Target visibility - UPDATE at post #97
 

I would like to open a new discussion about this subject.

It's great having a sim where the aircraft's 3D models are close to reality, where performances are very similar to the real ones, where we act on the strumentation as the WW2 pilots did.

When we're infllight the complete picture is really photorealistic. The effects are great and it's almost like flying in a real aircraft (with physical limitation impossible to simulate, like G force,flames ect...).

But IL2 (1946 and CloD) is not only a flight simulator... it's a COMBAT simulator.

Here DMs are detailed enough and the weapons should be already modelled in the correct way.

But you can shoot at an enemy only if you see it and here we have a serious problem: visibility is the most important thing in WW2 air warfare.

I'm not talking about tracking a contact: I'm talking of DETECTION and IDENTIFICATION.

With the help of 3D Studio Max we have reproduced a picture of a 109 at various distances. Then I've taken a pair CloD pictures from the "screenshot" thread (I hope the authors will not complain about this) and from these I've built new images. The error should be in the range of 1 pixel (I'm working with a 24" monitor, 1920x1080)

As first we have the image taken with a 50mm (39.6 fov) to have what the human eyes see.
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/39fov-lato.bmp
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/39fov-sopra.bmp

Below is what we have in IL2's normal view (fov 70):
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/70fov-lato.bmp

Note that planes at 3km are already dots...

But at which distance can a pilot detect a flying object?
There are many variables: camouflage (already proved that it's not a magical tool http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf), human eye's threshold of acuity, eye's accommodation, glare, atmospheric haze, target speed differential, target profile, ect... some are really important, others are modest factors.

I was looking for an analysis and here's I found something interesting:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0005594
It says "over various conditions"; we don't know the color of the dc3 and the background's color (that's the real factor in target detection, not the plane's color but the contrast between it and the background), we don't know if the persons are professional pilots or not (or better, trained military pilots), but the distances are really higher than the ones in IL2 and they still SEE contacts...

But what's the problem? Dots can replace the flight object but what about identification?
A Dot is always the same at +3km, it does not give to us the profile of plane, its direction, the model of that plane. And more Dots are not always plane... in CloD ships are showed as dots at very long distance.

Additionally dots are merging with the background and in the case of the detailed ground we don't have our eyes focusing on it and "excluding" the objects around it: the wider is the speed differential the easier is for our eye to focus on the target...

Don't misread me... target identification is not a easy thing to simulate: they are still studying it and there are dozens of variables. Maybe one we all will be playing on monitor with amazing resolutions and it will be a lesser problem.. but in these days I think that Luther and Co. need to find a solution to it.

Otherwise CloD will be a great flight simulator but an half WW2 combat simulator.

I think that Dots are not the answer. What your opinion?

Perhaps dots are not the answer but I doubt that one can compare the visibility of a comparatively large aircraft (DC-3) to the visibility of a small aircraft that is only half the size or less.

To be honest I sometimes look up when I see some condensation trails and I do see the plane but could not tell its type (well they all look the same anyway) nor do I distinguish many details knowing that they fly at 11 km and basically are huge compared to the planes we consider here.

In IL-2 1946 dots works. We neen bigger dots in CloD (fixed size, for ANY resolution) and better AA. Maybe some "reflection" too in far objects...

Just that.

Mh. Not sure. Actually I think the difficulty to see planes is an improvement over IL2.

There are numerous accounts that pilots just missed each other despite passing not too far from each other.

I understand the optical issue brought here by OP but IL2 is not a realistic example. With the old IL2 logic one could have as well made the points blinking with a pink arrow painted on top of them accompanied with the tag "Here! Here!"

One can spot planes from a quite a distance (4 km) in Clod if one is attentive and in a good position. Which btw is about in accordance with what Manu wrote on the experiments done by Howell remembering that the plane in Howell's experiment were at least double the size of a fighter. So my guess is visibility limit of 4-5 km for a small plane such as a fighter is fine.

What could be perhaps discussed if at 3 km one could not paint a small trait instead of a dot. I think this is the major concern of OP.

If a better solution of the optical distortion is found without going arcade I will be happy. Old IL2 is imho not the way to go.

To do some testing, we can have an option of "no artificial dots" at all. Maybe in next beta patch?

"Realistic Target Visibility"!

The first LOD will be REALLY pixel size. And people with lower resolutions and big monitors will have some advantage. But we can test.

To ensure some playability, and avoid boredom killing this game, we need above all to improve DETECTION range by increasing the dot visibility and contrast to 15-20 km, with normal visibility (as in the US Navy document posted by Manu earlier), and also solve the issue of disappearing contacts - linked to the LODs probably. A darker dot would do, imho.

Then, as far as IDENTIFICATION, I agree that in RL you can tell a Spit from a Bf from a longer distance than in this game (I think to events like Duxford, where the plane's silhouettes and colours are identifiable from very far away, let's say 3-5 km). Color of camo helps a lot, and in old Il2 the LOD's at far range were typical of a certain model (more squared for Bf, thinner for Spit); working on LODs to differentiate them a bit may be a solution. Skilled players could then ID a distant contact from the predominant color of the camo and the form of LOD.

Cheers!

I have never undestood the use of these artificial dots. Why not just use a really simple 3D model (just a few polys) when the aircraft is far away, the 3D engine (if it works correctly) would render the target as it should be seen. What we are after here is the right amount of degrees/radians the aircraft occupies on our screen at given FOV.

When an aircraft gets further away, eventually it is rendered as one pixel, and as it get more distant, this one pixel gets more faint (opacity drops).

At lower resolutions the aircraft would be one pixel at closer range and at higher resolutions further away. Detection wise neither one would have advantage against the other, as at lower res the pixel is larger and at higher res smaller but the target may still be several pixels at the same distance when the lower res screen shows just one pixel. But the size (the degrees/radians it occupies on the screen) of the target would be the same on both screens (assuming the physical size of the monitor is the same).

If you talk about real life scale, then you also need to know distance from observer to screen for this to work. Windows device manager does not know that.

Indeed. Nor the physical size of the monitor. Say a 17" monitor vs. a 32" low res TV (used as a monitor) might have similar resolutions but a wholly different viewing distance.

Keep in mind that the aircraft to be spotted in the US Navy experiment was about or even more twice the size of the planes we discuss here (why do I have to repeat myself?). So I have very very strong doubts that you just can take the findings there and transpose it to fighters here.

I think the dot contrast is fine so I do not need a change here. If you have some difficulties finding the dots due to contrast please first tweak your own monitor settings or the graphic card settings before requesting a change in game that is fine for many others :)

I agree that something should be done with the presentation between first appearance as dot at 4 km and a presentation as a scaled down model at 2 km). I'd propose to use a something like a dash or so (could be a bold dash at a certain distance).

Sorry but I think it is absolutely unrealistic to see a fighter plane in 20 km distance even as a dot. These fighter planes have a wingspan of about 10m only. Do not compare it to airliners that have 6 or 8 times that wingspan.

The 4 km may be to pessimistic but the 20 is imho unrealistic. Please keep in mind that the 15-20 km in the US Navy experiments were obtained with a bigger aircraft and with the pilots knowing EXACTLY where to look. Both conditions (big aircraft, exact knowledge of position of plane to be spotted) do not apply for fighters in the situations we discuss here. So probably if you knew exactly where to look for a plane you could see a fighter at 7-10 km. But only if you knew exactly where to look.

The only real big issue that I see is that planes with a 3d model suddenly disappear into a dot or what I frequently experience that when zooming my view on a dot or a small plane (at about 2km) it gets invisible (perhaps a smooth zoom in function could work).

Stormcrow the US Navy document I was referring to was in another thread, and it treated about fighters. I will look for it later for you.

Cheers!

I've found a gem!
"Visual Search in Air Combat" (1990)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA241347

Here a really interesting graph (page 6 of the original document):
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/searchrange.jpg

Of course there are factors like camos, sunlight, haze ect...

I'm going to do some calculations to get the positions of ww2 fighters on that curve.

I would only remember to you that it's not a personal problem: all this discussion its to greatly improve the sim.

Great find, Manu.

This is quite in accordance to what I guessed would be a reasonable limit for fighter visibility (when seen from the side) that is about 7-10 km. From front one would see it from perhaps 3-4 km. From belly perhaps from 15km. From top view over land my guess is that the visibility will be worse.

Interesting is also that apparently aircraft type plays a big role in visibility ranges and tendencies can get reversed depending on view angle.

The main problem is game's FoV.

If you look in game with the 30 FoV, you'll see the aircraft at the correct real-life size. Problem is, we're using the 90 FoV most of the time.

to solve this, they need to scale the models to appear in 90 FoV as they appear in 30 FoV.

Also, aircraft models should be rendered at longer distances than they are atm in game, instead having them replaced by dots.

S!

This..the FOV. I fly most if not all of the time with wider view so I can easily glance at the gauges. Maybe the FOV should change only your distance withing cockpit, not the actual zoom and then tune the LOD/whatever accordingly. Frankly I have never understood the need to give us a "zoom" when IRL you can not do that..but this is propably one of the gaming vs realism compromises.

Here is the Manu's post with US Navy study I was referring to (Naval Air Development Center, Guide to Aircraft In-Flight Camouflage, 1969), : it speaks about fighters, not airliners, and 10-15 miles under "moderate visibility", or 30-40 miles under "high visibility". This matches better with the day to day experience.

Cheers!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=43

This could be a good solution and I was talking of it with my teammate about this last night. As you see in the opening post a 109 at 3km would appear 8 times bigger at 39 FOV (50mm, human eye) than at 70 FOV (normal view in IL2, the 90 FOV is the wide one).

