have no clue about what visibility should really be like, or what recreating a real ww2 fighter pilot's experience means. sadly the whiners won the day in the following months, and in the next patch oleg reversed his changes, hence you have ever since then been back to the myopic 30% il2 "SA bubble" we have now. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
except that in il2 when you are trying to track a little black/grey square of 4 pixels against a green/brown or white background, this "glittering pixel" (which cant make up its mind of exactly what shade of grey to display) stands out MUCH more then on a high quality monitor, pure coincidence, but it is why a select small group of people in these discussions keeps thinking the visibility problem is less severe (note: in the crt days we were all in the same boat, and most video cards and nearly all crt displays were 32 bit). so your video car might be able to display 8 bit per primary color, but if your monitor is 6 bit limited that is all it will display. and one last thing,[b] do you even know how to setup your il2 FoV so that it is correct for your monitor size ?[/b[ (and the distance your eyes are from the screen). because many of the less informed people who keep saying they can see things most of us cant (pun intended), are in fact "gaming the game" by using lower FoV settings they they should and use it as a zoom magnifier to scan the ground or sky for things they actually would be able to see from a real plane cockpit so either start informing yourself a little about how extensive this problem is, by searching the ubi forums for example (or simhq or combatsim), then setup your system FoV correctly, compare your TN 6 bit monitor it to a normal 8 bit monitor, and then find out what real visibility was like historically for ww2 fighter pilots and ground pounders. and then maybe look at what RL visibility is like from an aircraft cockpit to, just so you have an idea of what you CAN see in RL. failing all that, how about you go play somewhere else and stop interjecting in topics you know very little about :) its not a forum pissing contest, we are trying to exchange useful information and improve the SIMULATOR in its next incarnation. |
Quote:
We need another update fast ! :grin: Salute ! |
@DC338. It's not a bug. It's something Oleg put in the game based on his research. I agree it can be anoying but everyone has it so it's still a level playing field. It would be nice if he could have that effect when a plane get's within 50 yards. That gives the stalker enough time to seal the deal.
I once got bounced by my boss from 45 degrees above and behind, flying a Pilatus p-3 right as I turned baseleg. I was flying a Cessna 310 light twin. I only heard him as he passed by at about 50 yards. Never saw or heard him coming. He had the sense of humor to tell me to better check for traffic in the pattern! |
Thanks for compliments in the upper part - do you really expect me to read the rest of it?
However you deserve an "A" for effort. Btw, you just managed to deflower my ignore list. Congrats! Quote:
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/s...liebe/a018.gif |
Cant you guys discuss this whole dot visibility issue here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18473?
|
Quote:
|
To all flamers
I've started to report all the posts here with flames, insults or OT. If you like to quarrel please do it in private, not in a public thread meant to be INFORMATIVE and RELEVANT.
Thank you. 6S.Insuber |
Quote:
:cool: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
sorry.
(But: I've never seen OM or luthier come back when there were only 2 or 3 days left to the next Friday update. So, I'm not sure if we caused some real damage. ;) ) Edit: Insuber; If he's absent he won't post in this thread anyway. |
Quote:
my somewhat verbose response was entirely on topic, and informative i might point out and directly relates to one of the discussions that is threaded throughout this 70 page thread (3 or 4 posters independently raised concerns about visibility problems in il2) many of those genuine and well known concerns were then met by the uninformed self gratifying banter from swiss who tried to minimize and dismiss the problem without even understanding it or having something meaningful to say, which in the end started to prevent further normal discussion on the topic. the major gaps in his knowledge have been addressed by my last posts, and these didnt contain any excessively rude language. the fact he is now pretending to be a sensitive soul and turns out to have a glass jaw is rather funny, given his aggressive and persistently hostile attitude to many other genuine posters here over many months (not alluding to myself here). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.