Contact sight problem.. really something to patch!!

[Majo]

A simple way to verify this issue (bug) is to play an offline 1 vs 1 quick mission where both planes start the mission one in front of each other.

As you start the mission, you will be able to detect the dot, if you maintain your vector towards the foe, you will see that a certain distance the contact will disappear and 2/3 seconds later will re-appear. So it seems that in the transition from one size (of the contact) to the next, as they are getting closer, there is some kind of interruption for the graphic representation of the contact.

I have tried this with 30º, 60º and 90º degrees of FOV, the distance at which this interruption happens is different depending the angle of FOV. So to follow a contact you are forced to constantly change your field of view in other to avoid "the contact interruption distance".

The "good" news is that this issue affects both sides. You will have the same problem tracking a 109 in a spit than vice versa. Is that balance or what...?

Salutes.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Im talking about both. I understand your issues and agree they should be fixed first. However, sometimes spotting anything at all is impossible on the english channel map. Flew an hour yesterday at 4k over the english coast in a 109 and didnt see a thing. The server said there were 15 reds.... maybe they didnt get the memo and were busy defending iceland? I think the issue is that they blend in with the ground too much. They are almost impossible to see looking down. Sometimes ill be lucky enough to spot one and be looking right at it and watch it dissapear completely. If i can spot a house or a single tree from 4k, i should be able to spot a plane. For some reason i think the distance to size scale of the planes is too dramatic. Im not at home to test this but from memmory i think the plane at ground level when viewed from say 3k looks like a dot when a house which are not too much larger then the plane model when looked at from above still looks like a house... could this have something to do with aa being broken. Fir example the dot appears and dissapears sometimes (flashing rapidly) making spotting one even more difficult.

Both the time I've flown online these week there was almost 25 enemy planes... During the flight I've seen none (flying from Calais to Dover and back).

Don't know if it's the scale of the planes... it could be: I'll make some tests.

IMO the main problem is the textures of the background. The textures of the sea is moving nonstop, and they are really detalied: how could you see a AC, a LOD with camo texture (ergo not stable pixels), over that "sea" of moving pixel?

In the LOD you have to avoid the camo effect so that the planes are monochromatic. Or maybe we an use black squared dots bigger than a pair of pixel, like the ones we already have for ships (horrible to the sight... somebody complains about labels... THOSE DOTS ARE LABELS, and you can't even take them out).

It was so easy when, many years ago, the texture could not be so detailed and so the ground and sea were almost flat... you could "easily" spot a black dot over it, also because the resolutions were smaller than the ones used in these days.

[AMVI_Superblu]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

IMO the main problem is the textures of the background. The textures of the sea is moving nonstop, and they are really detalied: how could you see a AC, a LOD with camo texture (ergo not stable pixels), over that "sea" of moving pixel?

I better call this "Terrain Masking" or "Camo".
An object moving fast at an altitude let's say 500+ meters lower than you is pretty hard to see.
That was at the base of all low altitude - low drag profiles for A/G missions.
the REAL problem (IMO) is the contact disappearing after being seen, not the 'problem' of being unable to spot it at a lower altitude.

S!

[6S.Tamat]

Have you ever been on a plane? You are able to see a car moving not hundred but thousand of meters below you, because it is moving. The human brain is the one that is able to see if something is an object, and the brain is made to control something moving; that is the reason that let you understand that something is moving also in your peripheal vision, that usually is something less more than an unfocused blurring colours mix.
Said that if you red as i think books and memoires of pilots you surely red also alot of time something like "i saw a group of planes x thousand meters below me and i did that or that..", i wonder how they did, if everything was camouflaged. And moreover reading the diaries of the people of London in the battle, you can easily understand that they were able to see the airplanes fighting over the city also when they where sure not at 500 meters, and the kids at the end of the battle were able to see who was enemy (the yellow nose) and who was not..
Two weeks later I was on a plane seeing around me, and if during the day i was able to see airplanes at very high distance, thinking that was because they were white and big and i was really high, when at the Gatwick airport i landed in the dusk and during the taxiing i was seeing a spot far far far away starting to land but still with hout the landing lights on; when eventually it landed (with the lights on that were not letting me able to see what kind of airplane was ) i was amused to see that was a light blue two propellor engine airplane ( of the dimension of a boston i suppose) used to link the channel islands.. and i was able to see it from really far away because it took minutes to land..
From the roof of my building i barely see hidden between the other building the Urbe airport in Rome, but i can see really clear and big the airplanes and see what kind of airplane is (high or low wing, one or two engines etc etc) the one landing or taking off and you know, are at 2 Km of distance, but at four, when they are on Villa Ada, the difference is not so big...

but if everything that is not rational i don't know what to say more

Then we have the cockpit blinking light, the painting that was glossy, the cloud effect of multiple contacts etc etc.. that we don't have on the simulator

[AMVI_Superblu]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

Have you ever been on a plane? You are able to see a car moving not hundred but thousand of meters below you, because it is moving.

