|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
02-11-2011, 10:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
i looked up your monitor model, it is indeed again a 6 bit monitor (see http://www.prad.de/en/index.html ). given how much you know about grafix and video and your liking of il2, and since you use programs like photoshop etc (?) i am a bit surprised you were not aware of that when you selected your monitor. as you probably know "eight bits" also allows 256 shades of grey. The human eye can discern about 85 intensity levels on a good monitor (high dynamic range, which means the black is very black and the white is very bright). these extensive "steps" in grey levels allows a very smooth transition in black/greys and offers much better detail when viewing video and grafix when lower end displays are only 6 bit, the shades of colors available to try and accurately depict the exact shade of color it needs to display is significantly reduced, and they will use "dithering" to approximate the color or grey tone as much as possible. this is a process by which computers approximate the display of colors in an image that are not available, and this is achieved by varying the patterns of dots that make up the image. like this now if this is for a static image being displayed in printed media for example, it might not matter that much because the blended dot of black and white are displayed a static snapshot, and they very small and the detail might be hard to see with the naked eye when reading a paper or looking at a photo. but if the grey/black dot is moving while this dithering is continuously occurring and you have a process like dynamic dithering which is constantly changing (because it cant seem to make up its mind what shade of brey/black to display), then suddenly it makes these dots stand out much more. the 2 images below illustrate the effect that enhances "dot visibility" for 6 bit monitor users in the il2 flightsim series. in the above picture note the smaller square in the bottom right corner, giving a zoomed and enhanced view of what produces the "glittering" effect (as dithering artifact) this 2e illustration shows a slightly different 6 bit dithering technology used on some other monitor pannels, but the overall effect produces a similar result and that is the most likely explanation why people with 6 bit lcd monitors consistently keep reporting much better dot spotting in il2, it is a case of the cheaper and nastier the monitor the more clearly you can see the dot's because of the artifacts the 6 bit display causes when you have a little 4 pixel block of dithering grey sliding over a static green/brown/white/blue background. it is only after over the years noticing that people with 6 bit monitors had significantly less problems with dot spotting that this technological issue about dithering was identified as a likely explanation. when previously polls were done to see who could see dots the best, the 6 bit monitor issue was the most common denominator (presuming all monitors are correctly calibrated, viewers look at the same scenery and object, etc..).the above is a very simplified explanation for a complex issue, and it is further complicated by a varied range in technologies used in modern panels, and the fact some brands use misleading advertising and labeling their products (or dont disclose when a panel in a particular model changes). note: for those interested in finding out what technology their own monitor uses, most manufacturers dont advertise the tech details very openly (partic for the lower end models) . a good site like http://www.prad.de/en/index.html will have most of the required detail listed for many models. the below table gives a rough idea of different technologies and if it is 6 or 8 bit, it helps to describe what we are seeing from most modern panels: All TN Film panels = Dithering. Some are 6-bit with FRC, some are 6-bit extended to 9-bit and figure as 8-bit in the specs (or 16.7 million colours). More modern panels seem to be the latter, look for "16.7 million colours" quoted in specs. PVA Traditional = 8-Bit PVA + Overdrive = Dithering, 6-Bit +FRC S-PVA + Overdrive = Still real 8-bit MVA Traditional = 8-Bit 19" and below MVA + Overdrive = dithering, but not as obvious as with PVA + Overdrive >19" MVA + Overdrive = real 8-bit S-IPS Traditional = 8-Bit New S-IPS panels + Overdrive = No obvious issues AS-IPS = 8 bit, not heard any reports of colour issues on these for those who want a simple quick test to see in living color how good/bad their monitor is in this 6/8 bit debate, look for the "color gradient test" (a little exe) from this website. the article itself also explains this complex issue a little more, and is one of the better one available. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles.../6bit_8bit.htm . anybody using a 6 bit monitor will see significant banding, while most 8 bit monitor users wont. Last edited by zapatista; 02-20-2011 at 02:37 AM. 
|
|
#2
02-11-2011, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I use a Samsung 22-inch LCD with a tn panel. Been aware of the 6-bit issue for some time (but unfortunately not before buying the Samsung). Does anyone know if the banding that is visible on sea and sky when running il-2 on nVidia graphics has anything to do with 6-bit panels? Was puzzled by it - as i was running 32-bit colour, never could understand it and put it down to some nVidia glitch?
