A potential fix for the Aircraft visibility problems?
 

Salute

As everyone who flys this sim knows, nothing is more frustrating than having your eye on a dot which you KNOW is an enemy aircraft, and then having it disappear from view just as you close to within Identification range.

This is a function of the game's LOD models, these are a step forward in the sense there are 7 of them instead of the 3 in IL-2 1946, but at the same time they are also one of the game's biggest failings.

The issue is the developers have not taken into account the notion of depth of field and the fact an aircraft in 3 dimensions is not going to be at the same focal length as the objects behind it, especially when those objects are quite distant.

When you focus your eye on an aircraft, the background will almost invariably be out of focus, simply because of the separation in distance between the foreground and the background.

Your own eye's focus brings the foreground aircraft into sharp focus, in effect creating a boundary between it and the background, which is out of focus. This allows your eye to separate the object from the background. Conversely, if you are looking at a background, and another object passes in front of your eye and in front of the background, you will pick up the difference in focus, the object will appear initially blurred, and your eye will automatically snap into focus on it.

Of course we are dealing with a 2 D game, attempting to replicate real life. How to do this?

The solution, if the game can handle it, is quite simple.

As it stands now, an aircraft LOD model which is passing in front of a similarly coloured background, ie. a camoflauged aircraft, will blend into the background, there is no depth of field, and no way for your eye to focus directly on the aircraft. This is particularly the case with CoD with its pastel colourings and the fact there is no reflection modelled.

Some players have a solution for this, they turn down the resolution to enable them to spot their enemy easier. And maybe this does make it easier to pick out your opponent, but what is the point of a game with all the graphics highlights of this one having to be uglified to be playable?

The solution is to highlight the edges of the LOD models with a darker colouring. In effect, you are drawing a sharp line around the edge of the object, in the same way your eye does with focal length, and by doing so, you are causing it to stand out against the background, as it would in real life.

Of course the question is, can the game be programmed and can the graphics models be modified?

Hoping this does happen, because right now the current situation is neither realistic or playable.

I do not have this problem:confused:

You would need a "Focus on Target" setting button, which would boka the background and double vision the foreground... as well as the "target" set as 3d in all LoD's.

But, that only works when viewing in close range... viewing from off at a distance the sim would need to deal with, it doesn't happen that way


even then, some wouldn't find the target and complain...

The eye doesn't put a "black edge" to objects and the further the objects are away from the viewer, the more they go to grey


Basically, what you want is three monitors (at least) with each projection onto each monitor set to 20 ~ 25 degrees. NOT as current when using one, two or three monitors , which has the FoV set to 60 ~75 degrees across the spread

In my opinion the air target's distant spot should be 3*3 pixels, with light pixels on the outside and dark pixels on the inside (or vice versa, doesn't make a difference). Meanwhile, ground targets should still be the current size and shade.

i fully agree with the OP, and in fact it was exactly that what i was thinking about two days ago...how to make the contacts better visible in a realistic manner....

a focus on target button would be horrible in my honest opinion...maybe optional for not full real servers...but definitely not as a "always available option".

the most annoying fact about the disappearing contacts is, that it was not the case with the release version.it was still hard to spot enemy planes, but at least, they didnt disappear completely like spits do now for example.
making the edges darker sounds like a solution...it wouldnt be possible in the case where the aircraft is visible only as a dot of one pixel,...but in that distance, the pixel is visible good enough anyway in my opinion...the real problem starts, when the aircraft is getting closer and switches from being a dot to being a 3d model.

Did any of you tried MeshShowLod=1 in conf.ini?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28085

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA. We have no crisp images at much over 30m away so at a few kilometers away, while trying to keep track of this dot, it looks like a tearing small blob on your screen. AA would be a start IMO. I do not like the LOD issues at all.

is far from "realistic :cool: you might as well just ask for a flashing neon arrow pointing to the target

Now I am wondering if my 120HZ is a factor

That would be the case with the people that have difficulties to see the dots, when the dots are there... But when there is no dot nor 3D model at all in the transition from dot to 3D model AA would do nothing.

Of course may be difficult to distinguish between one problem and the other...

well and your focuse on target button is?:grin:

and it would be at least more realistic than what we currently have to cope with...planes that disappear completley a few hundred meters in front of you.

so would a flashing neon arrow... (did you actuially read the whole post, or just have a knee jerk reaction triggered carry-on to that one part?)

the disappearing trick is a bug - you are aware of that, aren't you??