It would be nice to use degrees as ratio unit, but I don't have the possibility if not making real photos...

There will be problems with the real speed perception but it should be an improvement nonetheless.

ty. Will read it soon.

I just hope we do not go back to old IL2 times with its ridicuously high visibility.

Stormcrow u should try out the ATAG server bliss recently changed the settings and it's much better than what it was like before :D

talking about the FOV actually to have a feeling like the real one we should have a grid of monitors with the single monitor FOV calculated on a certain standard distance from the head.
Probably the Fov could be less than 40.
Modifying the lod to see like the reality would be impossible tecnically i suppose and would mess everything and probably let us feel to be in a platform game for the perspective aberration.

My thoughts changed alot studying with manu the difference between the real sight and the monitor one.
I have to say that despite my own dislike about icons we should think more about that.

First of all the black dot is an icon, because on the monitor without the help of the "artificial dot" the contact would have been invisible also for reasonable distancies. Talking in the wing someone suggested that if the dots are appearing too close a solution could be to give for further distancies a dot with a more gray colour, to let it difficult to see, but not impossible.
That could be a solution, but for greater ( in degrees) contact like a ship from far or an airplane from closer we should think about something different. The label "ship" with the distance is horrible and helping too much, but everyone understand the difference between a ship and an airplane also at 20 km away and between a spitfire and a wellington from 4 km. something like one dot for fighter, two for bomber and five for ship could be something.

I know that everything added ruins a bit the feeling to be in a simulator, like the speed bar in Il2, but we need to think also that some instruments like the compass are really more difficult to understand on the simulator than in the real life, and anyone that flew once in a real little aircraft can say that without problems.
We (as we can be help, but really the developers) should think more about a simulation than a feeling, because we need to think on the precedence list:
physic simulation, manouver simulation, navigation simulation, feelings etc etc etc.
At the end it is the same that everyone does comparing different simulators like xplane and flight simulator each other.
Let me give another example: i don't think that in the reality there were alot of people able to physically sustain a long dogfight at high G like all we do in il2.. so now, should we calculate that or not? Should we do real aircraft limits and let us feel all like superheroes hartmanns (like it is) or should we avoid with some limits (the dark sight is not enough, cause don't simulate the physical stress and the muscle fatigue also in pulling the bar)?
Obviously i don't have the perfect answer, but would be interesting, retourning to the sight argument, to fing a compromise that would let us to "see like in the real world" but without hurting nobody's feeling..

Update...

I've done some calculations today...

From the blueprints of the planes and the help of some tool here's what I got.
Sadly some weren't really detailed (he 111 was a image of 1400 x 1000) so there could be some marginal errors.

squared meters squared feet
Plane front side belly front side belly
bf109g6 7,9 9,9 23 85,03 106,56 247,56
spit mk1 8 11,3 28 86,11 121,63 301,38
He 111 17,2 36,5 124 185,13 392,88 1334,72

Our engineer has drawn a mathematical function for the graph:

y = 1,833 + 0,0167x (100<x<190)
y = 0,011x + 2,9 (200<x<300)
y = 0,009x + 3,5 (400<x<500)
y = 0,007x + 4,6 (600<x<700)
y = 0,007x + 4,5 (800<x<900)
y = 0,006x + 5,3(1000<x<1100)
y = 0,005x + 5,8(1200<x<1300)

Here is the new graph with meters and the new planes:
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/searchrange2.jpg

FV = front view
SV = side view
BV = belly view

During the development of SoW:BoB (not cliffs of dover...) there were many discussion about combat fatigue... some posters were claiming that it could be interesting to have different avatar with different skills: the one with more visibility skill, the one with more stamina and so on... like it was real life. And looking at the AI settings in FMB this should not really be a problem for the developers.

I think that this could be interesting, but before having different skills for each pilot I think we need that the sim works correctly with the default skills (average pilot).

For those, like me, who couldn't read the list

This thread is very interesting, I like the quantitative arguments. Manu and Tamat show a big love for CloD, otherwise they would not take the time and pain to do all the research, math and graphs ;).
My only concern is that probably the developers will drop all this good work down the pipe.

Cheers!

If it doesn't comes is this sim, then maybe in the next one:confused:

This opinion takes much, much, much optimism, as insubers opinion takes pessimism.

It shouldn't be so complicated to let the cpu do some small calculations for the visibility and use it for the distance DOT.

For the distance where the dot becomes a model, you could use the box of the whole A/C and calculate the angle according to the resolution and FOV.
Also add a softer change from dot to model, by putting them on top of each other until the model becomes bigger than 6 dots in length equal which angle (horizontal/vertical).

And to free it from "I can see you clearer in 640x480 Res" just make it lesser visible to the background (contrast) according to resolution. Which means the higher the Res, the higher the visibility one tiny dot.

I took part in some of those threads...we did come up with some interesting ideas.

Modeling fatigue into the "AI's" damage model was a good idea...one solution, was to have the AI's skill level lower as he grew tired. Some people thought that "loosing" the joysticks reaction time was a "democratic" way of modeling the players fatigue. In other words, as the player pushed the G-Limits, and/or is involved in an extended scenario of physically demanding combat maneuvers...he (or she), would start emptying a physical energy "bank". And as the player empty's their physical energy bank they start to experience a looseness in the joysticks feel (and reaction time). This bank could also be refilled after a realistic "rest" period. Obviously veterans would have a larger energy reserve then rookies...One (realistic) advantage that this would have on game play, is that it would force players to use more "Low G" combat maneuvering, when it is appropriate and effective.

Yep, it was a really good idea. I'm sure that in the future this can be modelled, once the game reaches a good state as flight simulator and can focus on the combat.

Sure the fatigue is really important in a fight, maybe secondary to the target visibility.

As Tamat writes, sadly "not invasive" icons seem to be the only real solution IMO...

Hi Manu and all the other mates,
I am realy thankfull for this thread and I apprichiate a lot all your comparing screenshots, us-navy graphs and your further to the sim related calculations, as I am thinking about this subject since a while. When I went out for a walk 2 weeks ago in good visibelity conditions (not optimal), the sky was crowded by a lot of low flying a/c (400m; pov 200m). First, I detected AND identified a pair of paragliders in a distance of 7km at their usual starting place. They have a similar wingspan like a 109 & spit, 10-13m. I can tell you exactly because I took notice of my pov and, back at home, I had a look in the wanders-map. So did I, when suddenly a squadron of Canadairs CL-145 Fire-engines came allong to get water: They apeared behind a mountin in 6 km distance (half front/half side). It would be easy to distinguish them from DC-3 (both wingsp 29m) at that distance. Not enough, I spotted an Ultralight in 750m and discern all important details. At that distance you will recognize a marking, while in the sim at 300m the marking of the 109 is just a dot! I draw a map with all observations, and - sigh- there's big difference to RL (and I need glases) and the sim, independend if I run it on 1920x1080 on 15"screen or on 1024x768 res, projected by my video projector, in front of me. I get use to fly without objectsymbols and found out, that the size of the screen does matter, but a dot is dot or not:-(
Otherwise, if you run a mission with 40ish a/c, better you red a book than your display, it is simply to much text, which you can't reduce like in IL2 1946. This would be the easiest way to fix it. Personaly, I could live with an (sub)option where you can decide from which distance a (text)info appears and when it disapears again.
Example: Realismsettings/objectsymbol: on or off:
when "on", 4 sub-settings available:
"allways on", like it is now
"easy": Info appearance in a Range from 300m to 10 km
"normal": 1km to 6 km and
"hard": 2km to 5km
Further in-gameoption: the option just to select a SYMBOL of the marking (like Ironcross + or cocarde O) instead of the whole book (like this post;-),
that does it for me, for instances.
What do you think?

Sadly...with the differences in screen resolutions and pixel density from one monitor to the next. I'm not really sure that there is a universal solution.

IMHO the "technique" I proposed earlier would be a solution for this particular problem. Doesn't solve the difference between RL and in-game detection range though....

Interesting thread - relevant and great work.

Whatever would come of this - visibility option should ultimately be scalable, for adjustable gameplay.

I remain a bit sceptical regarding the true fidelity possible. It seems that your nailing the size vs aspect vs distance - and will achieve something to that end.

Where I'm concerned is the inclusion of high fidelity specular (glint) effects, properly represented. Significant impact to the detecting aircraft when located is upsun in the early morning and late evening. While small-area scale games like BF3 are making efforts in this area - how do you imagine this will work over a large area, like our CoD maps? The BF3 mechanics aren't even tied to time-of-day and atmospherics as these are static on each of the tiny maps.

Canopy and metallic glint can be seen a very long way off. While there are accounts and studies of minimum detectable range - what of long range detections, made at altititude? How do you propose to simulate this?

Imagine when bare metal skinned aircraft are introduced?

Maybe someday, very high level systems may be able to render these necessary effects - but low level systems might not. I'll even go out on a limb and say that probably no current computational system can do justice to this type of ray-tracing physics, in real-time - to match the level of LOD detail you are discussing. If there is not a balance between the effects - then there will be less reality - not more.

That's my concern - but please don't let that dampen your work. Again, great job, knoble pursuit.

S!

Gunny

My concern, apart from the immersion-breaking effect of icons, is that stealth approaches and surprise attacks would not be possible.

Yesterday I flew for 2hrs 5min (the time before CTD due to the usual memory leak bug) on the ATAG server.

My whole flying was devoted into intercepting incoming bomber formations.

