![]() |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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....
__________________
AMD 1055T Hexacore@3,4GHz - 2x4GB 1600MHz DDR3 - ATI 6950 2GB, flashed to 6970 shaders - Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit - 30" LG W3000H (2560x1600) - TM Warthog Stick + Cougar Throttle - wooden DIY pedals with Hall sensor - FreeTrack Last edited by Untamo; 10-27-2011 at 05:30 AM. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting thread - relevant and great work.
Whatever would come of this - visibility option should ultimately be scalable, for adjustable gameplay. I remain a bit sceptical regarding the true fidelity possible. It seems that your nailing the size vs aspect vs distance - and will achieve something to that end. Where I'm concerned is the inclusion of high fidelity specular (glint) effects, properly represented. Significant impact to the detecting aircraft when located is upsun in the early morning and late evening. While small-area scale games like BF3 are making efforts in this area - how do you imagine this will work over a large area, like our CoD maps? The BF3 mechanics aren't even tied to time-of-day and atmospherics as these are static on each of the tiny maps. Canopy and metallic glint can be seen a very long way off. While there are accounts and studies of minimum detectable range - what of long range detections, made at altititude? How do you propose to simulate this? Imagine when bare metal skinned aircraft are introduced? Maybe someday, very high level systems may be able to render these necessary effects - but low level systems might not. I'll even go out on a limb and say that probably no current computational system can do justice to this type of ray-tracing physics, in real-time - to match the level of LOD detail you are discussing. If there is not a balance between the effects - then there will be less reality - not more. That's my concern - but please don't let that dampen your work. Again, great job, knoble pursuit. S! Gunny
__________________
Intel i7-3930K @ 4.00 MHz - ASUS Rampage IV EVGA 3072MB VRAM GTX 580 16GB RAM - Windows 7/64 Warthog and U2Nxt Cougar under t.a.r.g.e.t Last edited by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger; 10-27-2011 at 07:16 AM. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yesterday I flew for 2hrs 5min (the time before CTD due to the usual memory leak bug) on the ATAG server.
My whole flying was devoted into intercepting incoming bomber formations. I did not intercept a single formation for two hours. The worst moment was watching a Wellingtoin (BIG bomber) formation of nine planes flying above me (distance xxxx - how can I judge in this game... ![]() Then flew for 30mins circling around trying to find them again, without success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course I may be a noob and ignorant* but based on my 7+ years IL2FB in full real online flying, this is complete and utter XXXXX³\#~ ** I like that it is more difficult to trace airplanes, but this is not realistic. ~S~ *always debatable... ![]() ** Moderators, please add the word of your choice, suitable to a 2-3 week ban... ![]() |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As I'm not convinced about the icons, so I thought about a more historical and immersive approach.
IMO Luthier should perfection the radio vectoring to the targets, as it was in reality (both sides, actually Brits achieved it few months before Germans). For instance: The sector control center gives the usual alarm: 1 - Incoming fighters in M14, 3500 m, hdg 160 2 – Incoming bombers in K17, 4000 m, hdg 180 The player can either select a target, lets say by a keyboard combination as Ctrl + 1, or the sector control center assigns him a target depending on his position. The sector control center takes then care of vectoring him to the target with more precise and frequent directions, such as: <Leader, Hornchurch calling, 12+ dorniers coming in over Folkestone, vector 120, angels 25, 12 miles from your position> I believe that this is what we expected originally from BoB: SoW, and this alone can solve the enemy spotting and avoid the hatred icons. Of course dots and LOD's must be improved as well. ![]() ![]() |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BoBII was nicely immersive in reproducing what you (Insuber) suggest, it was nice to pick your preferred mission among the several tasked by Ops center. The phone ringing and announcing the incoming raids was amazing too! my thought is Clod, sadly, maintains the monolithic appearance of Il2 series.
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i really can't stay with the 'icons solution'.
It would kill immersion while flying. The dots over LOD at the point where they now disappear would be ok, not perfect as in RL, but this is imo the best solution, unitl devs can't find something more realistic at least. This, added to Insuber radar vectoring stuff, would be great. S! |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Interesting thread.
TopGum said it all for me. I am re-posting a doc abt Pilot detection range that I think belong to this thread. IMHO plane glowing had been completely put aside in the game and shld play a huge part in visual acquisition (SoW and RoF had this feature correctly modeled) . For example, all camo blend totally with the backgrd what is not achievable at close range. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|