If you are sure that they really disappear MeshShowLod=1 solves that.

well go ahead with your flashing neon arrow and focus target button!
worthless to talk to you...

i know about that,...unfortunately it has a major performance hit on my rig, so its not useful for me.

S!

Original IL-2 had these LOD problems where you could barely see certain planes at distances but Bf109 was always a big blob on the screen making it easy to spot them. This was solved for UP by a guy who checked the LOD values of all planes and made them transition much smoother thus making ID more viable for BOTH sides of the fence.

What I do not understand why is it so damn hard to make it better? You can blame WoP or it's sequels from being arcade but at least you can ID a plane and it does NOT disappear in front of you among other things I won't go into. Future proof game engine does not mean you need a phantasmagorically awesome rig to even run it to get disappearing stuff etc. but an engine that has as solid base to build upon. And CoD does not have that at the moment unless devs pull off a miracle in sequel.

And had to vent, really not inviting to play if I have to drop resolution from my native 1920x1080 to actually be able to see anything while uglifying the game in the process..

Your pc is rendering planes that didn't have to render before, I think it's normal...

It's really so big the fps drop?

Actually... it is your (equivalent of) flashing neon arrow. SOmething else you haven't read fully??

S!

Tested the ShowFirstLod and has no impact on FPS...now testing the other one.

yeah, unfortunately....normally i have around constant ~60fps
with meshshowlod enabled, i get ~15fps and heavy stutters as soon as there are more than 5planes around.

but i have a weak pc....some squadmates have it enabled and report no real performance difference....others tried to enable it, and see no difference in visibility...its strange.
but certainly worth a try for everybody.

S!

Sure has an impact on FPS that one..

yeah that one indeed doesnt seem to affect performance, but it doesnt seem to affect the visibility either...

S!

Could really use some more info on conf.ini on the settings..or the devs could just make the UI use them instead of trial and error we have now. Any decent UI in games has both basic and advanced settings that control the MOST used and featured items in the graphics. Only those HC guys tweak more but as a normal user you should not need this..AT ALL!

MeshFirstLod only added some kind of low detail cockpit under the "real" cockpit when I tested it long time ago. It's just MeshShowLod what changes the LOD transitions.

now that CoD has become playable for many of us in the last few months, it is clear there is a major problem in CoD with distant aircraft/ground-object (like tank/truck) spotting as there was in the il2 series. it is important to try and fix this because for a "ww2 pilot simulator" to be able to have correct visual spotting/identification/tracking distances for these distant objects (crucial in a dogfight or hunting for ground targets), otherwise you end up flying in a myopic mini-bubble of SA. for ex in il2 series you needed to fly at 300 m from the ground to try and spot a tank/truck, yet ww2 reports from pilots doing ground attack state they could spot enemy tanks in open fields or on roads from 1000 to 1250 meters, that difference is HUGE compared to our visibility problems in il2/CoD

note: to get a real sense of the degree of the visibility problem, you need to set your CoD/il2 monitor to the correct FoV setting for the size monitor you have and the distance you sit from it (which in CoD we cant directly adjust, but in il2 series we could). eg using a "zoomed" view is not an excuse/reason to pretend we have correct visibility, you never heard of a hurricane or typhoon pilot using a pair of binoculars while diving in on a ground target (or having one strapped to his helmet). there have been several threads over the years (including in this forum) discussing that in great detail, the facts are fairly simple. for ex the "normal" view we now have (70 FoV) is only normal (ie "correct") if you have a 30' monitor you sit at arms length from, if you use that on a 24' or 20' screen all distant objects will look MUCH smaller (by about 30 - 50%). using the zoomed 35 FoV migh partially overcome that (but will zoom in to much and hence magnify things) but gives a very tunnel vision perspective of the game and is not solution either for obvious reasons.
- the reason i mention this is because if you want to truly solve the distant LoD model visibility problem, for a start your FoV needs to be setup correctly for your monitor size, and only then will all ingame objects be represented 1:1 in their correct sizes