I did not intercept a single formation for two hours.

The worst moment was watching a Wellingtoin (BIG bomber) formation of nine planes flying above me (distance xxxx - how can I judge in this game... ;) ), following from behind while climbing in order to reach their altitude. Then, I moved my eyes away from the sky while checking my fuel gauges/ switching among fuel tanks ... and I completely lost sight of the bomber formation (9 big bombers)!

Then flew for 30mins circling around trying to find them again, without success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course I may be a noob and ignorant* but based on my 7+ years IL2FB in full real online flying, this is complete and utter XXXXX³\#~ **

I like that it is more difficult to trace airplanes, but this is not realistic.

~S~




*always debatable... :D

** Moderators, please add the word of your choice, suitable to a 2-3 week ban... :D

As I'm not convinced about the icons, so I thought about a more historical and immersive approach.

IMO Luthier should perfection the radio vectoring to the targets, as it was in reality (both sides, actually Brits achieved it few months before Germans). For instance:

The sector control center gives the usual alarm:

1 - Incoming fighters in M14, 3500 m, hdg 160
2 – Incoming bombers in K17, 4000 m, hdg 180

The player can either select a target, lets say by a keyboard combination as Ctrl + 1, or the sector control center assigns him a target depending on his position.

The sector control center takes then care of vectoring him to the target with more precise and frequent directions, such as:

<Leader, Hornchurch calling, 12+ dorniers coming in over Folkestone, vector 120, angels 25, 12 miles from your position>

I believe that this is what we expected originally from BoB: SoW, and this alone can solve the enemy spotting and avoid the hatred icons. Of course dots and LOD's must be improved as well.

http://www.battleofbritainbeacon.org...nisationLG.jpg

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/NewsImag...sImage23_6.jpg

BoBII was nicely immersive in reproducing what you (Insuber) suggest, it was nice to pick your preferred mission among the several tasked by Ops center. The phone ringing and announcing the incoming raids was amazing too! my thought is Clod, sadly, maintains the monolithic appearance of Il2 series.

i really can't stay with the 'icons solution'.
It would kill immersion while flying.

The dots over LOD at the point where they now disappear would be ok, not perfect as in RL, but this is imo the best solution, unitl devs can't find something more realistic at least.

This, added to Insuber radar vectoring stuff, would be great.

S!

Interesting thread.

TopGum said it all for me.

I am re-posting a doc abt Pilot detection range that I think belong to this thread.

IMHO plane glowing had been completely put aside in the game and shld play a huge part in visual acquisition (SoW and RoF had this feature correctly modeled) .

For example, all camo blend totally with the backgrd what is not achievable at close range.

Tomcat, your diagram looks nice, but it appears as the detection range against the sun. In today's CloD this range is N/A because you are completely blinded by the sun glare.

I don't think so. It's a chart that plot the range at witch the F16 pilot has detected at 90% sure an other F16 regarding its position to the sun in two different luminosity conditions : when the sun is at 30deg above the horizon and when it is at 60deg.

If you are afraid abt the low range value (1.6 +-0.1 NM), keep in mind that speed greatly affect detection range. The merge speed here being probably over 1000knots ;)

Tomcat Insuber is right; for the sight range see the documents that we found about it wrote by the U.S. Navy.
As simple example i would remember you that a runway of an international airport is from 1,6 nautical miles (3000 m) and 2,2 nautical miles (4000 m).
If for seeing a contact with for example the sun behind your back you need to barely enter in formation with him we are really unlucky without radar..
About the contact visualization of moving objects it is simpler, cause the human brain (and of the animal in general) is made for enlight the moving objects.
But i need to say that the image that you posted is really interesting because add to the discussion something that we lacked: info about the contact seeing in one of the worst situations, the one with the sun behind the contact.

Using the document let’s see the other factors who take part in the sim's "detection" algorithm, starting for the function of the curve above.

1)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/1.JPG

In simulation: in CloD there should already be a model for these atmospheric/weather features, haze is reproduced on our screen, clouds are not there yet but they are working on it (and I hope that the dynamic weather is calculated before the mission as an event map, having the priority on the CPU only in that moment... it would be crazy to simulate that in real time!... I think Falcon 4 does something similar)... any way if you can reproduce it on the screen it means that you have the position of the modeled effect and its values. Did airplanes disappear behind a cloud already?
Anyway oil smoke, sand, fog HAVE to matter on the windshield who have to be a factor too!
These values can be used to weigh the atmospheric variable on the visibility algorithm.

2)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/2.JPG

Yesterday I was talking with our military pilot about that: in fact it's true that in tactical formation (3km between aircrafts) with a not uniform background (low altitude) it’s difficult for him to detect his wingman... this is because he and his wingman are on the same vector at the same speed and the eye doesn't catch that airplane because practically "it's not moving". If his wingman accelerates or changes vector (some degrees of pitch are enough) he can be found again. I've read in WW2 pilots' books that sometimes they've lost the enemy because of this.

In simulation: we are already living with this problem since in game our eyes don't focus on moving objects (all we see is moving pixels)... so many time we are going to lose a contact and here the fisheye camera (70 FOV) is helping us a lot!
Anyway what's the problem in simulating relative motion in the sim? We already have speed and vector of the planes... it's all in the sim: we need only to weigh this factor in the visibility algorithm as difference between the observer speed/vector and that he has around him.

3)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/3.JPG

In my opinion every model of plane in the game (not every instance of that plane in the sky) needs a visibility array that includes pre-calculated contrast values based on its aspects.
Example:
1. A new skin is applied to the 3D model (you change skin on the plane's setting page)
2. The algorithm starts and calculate the average color of the model, the average brightness at EVERY aspect (30° or 45° differences are enough I think). Sure it should be better to include not the average but more ratio values.
3. The application save that array in the system.

http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/5.JPG

Build an abstract map like the one above (but with not aspect index) for the terrain... it’s a big matrix and having the full map you can easily create an algorithm to calculate this value... more or less detailed (USE THAT RAM!)...
Use these in game to see the contrast and you have a simulated visibility that doesn't base itself on "pixels" and better camos are now working (sure not at 100% as camos are intended but sure better than now).
It's better if CloD allows the player to use his custom skin only if it's been supervises by 1C itself... like RoF does. No more BS skins please. In this case the pre-calculated array can be stored in the server and no more recalculation is need at every change of skin.

4)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/4.JPG

In simulation: do we have light sources? I think it's enough... no more black dots looking in the direction of the sun: "Beware The Hun In The Sun!", even an average combat simulator should take care of that.

As the document about camouflage says, light and reflections is a important factor on target visibility (as TomcatViP says too above, thanks for the addition!) and they need to be variables.
As above if every plane has an array of surface reflection by aspect we are near to the solution.
Light and its color its a multipler that puts a strain on the "contrast" value of that aspect...

6)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/6.JPG

In simulation: let’s talk about vapor trails... I hope that they don't disappear suddenly like in the old IL2... did you see them? So there is a plane on its apex…

7)
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/7.JPG

In simulation: I’ll put it on the atmospheric model…





Sure there are not real numbers for these factors. It’s all approximation and a tweaking matter.
It’s not that we need target visibility to pass from 20% to 100% fidelity with reality. Like the realistic bombing/torpedo Mod of IL2 1946: we were at 40% with the stock 1946 and thanks to the mod we passed to the 80%... some were claiming that this feature was not complete (fixed 2 seconds for the activation), sure, but it was still more realistic than the stock one!
We need to see on our monitor what the average fighter pilots see (one day maybe we could also set his visibility skill fatigue ect…) : we are not supposed to hunt pixels.

IMO at the moment CloD is only a collection of beautiful pictures (Oleg is a photographer)... the sounds are coming, but this is intended as flight sim and COMBAT sim. The procedures that you are forced to follow are still not many. CEM is not a great thing neither: it can be difficult to be managed by the ones who come from IL2, not by players used to racing simulators for example.

- If I want to see amazing pictures I watch at a Discovery Channel documentary at 1080p
- If I want to have a great flight simulator I fly with Condor
- If I want to do long and realistic procedures I fly with DCS A10 or Falcon 4
- If I want an air combat simulator I'll play with both games above and probably IL2 1946 (I want to be clear here: my love for it started to decrease the day I bought a 24" monitor and ultra detailed maps were released)

I’ll post something that I think could be a valid solution (without taking account of resolutions, setting configuration and player's own eyes). It will be with labels BUT I assure you they will not be invasive and will keep a nice flight immersion.

ok you 'r right. Damn, seems I hve read that chart against the sun :rolleyes:

Regarding human brain. Detection of mvmt Ok but tracking no. WHat I mean is that for a positive identification you need to hve your eyeball locked on the moving object and this is more difficult when the speed is increased.

For example, fighter pilots flying fast jet at low alt experience a tunnel vision. It the same phenomena but inversed.

So IMHO it wld be translated that way in the sim: once target in POV, plane image is blurred to the point that we see only that there is "something" there. Then the intensity of the blur decrease progressively to a neat image depending on target range and time on focus (the time the pilot head look in that specific direction)

It's a bit different to what Manu excellently said but I am more focused :rolleyes: on the merge case

guys,
your disquisition is cleverly conducted with high technical competence, you have my cheering and regard,..but my question is...would be relistic in CloD and contemporary flight sims reproduce a convincing target spotting considering that a contact, spotted 5 miles away, (considering at the common resolutions we actually play) is rendered by no more than 4-5 pixels?
I mean, if you consider 4-5 pixels (but even with 15-20) with all the permutations they can be arranged in and color gradients they can assume, can be possible differentiate a me109 from a spit or mustang or F16; and reproduce all of them in all brightness conditions? I think the res is the limit.
Cheers

You are right pupaxx, it's our initial problem.

