Dot Visibility in COD and Other Flight ims.
 

Its fairly well known that in IL2 its waaaay harder to see 'dots' (distant planes) at higher resolutions .I play exclusively at 1024x768 online as I simply am not competitive at higher res.I cant even see planes take off from airfields directly below me at 1km alt or less at higher res.Needless to say Im acutely aware this is kinda a crying shame on a screen with a 2560x1600 native resolution!My question is will COD be the exact same .Is this a game engine issue or simply due to the number of dots used to show distant planes and 'pixel size'?
{Im also aware that the 'pixel density' on monitors affects this ie a 'dot' on a 17inch 1280x1024 will be harder to see than a 19 inch 1280x1024 as pixels are 'clumped' closer together and hence smaller }
Id appreciate some sound advice on this topic as I wont have any need to upgrade if its the exact same I reckon...

What do you mean you are not competitive at higher res?You have a 2500x1600 resolution monitor and you are playing at 1024x768?What?Why?

Probably for the same reason that I have my 24" scaled down when flying online and don't use native res. Dots are hard as hell to see the higher the resolution is set and I ain't getting any younger :grin:

Offline is a different matter.

Playing at a lower resolution than your screen is designed for causes the dot that represents a plane at long range to appear bigger.

For example, if you had a screen that displayed at 2000x1200 (not a real resolution), and you used that setting, a plane at the extreme distance of visibility will appear as 1 pixel on your screen. If you lower the resolution to 1000x600, the plane will appear at the same distance, but it will now be represented by 2x2 pixels, because your screen is adapting to the lower resolution and magnifying the number of pixels input by 2x2.

Its sad to have a new PC and use 1024x768, I use native resolution, I hope if I do the same in COD I wont have any disadvantage
Some official answer would be great

I agree, and have to fly at 1024x768 online to see the dots. Even then I have people calling out boogies I never see. Hopefully the developers will render dots the same size at different resolutions, but I'm not sure how much work that is or if its even possible.

Technically it is quite possible, it is simply a matter of programming the system to use an object instead of just a single pixel to represent distant aircraft.

Since the object will always be the same size, it will always occupy the same proportion of the screen, so if the screen size is the same, the object will be the same size, regardless of resolution. The only restriction is that the object must be big enough to appear as one pixel at max view distance on the lowest resolution supported by the game.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if Oleg is aware that people exploit the current system, because he was asked about it a while back and his reply was to the effect that he thought the pixel system was fair, and that it was always one pixel whatever the resolution.

his reply was to the effect that he thought the pixel system was fair, and that it was always one pixel whatever the resolution

Hope not.

Thats the whole fun of spotting planes, it is so hard that when you spot one you feel good and do what you can to not loose it even for a second.Here's where Track Ir and Freetrack come in handy.

ah, and I though I am just too bad in IL-2.
Now I know it's due to my 1920x1080 resolution. :grin:

I rather be shot down playing at the native res than being able to spot the planes better at half the native resolution.Maybe this could be related to our sight.I dont need glasses how about you guys?

Il2 initially used bigger and more visible dots but many people complained so it was changed in some early patch. Now it's exactly 1 pixel, and as pointed out that pixel gets smaller with higher resolution.

Cliffs of Dover will most likely have planes and other objects visible much further out because technology has improved, people use higher resolutions and anti aliasing is an established feature now - all of this makes it sensible to render planes as 3D objects where Il2 already switches to the dot representation.

I guess we'll have to wait for the release to find out how it works now; this isn't something that can easily be shown on screens or videos.

S!

Not to mention that the LOD values on many planes in IL-2 are way off, even today. Making some look like Lego blocks at a distance where the other plane is smaller. This affected for example Bf109-series as you could tell which one was a 109 over enemy plane because of the bigger dot and plane model at certain LOD range.

I play at 1920x1200 , AAx4 and I have not any problems looking for bandits

Same here. Samsung SM 2443

Then you sir have better vision than the vast majority of the rest of us armchair pilots. Let's hope it stays that way.

Even when I was younger (hitting 45 in September) I never had 20/20 vision. Then I lost 95% eyesight on the right side in 1986 due to an infection (from 100% to 5% overnight) which didn't make things any better. Especially frustrating when the above mentioned effectivly canned my chances for a PPL rating (I was an aircraft mechanic at that point in time working in my father's shop). Virtual Airtime is the only kind I get these days.

Anyway, back on topic. I know Oleg realizes that 17" CRTs are no longer the norm with todays LCDs capable of much higher resolutions. Here's hoping that distant aircraft won't be "dots" in the same sense as they were in IL-2.

Cheers

lol I have the same screen, bought in pixmania :-P
I'm sorry about that Gromic :(

I've seen screen shots from a particular online-war pilot, aircraft looked like a flying bricks.

These guys are into stats mungering.

800x600 turn off all details no buildings etc etc

You see aircraft from way out and all ground targets are easy to see as there's no scenery buildings just flat terrain till you are almost on top of it, quite sad but they are interested only in points and their stats, what the sim/game looks like is of no consequence to them.

i play at 1920 by 1200 with the aa cranked up to 16xQ, on a samsung 24inch monitor

maybe i can't see dots as well below me, but i never seem to have that much problem seeing them, and for what advantage i loose, i'm more than happy to have the eye candy.

i think i would throw up playing it in 1024x768.

S!

I play at 1920x1200 and have some difficulties spotting planes at times. Especially when they approach and go near the horizon, kind of disappear before appearing again. I hope the dot issue is better handled in CoD..we are not playing with small screens anymore ;)

I have a hard time imagining people playing on medieval resolutions just to be more "competitive". What's next, wallhacks? Aimbots? Pink default skins for the enemy plains? :confused:

I actually came to post a similar question about monitors. I bought a highly rated 19" CRT years ago for IL2 as it had a very fine dot pitch. I remember setting it on high res and being able to identify planes much better than at 1024x768. I can't remember the dots being harder to see at long range but the planes were much easier to identify as friend or foe from medium distances which I found really helpful.