I've been noticing some of the new cheaper ips panels that are starting to come on the market. Was also keeping an eye on the progression of 120Hz technology but it seems to be painfully slow. Are current ips response times able to run games (flightsims in particular) without noticeable smearing or other effects? Also read something recently about what could be the Holy Grail - ips panels with 120hz refesh rate. Last edited by kendo65; 02-11-2011 at 01:08 PM.
|
|
#3
02-11-2011, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
the first 2 lcd's i ever bought yrs ago i returned the next day for an exchange, they were so bad compared to the professional grade crt i had been using before. it's after that i started looking into the how and why of the technology involved. both subsequent flatscreen monitors i bought in following years i was very happy with Quote:
these are some of the best monitor review sites i know http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/buyers-guide/start.html and their buyers guide is very good http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles...chnologies.htm http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.ph...&id=1229341472
|
|
#4
02-19-2011, 09:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
your monitor is perfectly fine for general use, most people wouldnt even know the difference unless they know what to look for. also as one of the articles i referred to points out, there is now great variation i quality in TN monitors and some have significantly improved from 5 yrs ago when they had major problems (but all current TN monitors are obviously still 6 bit color and have similar limitations) now the good news is that currently in the il2-1946 based sim series you will be able to see distant aircraft dots much better then people with higher end and more expensive monitors. given that they might well have paid 2x (or in some cases 10x) what you did for your monitor, enjoy what you have and use it for what you intended. the next monitor you might buy, look a bit more into the technology and you should be able to get a decent 8 bit monitor for a bit more then you might pay for a 6 bit one  note: when you say "flikker" dont confuse that with the 50 hz screen flicker on old televisions (something removed with 100 hz crt models and most current flatscreen tv's), that had to do with "screen refresh rates" and was very annoying and fatiguing on the eyes. the effect is described for these 6 bit TN flatscreen lcd's is mainly relating to: 1) when viewing large uniformly black/dark-grey area's on screen, like when watching a movie with very dark area's in it (in which case you will see a light "sparkling" pr "glittering" in that area 2) when viewing a small black/dark-grey dot/blob move across the screen with a static background (like forest or other terrain textures in the il2 flightsim), in that case the moving little dot will stand out much more and will probably be visible from 2x the distance then somebody with a normal 8 bit monitor Last edited by zapatista; 02-19-2011 at 09:39 AM.
|
|
#5
02-19-2011, 11:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A Basic description of the visibility problem for distant aircraft in the il2 sim series:
I: For those who havnt yet seen how the LoD (level of detail) models work in il2 first, you have the close up detailed external view of an aircraft, it shows it in all its glory but also takes a huge amount of cpu/gpu power to display. - this detailed visual representation will stay the same up to a certain distance (a 100 meters + ?) where the aircraft just becomes smaller and more distant second, at some fixed distance from the viewer the more distant aircraft will then transition to a LoD model which keeps the rough shape of the aircraft, but gives much less visual detailed information (since you cant see it anyway, and would be a waste of cpu/gpu power to keep drawing it)required) third, at an even further away distance this previous LoD model will transition to another even smaller and more rudimentary one, it will only have the rough outline of the aircraft it represent (single or multi engine etc) fourth, at the furthest away distance (usually somewhere between 1000 and 5000 meters depending on how big the aircraft is) that last LoD model will transition to the "il2 Dot". when you are flying as a fighter pilot and expect other enemy fighters in your area, being able to see these "Dot's" from a realistic real life distance is extremely important. eg, if in real life you might be able to spot (and then track) a moving dot somewhere 2000 meters below you, you'd hope this would be accurately represented in the il2 sim series (but this sadly is not the case up untill now) these 3 shots show the 3 LoD models for the p40 in il2 (for some reason the animated gif wont work on this forum) the problem this currently creates, aside from some of the errors in some of the LoD models themselves (like the 2e LoD model of the seafire having no wings, making it much harder to detect), is that these smaller LoD models are just little clusters of flat little 2D pixles sliding over a 2 dimensional flat image of the distant terrain scenery that your pc struggles to make look like a real landscape so problem 1: that distant little p40 might well be the right size, but on computer screens it is MUCH harder to spot (and keep track of) then a real life 3 dimensional little object standing out against the background more (the human eye through millions of years of evolution is very good at tracking those real life little objects in the distance) the good news: after repeated previous "complaints" in elaborate "discussion threads" on the main flightsim forums. oleg does recognize this problem and now hopefully has implemented the "little 3D blob" method to make them stand out a bit more (the little blob takes much less computing power, and visually more closely represents what the human eye can detect). this new implementation by oleg was visible in one of his early bomber formation video's problem 2: for the smaller LoD models, the little cluster of pixels that roughly keeps the shape of the intended aircraft, ONLY DOES SO FROM CERTAIN ANGLES, ie it depends what part of the aircraft you are looking at. from many viewpoints this cluster of pixels will