I know.
I am not a real life pilot but i am parachutist so i know what you mean but you forgot one thing: Cars on a road are not provided with a camo.

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

Said that if you red as i think books and memoires of pilots you surely red also alot of time something like "i saw a group of planes x thousand meters below me and i did that or that..", i wonder how they did, if everything was camouflaged.

Camos are not always perfect, they are (sometimes) useless at present day, they were surely worst in WWII. It always depends from thousands of factors like ambient light, clouds, angle of view etc. but yes, in some situations you can be able to see something that, let's say, the guy 50 meters western than you may not see.

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

And moreover reading the diaries of the people of London in the battle, you can easily understand that they were able to see the airplanes fighting over the city also when they where sure not at 500 meters, and the kids at the end of the battle were able to see who was enemy (the yellow nose) and who was not..

Looking something skyward from the ground is not that difficult due to high contrast with the skylight

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

From the roof of my building i barely see hidden between the other building the Urbe airport in Rome, but i can see really clear and big the airplanes and see what kind of airplane is (high or low wing, one or two engines etc etc) the one landing or taking off and you know, are at 2 Km of distance, but at four, when they are on Villa Ada, the difference is not so big...

I can agree with you on this.
My house is at about 2.5km straight line from LIRE (Pratica di Mare Mil) and i am having the same feel as you stated in the quote above.

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

but if everything that is not rational i don't know what to say more

Then we have the cockpit blinking light, the painting that was glossy, the cloud effect of multiple contacts etc etc.. that we don't have on the simulator

I am not complayning what you say (write) being irrational, if i let intend this i am sorry.
I am just trying to keep a discussion where ideas from different people are facing each other.
Nothing more, nothing less.

As stated above at previous quotes, i don't agree with you on some points, but i do on others.
The truth is in the middle (probably).

Who knows, maybe this thread will be such an inspiring place for devs to make a working solution for our ghost-contacts over the channel.

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by AMVI_Superblu

The truth is in the middle (probably).

Who knows, maybe this thread will be such an inspiring place for devs to make a working solution for our ghost-contacts over the channel.

I totally agree with that conclusion.. for the other we can discuss

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by AMVI_Superblu

I better call this "Terrain Masking" or "Camo".
An object moving fast at an altitude let's say 500+ meters lower than you is pretty hard to see.
That was at the base of all low altitude - low drag profiles for A/G missions.
the REAL problem (IMO) is the contact disappearing after being seen, not the 'problem' of being unable to spot it at a lower altitude.

S!

+1 Absolutely agree. I don't want this to become a fly-at-6k-meters and wait for contacts trying to sneak flying by at 300 meters from the ground as in 1946, which is ridiculous.

Here we have just one bug, that's all. Planes vanishing in the middle of the air is not acceptable.

Planes flying lower than you are difficult to spot, that's the way it is for real and the way it should remain in the sim.

[Trooper117]

No matter how good the camouflage used, 'movement' attracts the eye automaticaly..
Even if the plane/truck/soldier/ is perfectly matched to the terrain, as soon as they move they are liable to be seen.
Early aircraft camo was more intended for when the machine is parked up in field conditions with a camouflage net over it, so as to mask it from observation.. if its on the move the human eye is likely to see it..

[snwkill]

That makes me want to create a blue camo plane like the navy wear now

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by Trooper117

No matter how good the camouflage used, 'movement' attracts the eye automaticaly..
Even if the plane/truck/soldier/ is perfectly matched to the terrain, as soon as they move they are liable to be seen.
Early aircraft camo was more intended for when the machine is parked up in field conditions with a camouflage net over it, so as to mask it from observation.. if its on the move the human eye is likely to see it..

The problem is when you' re on a plane EVERYTHING is in motion respect your position so I don't think you have a point to be honest. If you then add a background when you're looking from above it becomes even more difficult.

I think all ppl who think this way should make difference of what they would like to be and what really it is, sorry m8.