A potential fix for the Aircraft visibility problems?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I saw the planes at ease, the car was a bit harder to spot. I do not use a 120Hz monitor.

what is you monitor model number and brand plz ?

[SlipBall]

From a earlier release just as a comparison

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

I did a bit more study at the 1200m level. I added single 109's, 111's, and a medical vehicle on the move.

Observation: everything as a single object will be detected, if you are looking for objects. Once you are alerted by movement or a glitter and then zoom in, vehicle movement can easily be tracked, aircraft shape/identification, is fairly easy to see and not loose sight of.

Conclusion: getting a "true" 120hz monitor would give a person an definite advantage, and solve the loosing Spit??

slipball,

i ran the 2e track you made and have exactly the same problem.
- on the initial part of your fly by the sunlight hits the multiple object surfaces just right and strongly reflects off them (nice work 1C) and at that point they stand out like the proverbial dogs #$%@!. note that as they gradually become less shimmery/glittery as our view point moves down the airfield, that the houses in the village below the airfield display exactly the same shimmer/glitter artifact (but not the forest), so not all that glitters can be presumed to be an aircraft that we can identify as such (we just presume it is because it is sitting in what we know is an airfield). eg an aircraft parked in the town square would be indistinguishable from the other nearby houses/objects in the glare it currently creates (which is unrealistic, and the glare effect is currently way overdone).
- in the following 2/3 of your track (as you make a U turn around the lower part of the airfield) they are basically invisible and completely blend in with the background. i can NOT make out any aircraft from that part of your loop
- in the last part of the clip they become more visible as the sunlight again reflects off them (from the exact 12 o'clock of the previous high visibility location)

please note:
- adding larger aircraft like the he111 into the mix kinda defeats the purpose, we first need to determine the variability of a standard size single engine fighter (the 109 has a wingspan of exactly 10 meters so is a good object) and use them under good "normal" viewing conditions (clear sky, no special lighting conditions etc)
- using a time near dawn or dusk places the sun at a significant angle in the sky, creats one specific viewing location where the reflecting sunlight will make them stand out very clearly (seen at the start of your track), and another where you can see a similar but milder sun reflection (from the exact opposite end of the field that had the previous high glare ). a better standardized time of day might be somewhere between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm maybe ?
- the fighter aircraft must be stationary, a few small/medium vehicles driving around in different parts of the airfield is a good idea (as long as they dont kick up a big dust trail)
- the FoV of the clip must be kept at "normal" (70), not zoomed in. once people have used the zoom function and get an idea where the objects are, its easy to then later claim on the normal view that they "roughly see something that must be the airplane/truck", which means "i can spot the aircraft's" and win a prize

thanks for having a go at it, and for confirming altitude by a glimpse at the instruments. having the very high glare reflecting off the aircraft under those lighting conditions kinda defeats the purpose, since were are then playing "find the glaring object". others already stated in this thread that they can catch glare reflecting of an aircraft halfway across the channel for ex, it affects visibility a great deal. i havnt really played around with the map tools to quickly do it myself, so i cant whip one up in a hurry here either

[Al Schlageter]

(the 109 has a wingspan of exactly 10 meters so is a good object)

No it doesn't have a wing span of exactly 10 meters but is slightly less than 10 meters at 9.900 meters.

[David198502]

here you go zap:

GERICOM 19"
Model: MT9FNK

and unfortunately i have to run clod at a res of 1024x768

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

"the correct FoV for any monitor is between 60 ~ 75 degrees...

nope, that is not correct.

you already went 20 pages in this forum with somebody a few months ago who patiently tried to explain to you how FoV works, and i will summarize it here for the benefit of other readers who might not have thought about this issue yet.

basically, however wide your monitor is in front of you, for any given distance you sit from it, it will occupy a specific section of your forward 180 degree vision, that section is the "percentage of your forward field of view it occupies". (ie should be equivalent to the FoV setting in CoD)

for me for ex when i sit approx 60 cm from my 27' monitor, it roughly takes up 55% of my field of view (which you can calculate exactly), and if i only had a 14' monitor from the same viewing distance it would occupy roughly 1/2 of that. note: if you use the formulae to calculate your personal FoV, dont confuse diagonal monitor size measurement with how "wide" it is (which is the value to be used in calculating FoV)
- if you set that "correct FoV" for your monitor in CoD the idea is that you will then be able to see all ingame objects in their 1:1 correct sizes displayed on your monitor (eg, depending on how far away they are from you in the game, and the object sizes). which leads us to out current discussion thread, re: can you in CoD correctly see these distant aircraft/trucks/tanks from the same distances as in real life, well NO you cant currently (but it is less bad then in the old il2 series). hence we are trying to discuss "amplification" methods to make some of these object stand out better (see OP).