I quit playing for a few years but came back recently. I still have the same monitor but I am using it with a laptop so I can only use 1024x768 and the graphics at lower settings.

So I was going to ask with LCD's do I need to worry about dot pitch etc or all they all pretty good these days? Back then nobody would touch them as they had refresh rate issues, ghosting and low resolutions. Can anyone recommend one, as I'm going to be hardware shopping when COD comes out.

Looking for a new monitor is scary territory to be entering these days, young Grasshopper :)

lots of side by side comparisons are called for indeed, as well as 'netresearch.
Series 6 or later side lit LED aren't too bad... I'm happy with my SyncMaster PX2370

I play at 1280x768 in IL2. Everyone needs to remember when the game 1st came out, the game's native res was 1024x768. That's what resolution the game was designed for at the time.

If you play at a 16:9 or 16:10 (depending on your monitor) with 1366x768 or 1280x768 (I think those are the 2 for widescreen) and have all your graphics cranked up including max AA/AF I see no difference in graphics quality between that and my monitor's native res of 1920x1200. But!!!!, I see the dots like they were meant to be displayed. Turning your graphics all the way down to try to get an advantage is pretty lame, but playing the game at close to it's native resolution, is not, IMO.

I hope the dot thing isn't a problem anymore either with the majority of people having high res monitors nowadays, but I think I've seen a few screenies that show distant dots in the background so I think we'll be ok ;)

I have a Samsung 25.5 260HD and actually see little difference between 1920x1200 and 1024x768 with AA 16x and AF 16x. The only difference is the size of the pixel of distant aircraft. I will see aircraft a little sooner while flying at the lower resolution without sacrificing any graphics quality atleast to my old eyes. That said I would sooner fly at my monitors native resolution if the developers could find a way to uniformly display distant aircraft.

I really doubt you will be able to play this at 16xAA,I want to be wrong though.

I probably won't need 16xAA if I can fly the game at 1920x1200 and still see distant aircraft.

I cant stand jaggies so I need at least 4xaa.What I meant is that even if you needed 16xaa to spot planes better most of us couldnt because it surely will lag a lot.

I'm using a Samsung PX2370. It's native res is 1900 x 1080.

I'm 57, have a weak left eye from birth (kept me from being a military pilot, damn it), so consequently I run my game res at 1600 x 900 to improve vis of aircraft at a distance. And I still miss lots of aircraft that my younger team mates with CRTs at 1024 x 768 spot.

I run my anti aliasing at 16xQ and anistropic at 8x.

I would run my res even lower if the game didn't look so bad at lower resolutions.

I hope that CoD really addresses this issue so I can run at full res and have good vis of targets.

You are all horrible cheaters! :-P
I wont do it but I know the feeling.

I have exactly the same problem, i own Dell 21 inch crt (capable of quite nice 1600x1200 at 85hz) BUT i would really like to buy some 24 inch LED - this "pixel size dependent to resolution issue" is stoping me from nem monitor.

Can some1 from Devs would be kind to give some info ? I think lots of us would be gratefull for such information.:confused:

I didn't need 16x AA to spot aircraft. I used 16xAA to make up for the low resolution I needed too spot aircraft. At 1920x1200 there are very few jaggies, which doesn't require much AA, atleast for my eyesight.

This is a real issue that should be dealt with.

I too have to resort to lowering my res. to not be absolutely totally blind. I have a 2560x1600 native res, but run it at 1920x1200 to see the dots.

I have perfect vision, but online when my friend called out bogies, I couldn't see the enemy until they were much much closer, when the 3d model pops up. This range would be totally too close to be able to react properly. The single pixel at 2560x1600 (even on 30" monitor) is just too small for the eye to get a hold on.

Only indication that there were enemies around was the tracer firing I saw in the distance :) .. And my friend yelling in TS "Can't you see them, they're right there!" :D

-Untamo

What a strange thread.

Personally I find a higher resolution enables sighting of an aircrafts attitude and direction at a greater distance, this (imho) is a big advantage - SA is not just seeing aircraft, its knowing what they are doing.
I play at 1680x1050 and have no trouble seeing the dots.
If people with poor eyesight are disadvantaged in the game, surely this is accurately reflects reality?
There is already a fix for limited eyesight, turn on icons.

I have played the il2 on 3 different screens, 3 different resolutions and 4 video cards, 1024 x 760 before now 1680 x 1050, never had any kind problems seeing dots... And my eyesight sucks, I have that on paper! :grin:

Surely theres _something_ to do with your eyesight, resolution, your game graphics, but this is also about knowing where to look and how. It helps a lot to see them move against the background. To my experience the people whining most about this issue are those with little or no experience trying to spot them without the help of icons, map icons, exterior views etc. Not always, though.

I before thought the AF and AA higher than 4 meant that the dots would "blend" much more into the background, especially ground details, but I recently noticed I had been playing with 16 x AF 6 x AA and hadnt noticed any difference.

You're absolutely right, but what about me, with good eyesight. Shouldn't I be spotting planes with ease?

And as for icons, they're aren't an option when flying online.

I mostly fly with icons off (online). I can't say that I'm very experienced, been actively flying for a couple of years. I've always had trouble in spotting planes against the ground, but I think it is quite realistic that way. It's the dots against the sky and water that I'm concerned about.

The problem is that there is a dramatic difference when I play the game with native(2560x1600) and 75% of that(1920x1200). When playing at 1920x1200, I spot the dots almost immediately as they appear as faint cluster of pixels(not as a single pixel as in native res.). Moving or not, I usually spot them very far. Well, not so far if against water.

With native res. I spot the plane when it's very much closer, when the first LOD jump happens, and it's very very close by that time. Just seconds from firing range.

I know this isn't a huge issue, it's just been bugging me that I can't utilize the full res. of my screen :)

I've been wondering how would AA affect the dot visibility but couldn't be arsed to test. Would be nice to get rid of the jagged edges, but don't want to hamper my SA. Think I'll give it a try :)

-Untamo

Havent tried with such extreme resolutions myself. Move the screen closer? :grin::grin:

MeshDetail=1 is another setting to try.

