Hehe Pink Floyd tragic. Now do Queens Bohemian Rhapsody, I dare you.

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns. :D

Exactly right. It is so hard to spot planes that I usually end up giving up a good position just to find a a target.

I don't have much patience with people saying it is realistic. After all, pilots might have gone on patrol several times in a row without engaging the enemy but this isn't what I go online for.

There needs to be a balance between sim and playability.

If you find on HL (IL2 1946) a guy named 6S.Marte you have to know that he's a military fighter pilot too. I asked to him before starting the research and he agreed about irrealistic target visibility (too difficult to spot and ID at long distance, too easy to spot and track at short distance).

Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.

We are talking about military fighter pilots who have a specific method to scan the sky. To my knowledge the ULM pilots and the glider pilots are not teached this method. Some posts above I asked about this to a poster who claimed himself as civil pilot but he did not give an answer.

So I ask Tuckie and pirke the same thing: what method are you using to scan the sky? And in which circumstance are you searching?
And Tuckie, I think losing a previously spotted contact because you're occuped to do something else is a realistic thing (as many civil pilots do... I've read on a document that they are looking at instruments the most of the time): it's different if you are actually tracking that plane and this one disappears in the sea of pixels (because of the many things explained in this thread)... Can you really 100% confirm that in RL you lose a contact even if you're constantly staring at it?

If there was "no sign" of me in this thread it's because I've promised to not expound my ideas anymore on this subject since the most of the people did not care. They want a "simulator" who does not simulate real target visibility ("Look I see a dot! Let's turnfight at 300m!").

If you really want to aid this discussion, proving to me and to the others that the studies made by the US military scientists are wrong and useless, please post some official documents.

This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using serious arguments...
I also found more accounts made by real pilots who spotted enemies at longer distance than the document states, but I discarded it because it was a "only" pilot's accounts... in the same way I discard the opinions of WW2 pilots claiming that the 109 could outturn a Spitfire and all the WW2 myths based on pilot's accounts.

I don't claim to be right (I'm not the teacher as you childishly claims), but still I've found out documents and the ingame test I made (the first post of the thread) proves that target spotting is very different from what we see on our monitor. I would be glad if somebody else can find me documents who claims the opposite because I'm not an expert too.

Anyway, KeBrAnTo, I hope you understand that nobody here cares about your statement about the "tall building" that you can't see. Add to this your "US Navy documents are BS" statement (where BS is not our new friend BlackSix) and we have a bingo of credibility fail. People don't care about your getting along with the other posters.

Perhaps if we are unable to simulate what should recognizable due to the lack of resolution then at that distance(recognition) the game should use what ever number of pixels are required. The AC will appear larger than it should but at least it would be recognized as it should(a choice of one or the other). The need to have objects larger than in reality would lessen the nearer it got. It would solve the object identification problem but might hinder judgment of closure speeds. But like loosing an eye the brain will soon adjust.

Sorry it seemed simpler to try to explain in my head.:confused:

Falcon used that artifact if I remind well.

except of course that you are completely wrong, and you have failed to understand the information he posted. in fact, he said exactly the opposite of what you think, and validated the spotting/tracking problem of aircraft in CoD (for the limited set of conditions he described)

hint: this "non native english speaker" poster was referring to using a "cheat" to enhance LoD model visibility in CoD (but at significant cost in fpsec) discussed here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...eshShowLod%3D1 and he stated that when using the cheat he can see some LoD models at some distances roughly correctly now, but ...... [against open sky (where they should stand out like dogs balls most of the time)
hint 2: no opinions provided by him regarding spotting/tracking moving objects below him while in flight when looking at them against a terrain background (of which there are various types), or locating stationary objects (vehicles/aircraft) on open roads or in open fields (other then him saying they are generally harder to spot then against open sky eh)
hint 3: people in some of these posts are also seeming to refer to a bug of some sorts which makes some LoD models almost disappear when you close in on the distant aircraft and loose sight of it (against open sky !), which is what he seems to be alluding to

eh meaningless jibber jabber like most of your previous posts on this topic. but kind funny to see you put your foot in it so enthusiastically

now lets see if you swallow your own snake oil when its dished out to you instead. since this person who you by your own words decided was a conclusive authority on this matter, and he said exactly the opposite of your "opinion" , does that mean your going away now and leave it to normal posters to exchange meaningful factual information ?

lemme guess.............. i feel a psychic revelation coming on that allows me to predict the future.......if only the rest of life was so easy

you fail to grasp that if you are so happy with how you can see distant objects in the sim, then good for you, go play and leave the rest to discuss what problems they are experiencing and try and arrive at some meaningful numbers to compare spotting/tracking distances to real life experiences in ww2 aircraft another point your missing is that not everybody in il2 (or currently in CoD) is seeing the exact same thing on their monitors, even when viewing the same objects and scenery, eg what you see is not what others see for a multitude of reasons and variables. neither does it need your approval, or even understanding of the topic being discussed, for others to be able to discuss this issue.

it took literally several years to narrow down in il2 what the main problems were with "distant object visibility", given the information amassed in that debate we can cut through the same problems we now experience in CoD much faster

Manu,

have you now tried to standardize some of your observations (eg with correct FoV for your monitor setup etc) to see how good/bad visibility is under specific circumstances (and looking at different types of objects) for distant aircraft or ground vehicles ?

Thank god I've got you round to explain to me other people's thoughts, even my own!, LoL.

Im not gonna try to explain to you what it is written in the post i was referring to, you should be able to understand whatever fits to your own requirements as you showed already.

Be water my friend. :D

This was all my point since the beginning, pal. Contacts are very difficult to be spotted, full stop.

Then all this technical stuff started to fly in all directions, that human eye is designed to focus on movement, etc .... stuff I've not discussed, but I'm not very interested about either, because I don't need to read about some kind of things to form my very own opinion about them, specially if that is realated to things I'm actually seeing by my very own eyes and thank god I stilll believe in them.The day they fail me maybe I'll start diving into some kind of documentation in order to find out what I'm actually seeing.

Some of you guys really need to chill out, honestly, in fact, that Zapatista actually bites !!!!! :rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, you're not the teacher Manu. :grin: