Target visibility

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And again, which just highlights what a douchebag you really are, I never said anything about increasing dot sizes nor do I support it.

increasing dot size is an unavoidable part of your myopic, dizzyness inducing narrow FoV.
The whole "photography/ 1:1 thing is just an underhanded way of achieving that enlargement of dots

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Hence why we need to switch to a smaller FOV in order to spot aircraft as easily as in reality.

reality doesn't exist of a very narrow FoV......

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

increasing dot size is an unavoidable part of your myopic, dizzyness inducing narrow FoV.
The whole "photography/ 1:1 thing is just an underhanded way of achieving that enlargement of dots

Come on out, agenda, nice to see you in the light! So you WERE trolling then. You seem most aware of exactly what I meant.

So would you support clamping down on monitors larger than 20 inches or using lower resolutions too, because it is an 'underhand' way of increasing dot sizes?

70/90 fov simply does not allow for realistic spotting of aircraft at realistic distances.

Since 30 fov is much closer to realistic visual acuity, it is what I will continue to use, whether you like it or not, to simulate as closely as possible the distance at which a pilot would be able to spot another aircraft.

And, unlike changing dot sizes, it does not hinder your game.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

reality doesn't exist of a very narrow FoV......

But it DOES exist with much higher visual acuity, leaving me with the job of choosing either a wide field of view for realistic situational awareness or narrow field of view for realistic visual acuity, BOTH of which are absolutely crucial to a real pilot.

And that choice is down to me, not you.

By the way, you are missing the most valuable part of this, which is it doesnt actually increase DOT sizes - your screen resolution remains the same, and if an aircraft is so far away that it appears as a dot, it will STILL be just as small a dot.

What decreasing FOV actually does is make many aircraft that would be very small models or dots still appear as models - meaning you have to keep searching with all the usual factors, like camouflage, heading and reflectiveness, still affecting your ability to spot the aircraft. This makes for a MUCH more realistic portrayal of spotting very distant aircraft than simply looking for tiny dots.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

70/90 fov simply does not allow for realistic spotting of aircraft at realistic distances.


And, unlike changing dot sizes, it does not hinder your game.

Actually, its your agenda which has ben shown up... and you said yourself the narrower FoV does change dot size

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Actually, its your agenda which has ben shown up... and you said yourself the narrower FoV does change dot size

What's that - that I wish to use two different FOVs to simulate realistic visual acuity and aid in spotting aircraft?

I thought I made that pretty clear!

And no, narrower FOV does not make 'dots' bigger. It makes those aircraft that would otherwise be 'dots' still appear as aircraft models, making it more realistic (and easier) to spot them.

A 'dot' is still a dot (ie pixel), except now it might not appear until 5 or 6km instead of just 3 or so.

And lastly, and I can't overstate this, at the end of the day that really is how big and easy aircraft are to spot for real pilots. Why should I be squinting and straining my eyes to spot things that would be immediately obvious to my eyes in reality? That's not simulation, that's analism for the sake of hyper competitive online afficianados. I can spot BIRDS in general aviation more easily than aircraft in this "simulation"!

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And no, narrower FOV does not make 'dots' bigger. It makes those aircraft that would otherwise be 'dots' still appear as aircraft models, making it more realistic (and easier) to spot them.

A 'dot' is still a dot (ie pixel), except now it might not appear until 5 or 6km instead of just 3 or so.

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

It probably isn't all that important a point though since the size in pixels of an aircraft is larger with a smaller FOV anyway, and all that will happen is that we lose a small amount of model detail (no biggie).

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And lastly, and I can't overstate this, at the end of the day that really is how big and easy aircraft are to spot for real pilots.

and there it is again... bigger and easier




and some more...

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

So would you support clamping down on monitors larger than 20 inches or using lower resolutions too, because it is an 'underhand' way of increasing dot sizes?

yes,
its a very underhanded cheat and I pity them

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

What decreasing FOV actually does is make many aircraft that would be very small models or dots still appear as models -

MUCH more realistic portrayal of spotting very distant aircraft than simply looking for tiny dots.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and there it is again... bigger and easier

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread. Albeit I proved that this is actually more realistic. What on earth did you think I was talking about all this for - to make spotting aircraft HARDER? Would that be more realistic in your warped view?


Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir, do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

All those things can give you a big edge over other players, and in a sense mandate others to do the same. But it would not be sensible to say that they should not be part of the sim. If that is what you are concerned about in the first place.

For my part, I don't even play online, although I most certainly WOULD use 30 fov to zoom in if I did.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir,

23" (its in my sig )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ) - but not all the time

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

I think you may find I said something slightly different...

unless of course, you gotten yourself a tad confused and where thinking back to this one?

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Why not, at least for head tracking users, just build in the option to change FOV on the fly to the realistic level (39?) so that we can at least conduct more or less realistic "scans" by zooming in the view and carefully scanning a section of the sky at realistic size? Sure, its not as quick or wide as 70 fov or our eyes in reality, and its not all that elegant, but it'd do the job better than most any other solution I'd think. Even if it would feel like using binoculars at times.

As many have pointed out anyway, it takes time to scan the sky.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...

Then you acted like an -------- (I will assume its the internet effect) and most certainly were trolling, but that's ok, because I am exceptionally persistent and patient.

Having said that, don't you think it would have been easier and more fair to all involved, not least myself, if you just came out with your agenda from the start?

Then at least we could debate all the upsides and downsides, which obviously are MANY.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

23" (its in my sig )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ) - but not all the time

My own setup is 22" 4:3 CRT, 1600x1200 (fps) and about a meter. In both our cases we are going to have a big disadvantage compared to, say, someone with a 50" 1080HD plasma (roughly similar resolution) that is only a meter away.

So given this, why not zoom in to a more realistic visual acuity level to ease in spotting?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I think you may find I said something slightly different

Really? Care to explain the following then;

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.

A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and if you had of read an earlier post, it was suggested that normal FoV combined with zoom, would be far more effective (when scanning) than switching to a smaller FoV, or... a larger one. Why? for the very same reasons you, yourself, have pointed out.

Last post for now.

[Wolf_Rider]

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

and the old favourite... falsehoods

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And REALISTIC!


I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread.

~ do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

{wide angle, in reference, is for 90, which is wider than normal FoV 70... but in essence, user adjustable FoV alltogether)

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.


*body of text edited for brevity


A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

hmmm, yes.. I do believe I did say something different, and with the last paragraph (meaning normal FoV), it seems there is something we may be in agreeance on

[6S.Manu]

"Having objects at real size" was already discarted in my first posts IIRC.

Yes we can use a fixed 60° fov using a correct distance from our monitors... but here are some questions: how fast can our eyes rotate to gain SA on the peripherical vision sectors? How can we be aware of object moving in those sectors?

Eyes' movement speed is not reproducible with POV, mouse or TrackIR. With larger fovs you get a better awareness of the terrain around you, so that you can navigate in a correct way simulating the eyes movement.

All this thread is not about having a correct size on screen: it's giving the player the right informations untied from the current fov the player is using (and configurations as screen, resolution ect...). I just want a virtual hud about the virtual pilot sensations and conditions.

Lets think about the simulation of the virtual pilot's fatigue/stamina: this is a really important thing in WW2 airwarfare because of G effects, mission's length, pilot's wearing, controls' hardness. How can we know how much "tired" our pilot is?
We need a onscreen rollaway "bar" that give the player that information: it does not need to stay on screen all the time ruining the purist of the ingame immersion.

What about the G effect? What about the chaos during a spin? Does stick's hardness still needed to be simulated as FAKE lost of autority of the control surfaces (IL2 109's elevators)?

These are my priorities in a combat flight sim: 3D models' fidelty, the colors of landscape are welcomed, but they are not what distinguishes a simulator from an arcade game. All these ohhhh and ahhhh to the screenshots make me angry since the FMs and DMs are still wrong, with disappearing LOD you can't use realistic tactics... the best simulator... pfff...

Because of this I stated (as many others) that I'm going to play CloD until things above will be fixed (realistic target visibility is no mandatory to just play the game as an arcade one).

So, returning to the issue about visibility, zoom is needed to have the right definition of the object... calling it a cheat is ridiculous since our eyes have not the same resolution of our monitor.
Dots are pixels between hundreds changing pixels and without the focusing capabilities of our eyes they can'be tracked...

The real cheat is the guys flying a low altitude over the forest to literally disappear: no, camo is not so magical...