I need to try 16 AA 16 AF some day, now the dots dont blend to the background much at all if the sun isnt low, and heck, thats what the camouflage was for.

Tried IL2 with two different screen sizes one LG22" and the other one a LG 32" and even when the 32 inches screen only had 1368x768 res I could see much easily the dots. It made a real difference in online combat.

Back in the day, people used to play Quake 3 at the lowest possible resolution, with literally no textures or any graphical effects in order to be as competitive as possible. The game looked horrendous, but these chaps were playing competitively, not to enjoy the sights and sounds.

Taken to its logical conclusion, we could look into a creating a mod that renders a simple black and white screen, with a horizontal line for the horizon and simple dots for aircraft, easily spotted as say a white dot against a black sky.

But would that be IL-2? Mechanically, perhaps, if the same physics were involved. I wouldn't enjoy it, but some might not care for anything other than victory, however it is attained.

Each to their own. I prefer high resolution and divide my time between online and offline play. I don't feel at a disadvantage online and am fortunate enough to have 20/20 vision.

If it's important to you then use a lower res and turn your graphical effects down. Whatever you do, have fun.

The issue isn't screen resolution, its the realistic distance you should be able to spot aircraft. This is also a simulator, supposedly simulating 20 year WW2 fighter pilots, with the very good vision required to be accepted as a fighter pilot. I do not see the problem with 50 year olds or 60+ year olds like myself with poor eyesight lowering the resolution to see the aircraft dots at a reasonably realistic distance. It has nothing to do with cheating.

I just bought a 40" Samsung LED and fly at the native resolution of 1920x1080 and still can't see the dots or even aircraft much closer. Forty years ago it would have been a different story. LMAO

Just wait until you spend 10 minutes chasing a dot before you finally realise its a spec of dirt on your monitor... ;)

Been there.

:-)

Done that.
:-)

I nearly caught the bandit,then my wife came in and wiped it off! :)

hate it when they do that :grin:

Did she use the T-shirt? ;)

It is a tricky situation, be sure. Spotting an opponent first is a distinct advantage but even in real life pilots who had an advantage in eyesight had an advantage. Do you trick the rendering engine to level the playing field? If you do that why not trick the flight model and ballistics as well?

Are we playing a sim or a game is the question. I too am frustrated incessantly with visibility of distant aircraft but I also happen to believe that this was the norm realistically.

A option for more visible aircraft for offline play or airquake servers would be nice though as long as it could not be exploited. Something more subtle than large blue triangles or whatever it is, I forget.

Lunix

You have a good point there. I really don't want to cheat :) .. I don't want to have an unfair advantage over the other players, but I also don't want to be in disadvantage just because I use a certain resolution.

I think this could be enforced with the new engine that would resize the dots according to the screen resolution. There were some good examples how to do this in the friday update thread.

-Untamo

MeshDetail=1 makes dots larger, the the "dot" is drawn, with the 3d model, closer so it removes the "disappearing plane at 2km" issue that some video cards have...

I wouldnt count it a cheat because the planes are OTOH more difficult to ID, being much more blocky to closer ranges. Full details kick in only about 400m away when its maybe 800m with the default MeshDetail=2.

OTOH potential owners of CoD with eye problems still want to be able to enjoy the game. I doubt there will be a toggle for the let's say visually impaired, that would display the 1 pixel bandit to a 4 pixel one. They'll have to resort to bigger screens and maybe feed 1280x800 signal to a 2560x1600 display.

Well the rule of "the crapier the system is, the easier one will spot bandits" isn't true only because of the dots and pixels. Contrast plays a big part in telling shapes apart and the graphics filtering and effects work exactly in the other direction.

You probably heard that there is a study on color blind observers being able to spot camouflage easier than the normal observer. I guess we can compare that to AA filtering, the better the filtering, the hardest it is to detect edges - what plays a big part in telling shapes.

Also, the visual acuity is dependent on the sharpness of the retinal focus within the eye, which can be greatly improved by a bigger screen (considering a source image of the same resolution) - bigger arc for the same image, better spatial resolution.
Interesting reasoning. My simple answer is: some don't trick the FM because they don't know how. In my opinion, guys who fly at native resolution, adjusting their settings to produce the best image their rig can move in the opposite direction of those adjusting the system to get the more effective way to locate threats. Since there are people who are not flying for points and kills, if both are having fun, excellent!

té mais
tityus

IRL it is possible to see a small airplane at least 5 miles if contrast is good.

Their is a trade off in game between realistic view distance and finding your "fun".

I wonder (here I go again) if the single pixel goes from grey value 0-255 between say... distance 5.5miles to 4.5 miles (depending on visibility conditions of course).

you have put one of the elements of the "il2 visibility problem" in a nutshell, but to try and find a solution you need to differentiate the different elements that cause the il2 visibility problems.

the way il2 currently works you have several mechanisms at work to display a progressively smaller aircraft on your screen:
a) the aircraft itself that you can view in external view, with all its detail displayed in its full eye candy glory in closeup
b) as you zoom away from the object this initial high detail representation of the airplane/ship gets replaced by a LoD model, a transition which occurs in 3 LoD steps right now, displaying progressively smaller LoD models with significantly less detail but keeping the rough shape of the aircraft. since the smaller LoD models are a cluster of pixels approximating the shape of the aircraft,
c) for a small fighter aircraft, somewhere between 1200 and 1800 meters this smallest LoD model will be replaced by a "dot" (in 4.08 this was a 4 pixel square dot).
d) for a large aircraft like a b17 this small dot will completely disappear somewhere around 5000 meters (depending on the il2 version you are using, the latest 4.09 has extended this visibility to 10.000 meters or even further iirc)

