Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:47 PM
Sturm_Williger Sturm_Williger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss View Post
...
Yep. They call it it wonderwoman view and icons!

Just kidding, sorry.Couldn't resist.
I understand about the icons, natch, but I'm not talking about the e/a diving under the nose, I'm talking about following him, but you can't distinguish between the e/a and the ground textures - not for longer than perhaps 2-3 maybe 4 seconds, but that can be a long time ...

So I was wondering if they've found a way to make it stand out a bit better ( not asking for a glowing target, just want the object 200m away to stand out somewhat better from the ground 1000m away... ) - or is it just my eyes and monitor and no one else has noticed this ?
  #502  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:51 PM
MoHaX MoHaX is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
A dot can't be smaller than a pixel. Smaller resolutions gives you larger pixels. Therefore distant dots will always be larger at smaller resolutions.
Thats true, but you can blend dot color with background on low res and left it black on high res. This will make dots less visible on lower resulotions.
  #503  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Redwan Redwan is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
May have had more to do with how you said it?

If people are respectful they can usually say what they want.
Why isn’t it respectful to say that the dev team is very (several years) late with the making of the whether effect ?
  #504  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:54 PM
Igo kyu's Avatar
Igo kyu Igo kyu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger View Post
or is it just my eyes and monitor and no one else has noticed this ?
Quite possibly it is your monitor. I had a CRT monitor once that made seeing enemies against the ground impossible. With LCD monitors it's better, for me.
  #505  
Old 02-07-2011, 01:58 PM
swiss swiss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zürich, Swiss Confederation
Posts: 2,266
Default

Ok, it get ~6.5km at 1680*1050
-4.10
-Forgot to note alt, I think it was 8km, clouds off.
  #506  
Old 02-07-2011, 02:00 PM
Novotny Novotny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwan View Post
Why isn’t it respectful to say that the dev team is very (several years) late with the making of the whether effect ?
Because you are implying that you have a better idea of how they should allocate their time then they have.
  #507  
Old 02-07-2011, 02:01 PM
HFC_Dolphin HFC_Dolphin is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 340
Default

Actually, we do have to have better visibility than in IL-2.
Those who have flown and took a seat in a real cockpit know that visibility and awareness is much better in real life than what we've experienced in IL-2.

I hope that we never experience again those invisible green planes that could just fly over a forest and never be seen and other similar cases.
  #508  
Old 02-07-2011, 02:03 PM
Blackdog_kt Blackdog_kt is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kraken View Post
What people really mean when asking about the "dots" is this: will LODs only depend on distance, or also on object size, resolution and field of view? Because if the switch to a dot representation only happens when the render size is about one pixel, then there's no issue anymore.
Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss View Post
Sure. But here we are talking about the moment where the plane is still a tiny dot.
What do you do with this information?
At this stage you don't know whether it's friend or foe - all you know is there's an aircraft.

(the direction of the plane doesn't help too much, I often penetrate hostile airspace just to stab them in the back on their way to the front )
You are partially right, however there are cases when it does make a difference. A lot depends on altitudes, relative positioning and closing speeds, so for example if there's two guys approaching each other head on at 500km/h an extra 2 or 5 km of spotting distance give you a better window of time in which to respond (or a worse one in which to be surprised).

I still remember one of my online kills with a Fw190A from a few years back on my 17" CRT monitor at 1280x1024, where i spotted a lone dot against the fog almost an entire map grid away (about 7-8km) at my 10 o'clock low. I set into a pursuit curve and a shallow dive, adjusted my course by observing the dot's movement and just waited to get close enough for identification before pulling the trigger. As it turned out i had flown an almost perfect curve and doing close to 700km/h by the point he was about to cross from left to right across my windscreen, i looked closer and identified it as a Pony and let him have it. It was very satisfying because it was a kill based solely on SA, speed and surprise done in a single firing pass.

I can't replicate that in my 22" LCD at 1680x1050 however. I tried some QMB missions with icons on to judge the difference and it seems the dots can be spotted a little while before the icons kick in, at a little more than 5.5 km, and that's against the sky. Against the ground they could be sneaking up on me just fine and making it to within 3km or less.

