Target visibility

[6S.Manu]

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.



Below is what we have in IL2's normal view (fov 70):


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

Howell [5] carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. Of greater relevance to this study, the subject aircraft also carried an experimenter who knew exactly the approach angle of the target aircraft, and “kept constant vigil with his naked eye” until he detected the intruder aircraft. This “threshold distance”, over the same conditions, averaged from 17.3 to 23 km, about three times larger than the detection distance. We will return to these results later in this paper. Analyzing these data, Graham and Orr concluded that see and avoid failures were due primarily to failure to detect the target [1]. No attempt was made to predict aircraft visibility.

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.

[LoBiSoMeM]

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.

[LoBiSoMeM]

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.

[Insuber]

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!

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

There's got to be a way for the game to grab your monitor size and resolution from Windows device manager. Then calculate 100% correct size for each object.

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.

[topgum]

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?

[proton45]

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.

[Untamo]

Originally Posted by proton45

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....