So the problems we are dealing with in il2:
1) how well/bad distant "dots" are visible ? at original release in il2 (2001 ?) these dots in their smallest form were a block of 9 black pixels that stood out like the proverbial dog's balls. soon after this size was reduced, but it briefly increased again in patch 3.01 or 3.02 because people complained they could spot them well enough. but on release a small vocal minority whined they were to visible, and in the next patch oleg reduced it to a 4 pixel square of 2 black and 2 grey pixels, which stayed till il2 version 4.08 iirc. around the time oleg changed those dot sizes several times, people were transitioning from crt's to lcd's in the west, and this resulted in a very varied set of reporting of how visible/invisible the dots are. it is possible that from 4.09 this was further reduced to 2 pixels (i havnt tested it in 4.09 or 4.10). the context of these changes is that the earlier pc technology was not powerfull enough to display highly detailed LoD models for multiple aircraft very far out, and as a way to reduce cpu/gpu drain they transitioned to the Dot's we currently have.
2) how well/bad medium distance LoD models are visible (particularly the 2e and 3e smaller ones for more distant aircraft). these pixel clusters are flat little pixels on a 2D display medium (your monitor), the fact the distant object is the right size does NOT mean it is as visible as the same plane would be in real life circumstances.
3) how well/bad the end result situational awareness is of an il2 virtual flyer (sitting behind a small monitor in his living room), compared to a real ww2 pilot in the same situation looking at the same distant objects. a major part of this is indeed how accurately we can "spot" nearby threats and potential targets (by looking at some parts of the sky/ground) and how well we can keep track of them once visually acquired

the presumption in a discussion like this is of course that we are trying to reproduce the visibility real pilots had during ww2, both of aircraft in the sky and for seeing ground targets (eg, we are NOT just playing a shoot'em up game of "hard to see and hard to find aircraft" where we believe the fact they are hard to find or nearly invisible when out further then 300 meters means this is realistic and represents the experience of real ww2 fighter pilots)

another presumption is that virtual pilots have correctly callibrated their displays, and have setup the correct Field of View (FoV) for their monitor sizes (which is rarely the case). lastly, they need to have reasonably normal vision to start out with, and have compared il2 being displayed on a few different mediums (like crt, cheap TN lcd monitors, normal average quality MVA/PVA or IPS displays, etc..). note: there are now newer oled screens, or people using large flatscreen tv's or projectors, but those are not commonly used yet. lastly people need to be honest and objective about reporting what they see in those comparisons.

it sure is, and many people experience the same problem with smaller monitors to (the main exception being those that use inferior cheap TN based computer screens)

there are several elements in il2 that contribute to the problem, some of them have been specifically addressed by oleg to try an reduce this problem (like giving LoD models "3D volume" so they stand out more, rather then flat pixel clusters that keep changing shape). it is uncertain at this stage if other important aspects have been addressed (and they need to be !)

you are correct that is one part of it, but it is not the main one

we have only had glimpses of the BoB/SoW game in action so far, but your high end monitor will be more effective at displaying distant bandits in BoB/Sow (just track down one of the earliest BoB video's with the english fighter overflying the cluster of german bombers, you will see the targets stand out much more correctly because they look like little "blobs" instead of flat pixels. if now it will be more accurately representing a ww2 pilots experience is to early to tell (but the indications are positive), neither do we know if a more level playing ground will be provided for competitive online flying.

ideally you'd want a dedicated detailed thread that looks at the technical issues behind this visibility problem in il2, so we know exactly what needs to be remedied. i only know part of the answers, but i'll try and make some specific comments in some of the posts in this thread to clarify the parts i do know about

entirely correct, as long as we are talking about the smallest LoD models. with more powerful cpu/gpu's then in 2011, CoD should now be able to display small detailed versions of the distant aircraft, rather then have it transition earlier to a generic blob/dot to save pc load

once that smallest LoD model transitions to a dot however, the dot itself is determined by pixel size, so having larger pixels will still significantly increase visibility. if for fighters this is at 7000 to 10000 meters, it matters much less then at the 1500 meters distance it is at now, because that single dot flying at 400 km/hr towards you can very quickly become a danger if he sees you much earlier then you can spot him. sadly is suspect that for small fighters oleg still will allow the dot-to-LoD transition point to occur somewhere around 1500 to 2000 meters (because that is where in size it becomes around 2 pixels big so it would be a potential pc resource waste to keep trying to draw it in detail if it is actually smaller then 2 pixels). so to the resolution based cheat and visibility problem will likely continue (hope i am wrong there)

can you plz say what monitor model/brand you are using ?

if your system is callibrated correctly and your FoV is setup ok, i suspect you dont have a TN based screen

this means you probably are using a gaming monitor based on 6 bit color (compared to 8 bit for most medium to higher end systems)

its one of the few times in life cheaper is better (for il2). the little grey/black dots of distant objects glitter and shine on your screen, making them stand out more (compared to others with 8 bit monitors seeing a single shade of grey slightly change as the dots glide over green/brown/white/grey backgrounds off the underlying terrain)

foo'bar,

i looked up your monitor model, it is indeed again a 6 bit monitor (see http://www.prad.de/en/index.html ). given how much you know about grafix and video and your liking of il2, and since you use programs like photoshop etc (?) i am a bit surprised you were not aware of that when you selected your monitor.

as you probably know "eight bits" also allows 256 shades of grey. The human eye can discern about 85 intensity levels on a good monitor (high dynamic range, which means the black is very black and the white is very bright). these extensive "steps" in grey levels allows a very smooth transition in black/greys and offers much better detail when viewing video and grafix

when lower end displays are only 6 bit, the shades of colors available to try and accurately depict the exact shade of color it needs to display is significantly reduced, and they will use "dithering" to approximate the color or grey tone as much as possible. this is a process by which computers approximate the display of colors in an image that are not available, and this is achieved by varying the patterns of dots that make up the image. like this