The solution is a background function that give you informations about that the virtual pilot see even if you (the player) are not able to see anything in your monitor (in reality you can not see the 3D model or its lod if you don't detect it).

We need to show to the player those informations: it has not to be something arcade as tha hated IL2's F6 key or full time labels.

For me would be satisfactory a linear scaling of LODs, with no holes approaching, and ensure the visibility of the target by a clever usage of contrasts (balancing the contrast of the background and A/C based on color/camo and brightness).
I consider natural to sniff the contact to ascertain the nature of it before consider a reaction; when my opponent is Human, whatever is the condition of advantage or disadvantage( in terms of tactical position or visibility), I'm assured by the fact we both have equal footing. Against AI, and this make me crazy in all sims, we are eternally in disadvantage, AI knows all of us since 15 miles away.GRRRRR.... and it never lost sight of us (behind a cloud...ops.. in CloD clouds are not modeled yet eh eh..another thread...or sun blinded)
Ciao, thanks

pupaxx indeed that is the problem: the limit of the rendering-monitor and the real life.
So there are people that want not a real life sight system because an icon system is hurting their feelings.
I understand perfectly that the icons are terrible (at least as they are in Il2 and Cod), invasive, immersion killing etc etc, but i felt also with manu that there were things not realistic in the way that the contact were simulated.

But for beeing sure and stop all the "i think that you are wrong" we searched for documents wrote from reliable sources.
The collecting is still in going and the scheme about the f-16 contact seeing is interesting ( where did u take it?).

At the end i think that, once a reasonable and verified data collection is made, we should test out the results on Cod and, if the results as it seems now are different from the reality ones, start to think about how to solve that problem in a way that is affordable from the community and implementable from the programmers.

Obviously nothing is assuring us that the programmers will not throw everything off as junk or simply not reading at all about it, but our goal is to have a correct simulator to fly and to enjoy, without pretending to be aces because we see contacts 100 km away or to be blind because we see barely at 3 Km..

BTW with the new settings, in ATAG the dots are now visible (sometimes) from far away, but they still tend to disappear suddenly.
Farther dots are grayish, a nice effect imho, and closer dots are darker. Maybe as a stopgap measure it's just enough to improve and debug the present dot system (contrast, visibility at all distances, LOD) as pupaxx was suggesting, and adding the radio vectoring system for historical and playability reasons. Then the long term solution could be further evaluated, but with a more playable (and sellable) game.

Cheers!

rHey guys, I work as an airline pilot and I read this post before I went to work this morning and thought that I will try this out today while on cruise altitude. We have a so called Multifunction display on the flight deck that shows all the traffic around you as you fly.

This is my conclusion (My eyesight is perfect... so far...)
At 5nm (9.2km) I can usually easily spot an AC and i can even tell what type is it is. However at thi distance its very difficult to tell if is a 737 or an Airbus as the share similiar shapes. Smaller planes are very difficult to ID at this distance. You can usually tell, if its a Kingair (due to its T-tail) or smaller, but to know exactly is almost impossible.
Remember that a 737 or Airbus are alot bigger than the planes we talk about in game!!
Also these planes are white against a blue or green background and that makes them alot easier to spot! many times someone is passing you, according to your instruments, at say 15km and same altitude and both of us try hard to see him but in some light conditions u see noone even though u know he is there somewhere! Obviosuly at night its alot easier with the strobes and beacons flashing.

Im not so sure i would be able to even see a 109 at 10km or maybe even 6-7km and I certainly would not be able to ID such as small plane untill ALOT closer!

I obviously agree totally with you; indeed we were talking about seeing a contact, not identificating.

We can think also about identification but perhaps is a slippery slope..

Hi Anders, thanks for your addition to the thread.

With your experience can you help us to better understand the result of the test on the document? Note that the ones on the graph are max distances, so they could only decrease.

In the first post we have a test where pilots look for a DC3 and detect it (unassisted) in collision path at 5,5-8,7km (being in a collision path I assume that they are looking at front/side). According to the graph the DC3 should have a MAX distance of detection of 9km FV and 14,5km SV (FV = 226sf, SV = 592sf... measures taken with not so detailed blueprints). If they are not trained in spotting ACs I think it can be a truthful result and anyway it's probable that optimal conditions are not available.

A 737 is bigger than a DC3 and in the same conditions it should be more visible.

Can I ask if you are using a specific method to scan the sky? Is it like the one explained in the doc?

It's not an official document but I think the site's name is notable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft-early.htm

EDIT: About Project Yehudi, in the test they used an TBM 3D Avenger.

http://books.google.com/books?id=q06...bomber&f=false

I think the situation is not so unrealistic. There are numerous accounts that say after a very short dogfight they were first surrounded by many ac then all alone. Alone probably just because they could not spot the others despite still being in visual range. It is a difficult task to scan the 360 deg sphere around you and spot everything.

Another gem, really detailed: "The probabilty of visual detection of reconnaissance aircraft by ground observer".

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_me...006/RM4562.pdf

Sadly it is only for altitude from 500feet to 10k feet. But there are interesting data about effect of altitude, luminance ect...

I've read many accounts of this type, mate. But I tended to explain it with the high speed that planes reached at an height. For instance, in 3 minutes a plane at 400 km/h runs for 20 km. And planes running in opposite directions at the same speed separate by 26 km in 2 minutes.
Or maybe they could not spot the others because of thick layers of clouds, as it happens frequently ... Who knows ... but instead of subjective opinions, we can have a look at the experimental and quantitative approach of Manu and Tamat, and at the US Navy documents.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

I think stress, adrenaline and fatigue can have a role in these anecdotes.
And of course the pilot can find himself in a different fighting area: think about diving, about the speed of these machines and the distance that they cover in some dozen of seconds (that surely seem to last minutes) (EDIT: as Insuber writes).

I really can't believe that in RL you can lose a formation of 9 bombers... above all if they are still flying in formation at medium-high altitude (and no stress, no fatigue for me). Airplanes of that size are visible at great distances and after some minutes you should have find them if you were circling in that area...

Two days ago on Repka I've found a bomber over England.. I did 2 attacks, the bomber was smoking: I looked at the fuel gauge and could not find my victim anymore (btw after 5 minutes CloD CTD)
Probably at 4 km it was just a pixel.

Hi Insuber, therefore I proposed 3 gegrees of difficult settings:
"Hard" (2-5km-labelding) for example, would not break a surprise attack. On the contrairy, normaly it happens to me that I am approaching friendly a/c inadvertently and I only can stop the attack in the last moment. A waste of fuel and energy. At happens to often that I have to fiddle arround, not able to identifie anything in the mid and far range :( To me this is also immersion-breaking.
Of course, I agree, every other solution renderingwise is prefrerabel, but will it ever come? Lets hope .... I love that sim!

I don't understand where's the problem.

Compared to reality in which I fly, I never had a simulator with a plane detection modelling so realistic as CoD.

What was unreal were the big dots in 1946, not the way it represents in CoD. Of course I compare to reality, not to another (easier) simulator.

Contacts are difficult to see. Depending on the day, color and background as said, and weather condition. Often, haze mades you only see a plane when it suddenly comes close. Sometimes, a contact you have spotted a second ago disappears from a sudden. I don't mind if the disappearing dots in CoD was considered a bug by many. For me it's not a bug, but a realistic feature.

The only contact easy to see it a big plane, higher than you, in a brigt sunny day.

Anything else, it is very difficult. An I speak on WHITE civillian planes! :) I assume camouflaged planes hiding against the terrain is even more difficult to see!!! Did you guys ever flew over a dark plane?

We are approaching a hard spot of this discussion, that is the compromise between a pure simulation and a pure game. This wasn't OP's point, who was more concerned about the unrealistic invisibility of contacts, which often disappear even at close distance.

I underline my opinion, based also on my real life experience: close contacts and contacts against the terrain are too hard to spot with respect to reality. Far contacts against sky are a mixed bag, sometimes easy, sometimes vanishing. LODs are to be revised here, among other things. Playability is at stake.

Cheers,
Ins

Tuckie pls note that small planes are harder to see and this is aggravated by flying at low alt such as you probably do in your Cessna 172 (152 ?).