once FoV is set correctly, our problem is that :
- we are using a flat 2 dimensional monitor that tries to represent a small distant 3 dimensional object which moves (or is stationary) against a flat 2D scenery, and it blends in with the background scenery and there is no difference in "depth of focus" or 3D our eyes can work with (as the OP described int he first post of this thread)
- the distant LoD model is under ideal viewing conditions (for ex from directly above or in front) shaped as a coherent cluster of pixels that still represents the shape of the aircraft, BUT if you see it at a slightly different angle (since both you and it are moving) in most circumstances that little cluster of pixels will become jumbled and less coherent and will loose the shape of the aircraft it represents, making it MUCH harder to keep track of (it might have gone from 12 black pixels in the rough shape of an aircraft, to being 3 black pixels in one blob with a few grey ones around it and a couple of other "unattached" black pixels). easier to understand with a screenshot, will try and post one later
- some LoD models might stand out reasonably well against open blue sky, but the same LoD model usually becomes completely invisible against a terrain background (where in RL it would still be MUCH easier to spot). so what we need is instead a "visual representation" (modified LoD model concept) that stays visible against the terrain background more, but doesnt become to glaringly ugly and prominent when the same LoD model is seen against open blue sky

some possible solutions discussed in previous years:
- make all the smaller LoD models much darker (or a bright blue ?) so they stand out more (instead of sing a paint scheme that aims to represent the real color of the object it represents)
- give the smaller LoD models "3D volume" by using something like bump mapping, so they stand out more against the scenery background
- paint the smaller most distant LoD models in "non realistic" colors so they stand out more (or use some highlighting method around the edge of the shape, as the OP suggests)
- instead of focusing on having distant very small LoD models maintaining the shape of the aircraft they represent (which is done very poorly anyway because our smallest pixels arnt small enough to give that level of detail), use instead a "blob" or fixed larger number of black/grey pixels of some shape that makes the object stand out a bit more and overcome the problem we have of using a 2D screen. once you come closer to it, or use the zoom function, the larger LoD models would still keep the shape of the object of course.

note: there is one important variable in people reporting their degree of "distant object visibility" in CoD/il2. in the past, those that had the least problems identifying distant objects were those using the cheapest gaming monitors. these cheap gaming panels are usually TN technology and are 6 bit color (compared to most mid range and better quality panels being 8 bit color and using MVA/PVA or IPS technology).
- because these 6 bit panels are very poor at representing a large gradient in grey scales and color tones, a small moving distant object (which due to constant lighting changes on that object, is constantly slightly changing in tone/brightness/color) is very hard for these panels to recreate in great detail and display these subtle variations, so they have to constantly flip between different steps in the shades of grey (an 8 bit monitor has more "steps" and can display a greater range of shades of grey and color tones, so it is a much smoother transition). the more gross these "steps" in the 6 bit panels in trying to display the small cluster of pixels representing the distant little aircraft LoD model painted in grey/color, this results in a "flickering" that makes the moving object stand out much more against its background (for the same reason these 6 bit screens are bad at representing a uniform black/grey background in movies, where this flickering is very noticeable once you know what to look for)

i would suggest that people who claim not to have a significant visibility problem state
1) the field of view (FoV) they are using, and DONT use a zoomed view (because it is like using binoculars)
2) state the brand/model of screen they use
3) then compare object visibility to what it would be like as seen in a similar real life situation

I'm not sure that there is a problem with the game itself. I just turned on icon to find the distance I was viewing perfectly fine without the icons on. It turned out to be 1.96 Spit1 the furthest we were separated in this test (so is'nt that 2000 yards), and I had no problem tracking the dot itself. In fact as the AI was positioning for a landing, his wings would clearly show against the darker terrain. I think its very important that if a pilot looses contact, to then look where it should be and it will be picked up again...in short it does not disappear, at least with off-line.

Turn off FXAA if you are using it. I couldn't spot dots for crap till I turned it off. Post processed anti-aliasing will filter out 1px dots pretty easily.

I actually kind of like the how planes get camouflaged against the background, it just takes a lot more practice to spot planes.

My strategy is to move a little, pause my head, and scan the WHOLE screen with only my eyes moving, then move on to the next section of the sky. Kind of like a robot.

When your head is not moving and your eyes focus on one area of the screen, it's much easier to pick out moving objects.

+1 Zapatista. Concur with recommendations.