In any case, much will depend on how CoD will deal with making camouflage useful at long range while not having planes blend into the background at point blank like it used to happen with IL2 (the problem described by Sturm Williger).

Who knows, maybe we'll have sun glinting off the canopies and other reflections, or the LOD scaling will be so good and the aircraft standing out from the backgrounds that it won't be an issue at close range but the camo will still be effective at long range. Anyway, i trust they'll do their best to do a good job on this so i'm not terribly worried. Just the fact it will support widescreen resolutions right off the bat will improve things considerably, since it's built for them from the ground up and not "forced" to used them on an engine build for 1024x768 resolutions like IL2 is.

Finally in response to Royraiden, a monitor has a much smaller resolution than the human eye. There was in fact a challenge of spotting planes in real life too and yes, sometimes it's hard even for white or brightly painted airliners to spot each other. However, the superior resolution of the human eye will pick up on movement and can distinguish silhouettes at a much higher distance. Since we can't have that with a monitor, in order to simulate how it works in real life there must be a way to offset the disadvantage.

So, in reality it's hard to spot a single dot with no apparent motion but it's far easier to make out the plane's outline and identify it once you pick him up visually and at longer ranges. On our PCs it's the opposite due to hardware limitations, they give us long range spotting of the dots because they can't give us long range silhouette on a PC monitor.


Apart from spotting issues now,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered_IV View Post
One more question Luthier and I'll leave you alone

Probably the one feature I really hope to see in CoD is improved crew interaction. Can you comment on AI crews, will gunners call out surface and air contacts? Will navigators give you course headings and corrections, and will bomb aimers guide you in on the bomb run?

The crew members of other sims are really only decoration and it would make the player feel far less alone (and much more immersed in the sim) if their virtual comrades could fulfil their basic functions within the aircraft.

Hope you can answer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkOwl View Post
Luthier, thank you for these interesting, well written answers. The gag is finally starting to come off. You seem like you had an itch to share all this cool stuff your team has been developing over the past few ages.

Can you talk a bit about how (AI) crew members can be interacted with? Classical example is the rear gunner of the Bf110. He is mostly quiet in IL-2, and cannot speak at all in multiplayer. There was talk from Oleg of improving this area. I'll write the points numbered so replying should be a quick breeze. I expect 'No' as answer to most, but I'm curious enough to ask. Think of it as possibilities if nothing else.

1. Better contact reports?
2. Feeding information of someone on one's tail?
3. ..Perhaps prompted by the player by a button?
4. Instructions on his general behavior?
5. Does he have morale? Panic? Hot on the trigger?
6. Bail out without permission (panic mode)?7. MG-FF's had to be reloaded by this bordfunker in reality.
8. Report visual damage to own plane he sees? (smoke trail from engine, control surfaces damaged and so on)
9. Gets affected by your maneuvering?
10. Navigation & radio (I'm sure not).
Very interesting points, i'd love to see something like that.
Or if we can't have that on release, maybe a possibility to include a scripting language in the SDK for the community to implement similar functions on their own would be even better.
  #509  
Old 02-07-2011, 02:17 PM
Dano Dano is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Petersfield UK
Posts: 1,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).
The problem with this approach is that not all 1920x1080 (insert whatever resolution) displays are the same size and thus it'll just move the advantage/disadvantage to another group of users.

If a system can be interrogated to ascertain the physical dimensions of the display along with the resolution or just the dot-pitch then a universal transparency/size could possibly be implemented, this would however be almost impossible for any users with projection displays as there is no way that I am aware of for the computer to know exactly how big the projection ends up.
  #510  
Old 02-07-2011, 02:32 PM
MoHaX MoHaX is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post
Actually it would be very good if the amount of pixels used for a given aircraft at a given distance would scale with the resolution used. For example, up to 1280x1024 a fighter at 5km would be 2-pixel dot, but at 1920x1080 the same fighter at the same distance would be 10-pixel dot, etc (numbers arbitrary for example's sake).
I thought its the same nowdays. If airplane can be displayed in current res it is rendered as 3d model which occupies multiple pixels, as soon as model calculated screend size goes beyond 1 pixel it starts to be rendered as simple 1 pixel until it completely disappear
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.