Note also that there is no mate camo in 1940 and large portion of wings shld reflect sun glare at certain angles.

well, i have to disagree tuckie. while flying, decteting contacts is hard, harder than il2 yes, but once found they are easier too keep sighted, and are actually easier too see.

lets say that if i had a plane 8 km from me, i wouldnt find him, becouse its hard, but when he said "im at XX place going north" and i restringed my search to that area, i would easely find him, and see what kind of plane it was, the color, how many engines etc...

also the bug is rather a bug and not a feature as i udnerstood, since from 2 km to 3 km hte plaen turns invisible for some time, wich is a pain in the ass.

cheers

interesting thread !

the very poor object visibility (planes, ground vehicles, etc..) in the original il2 was its single biggest downfall as a "simulator" of a ww2 pilot experience. you simply couldnt see objects at their correct distances (compared to RL and ww2 pilot accounts), resulting in us flying in a mini-bubble of situational awareness (approx 30% of normal visibility, as if the pilot we represent was severely myopic)

i had high hopes this would be addressed in BoB as a matter of priority, and during the last few years before release oleg stated several times this had been addressed for BoB (there have been lengthy threads on this over the years in the main il2 forums). in pre release BoB beta video's bomber/fighter visibility seemed to have significantly improved, its worrying to hear from current users the old same visibility problem is back again in BoB/CoD and the old frustrations resurface.there is no excuse why this cant be sorted out in a modern sim/game in 2011

i expect that if a rational logical argument (based on facts, such as those presented so far in this thread) can be made to luthier, he will address this (once the immediate "playability bugs" issue is solved, which is hopefully with the next gfx engine rework to be released in the next few weeks). object visibility is a critical issue to get right, if BoB/CoD is going to make any claims to being the simulator it was intended to be. 80% of engagements rely on correct spotting, tracking and identifying of planes/vehicles AT THE RIGHT HISTORICAL VISIBILITY DISTANCES, if luthier and Co cant get this right we might as well all go home and not bother imho. solving some of the main issues isnt that complex either :)

exactemoundo ! give the man a cigar :)

this is one of the very basic things to get right at the start of this type discussion. there are some very simple things that can be done to get correct "object visibility". and at the heart of this is the fact that to start out with, objects need to be displayed at their CORRECT SIZES ! the BoB sim is already programmed to do this (il2 had some object size discrepancies, but the same principle was valid), the problem is that most users use the incorrect FoV setting as "normal" view (because they have small monitors and want to see "more") and somehow still expect object sizes to be correct (wide view and zoom view imho are only intended to be used for brief moments to make up for the fact we sit behind a single monitor in our living rooms, rather then in a cockpit with +/- 270 degree visibility all around us, allowing us some way to partially try and represent what a real pilot could see/do).

point 1: "normal view" (which in the old il2 was set to 70 FoV, which is only "normal" if you had a 30' monitor), should be set to represent the monitor size in front of you, and the number of degree's it occupies of your field of view (FoV). for my 27' lcd this is about 50 FoV, if you have a 22' it might be 35 FoV, and if you have a 30' monitor it could be 70 FoV. there is a simple formulae that allows you to calculate this for your monitor size.

note: several older games already do exactly that during initial installation setup. it asks you to enter data for your monitor size and resolution, that is all that is needed. nothing needs to be "calculated" from that point, no code modification or complex new programing anything, just let the game set the right "normal" FoV for your monitor size at the start !

your wide view can still be set to 90 FoV (allowing you to snap to it during close combat to improve SA briefly), and when aiming at a specific point of an enemy target you could briefly snap to a more zoomed view to improve gun accuracy. but most of the time people would be able to fly in their correct "normal view" for their monitor sizes and see objects in their correct sizes, and have the right visibility of distant objects (some of the more distant objects will need "visibility enhancements" that allow them to be spotted at the right distances if required (types of solutions for this is a side discussion)

note 2: some people will find this "correct FoV" to narrow because they have a small monitor, and nothing should prevent them from reassigning a new choosen FoV for their normal setting, but they then shouldnt complain that when using 70 FoV on a monitor that normally only should use 45 FoV will shrink all onscreen objects and make distant objects nearly impossible to see (because you just zoomed out by 2x by setting an artificially large FoV to gain peripheral vision).

note 3: there were a few flightsim games in the late 1990's which gave you a wider FoV on a small screen and compensated for the shrinking objects by artificially enlarging them, allowing you to see objects in their closer-to-correct sizes while using a wider FoV. this had an odd effect since more objects had to be squeezed onscreen, and it is probably to complex to implement for BoB/CoD with al the other cpu/gpu loads

conclusion: if at least have all people start in this discussion with their correct FoV's for monitor sizes, and then look at the distant-object-visibility problem again to see what kind of "visual enhancements" are needed to keep these objects visible at the right distances, then imho we are on the right track from the beginning.failing that you start with a distorted view of reality, and fail to use what is already possible/intended to correct the visibility issue. keep in mind many of us (if BoB lives up to expectations) will soon add a 2e or even 3e monitor to our main screen for gaming (24' lcd's are down to 200 or 300 $ now, and the future of simulation is in multi monitor setups)

note: the fact we are trying to represent on a lcd monitor in 2011 what an individual can see with the naked unaided eye from a cockpit, means that having correct object size on the screen might not be enough to make it correctly visible onscreen as it would be in real life, eg e few extra or darker pixels could be added to these different distant objects (no idea if this is a simple task, but all it might need is for the smallest LoD models to be altered and made artificially more visible, making "right visibility" a priority over "right color and shape"


not true

for most flatscreen lcd's from 19' to about 27' the correct viewing distance is about an arms lengths away from the viewers eyes (video geeks have very straight forward methods to determine correct viewing distances for screes/tv's/projectors etc, plenty of info available on that and its pretty simple). for ex most 30' monitors significantly go up in resolution and have smaller pixel sizes, allowing the viewer to sit closer. larger then 30' usually means the person is using a lcd tv (which have lower resolutions and larger pixels), so the viewer usually should/would sit a little further away then the average pc monitor (or the blockyness of the onscreen image would degrade what you see)

zapatista is exactly right. I have a 55" Samsung monitor (http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consume...ype=prd_detail). I sit about 30"-36" away, which approximates a 80 degree FOV as shown in the following formula:

HOW TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO SEE A 1:1 REAL-WORLD IMAGE SCALE.

view dist. = (scrn width/2) / TAN(FOV/2)

Example:
Screen width = 50" (the measured horizontal display size)
FOV = 80 deg.

view dist. = (50"/2) / TAN(80/2)
view dist. = 25 / TAN(40)
view dist. = 25 / 0.839
view dist. = 29.8"

At this setting objects are their real-life sizes, there is never a need to zoom in or out. Its certainly easier to spot enemy a/c, and there is never a need for icons etc. Its very immersive.

That is the problem of the people like me that have a 21 inches monitor... i should be attached to the monitor for seeing in real dimensions..

Tamat,

so when you set the correct FoV for your monitor size, do you now see distant objects correctly ? (like planes and ground vehicles). your original argument was well put and legitimate, but your monitor must be set to the right FoV to make any observations to determine how well visibility is simulated in CoD/BoB. so far this has not been closely examined in BoB/CoD since its release (and it was a major problem in il2 with 30% of normal visibility distance)

with the documentation and facts presented in this thread we have the basic facts now to determine if this is still a problem for BoB/CoD.

some basic points before comparing observations from different users
- have your monitor set to correct FoV for monitor size
- if possible at least use some basic software monitor calibration (several available for free on the web)
- be aware that cheaper 6 bit color monitors (TN based technology) in il2 had a significant advantage in dot/LoD spotting ability compared to the medium/higher end 8 bit color monitors (MVA/PVA and IPS based technology). this might not be relevant anymore in BoB/CoD, but good to be aware of in case major difference in spotting/tracking ability arise btw different users.
- differentiate between spotting an object at a certain distance, being able to track it once spotted, and object identification
- differentiate between spotting/tracking against sky background, and seen against the ground or water

note: since oleg/luthier now have increased the LoD models from 3 (in il2) to about 8 or 10 in CoD/BoB, and the "LoD to dot transition point" is at a much greater distance (it was 1.5 km approx for a small fighter, and around 3-5 km for a larger bomber in il2), and the fact LoD models now have "volume" (represented as small 3D object "blobs", versus a flat cluster of moving pixels as was the case in il2), this means that spotting/tracking of distant aircraft and ground objects should be significantly improved in CoD/BoB (but is it close to realistic now ?)

what are peoples observations now in BoB/CoD ? it would be good to have some feedback on observations from different users. lots of good facts already presented in this thread, lets standardize the observation variables now, and then compare peoples findings.

to keep it simple initially:
- set monitor to correct FoV (see earlier formula)
- try and record at what distances you can spot or track very distant planes (as dots, anywhere from 3 to 10 km), or closer planes at about 1000 to 3000 meters (most of whom would be LoD models). for ex, if you are tracking an enemy fighter agains terrain background, how easy/difficult is it to keep track of him while ?
- try and observe from what altitude you can locate/spot individual ground vehicles (on open roads or in fields), either with them stationary or moving. allied pilots in normandy described spotting them in fields or on open roads from 1200 to 1500 meters (in il2 this was extremely poorly "simulated", and you needed to be at 250 or 300 meters)
- dont use zoom views to look for these object, stick to the right FoV setting determined for your monitor so a correct comparison can be made between users.

note: in early preview video's of CoD it was clearly visible that oleg/luthier had given the smaller LoD (level of detail) models "volume" to make them stand out more against the background, as an attempt to improve visibility. this was a pretty ingenious method, and i dont think the effect was caused by simple bump mapping features from the gfx card. i havnt seen the same effect as strongly visible since release in user posted video's, and i hope oleg/luthier havnt turned that down again while they were dealing with gfx engine problems (because it was pretty effective at making these distant objects/targets stand out more).

what are your observations ?

I agree with you, but ....

don't talk too loud about this things m8 or someone might drop on your head the thousand-pages-navy-visibility-instruction-manual-study, which you're supposed to agree with 100% blinfolded, or you'll be considered as a traitor !!! :lol:

I got tired of trying to speak to the stones a few posts ago, mate.

Look here! You can find it interesting... :D

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It would be great if the game allowed the zoom view axis to be mapped. Last I tried it, it was set on the mouse axis which is pretty much unusable.

I have it mapped on my X52pro, but distant dots are much less visible in zoomed view, at high res. Pretty much like 1946.

So far I haven't been able to find a simple zoom command in the settings that just allows you to zoom your view from the cockpit. This should be available as; zoom in, zoom out, toggle zoom, reset and also an axis which is the best way to use it if you have an extra wheel or something, I prefer using the toe axis on the pedal to keep my hands free. Being able to zoom in and out easily solves much of the target visibility problems. That is how it works in Rise of Flight.