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297419854

now if this is for a static image being displayed in printed media for example, it might not matter that much because the blended dot of black and white are displayed a static snapshot, and they very small and the detail might be hard to see with the naked eye when reading a paper or looking at a photo.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297420165

but if the grey/black dot is moving while this dithering is continuously occurring and you have a process like dynamic dithering which is constantly changing (because it cant seem to make up its mind what shade of brey/black to display), then suddenly it makes these dots stand out much more. the 2 images below illustrate the effect that enhances "dot visibility" for 6 bit monitor users in the il2 flightsim series.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297424118
in the above picture note the smaller square in the bottom right corner, giving a zoomed and enhanced view of what produces the "glittering" effect (as dithering artifact)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297424118
this 2e illustration shows a slightly different 6 bit dithering technology used on some other monitor pannels, but the overall effect produces a similar result


and that is the most likely explanation why people with 6 bit lcd monitors consistently keep reporting much better dot spotting in il2, it is a case of the cheaper and nastier the monitor the more clearly you can see the dot's because of the artifacts the 6 bit display causes when you have a little 4 pixel block of dithering grey sliding over a static green/brown/white/blue background. it is only after over the years noticing that people with 6 bit monitors had significantly less problems with dot spotting that this technological issue about dithering was identified as a likely explanation. when previously polls were done to see who could see dots the best, the 6 bit monitor issue was the most common denominator (presuming all monitors are correctly calibrated, viewers look at the same scenery and object, etc..).the above is a very simplified explanation for a complex issue, and it is further complicated by a varied range in technologies used in modern panels, and the fact some brands use misleading advertising and labeling their products (or dont disclose when a panel in a particular model changes).

note: for those interested in finding out what technology their own monitor uses, most manufacturers dont advertise the tech details very openly (partic for the lower end models) . a good site like http://www.prad.de/en/index.html will have most of the required detail listed for many models. the below table gives a rough idea of different technologies and if it is 6 or 8 bit, it helps to describe what we are seeing from most modern panels:

All TN Film panels = Dithering. Some are 6-bit with FRC, some are 6-bit extended to 9-bit and figure as 8-bit in the specs (or 16.7 million colours). More modern panels seem to be the latter, look for "16.7 million colours" quoted in specs.
PVA Traditional = 8-Bit
PVA + Overdrive = Dithering, 6-Bit +FRC
S-PVA + Overdrive = Still real 8-bit
MVA Traditional = 8-Bit
19" and below MVA + Overdrive = dithering, but not as obvious as with PVA + Overdrive
>19" MVA + Overdrive = real 8-bit
S-IPS Traditional = 8-Bit
New S-IPS panels + Overdrive = No obvious issues
AS-IPS = 8 bit, not heard any reports of colour issues on these

for those who want a simple quick test to see in living color how good/bad their monitor is in this 6/8 bit debate, look for the "color gradient test" (a little exe) from this website. the article itself also explains this complex issue a little more, and is one of the better one available. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles.../6bit_8bit.htm . anybody using a 6 bit monitor will see significant banding, while most 8 bit monitor users wont.

I use a Samsung 22-inch LCD with a tn panel. Been aware of the 6-bit issue for some time (but unfortunately not before buying the Samsung). Does anyone know if the banding that is visible on sea and sky when running il-2 on nVidia graphics has anything to do with 6-bit panels? Was puzzled by it - as i was running 32-bit colour, never could understand it and put it down to some nVidia glitch?

I've been noticing some of the new cheaper ips panels that are starting to come on the market. Was also keeping an eye on the progression of 120Hz technology but it seems to be painfully slow. Are current ips response times able to run games (flightsims in particular) without noticeable smearing or other effects?

Also read something recently about what could be the Holy Grail - ips panels with 120hz refesh rate.

not sure if this helps, but why not try that little exe i linked to from this page "color gradient test" (see bottom of my previous post) ? if it shows extensive banding on the video test, you have a ballpark idea of what it might look like in the game. on the S-PVA panel i have at the moment, the transition is perfectly smooth without showing any banding. also the prad.de website i listed has a very extensive list of monitors they reviewed, maybe they reviewed the one you are using ? some TN models can be reasonably good (but will still have the dither problem to a varying degree), others might be pretty bad all around

the first 2 lcd's i ever bought yrs ago i returned the next day for an exchange, they were so bad compared to the professional grade crt i had been using before. it's after that i started looking into the how and why of the technology involved. both subsequent flatscreen monitors i bought in following years i was very happy with

most current consumer grade IPS panels are probably fast enough. anything under 8 msec is really good enough, but again some manufacturer fudge the numbers so dont trust what they quote until you double check. MVA/PVA types are probably still the best bang per buck, but if i'd have to buy a new monitor i'd also look at the IPS range

these are some of the best monitor review sites i know
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/buyers-guide/start.html and their buyers guide is very good
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles...chnologies.htm
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.ph...&id=1229341472

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

the devil is in the detail, and semantics do matter.

my point is that currently in il2 for most moving smaller aircraft (and tanks/trucks) seen against a terrain background (forest/fields/countryside), they do not stand out enough (ballpark = visibility reduced by 2/3 compared to real life)

you stating that in RL some aircraft under certain conditions or from certain view angles become harder to see is not a proportional answer to the visibility problem we have in il2 currently

if you feel the problem is less severe than i have described in the previous post then i suspect
1) you fly in il2 with a FoV setting that artificially zooms in, rather then the "correct FoV setting" for your monitor size.
2) you have a TN based 6 bit color monitor (or older crt) that makes dots stand out more, and you believe everybody on their flat screen monitors is seeing the same
3) you dont have much experience in seeing what ground objects look like from altitudes between 1000 and 2000 meters in a small aircraft. otherwise you would have noticed you can easely see individual moving cars on open roads from that altitude (yet in il2 you need to be at 300 m to spot them, a BIG difference)

am i right or am i right ? :)

nobody is disputing "some aircraft" in "certain conditions" can be "difficult to see", and everybody has stories about the exceptions to the rule. the context we are discussing here is what most of these objects should look like under good visibility conditions, for a pilot with good eyesight and from the right historical "spotting distances" for the size/type object.

exactly ! and is another good illustration of what many people report

and that il2 dot would have been nearly impossible to spot :(

Seems like we have an additional issue now. I would guess most of us who fly these games are over 50 years. If that is true we are going to need some help in seeing planes.

if the main visibility "faults" mentioned earlier in this thread are corrected, you'd find most people with reasonably normal vision will have no major problems seeing planes at "normal RL visible distances" (since if they wear glasses in real life, they would wear them while using the pc).

also age related vision deterioration (in westerners) tends to affect near vision, less so far vision. so you might have some problems reading the cockpit instruments, but have less problems spotting a me-109 at 1500 meters

one other issue that many il2 users are not fully aware of, is that they need to set their FoV (field of view) settings correctly in the game for their monitor size (and for any given monitor there is only one correct FoV setting therefore). most il2 users will use the smaller FoV settings as a zoom magnifier to scan the ground, or to investigate a blip on the horizon, and this is also a way of "gaming the game" which does not represent "normal vision" (ie it is an artificial enhancement, as no ww2 fighter pilots had a pair of binoculars strapped to their face).