fragment and break up, completely loosing the shape of any aircraft it might have been, making it 50x harder to keep track of ! as an example: this is a distant view of the smallest LoD model for the earlier p40 example now if you look at a screenshot of a flight of four i-16's heading in your direction (from a similar distance as the last smalles p40 LoD model in the previous illustration), you can clearly see that only one of them looks vaguely like a "plane" (yet it is a formation of 4 planes flying together), the others which are immediatly adjecent to the first one are just seen from a slightly different angle, but have now just become an erratic irregular group of pixels, AND those drawings constantly change shape depending on the view angle ! so instead of seeing a solid "aircraft looking pixel group" coming your way, you catch intermittent glimpses of a jumbled shape of loose pixels coming your way instead (and this is against open blue sky). Now if you put this in front of the complex shaped and colored "ground terrain" textured background, the human eye simply cannot track this irregular moving cluster of loose single pixels, due to the lack of well defined shape to visually "lock on". You can intermittently reacquire the target when it changes to something more visible as it comes closer and transitions to a larger LOD's, but in a combat situation where both aircraft are doing 300 km/hr and are rapidly closing (or he is trying to sneak up on you) this is not "simulating" what a real pilot would/could see, and therefore doesnt allow realistic combat engagements because you situational awareness bubble has shrunk to 30% of what it should be. the good news is Oleg seems to understand this problem, and the fact in il2-1946 the smaller LoD models still create "invisible aircraft" (at distances you would normally be able to spot them in real life), and by all early indications of some of the preview videos we have seen so far, these distant small LoD models are now represented as little "3D bubbles" (like a water droplet). this means the object keeps its volume and visibility much more, and is an elegant solution to trying to represent a distant aircraft on current 2D pc display technology (which has significant limitations in representing distant 3 dimensional objects). II: When the smallest LoD model transitions to the "il2 dot" this is an example of the "3e LoD to Dot transition point", when the il2 sim series represents very distant small aircraft shapes with a "dot" (either 4 pixel clump, or 2 pixel clump) for the b17 and its wide wingspan, it transitions to a "4 pixel dot" at around 5 km (for a small single engine fighter this lod to dot transition point is much closer, somewhere between 1000 and 2000 meters). as you can see from the illustration, one moment you have a vague representation of an aircraft shape, the next it is just a little dot (this is done to save cpu/gpu power) - the problem we have is that these 4 (or 2, or 1) pixels might well represent the right size for the distant aircraft, but as illustrated earlier for the smallest LoD models in a 2011 pc game these 4, 2, or 1 dot sizes are not visually identified to the same extent on a pc monitor as they would be visible in real life. so these smallest pixel clumps DO need an enhanced visibility feature as well to make them stand out more (and it needs to be a solution that is equally valid for 6 or 8 bit monitors, so we dont have a repeat of the MAJOR problem this created in il2) For the il2 "dot visibility" however there are no indications this has been solved for BoB-SoW !! we now have (in 4.08 ) a "4 pixel dot" representing a very distant aircraft (that has become smaller then the 3e LoD model), and the game keeps this 4 pixel dot as the smallest representation of the distant aircraft (untill it suddenly completely vanishes at a specific distance). some indications are that in 4.09 this 4 pixel dot was now drawn even smaller as a 2 pixel dot, and from one of luthier's recent comments in BoB-SoW the game engine will even give further more distant visibility and at greatest distances an aircraft will be represented by a single pixel note: this situation is not helped by the fact that not many il2 users know exactly what a "real life distant aircraft" should look like when seen from a ww2 fighter plane cockpit, and some well meaning (but ignorant) posters will raise unrelated reasons like "but the plane has camouflage paint so you cant see it" note 2: any discussion on this topic with il2 users is further complicated by the fact that 6 bit monitor users have a much less severe dot spotting problem, because of the inferiour ability of their monitors to represent grey shades, these grey/black dots stand out much more and they might be able to see them 2 or 3x better then most other users (an additional factor is that many pc users dont have callibrated monitors, and il2 players dont use a standardized amount of AA and AF on their gfx cards). so not all il2 users are aware of how severe this problem is. conclusion: some in game enhancements need to be used to make distant aircraft (and ground targets) stand out more so they are visible (and able to be tracked) from similar distances as they were for real life ww2 pilots (and this is needed for both distant small LoD models and the "il2 dots"). currently il2 has 30% of this visibility we should have, and we fly around in a myopic mini bubble of visibility which completely distorts what your normal situational awareness should be. this problem is the most significant issue in what makes the il2 series a "simulator", and needs to be addressed as a matter of priority for BoB-SoW (and by some indications oleg has now partially addressed this) Last edited by zapatista; 02-20-2011 at 02:23 AM.
|
|
#6
02-20-2011, 10:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So, without wishing to debase your excellent and genuinely helpful post it seems that we need a 'leveller'. A means of ensuring that everyone can see a distant aircraft at a range that would allow RL-type tactics to be determined even if that means an unrealistic dot or LOD size but no dot beyond that. And I don't mean identifying what it is because the Mk1 eyeball will see a dot before it can be identified and tactics will have to be decided at that stage too.