Maybe I misunderstand your problem, but in Options>Controls>Visual Settings (I go by heart), you find the zoom controls, ranging from the classic 30°/70°/90° views to the various continuous zoom in - zoom out.

Cheers,
Ins

No, the solution is to increase your screen resolution if you want improved detection.

You cannot compare real life values to game values if your screen resolution is within regular commercial ranges (1920x1200 or lower). If they changed the dot to be whatever you'd see ingame at a given range and the aircraft model at that range had less than 1x1 pixels^2 projected surface, you'd still see a dot.

So if you want better detection and better viewing range, get more screens :-P

I see under "camera" the FOV commands for 30/70/90 and a "hold to zoom" which by default is a mouse button which I can't get to work.
but I'm looking for a way to smoothly zoom in and out with an axis (a wheel or stick)
under "Axes" there are settings for all types of axis controls like ailerons and throttle but I don't see a "zoom" there.

ZAPATISTA made a very good proposal by standardizing our FOV and continueing this discussion here. Using PRIMETIMEs formular to adapt my personal FOV while I am sitting usualy 100cm in front of my screen on which the projected image has a width of 96cm, so the RL-FOV is about 25°. Selecting the INGAME 30° is a little bit to "close to my nose"- the sideview is too limited. For a better allroundview, I thought, my german ass on my reallife-seat of today would need approximately the same space as a virtual seat of the 40s. So a VR-seat should appear on screen as big as I can see the real seat from my actual point-of-view in RL. Therefore I used the "Hold&FOV adjustement"-Key + mouse in the Option/Camerasetting-menu. I guess the seat in a 109/Spit should be the same size as my chair, which has 48cm (any Infos?). The seat on the screen has 68cm. I did some dogfighting with this setup:
First, the estimated 55°FOV is still quite narrow, but still playable.
Second, detecting & identifing a/c is much easier now, and the "55°"-FOV gives a good fun!
Third, identifying an a/c in CloD is not that, what you could do with your eyes in RL.

After landing I had a look on my vr-squadmates, and with the aid of the map and its scale I compared what I saw in 500m distances with my RL-a/c-spottings.
What shall I say?
As I wrote allready on page 4, spotting a Ultralight in 750m allows to discern every important detail, ingame I can discern easily the yellow nose of the 109, but only with troubles the undercarrieage, the canopyfront, and the wingguns. Of course the INGame 30°FoV allows to discern much more.
Finaly, but only temporary, I would say, spotting planes in RL is about twotimes easier.
By the way, why is the seat of a 109 in 30°FoV appearing on screen so much bigger then a seat in a Hurri. Were in the 40s german fighterpilotasses so much unsexier ? Or is it just another bug in the wall? At least I hope so!

(It is important to now, if every VR-aircraft-cockpitwiew of CloD is in the same scale.)

Good post Topgum! Another bug in the wall ... eheheh!

when i change in cofini :

MeshShowLod=1 and

[rts_joystick]
FF=0

i agree with you about visibility in real life because i am military pilot and its hard to see camouflaged plane in air and VERY hard on low altitude flight.

but here is problem you see dot very good in far distance and when is closing about 2-3km dot and aircraft disapir (didnt see att all) in view zoom all way out. in zoom all way in you dont lose con and airplane, but i can't fly plane and maneuvering with telescope on eyes :)
when i change confini i see contact like i should view but with FPS drop :)

wait new patch to see performance BOOST and some bugs fixed :)

S!

Yes it's almost impossible in this game to spot aircraft over terrain when you are at altitude. Boom and Zoom tactics when your prey is below is almost out of the question. It seems they have to at least be above the horizon to follow. It doses not seem right, it gets frusturating trying to search for aircraft below. Having reflections off windscreens and other parts of the aircraft may help but i think there is more to this issue as others have described. Target visibility was not an issue in IL2 1946.

a one a two dreivier
dm
we don't need no simulation
we don't need no steamcontrol
no dark sarcasm in the cockpit
Luthier leaves us weeks alone
G
Hey, patchers, leave us kids alone.
F C
All in all it's just a
dm
another bug in the wall.

Solo in d-minor

Insuber, it is only your fault, that I am going offtopic. I dont hope that are going to bann me now!!

Because of my lack of ability to spot lower targets over land I tend to dive low so I can look up and spot targets from below, then I zoom again to regain hight. No an smart way to maintain hight and E. To often I end up in low level fights or giving up my hight advantage.

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:

wrong again ! try and use specific words to give meaning to what you are trying to say, instead of this meaningless superficial self gratifying banter your producing which doesnt contribute anything

let me try and rephrase it for you correctly the statement you just made " some contacts are very difficult to spot under some specific circumstances and visibility conditions ". and that is the starting point of the discussion, not the end :)

hint: as a starting point the comparison has to be made in near perfect visibility conditions. once that is done other observations can be made as to how correctly certain weather and atmospheric conditions are represented and how correctly/badly it affects visibility in CoD compared to real life (but that is much more complex, first we need comparisons under near perfect visibility conditions)

try and at least read the previous posts before you "contribute". the difference between static and moving target identification is very significant, and has been listed as a variable that needs to be differentiated when comparing different observations or historical account. we already knew that much, thanks !

I understand what's you are thinking and I think it's valid!

We can still live with the real distance gap. The only problem might be for the purist of the ingame immersion. Think about a seaport: all the ships would be bigger than the whole port, probably of the city too.

This problem can be solved by a using this visualization as a flight mode, for example pressing a key button; because of their size relative to the map, ships and planes would still be icons but at least their model and their vector can be recognized at long distances.

I didn't, Zapatista. I think it's not useful to test ingame circumstances since having the "black dot" as visual target rappresentation is IMO enough to discard the validity of every simulated "visibility" process.

In IL2 you see black dots on every surface or condition: reflections, camos and the rest are not taken in account. I've not really much experience with CloD, but ships and ghost contacts let me assume that nothing is changed since 1946.

The Earth is flat!!

FLAT!!! I TELL YOU!!!

:-)

Ok, I've spent some time to explain my idea.

First of all it's only an idea and I would like to discuss it with you all: I know that I can be wrong (but still I know that the earth is not flat).

This is not about having a 100% truthful visual spotting algorytm: probably it's a 70% realistic method, but still better than the original IL2's one. Here I'm not claiming that 1c, Luthier and his men suck! This is an idea about something that NOBODY did in years of combat sims and could be the one that only IL2 has and nobody else.

It's not a easy thing to develop.

Let's start from the beginning: speaking about both world wars air warfare one of the most used statement is "Beware The Hun In The Sun".
Before the radar appearance the sun was a very important variable. In IL2 we usually try to have energy advantage and a partial positional advantage (being on enemy's rear sector for example), but do we really fly to gain a useful position to not be spotted by the enemies (and so ambush them)?
Do we really care to have the sun behind us?
Do we follow the correct guidelines for our camouflaged plane? Time of day, altitude and surface tipology?
Why was the "Finger-four" a great idea but we use it only because it's "cool"?

For years many of us have been great lone wolfs because of the IL2's easied SA. We are still searching for black dots since they appear at all events.
A white plane over a cloud? -> A black dot.
A plane in front of the sun? -> A black dot.
A light brown plane on the desert surface? -> A black dot.

The only useful thing about this contact representation was for lower planes: a black dot between a myriad of moving pixels could not be easily seen (remember: watching a picture on the monitor our eyes' functions are limited).

And more the visual recognition of the dots is actually instantaneous: Do we really have to patiently scan every point of the sky searching for the enemies? We move our head and quickly we see the threats; all we need is to remember of looking behind us every X seconds... So of course being ambushed is really difficult: how could real pilots still been unawares of enemies when they were flying in multiple plane flights when we, alone, can do better?

So these issues made me think about a correct algorytm about visual contact. Please read again the studies in the first pages of this thread about the target visibility variables and think about what we currently have ingame.

I know that some of you claim IL2 the most realistic WW2 flight sim, but how much realistic is it? Above all about the visual search that was the first and most important task of the fighter pilot? Add to this the sound radar too... I would easily favour average graphic but a great realistic combat sim than the opposite: I know... it's always the same problem: CoD3 or Arma2? But I agree with most of the software developers when they head themself for the greatest market... I'm part of a little market's corner and I know that a developer can't live with so few customers.

Part 1:
The real fighter pilots have a method of scanning the sky... they don't act like us: a plane can be seen if they know where to search even at long distances and, of course, if the conditions are not a malus for them (fog, sun ect). The planes don't appear istantly at their eyes but it have to be on the sky's area they are focusing on.

So scanning the sky needs time (look at visual searching sectors on pg 10 of the PDF, and more after): ingame after 5 seconds we have scanned all around us and have actually seen a contact when in reality you need, as baseline, 5 seconds to scan only a sector of 90° x 45° (Hor x Ver).

I have divided the pilot's sight in focus areas. These are dinamic based on the target distance. Look at the PDF: visual acuity decrease with the distance.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3902/fasce1.jpg

So the accuracy starts from those values who can be increased or decreased by range plus the variables exposed in the thread ( http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...3&postcount=44 ).