All very interesting, and yes, it would be nice to have realistic viewing distances, but the problem isn't the simulator, its the display.
How do you suggest fixing it without improving display technology?
Unless someone can come up with something better than what is already used, this whole discussion is a bit moot.

Whilst I don't disagree with what youre saying there for the most part, Zapatista.. the il2 sim was designed for CRT monitors. It is from that era. Bear in mind also that altering the FoV actually alters the depth of field.
I merely pointed out seeing what happens from an airport as a method of comparison, so that anyone interested in following this topic up, could

Whilst some good points are made; regarding technologies, no available technology will replicate what the eye can see. In reality we are dealing with scale models here, on a 3 or 4 depth background. Colour gammut also comes into play and no "peripheral vision" (this actually helps with spotting movement, rather than detail) is available.

With the default dot range of 25km a single-engined plane is a single pixel. You see it against the clear sky, or against ground if you happen to look somewhere near when it moves. I usually spot the single engine planes 12-14km away, but if they move further I can keep track of them insanely far.

I for one use 1680 horizontal resolution. At 90 degrees of FOV, thats only less than 19 pixels a degree. I cant bother to run the sinis through a calculator, but how big is an aircraft with 10m wingspan(a 190) seen dead ahead/behind 25km away?

More than 2 pixels? :grin: I know I'm an exception but I have no trouble whatsoever spotting the dots, any of the game resolutions I've played with, on any of the screens. On my own home set-up and others'. And like I said before my eyesight is poor and I have that on paper. :)

I'm not going to insert the "get stronger glasses" joke. I think most people just havent developed the correct search pattern and methods yet. Practice makes you master. AFAIK not seeing anyone, friends nor foes, was a very common phenomenon in real life too, where only the natural talents would not need some time(and many never learned) to get rid of the "battle blindness".

its not as simple as that

current pc display technology is completely adequate and capable to provide an on-screen visual representation of a distant fighter aircraft (be this at 500, 1000 or 1500 meters).

are you really going to try and tell me this is the best we can expect from CoD in 2011 ? (see illustrations below)

closing on a yak at 490 meters, where is the little bugger ? if it wasnt for the limited icons being used some of you here might even deny a plane is ahead of us ! not all cases are as obvious as this, but it illustrated one of the issues being discussed.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298290899

and again a yak, this time at 700 meters
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298290923

these are some extreme examples of the problems with "LoD model lack of visibility" (note these specific screenshots were taken in 4.06, but similar problems still exist up to 4.08 and beyond). and the lack of visibility has nothing to do with brand of gfx card, resolution, or having a calibrated monitor, it is simple a problem in the way the il2 sim tries to display what it is programmed for (rather then have it programmed to display objects at realistic viewing distances, and compensate by adding visual clues)

the first part of the discussion is to identify how severe the problem is (as this thread is doing so far), and the 2e step will then focus on possible solutions. to just say "yes there is a problem" and then conclude we would never be able to do anything about it is a bit defeatist

unless this major problem is a priority for oleg's team and deliberately addressed, it will be to late to complain once the next sim is released (several times when these previous problems were discussed with oleg he in the end refered to "part of the problem is the old gfx engine and its limitations" (i paraphrase).


yes and not many people are aware of that :)

right now the problem is so severe it makes the older sim just about unplayable in a competitive situation, and completely takes the fun out of it in coops and campaigns. i dont believe we can only choose between either the major problem we have had so far, and perfection on the other hand. there is a major grey area in between those 2 extremes, and the pendulum right now needs to shift over to the "realistic spotting and tracking" distances in a big way !!

btw, you didnt answer my earlier question to you :)

i'd be interested to know the answer to those ( just give me your monitor details if you are unsure)

Zapatista, send uncompressed(png, bmp) pics here using the same resolution you would in game.

Only certain people seem to have these issues. :)

1) widest FOV, only use zoom-in to ID very far-out targets.
2) 1680 x 1050 TFT

Only LOD problems I have seen were certain Spitfire models missing a wing at some distances vs. FOVs (now only one model seems to do it anymore) and some single engine planes, like La-5, 109, P-39, having different LOD phases(or at least appearing to be larger than others) far out.

4.10 fixed those though.

Being red/green colour blind i find it a bit hard to pickup the icons in this photo (Just to the right of the line extending from the top of the sight?)

I wouldn't mind a different choice of colours for the friendly team!

Cheers!

1024X768 looks very good with 4X AA and 8X or higher AF. Plus you get much better FPS with the lower res.

yes! they aren't, they're under impression FoV is a zoom function, where it isn't.

"Dots" has always been a point of contention and even back in the day when only CRT's were about, "dots" were contentious and there was nothing that properly seting up the monitor wouldn't (for the most) fix. Almost as contentious as the difference of between "full real" and "wonder woman" :)

question not answered?


if you feel the problem is less severe than i have described in the previous post then i suspect

1) you frequently fly in il2 with a FoV setting that artificially zooms in, and use that view to identify, track and locate targets, rather then the "correct FoV setting" for your monitor size.

A FoV, isn't a zoom function, as such, which makes "correct setting for the monitor size" is a bit of a misnomer. I've always run @ default FoV

2) you have a TN based 6 bit color monitor (or older crt) that makes dots stand out more, and you believe everybody on their flat screen monitors is seeing the same

A I've had Sony 15" and 19" crt as well Samsung B204, Samsung 226BW monitors over the years and currently run a Samsung PX2370

Regarding your comment about vision in the over 50s (me) do you mean in real life or in game because in game you only have to focus on the screen surface. In real life I wear bifocals but playing the game I find reading glasses work best.

