Target visibility

[irR4tiOn4L]

The dots seem to be drawn sooner, and perhaps too early, at wider FOV's.

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

I can take ingame screenshots of distant aircraft at different FOV's in order to demonstrate this behaviour.

Which FOV is most realistic? I don't know the answer to that, but in reality aircraft do seem considerably easier to spot from most angles


Very interesting point on MS CFS, I did not think it was possible to render aircraft at a larger size while still retaining the correct proportions.


EDIT: On the LOD point, from the OP's screenshots, the distance at which dots (which I regard as part of the LODs) were used seemed smaller at wider FOV's.

I don't know exactly how LOD's are used but they could be tied to distance (in which case they wouldn't change with FOV) or size in pixels (in which case they would). 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).

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The most important point in all this is the rendering behaviour.

yes, which is what happens when switching to smaller or larger FoV in comparison to what is defined as the "normal" FoV
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen, which in effect squishes everything and the inverse when projecting a smaller image onto that same size surface, screen, which enlarges everything - distances all being relative)

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The dots seem to be drawn sooner, and perhaps too early, at wider FOV's.

No, not sooner but because of the distortion associated with switching to the larger FoV when switching up from what has been defined as the normal FoV, smaller.
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen... so obviously switching to a larger FoV, from normal FoV, does not help with scanning for targets)

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

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

incorrect and smacks of the old "we can't spot the dot" whinge

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

I can take ingame screenshots of distant aircraft at different FOV's in order to demonstrate this behaviour.

Already been done and the distortion associated with the different FoV (in comparison to what has been defined as normal) is apparent

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Which FOV is most realistic? I don't know the answer to that ~

60 degrees

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

~ , but in reality aircraft do seem considerably easier to spot from most angles

eh?

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Very interesting point on MS CFS, I did not think it was possible to render aircraft at a larger size while still retaining the correct proportions.

well, there you go

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

EDIT: On the LOD point, from the OP's screenshots, the distance at which dots (which I regard as part of the LODs) were used seemed smaller at wider FOV's.

There's no LoD (as such) change... its rendering -

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The most important point in all this is the rendering behaviour.

- related



*EDIT

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

I don't know exactly how LOD's are used but they could be tied to distance (in which case they wouldn't change with FOV)

That's right

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

or size in pixels (in which case they would). 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).

due to the distortion of FoV's other that what was defined as normal




Glad you're getting it

[irR4tiOn4L]

Wolf Rider, for someone who has consistently failed to understand another's points you are being awfully cocky and very rude.

You also make broad based assertions such as "60 fov is correct" (and pray tell, how do you know this?) "you are whining, the dots are not too hard to spot compared to real life" (again, how the hell can you say that? Ever flown an aircraft?) and "the LODs do not change at all between FOVs" (did you program the engine?).

I am getting quite sick of debating this nonsense with you considering I have to spell everything out and then still have you come back a jerk. Can you tell me what all that "do you know 70mm is narrower than 50mm" nonsense was about? Don't want to because it would make it obvious that your comprehension skills were severely lacking? Then don't come back saying I am "finally getting it".

Show some respect and make your point, then shut it. If that point is that we SHOULDNT be switching from 70 fov to 30 fov because 60 fov is realistic, then PROVE IT or accept that I will REJECT IT.



Oh and finally, here's a pop quiz - my monitor is some 20 inches across approximately 1 metre from my face. Using your analogy of a window, what is the approximate angle of vision, or "field of view", that such a surface occupies in my field of vision?

What should I set my monitor's FOV to in order to approximate 1:1 representation with my real vision? Does this change if I physically move closer to the monitor?

Here's a hint; it isn't exactly 60 degrees, and in this case its likely to be a LOT less (I estimate about 23.5 degrees of my field of vision is covered by my monitor, meaning that I would need to set my FOV to 23.5 to see 1:1 as I would in a real aircraft - compare this to our almost 180 degree forward facing field of vision and you can see why, as gamers, we have to alternate between a wider fov for situational awareness and a narrower one for 1:1 aircraft spotting).

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

No, not sooner but because of the distortion associated with switching to the larger FoV when switching up from what has been defined as the normal FoV, smaller.
(putting a larger image onto the same size projection surface, that being the screen... so obviously switching to a larger FoV, from normal FoV, does not help with scanning for targets)

So what you are saying is that even though the airplane appears smaller at higher FOVs, and thus smaller for any given distance, it will still switch to being a 'dot' at the same distance and will thus not appear as a dot sooner?