The application run the algorytm every X msec: it computes the value needed to spot a contact and compare it with a random number (0 to 100): if the random number is lower then the plane can be seen (about the needed value: x<0 plane is always invisible, x>100 plane is always visible).. it's difficult to spot a plane? Keep your sight for 10 seconds and maybe you can see it (if you're lucky).
What I think here is to not let the "dot" appears (call it "dot" so for now) if there is not the visual capability to see it. A plane at 3km can be seen, but normally not by peripheral visual acuity (as, instead, we have now). You can't scan the sky around a mountain's peak at your 12oc and spot a distant plane at your 2oc. Human FOV is larger than the game's one, but the game does not distinguish between visual acuity.
So you don't only need to look at the right way, but you need also the time to actually spot something. If you can concentrate to one spot because they told you something is there, then you can see it like it is in real life. Probably you'll need time to do it, but you can spot a plane at 20km (look the data in the PDF) as missing another at 1km.

Does the plane emit smoke? Greatly increase the value. Does the plane fly in the right camo circustances? Greatly decrease it. What about sun and clouds? What about relative motion? Compare and increase/decrease at every loop (starting with distance and acuity to save cycles of cpu).
In the case of windshield reflections (random event if the plane position and sun are ok) increase drammatically the number also OUT of the ingame camera to simulate the peripherical acuity using a temporary disappearing arrow (PDF pg 9).
So the sum of the variables and the comparative method can reproduce a semirealistic visibility. Think about having to scan the rear sector for many seconds instead of the 200 msec we use now (above all with the ugly wide view: and then they tell my about "immersion".. yes, like a fish in the water!).
Think about it having to watch instruments too because of the CEM (maybe a better one I hope).

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9458/fasce2.jpg

The tweaking work behind this algorytm can be hard and time comsuming: I never stated it was easy but even if it's not accurate I think it could the greatest news in the world of the combat sims. To me this is like passing from the easy bombing mode of the old IL2 to the newer detailed one: both are not 100% accurate but who can state that the first was more realistic?

Part 2:
This part is about the limit caused by our monitor resolution and the FOV of the game. Many hate the word "LABEL" but IMO they don't understand that the black dots are labels too (BTW look at the ingame ships). We can discuss all you want about them as "immersion killers" and I agree. So what about using labels in a selective way?
Pay attention; this is not about the magic labels of IL2, the ones that appear instantly at distance, the ones who are detailed on model, distance and appear like arrow on your screen!

Simply combine the labels and what explained in part 1 of this post.

You have to scan the sky for enemies or friendly contacts; but because of the resolution issue with FOV you still can's see them if not as a dot. So you push a KEY BUTTON and start to fly in search mode (I would like to add that visual acuity should be linked to a tiredness value to simulate the actual visual skill of a pilot: think about the 4° mission of the day...).
In this MODE labels appear on the screen IF you have spotted a plane, only in that event.
How can be these labels?
IMO something like this:

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/628/dot1.jpg

Big and visible (customizable?).

Remember: they appear only if you are in search mode and they DISAPPEAR if you lost sight of the contact. So you have to scan again if you lost them, like in RL. Of course if you have to lose direct visual sight for only 2 seconds it's probable that you still know its position and you will search in the same spot... but if in those seconds the guy has changed its position then you lose him.

My idea is that it's not possible to fight at 2 km from a contact and all you see is a dot... in no way! Look again at the real contact size with the one at FOV 70. Talking about IL2 how many times I had to wait for a shooting plane since it was the only thing I could see... "Oh look! somebody is shooting at someone else (maybe, probably, boh)... can't see them DIRECTLY at 2km but I'm sure there is somebody there"
You see the gunfire and you scan that exactly that place and still you don't see anything.

Use this label method: it's not a cheat since you HAVE TO SEARCH for the enemy, but still it renders more realistic the fight because it take away the resolution issues (and nobody have to fly at lesser resolution anymore!).

But there is more. I've already told the issue about FOV: in many games (starting from OFP IIRC, or maybe it was ArmA?) we have the zoom function... we all know that its not like having a robotic eye but it needs to see the true size of a 3D model. All it does is to decrease the FOV (IL2 zoom is at FOV 30).
This work on an infantry sim, where speed is really low compared to planes: A10 and Falcon4 have this feature but it's easier since you have a radar and you actually know where to search in zoomed mode. Instead in IL2 you don't know it... you can search a tank column in zoomed mode, but it's no possible inflight.

How can we use the zoom function? Simply when you are in search mode and you see the dots you can move the visual over one of these so that the green central dot it over it (or near: inside the invisible circle): you press a key button and the game LOCK and ZOOM on that dot giving the real 3D model's size (maybe with labels on the details: model and number)
You release the key button and the visual return to the normal one. The dot get smaller if the planes 3D model is very visible (but not invisible): the more bigger is the lod, me more smaller is the dot.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4396/dot2.jpg

As I said before this is an idea: I would like to discuss with you about the usefulness of this.

Knowing that very probably 1C will not put resources in something similar.

EDIT: I ask the mods if kindly can change the thread's title adding "UPDATE at post #97". Thanks.

it is a great idea, actually very ingenious and clever. It could be a unique feature of Il2: Cliffs of Dover, something that no other game has ...

One minor problem with your description of this feature is that it requires the player to move the view centre to actually move the detailed search field, where often players will simply move their eyes - it's a bit counterintuitive, but maybe it would only be to start with.

I think it would help make a lot of this unnecessary if simply the far distance dot changed colour to suit the prevalent visible colour of the aircraft depending upon the angle at which it was viewed. The furthest visible LOD must simply be a cube textured with a really small mipmap of the aircraft skin. Or even just a billboard of the closest to perpendicular face of this cube relative to the camera. This also makes the dots a lot more difficult to see without relying on a lot of scripting to artificially "set" their visibility.

Dear Manu,

this is an interesting search and I am glad your pursuing your own idea.

However let me just give you a quick hint :
1. Speed and size of the con are of utmost importance here regarding distance at witch you can spot a bandit.
In the diag above, you show us that the cone of visual lock (let's call it CoVL) is of a complex shape : widely expended and then narrowing itself when the distance is increased to a point that it is only a narrow pencil.
At first I wld like to make a remark. Tunnel of vision is what a fighter pilot experience flying low at high speed in a jet. The vision in neat only in the far distance in front of the pilot and the surrounding area is blurred.
Rapidly, without demonstration man can understand that the time available for the retina to "print" an object is the leading factor for the neat vision. If you turn your head 30° out of your axis of view, the object on focus will travel beside you at V/sin30 speed (=2*V). The time for the "retina print" (let's call it RP) will be divided per two. Compared to an object directly in front of you, teh time for your brain to act in reconnaissance/analysis mode will be divided per 8 if we consider that it's a volume print (both eyes are simultaneously focusing on the same points).

You see now why it's so difficult to distinguish a rapid object even if he is traveling right nearby.

Now that we hve introduced the volume factor leading to a full recognition, let's hve a look of the variable ctrling an identification of a shape (the leading cause to the "there is something there" sentence)

In order to get a (positive) identification (let's call it PI), you hve only to see that a point (unreal : there is no point in mother nature) or a surface is right where you are looking at. Looking at the RP factor and the difference in speed in the above example, we see that the time required for the reconnaissance is 4 time superior at 30 deg than at 0deg.

And there is where the nasty camo plays its part.

Remember that we are talking here with surface and that this surface is nothing else that the averaged contrast with the background. If I am flyiong above a forest and look at a bright orange triangle, the time the brain has with a given RP depend only to it's size and shape. Imagine now, that the surface is painted with a finely tuned pattern of color that blend quite well with the background. Here the averaged contrast ratio is perturbed by the difficulty to make an identification of what is the surrounding background and was is not in that very specifically part of the image. This add time that hev to be subtracted from the available RP to get a PI.This can be summed in a blend factor (BF) analytically like :
If Cammo : RP:=RP/k with k being the BF

All the above is fairly basic for you and just an other way to say what you hve alrdy explained to all of us in your excellent post.

Now let's take the problem upside down.

Now we are not flying extremely fast low but at WWII patrol speed that said 1/3rd to 1/4th of the speed we were talking in the above.

Time is a function of distance and speed with t=d/v and reciprocally distance is a function of time and speed d= v*t

without looking at anything less and focusing ONLY on the above eq. we can understand that
RP= f(d/v) | eq. (i)
PI= f{(v*t)*(v*t)} | eq. (ii)

Then we we can say that at a given time (and same RP) traveling at 4v while sighting at d is "like" traveling at v and sighting at 4d.... (Wew what a big step ! I hope you are still there - but remember, don't look at the significance of the value, just at the variable and the way they interact each others)

In the above conditions the PI at v (let's say PI(v)) would be "reached" 16 time faster.

What does is says is that your sensor (eyeball) scanned zone for a given surface would be insistently 16 time bigger in volume than at 4 time the speed. We hve seen (or more honestly admitted or even more made the hypothesis) that the axis vision is not imparted by the speed at witch your pilot travel giving is head is contently up and his eyes are focused right on his vector of motion. Hence the corresponding volume is 4 time bigger at the base - the volume of a cone being a function of PIr² the circular base and 1/3 of h its height.

So when traveling at 1/4teh the speed, your PI planar zone for a given RP depending of the time available for the scan is 4 time bigger.

In your picture, the 100% "look zone" wld be 4 time bigger.

Now the hardest part (I 'll let those that hve read the above lines so far solve the volumetric case):

What abt the scanning distance that obviously impart the shape of the CoVL with target being acquired sooner than an other one just right beside her?

Saying that we give the answer. hehe ;)

There is one thing that we are all aware of is the target aspect ratio. We know that teh bigger the shape present a target the more probable our canon will score a hit. Hence size matter.