Are you saying you never use the ingame zoom function?
Wide, normal, gunsight or in between?

That would make you a bad as$ spotter in RL - as camouflage doesn't work for your eyes.:grin:

They used a friend of miner for this job, he said the green tank in green forest was bright, different colored dot.

gunsight is different, that is zoom, but no, never really used it

yes colour vision defects.... even without them, the further away the more the colouring merges together and have to be careful about the "red/ green" colour thing though. It isn't "blind" as such, it is the retention of the colour last seen being overlayed (lagged) on the colour viewed.

(red/ green/ white for the lantern test)

flash up red/ white, then flash up red/ green... red/ white will still be seen (using peripheral vision can get around it depending on how affected the person is)

I've been reading through the thread and I agree with a lot of the points you make and appreciate the effort you have gone to explain stuff but I really have to disagree with you there. The 'zoom' function does better represent real vision imo as in reality we can focus in on things that are far away. It isn't really possible to have a high field of vision and have things appear at their real world size in a game on a 2d screen.

If the object itself increases in size as it gets farther away (to try and keep it looking 'normal sized') then in game it would just look like the object isn't getting any farther away. Whether zoom was put into this sim intentionally to solve this problem or not is a different story but zoom at least goes some way to addressing the problems of emmulating vision on a 2d screen.

There was a post on the BI forums about this when someone was complaining about being able to zoom at the click of the mouse in Arma II. One of the developers explain this but i'm having trouble finding the post.

wolf,
for answer 1, see my next post. i believe there is even more to this then it just "not being a zoom function" either, but some issues still need to be resolved with this.
for answer 2: both the lcd's you mention are TN technology based panels, and therefore "suffer" from the glitter/dithering problem i illustrated earlier. as a result you probably have more then 50% improved dot/lod spotting/tracking ability them most other users here with "normal" lcd's. as a result you might believe the visibility problem for dot/lod's is much less then what other experience.

my only real experience with "dot problems" is that which has been existent since CRT days, the era the sim was designed in. Current LCD technology may exasperbate the situation... and at the end of the day, no current technology will recreate what the eye sees.

The misnomer with adjusting FoV is the "field" is being adjusted with reference to a "window" (window, is screen size/ resolution and FoV being the angle of view) So it doesn't really mater what the selected FoV is, the same window is still being worked with... so what happens is, when a FoV is used it gets that wider view and presents the image on the screen - pushing everything back into the distance without magnification being effected change. Alternativley, when a narrower FoV is selected the image is presented on that same size window but seenimgly bringing everything closer, but without magnification increase. Everything stays relative unlike with zoom (using binoculars for instance).


let's see how 1C have addressed the concerns with CoD.

I too run a Samsung PX 2370, It is my first LCD monitor. I was running a 19" Sony Trinitron or ViewSonic G90f before that.

After my first offline test of the Samsung I lowered the resolution from the monitor's native 1920 X 1080 to 1600 X 900 in an effort to see anything further away than my wingman. It only helped a tiny bit. When I fly online with friends on comms that still run CRTs, they are calling out targets long before I can see them. It's very frustrating, because otherwise the game looks beautiful on this monitor.

I'm seriously considering going back to 1024 X 768 and living with the black side bars. If it wasn't for the imminent arrival of Cliffs of Dover, and other games I play, I would shelve this LCD in favor of a CRT.

I wish there were an affordable 16 X 9 format CRT monitor, I would have one in a heartbeat.

i'll have to disagree with you, and this is why:

screenshot from inside the original il2 shortly after 1e release:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298728523

the "dots' are clearly visible, and for this group of 4 fighters their visibility extended to over 10 km originally.

yes they were ugly, but they were effective (and no, i am not arguing for the return of massive dots like this). the point however is that these types of dots seen against a terrain scenery background (rather then open sky where they stand out like dog's balls) at say roughly 1 to 2 km would stand out much better, and they more closely would represent real life visibility ranges

the dots were very large at original release, and soon after in patches were being made significantly smaller (and correctly so, the initial ones were to large). around the time PF was released the first people started to transition to lcd's but this coincided with the smaller dots (which had been made to small). in the 3.01 or 3.02 patch oleg increased them again (but not as bad as the original ones), but the fake-real whiners who had never been in a small aircraft in the whole of their life whined so loud oleg threw his hands in the air and reduced the size again (making them the near-invisible dots we have now). he has refused to address the issue ever since. worse, in the step from 4.08 to 4.09 they were made even smaller again, going from a 4 pixel dot to a 2 pixel dot.

my fear is that when oleg and his team briefly look at this issue when they hear some of the complains, they either use a CRT or a cheap TN based 6 bit lcd, and then say "what is their problem, i can vaguely see a dot there if i look in zoomed view", so their problem is
1) using a 6 bit monitor which artificially enhances the dot visibility SIGNIFICANTLY
2) rely on a zoomed view to sector search for bogeys (yet we should measure visibility in the normal correct FoV for the monitor size used, and not use an artificial zoom)
end result: for many players il2 became nearly unplayable if they had normal display hardware (8 bit lcd monitors), and were interested in SIMULATING a real ww2 fighter pilot experience. the air quake fake-real crowd however doesnt know any better, and believe having these near invisible enemy planes right near you is normal, yet it clearly isnt. yes occsionally a fighter from a particular direction or in a particular light will be hard to see, but not 99% of the time in perfect visibility conditions like we usually have in il2 daytime flights.

that is a bit defeatist :) there is absolutely no reason why in 2011 a modern flight simulator can accurately represent correct visibility distances on screen for different aircraft between 100 and 5000 meters (which is the SA bubble you normally operate in for these ww2 fighter aircraft)

even i as a non technical person can point to one of the simple potential solutions: for ex if we now have 10 LoD models instead of the 3 we had before in il2, then as the LoD models get smaller in BoB oleg should add some type of visible enhancement. this could be by darkening the object colors, or adding a 3D enhancement that makes the object stand out more (as oleg already seems to have done for some of the LoD models in BoB). for these distant objects the focus should not be on "pretty", or right historical colors or shapes (if the end result means they become virtualy invisible at 25% of the distance you can see them at in real life), once the highly detailed aircraft gets to a certain distance from the viewer, some of these deliberate "visual enhancements" should be used rather then only using a smaller object with loss polygons that tries to keep the shape and color of the original.

a 16x9 Trintron CRT.... my dream...

too bad the (years ago now) nVidia GeForce 85.95 (Sony killer driver) struck, else I'd still have my 19"



@ Zaptista...

deafeatist? no, realist... there is no way current technology can reproduce what the eye sees as far as monitors go. Problem being a monitor won't allow going smaller than a pixel where in realife it does.