using a smaller then "correct FoV" for your monitor in CoD will work like a magnifier (but simultaneously reducing your peripheral vision), because you have taken a smaller part of your field of vision and stretched it across a larger surface (to keep it simple), similarly setting a wider FoV will give you artificially more peripheral vision but everything (in game objects) will be squashed into a smaller display surface and hence shrinks in size (again simplifying the concept).

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and "zooming" in or out, is an adjustment of the FoV.

think of it as the other way around, its easier. increasing or decreasing your FoV (from your "correct" setting) is like zooming out and in. and obviously no ww2 pilot had a magic zoom binocular strapped to his forehead, so using that is in effect "gaming the game", or if you want to put it nicer "overcoming partially the limitations of sitting behind a monitor in your living room, compared to looking out the windscreen of a real aircraft".

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

if you want the "problem" solved, get three monitors ................and gives the more realistic real world seeing without flying in myopic tunnel vision

so your solution for not being able to get correct object visibility on one monitor (correctly adjust for right FoV for that user) in CoD is to put 3 badly adjust monitors next to each other to display a "faulty" game that still doesnt provide correct distant object visibility ? putting 3 monitors next to each other and adjusting the FoV correctly should still uses the same method i mentioned above to determine correct FoV setting across the collective display surface, its just a larger surface with a larger total FoV (and would be calculated the same way)

to not further sidetrack, this current discussion is focused on determining how bad the visibility error is for distant objects in CoD,, to suggest possible ways to improve it (eg make the game more correctly SIMULATE what a real ww2 pilot would see from his aircraft), and potentially try and figure out who here with what hardware has the least problems (with one of the main variables thus far identified being the lcd screen type used)

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

No it doesn't have a wing span of exactly 10 meters but is slightly less than 10 meters at 9.900 meters.

lol you want to quibble over 10 cm on a 10 meter wide object ?

from memory, its either 9.98 or 9.89 the last time i looked, close enough if you want to be pedantic, with the various 109 models over the 6 years of the war i am sure there would have been some further variation in wingspan, for the purpose of the discussion in this thread the few cm creating a 1% error dont really matter

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by David198502

...from my point of view, with my setup, i dont have a problem with spotting targets in the far distance...

............in my view, objects which are really far away, are almost too visible.it seems, that as soon as a plane gets visible on our screen, then the first view moments it will "fade in" as a grey dot...those grey dots look pretty good...
but as soon as they get a little closer to the eye of the beholder, the dot will become black,...its still really far away, and then it looks very unnatural, mostly because the dot is deep black.
objects, even against terrain, somehow seem to pop out and dont look at all realistic......

david,
aside from the other issues you mentioned, you seem to indicate you dont have a significant issue with locating and identifying/tracking distant aircraft or ground targets.
i looked up your monitor (couldnt see the exact same model, but all 19' monitors from the Aldi store in the last few years are again TN based monitors), and we can fairly safely assume yours to is a TN monitor (being the type of monitor that has the least problem with distant object visibility

a good place to find monitor specs and panel types is at http://www.prad.de

i dont want to hammer away to much at this TN panel issue, but it is a significant variable, and is used by most people who claim good visibility for these distant objects (and they being the lower cost monitors, are probably also used in the russian office where CoD/SoW is being created (except for the grafix artists who would have higher quality displays so they can correctly paint/illustrate scenery and objects.

[Flanker35M]

S!

My monitor is a BenQ G2750 27" running at 1920x1080 60Hz.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by zapatista

lol you want to quibble over 10 cm on a 10 meter wide object ?

from memory, its either 9.98 or 9.89 the last time i looked, close enough if you want to be pedantic, with the various 109 models over the 6 years of the war i am sure there would have been some further variation in wingspan, for the purpose of the discussion in this thread the few cm creating a 1% error dont really matter

It is still NOT exactly 10m. It is approximately 10m.

Your memory is faulty, as the Bf109E had a wing span of 9.9m. With the new wing on the 'F' model, the wing span increased slightly to 9.925 m.