Regarding the visual acquisition things are similar. The biggest the apparent shape, the earlier it will be spotted.
But let's see what is that apparent shape about.
We saw earlier that de-cluttering the background is what ease the brain for a given RP. Let's imagine a bright orange surface traveling at 30° offset at a speed v. The "de-cluttered" surface is of a size function of it's shape (aspect ratio) and the distance traveled for a given RP. Let's say now that the same surface in the same geo condition is traveling 4 time faster, the de-cluttered surface wld be more than 4 time bigger ("more" and not equal as there is the trapeze effect well known of any artist - but the diff is negligible).

Hence my PI with a target traveling 4 time faster is 1/4th of a time.

Hummm not weird... In the above we concluded that the faster we are moving the less RP we hve hence the decreased PI [huge case of sneaky editing - sry]

In fact in both conditions the speed is the relative speed of both our pilot and his target. Let's say that I am flying slower and slightly above of my target. For a given time t the corresponding RP will be "'bigger" due to the de-cluttered shape swept by the faster move of the target. Hence a lowered PI time

Now let's see what happens if while still flying slightly above my target, I am flying now much faster than the potential contact. As I am travelling faster than him regarding the de-cluttered zone will be smaller and the target shape will evolve more in a volumetric manner - what we hve seen takes averagely more time to be interpreted (8x).

We can admit that it's a matter of balance averaged by a typical Gaussian curve (the rounded mountain like curve).

This is where Manu, your dispersiveness in target acquisition came from ; the relative speed of the observer and the target.

We can analytically summed this with the generalized form of equations :

PI(t) = f(RP, k, q) with k alrdy defined above and q(v) a factor for the Gaussian effect.

Please that note that k and q are kfor a give pilot a given days in given meteorological condition (ok ok you know that just wanted to add some sophisticated word to my rather simplistic demo :oops: )

My guess would be something like PI = k/q*RP (t) with q like 1/v²1 - 1/v²2 and v1 and v2 the relative speed of the pilot and the target.

SO what about the CoVL : That where I thing my demo has some points of interest in the fact that the CoVL is the integrand in time of the PI with the time being the actual time of scanning. Obviously the instantaneous time disappear with the (i) form of the RP like

CoVL = Int.[k/q*RP] from -15° to 15° in a second = Int.1

hence

CoVL= Int.[Int.1]in distance and speed (=Int.2)

or using IntVol [div f] = IntSurf[f] and some mixing magics

we've got something like IntVol = RP (instantaneous)/(ScanedVol in 1 sec)
with RP (inst) = k/q*(d/v) with v the speed of the pilot and d the decreasing dist btw them
and ScannedVol being calculated with the scanned surface and the distance traveled per sec and a cumulative factor.

The cumulative factor hving been discussed somehow by you earlier and translate the persistence of the target in the brain being correlated with it's actual position with its estimated trajectory.

Something like Cf =c*{1-(TAR(t0)-TAR(t))} * PI(t0)/{(t-t0) *R(Ttrj)}
with TAR being the Target Aspect Ratio at a given time
t0 being the time of the initial scan in the zone of the target to correlate
c reflecting the pilot consciousness
R(Ttr) is the rate of change of target trajectory


2. What the hell is the interest to add so much new variables (my demo lack some and prob not in negligible number) ?

At first, let's remind that a sim world is a world where there is no hazard and everything is known and dully characterized.
Secondly let's remind that using the random hard fction consume time.

In your demonstration 6S.Manu, the target acquisition range is supported by a series of calls to the random fction at each frame that will invariably impact the FPS IMHO.

As we know each plane position, the TAR, the speed and all the value needed, it cld be more profitable to use something in the form of the (very long - sry) demonstration.

Once a PI is scored a target reconnaissance process can begin that as I hve alrdy advocated cld be some form of image dilution from blur to neat (a pre-processed sprite ?). But I know certainly nothing on that relatively to our prof devs.

Only my 2 cents ! :rolleyes:

~S!

@Tomcat VIP

Could I ask you to explain this i layman terms!?
I sounds interesting but you lost me which make it hard for me to get the point.
Please!?

Very impressive paper you put together there 6S.Manu, I respect the amount of thought and work you put in there !!!!!

I must admit, it looks rather compicated to implement (in programming terms) taking also into account the difference of Graphics Cards (or rather say graphics drivers) that exist on the market.
I somehow have the feeling that the "optimisations" NV & ATI put in the different versions of their drivers will have a massive effect on the result.

Following the tip I found in the ATAG forum I set my AntiAlliasing to 0 and was surprised to see how much easier I can recognise the dots in the distance. And with the other tip (MeshDot...something= 1) the combination is perfect.
Yes, I lose sight of planes very often. This makes it particularly difficult. But it is also what makes the game much more interesting... I can no longer stay at 7Km and watch the fighters crawling at ground level.

Besides, if I want to play easy, I can go somewhere with labels turned on.


I repeat, I admire the amount of work and clarity you put into this concept.
And mabe we will see it one day.
It reminds me the big discussions we had years ago about the ammo belts in IL2 and the people who tried to develop the concept and those days we said "forget it! to difficult to implement" and suddently we have it in CoD so, nothing is impossible! :)

At the same time, I am extremely happy and I enjoy what I have now; Which is a lot more than what I had with IL2FB :)

With the settigs I mentioned above (and the ones I posted in some other threads) I fly my 3072x1024 resilution (three monitors) on a single GTX570 with 80fps high, 50fps low on the ATAG server (big map) and enjoy flying and dogfighting without struggling to recognise dots far and near (and without having to restart my gme after every every mission because of the memory leak).


~S~

I know it is off topic, but I really enjoy the ability to change ammo myself. I always wanted to try out a tracerless combination and now I got it. I am no longer distracted by my own tracers :grin:

@TomcatViP
Thanks for your post Tomcat!

I've to admit that I've some difficulties following your argument entirely, I'm asking to one of my teammates to explain some parts of it in Italian. Shame on me. :-)

Anyway as I said in the post above my target is not to have a 100% fidelity with reality, so I tried to keep the things simple. Of course a more detailed algorithm is gladly welcomed!

If I understand correctly CoVL heavily depend also on the observer's speed/altitude and these are the main factor for the tunnel vision. I think that it should be simulated. In terms of CPU usage we should test what it's better: a formula that uses all the real time values (CPU) or a model based on tables with defined and fixed values and approximations (RAM).

The part about the target shape is already explained in the first page of the thread, where is a formula (provided by one teammate of mine) to have the max distance based on aspect ratio.

Also camo is being taken in account in the initial analysis here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...3&postcount=44

For the part about "relative motion" I think your argument is valid (at least the part I've understood, but I've faith in your work) and its the matter I was mostly concerned about.

As you can note there most of the things are not detailed (for example I don't take care about camo design but only the colors of the skin in that aspect, but it can always be a parameter linked to the skin itself) but IMO they are enough to give us a semi realistic output.

If you focus at the part about contrast you see that it's a function only lightly based on real time values and it's not related to the video drivers (to answer at GRAthos about video driver issues): the algorithm I was thinking runs around a parallel 3d world (matrix here) there the data are mostly fixed and its affected in real time only by really few variables.

For example the part about "contrast":
We constantly have the matrix of plane aspects (A): this one contains the reflections value for each aspect and mostly the ratios of colors of the skin in that aspect. This are not real time calculated values and I would put it on directly the plane model package.

We have constantly the map matrix (B): the map is divided in sectors (area has to be defined) and each one has an array with "ratios of colors" similar to the one the plane has.

A and B (but really only a fraction of A, the array corresponding to the plane aspect) are affected by lighting in real time. Here you compare the resulting colors. The plane is not "spotted" if it exactly passes over a street or a lake like in RL, that would be very difficult to calculate IMO, but if the difference of the colors between actual aspect and map sector gives us a probability value (high difference = 100%, no difference in colors = 0% and some ratios).

Because we have 2 main problems: CPU usage and mainly there are too many variables to calculate in RL and both can be avoided by approximations (data tables) and sadly in this case you have to use the concept of "probability".

This is the reason I used rand() functions (or optimized ones): today is not anymore a cpu consuming function. I read that today it is possible to have 1,000,000 random numbers on less then 50ms. In my algorithm a rand() is called for every plane at the end of algorithm, and only if the conditions are the right ones (if the plane can be really be spotted and it inside the dynamic CoVL).

Then running this algorithm in a different thread (requested every 100ms for example, asynchronous at the main process) and on another core you can have good performance IMO. We actually have PC with high end CPU chipset and 6-8-12Gb of RAM: I think that performance are not a problem anymore.

We all know that today the majority of the issues of a videogame are on the video matter: I think that anything can be done in these days... look at that MODs did with IL2 1946. The biggest part I was annoyed about CloD after the release was the very limited CPU usage and really little RAM needed (but not VRAM...).

The most important thing to remember is that not everything can be simulated and so we need to work by approximations. Your analysis about realitive motion and RP seems very valid and useful for this matter, above all because is the part that mostly scared me.

@GRAthos

Of course this can be complicated above all because working by approximations needs a lot of tweaking and beta testing. But it's in no way related to video driver.

Sincerely it could be in some parts as the one about camo, but here the developers should work like they did for the epilepsy filter (reading the output IIRC): knowing the result of their effort I think that it's not the road to head on (or maybe it is... it could be that it's impossibile or that the developer was not skilled enough, who knows).

Anyway I hope you agree with me that something like this would take this WW2 sim to another level of realism.



I apologize with all the readers for my bad english: I use always the same words. I'm bad in Italian too... Again, shame on me...