I don't disagree at all with more LoD layers and 3d enhancements... that's a good suggestion

Nah... what the end dot result was, was realistic enough (real pilots have hard enough time finding white planes, even when advised which vector to look in)

I still use a 22" Iiyama Vision Master CRT at home, it's wonderful. :) Have to put up with a really crappy quality 17" 1280x1024 LCD when I'm away, though.

I think one of the major problems with Il-2's dot system is that the dots are often the wrong colour depending upon which direction you're looking at the enemy from. Makes it far too easy to spot them on low resolutions at times.

1) Have to disagree. Most, if not all of us don't have monitors that present a real-life sized image, hence the need to zoom. That's why the FOV functionality is there.

2) Also, If it hasn't already been mentioned, you have to run old IL-2 in native 4:3 aspect ratio, no matter your monitor size, or weird things happen like chopped off views on the peripheral or flattened dots in the distance.

FoV isn't a zoom though... the model and background remain at the same distance relative to each other, in relation to the viewer, whilst more or less of the background is seen by the viewer depending on the FoV angle selected.

yes, il2 was designed for 4:3 CRT monitors

you are not correct there blaster. if you have a monitor larger then roughly 19', there is a fov setting that allows you to (theoretically) view in-game objects in their right real life sizes, by setting the in-game FoV to correspond to how large your monitor is

obviously for a 19' or 20' monitor this would be a fairly narrow FoV setting (roughly 40 degree's), and you'd have to sit reasonably close to your monitor. the fact it only provides a blinkered narrow view into the il2 world at that setting is entirely limited by the small "window" you are using, and switching to a wider FoV to obtain artificially enlarged peripheral vision to "game the game" is not an excuse to additionally have to accept other object size errors in the game (which do exist in il2, and hopefully most will all be corrected in BoB/SoW)

not correct, there is no need for you to end up with any distortions or "chopped off view on the peripheral". with a minor config file edit you can perfectly display il2 on your widescreen monitor, and it doesnt introduce any display errors like visual distortions etc (it simply cuts a small strip of the top and bottom of the 5:4 or 4:3 original image, a small compromise for an initial work around most use.

in the screenshot below the orange box is the view you endup with for a widescreen monitor (presuming you correctly edited the config file)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298812316

no i dont agree at all with you :) this thread is discussing "dot and LoD visibility" in il2 and CoD, and the assumption is that therefore your pc system is setup correctly to display in-objects in their true to life sizes (ie have the ingame FoV set correctly for your monitor size). those players who then like to fly in an in-game world with objects correctly displayed in their true to life sizes and "distance visibility", can then briefly use snap views in certain conditions to overcome the limitations of sitting in their living rooms behind a pc, rather then be in a real fighter aircraft of ww2 (ie briefly zoom in when aiming at a specific part of an enemy plane, or briefly use increased peripheral view during a dogfight to maintain SA). some il2 users (like you) prefer to 90% of the time fly around in distorted FoV settings to "see more of the il2 world" around them (or pit gauges), or constantly use the zoom view like they would a pair of binoculars to scan the ground below them for targets. that is perfectly fine, each uses the game as they personally prefer, but you then cant complain the ingame objects are distorted or not correctly visible

that is not an "error" in the game itself, its simply a limitation in your (and mine) financial resources to have a large enough monitor for how you personally would like to use the game. in your example your monitor is simply not large enough to display everything you want onscreen (a real pilot would simply lean back in the cockpit and hence see more gauges ?). if you have a smaller widescreen monitor that doesnt display enough gauges for your personal liking in landscape mode, you can use it in portrait mode if you really want the increased vertical area's to be visible (and edit the config ini file to that portrait resolution). it will display the image perfectly in il2 without distortion, and it will give you the significantly increased vertical viewing area you seem to be asking for (some people use a 3 screen setup in that configuration, there are old posts at the zoo on this)

sure, but if you buy a sports car you cant complain about it not being able to haul cattle to market, or if you buy a pickup you cant complain it cant be competitive in the 24 hr of lemans race. its horses for courses really, not a design error. the main point you raised here in this thread (see OP topic) is can il2 (designed in the 4:3 era 10 yrs ago) correctly display its image on a widescreen monitor without distortion (and without black borders), and the answer is yes, it does this perfectly fine

there is nothing to investigate there. if you correctly edit your config file there is no distortion whatsoever, if you purposefully however decided you preferred to squeeze the full 4:3 screen display into a a widescreen display then obviously it will distort everything onscreen (including dots)

yups, and that is your personal choice of how to use the game (which is perfectly fine, use it however suits you best). it isnt however a design error that you end up with distorted objects on screen or lack visibility in the cockpit for your gauges

i am much more concerned that with a perfectly setup system to display objects as true to life as possible, there are significant visibility problems to try and spot and track objects ingame (compared to real life visibility in a similar situation), and that most people therefore have to rely on artificial "distortion" settings to try and compensate for these errors (use zoom views, reduce screen resolution, load purpose made "ultra visible skins" for planes that make them standout more, etc ).

the "chopping off" the top and bottom, is because the sim wasn't built for wide view aspect, it was built for 4:3 aspect, and changing the FoV doesn't make the objects bigger or smaller, as the objects/ background (terrain) remain at consistent distances relative to the viewer.
What running on a larger monitor does is, is it gives more defintion to the objects because the window is larger.