So if I have a plane that is 2 pixels across and 4km distant at 39 fov, tell me - how will it look at 4km distance but 70 fov? It will be a dot, wont it! And if its a dot at 70 fov but not at 39 fov, then what I said was exactly right - the dot appeared SOONER, or rather, at less distance from the ingame camera. And thats really what we are talking about. Remember that I regarded this as part of the LODs, because dots are NOT just ordinary rendering - ordinary rendering engines would soon stop drawing even the dot. The game is likely forcing the engine to keep drawing a dot and when that dot appears and dissapears may or may NOT be tied to distance, pixel size or some other criteria like resolution or fov.

To see what I mean, ask yourself these questions;
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance on 1024x768 and 3900x1500 (example) resolutions? (for that matter, are they even the same size or smaller at high resolutions?)
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance at 30 fov and 90 fov?
Do the dots appear and dissapear at the same distance when graphic options are set to high or low?

Etc.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

I am getting quite sick of debating this nonsense with you considering I have to spell everything out and then still have you come back a jerk. Can you tell me what all that "do you know 70mm is narrower than 50mm" nonsense was about? Don't want to because it would make it obvious that your comprehension skills were severely lacking? Then don't come back saying I am "finally getting it".

Show some respect and make your point, then shut it. If that point is that we SHOULDNT be switching from 70 fov to 30 fov because 60 fov is realistic, then PROVE IT or accept that I will REJECT IT.

who is being rude??


I think, when it come to making a judging on another, what you are really doing is just looking at yourself in a mirror and making the judgement based on who you see there ... "jerk"? ineed

Name calling just suggests you have no firm basis for argument


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.

yet you say 39 degrees is normal and to use zoom... this is just another can't spot the dot whinge thread - pure and simple

The human eye can see up to approx 180 degrees, side to side, without moving the eyes or head - total vision
Vision in each eye is less than this and approx 90 degrees off the side with about 60 to the inside (bridge of the nose gets in the way) inverse for the other eye. up and down varies and is slightly less again. Most have the higher angle though is comprised or the peripheral vision.

put a book in front and you'll be able to read it... put it off to the side, and with holding the eyes straight ahead, you may see the book but you won't be able to read it. The range at which the book will be able to be read consists of an angle of about 60 degrees.

The other bit which needs to be taken into account, is the screen is not photography... it is projection.

If you move closer to your screen... it gets closer, that's all that happens

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

who is being rude??

Do you REALLY want me to go quoting what you said that was rude, presumptuous and just plain off? I have so many better things to do! Here's a couple just in your last post:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

what you are really doing is just looking at yourself in a mirror and making the judgement based on who you see there ... "jerk"? ineed

this is just another can't spot the dot whinge thread - pure and simple

You'd best trust me on this though; there are things YOU said that upset me. Not a mirror reflection of myself, not my own mind. YOU came across as rude when you asked over and over whether I knew what fov and mm specs in photography were, whether I knew what LOD's were, and by suggesting I needed to be re-educated on how LOD's work. Don't divert responsibility for that, because ultimately you did all that intentionally because you failed to see past your own points.

Take your 60 fov assertion for example. Its just astounding that you can ram it in my face as if everyone's monitor sizes and viewing distances led to the same fov setting. To then call me whiny for suggesting I DON'T see aircraft as easily in a game set to 70 fov on a 20 inch screen a meter from my face that occupies just 25 degrees of my vision as I do in real life is just - well, breathtakingly arrogant. By the way, 39 fov is what the OP said was normal for his screen (lucky OP!). On my 22" CRT at a viewing distance of 1m or so, its actually about 25 fov (ouch!). Small monitors need smaller fovs.

Just ponder this - if you look at my posting history, do I seem to anger easily? What do you think it takes to make me upset or angry, apart from what I've just told you, that is?

Finally, why don't you try and find when I last participated in a so called "can't spot the dot whinge thread". Heck, try and spot when I whinged at all that the dot was hard to see! I tell you what, I won't be whinging if I can't see a dot! I will switch to the correct 1:1 fov for my monitor and simply spot the aircraft as close to the way I would in reality as I can get. It seems to me that YOU are the one whining about my suggestion to reduce fov when spotting.


Anyway, let's let bygones be bygones and try and reach some amicable conclusion.

To that end, I wonder about your use of 'zoom', as distinct from fov. Could you elaborate how we can zoom in a game without reducing the fov? Is there a rendering function other than fov used for this purpose?

The suggestion that aircraft be rendered larger than other objects at the same fov as in MS CFS was intriguing although I don't know how that looks or is possible. I will look at videos of MS CFS to enlighten myself, and perhaps that's the best overall solution.

But if Cliffs of Dover and IL2 don't already do that, then in the absence of another solution I can only say that switching back and forth between 1:1 fov's for a person's monitor setup and 70/90 fov for situational awareness is simply the last best solution.