Arguments about when the dot can be seen by different resolutions would then be meaningless as the range will always be the same and the opportunity for tactical choice will have been resolved. What other reason can there be for worrying about the dot visibility (e-peening apart)? Of course this will lead to disappointment over realism but perhaps thats the choice: uniform maximum spotting capability with non-realistic dots/LoDs or more realistic non-uniform spotting capability with continued argument. For me its the more realistic approach as I don't want such magnificent visuals marred by out of scale big dots (but hopefully improved in CoD). I'll take my chances agaiunst the low resolution "must see you first even if its not real" crowd. Or put another way, "I should be able to see you earlier than I can in 1280*1024 or greater resolution but I'm not willing to take you on on a level playing field so i'll magnify you". Shame on you
__________________
klem 56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds" http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/  ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
|
|
#7
02-20-2011, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
for a quick comparison, go to an airport and watch passenger jets take off (yes, they are a lot larger than a WWII fighter plane) and follow them out 'til they can't be seen anymore. Watch also how jets flying overhead can be unrecognisable due to viewing angle and whether or not a wing is in shadow..
Look at RoyRaiden's avatar to see how camouflage really works
|
|
#8
02-21-2011, 03:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
but this "leveler method" needs to address 2 separate issues 1) have some visual enhancement method added to the smaller Lod models that makes them stand out more. - ie, instead of having the focus on them being the right color or shape, the focus should be on [b]"in a real life situation viewing this object from the same distance, how well would it stand out against a similar background ?"[b], and then using a visual enhancement method that works better across a range of objects so we are in the "visibility ballpark" instead of the "mini visibility bubble" problem we have now. - so if in RL you for ex can detect a moving tank (or a single engine fighter in the process of taking off ) on an open field or road from 1500 m altitude, (which was historically the case for allied ww2 fighter pilots in northern france for ex), then in il2 sim under good visibility conditions you should be able to do the same (presuming you as the pilot are visually scanning that sector for targets). but right now in il2 sim this visibility distance is only 300 meters, a HUGE difference in visibility ! note: one problem with any possible "enhancement" approach is that when the same distant object is now viewed against an open blue sky (like that taxing single engine fighter), it might now be to visible and will possibly stand out to much (because our main visibility problem that needs to be corrected is against terrain background, caused by current PC technology limitations in video displays). there are ways around this, for ex the "enhancement method and color" could be chosen so it has less impact against blue open sky etc... i do not know exactly what the best solution is, but i do know what the problem is and how severe it is Quote:
a) the current 2 or 4 pixel dots have a BIG difference in visibility on different types of flat panel monitors, with people on cheap TN monitors being able to see them at 1/2 the distance roughly compared to "normal monitors". (hence if somebody in oleg's office has a brief look at this "dot spotting problem" and uses a TN based 6 bit color monitor they might not recognize how severe the problem is for most users (and similarly if they use a CRT monitor this visibility is less of an issue because the quality in video on them is so much better then any current flat panel) - so issue a) is leveling the playing field and having "dot visibility" equalized by using a dot display method that isnt so different depending on monitor type b) a "il2 dot" (made of 4,2 or even 1 pixel) might well be the correct size for the distant object, but are currently not as VISIBLE as they would be in real life as discussed earlier in this thread the human eye in real life can track these very small objects rather well (a byproduct of our evolutionary development as hunter gatherers, being able track small moving prey or seeing fruit/berries stand out against a foliage background etc..). so for objects like dots that are within a certain range (eg 2 or 3 km maybe ?) they might need some visibility enhancement that makes them stand out more, even if this means they might have to be a slightly incorrect size or color (fake-real whiners please refrain from commenting and try and grasp the concept being discussed here if you want to participate in a meaningful way) conclusion: i think the tweaks needed are very minor ones, and need to be quite subtle. i am not arguing for giant blobs flying around the screen so ADD affected people can keep track of them. i am however arguing for a realistic plane/object spotting distance so we can SIMULATE a real ww2 pilots experience, and see what he would have seen, so we can then correctly implement historical tactics, strategies, and flight maneuvers. and i do not know what the best possible solutions are, others here or at oleg's 1c crew will know more about what is viable (but it will take some lateral thinking to come up with effective solutions). i do however know how bad this problem currently is, and it is probably the sim's biggest weakness Last edited by zapatista; 02-21-2011 at 03:07 AM.
|
|
#9
02-20-2011, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