It may be that you are concerned that this suggestion may be regarded as 'cheating' if either people use smaller fov's than 1:1 (say 20 fov when 40 fov is realistic on their monitor setup) and thus effectively zoom their view or if most people stay at the wider 70/90 fov. To this I can only say that it is a valid concern, however, it is really no different than the advantage someone with a 50" plasma a metre from their face has over me with my 22" CRT, and given that it results in reduced SA, it is outweighed by need. Perhaps its also about self control and voluntarily doing what is realistic.

In my case, however, even 30 fov is a wider presentation than what I would see in reality.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Do you REALLY want me to go quoting what you said that was rude, .

go on then... let's see if it was rude or not - accept the challenge

at the moment though, it does appear to be just another "the dots are too small and the tracking is too hard" thread


oh, and thank you for the edit on the above... I guess you realised I only asked once

Now, where you and others are getting it wrong, is looking at it from a perspective of photography (and yes the same arguments have come up before (on another "the dots are too small" thread). From the perspective of photography, is wrong. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of projection.... because that is what the monitor screen is - a projection screen.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

oh, and thank you for the edit on the above... I guess you realised I only asked once

? Btw, I do edits as a matter of course. Expect them, they happen on almost all my posts within the first few minutes of posting.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

go on then... let's see if it was rude or not - accept the challenge

at the moment though, it does appear to be just another "the dots are too small and the tracking is too hard" thread

I provided two examples above and this is yet another. At this point your rudeness has already been amply demonstrated. Yet you persist.

Oh and, have you found an example of my participating in such threads or even complaining about dots, rather than just suggesting that people switch between fovs and YOU whining about my suggesting it?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Now, where you and others are getting it wrong, is looking at it from a perspective of photography (and yes the same arguments have come up before (on another "the dots are too small" thread). From the perspective of photography, is wrong. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of projection.... because that is what the monitor screen is - a projection screen.

As always, I am ready to listen.

What fov should I set my 22" CRT at 1m viewing distance to in order to have 1:1 presentation?

I desire to set my fov to create a window in front of me (the monitor) that will present objects at exactly, or as close as I can get it, the same size as I would see from a similar window in reality. My monitor only occupies about 23.5 degrees of my field of view, however.

To date I have been working on the assumption that I must set the 'field of view' of the game to equal the 'angle of view' that my monitor occupies in order to reach a realistic 1:1 presentation. If you have another methodology, please enlighten me on this. And don't just say '60 fov' unless you can explain how a monitor presenting a 60 degree field of view from a game occupies the same 60 degree angle of view on all monitor setups despite vastly different monitor sizes and viewing distances.

I realise the specification of my problem may be quite complex, so if you'd like, I can draw a quick picture to demonstrate my reasoning.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

In my case, however, even 30 fov is a wider presentation than what I would see in reality.

30mm focul length I think you mean, what you see in real life ia a 180 degree FoV with an effective FoV of approx 60 degrees. 30 degree FoV in real life would be myopia/ tunnel vision

[AKA_Tenn]

i think anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering play a big part in it, as well as how well you're monitor differentiates between shades in fast-motion scenes.

dots can only be as small as 1 pixel, and on a 27" screen at 1920x1080 1 pixel is fairly big... so the problem isn't the size of the dot, but how fast you're monitor can change from the colour of the water or ground to the colour of the dot.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

30mm focul length I think you mean, what you see in real life ia a 180 degree FoV with an effective FoV of approx 60 degrees. 30 degree FoV in real life would be myopia/ tunnel vision

No, I am not talking in photography mm terms.

What I said was this; my monitor occupies 23.5 degrees of my 180 degree field of vision. On this monitor is projected a game (Cliffs of Dover) that presents 30 degrees of view from the perspective of the ingame camera.

This means that I have 30 degrees of hypothetical view presented on just 23.5 degrees of my ACTUAL view - ie, it is wider than it should be, and not a 1:1 presentation.

I have drawn a picture to illustrate this problem. How would you solve it?

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

i think anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering play a big part in it, as well as how well you're monitor differentiates between shades in fast-motion scenes.

dots can only be as small as 1 pixel, and on a 27" screen at 1920x1080 1 pixel is fairly big... so the problem isn't the size of the dot, but how fast you're monitor can change from the colour of the water or ground to the colour of the dot.

Youre right of course, a very big part of this is screen contrast, blurring/lag, resolution, screen size and how far away from your face it is. Part of it affects the effective size and thus visibility of the 'dot' (assuming it is just 1 pixel), and the other affects the effective size of the surface you are viewing the game on.

There is a wide variety in all these factors which, of course, is why some people have more difficulty (apart from eyesight) seeing the 'dots' or aircraft generally ingame than others.