For me, the "dot" issue is one of the 2 biggest issues in the sim at this time. I like your suggestions. There are of course, several related visibility issues which make this spotting problem in VFR conditions even worse:

- Contrails are not rendered at this time.
- When contrails were rendered, the max visibility range was too low. On a clear day one should see contrails many miles away.

The second major issue in the simulation is the inabilty for any of our aircraft to operate at altitudes greater than 6-7 km's.

In essence, the dot visibility issue mentioned here + lack of contrails + loss of contrail visibility, really forces multi-player into an Eastern Front style of air combat. The majority of MP action one finds on servers is below 3 Km.

Why? Practicality. Can't see, can't operate at higher altitudes and even if I could I can't see too well. Too much of that great Channel map is unusable to fairly blind pilots who can't operate their aircraft at typical Western European combat altitudes.

What can you do in this situation: Take bombs, sneak in at low altitude, make attack - go home, land - get points.

hiya slipball,
i looked up the monitor listed in your spec list, and altho panel technology is not a perfect predictor, it has been shown in the past that is a major variable. you personally will have significantly less problems spotting dots and distant small LoD models, because the monitor you are using is 6 bit color and has the "advantages" (in il2) that i mentioned earlier

Planar SA 2311W = 6bit TN panel (http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...-34512572.html)
also make sure you are not using a zoomed view when trying to spot/track or identify distant objects (for the purposes of our discussion here)

OK Zap thanks, I thought everyone was blind for a minute:-P

last yr i made a detailed post on the 6 bit versus 8 bit lcd monitor issue, found here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=58

its a summary of what was extensively discussed in some of the main il2 forums in previous yrs, and this issue was only identified as a significant variable after many yrs of having some people claim they had no problems spotting dots/lod's, when under exactly the same conditions (even with playing a track of the same event) some others could not see anything.

credit goes to the others who helped identify this :)

I totaly agree with BUZZSAW point of view.
But I have my own idea about how to give a solution to the problem.

First I would like to say that I am 100% to the factor Simulation, as real as the real thing the better.

But we have to agree that the actual interface (vitual reality. Display, grafics, trackir, joystick) have its limitations.

So I will go for the follow possible solution.

First, increase the spot visibility distance (plus than the real spot visibility for a determinated airplane dimensions). This is a point less in the Sim factor, but I think somehow this will compensate the interface limits. At that distance stage the plane will be represented by a black point, and it dimension not related to the current scale distance dimension, just a black point that could be easily spotted on the display.

At closer distances, when the plane begins to be represented by the 3D model first LOD´s, with a over scaled highlight sun refection effect when the spotted plane is to by seen from an above position and no changes when seen from a lower point of view, because we will have a lot of contraste from the object with the lighty sky.

Same process to by aply for the ground target objects.

Just my 2cents.

Regards

from a previous post i made in this forum a couple of yrs ago. my humble apology for another text wall, but since it is a complex issue we all aim to get resolved, the technical detail in the variables involved does matter :)

A Basic description of the visibility problem for distant aircraft in the il2/CoD 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)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298118464

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 in il2 series 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 already 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 because it "blends in more" with whatever is displayed behind it. in real life the 3 dimensional little object stands out against the background more (as understood in modern neuroscience, 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:
-more Lod models are now provided in CoD/SoW series, which means a finer transition and potentially more distant viewing distance before it transitions to the small "dot" sadly we now see in CoD this is not a solution in the way the Lod models are currently painted/displayed. the new method of representing distant aircraft/tanks/trucks is better, but its visibility implementation is not.
- oleg seemed to understand this problem when repeatedly put to him, and there were indications (from early preview video's) that he might have implemented the "little 3D blob" method to make them stand out a bit more in CoD (a bump mapped little blob would take much less computing power, and would visually more closely represents an object the human eye can detect and track on a flat 2D computer screen.
the bad news: sadly there was no sign of this new implementation method in the final release. in some of the CoD preview video's released earlier the distant dots of bomber formations on the screen looked like small individual water droplets rather then the previous flat pixel clusters. this would mean the distant object keeps its volume and visibility much more and stands out from the background more on our pc screens, and imho it could have been an elegant solution to trying to represent a distant aircraft on current 2D pc display technology (which has by its very nature significant limitations in representing distant 3 dimensional objects).

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

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298119339

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 !

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1297259136

so instead of seeing a solid "aircraft looking pixel group" coming your way, in the il2/CoD game series you catch intermittent glimpses of a jumbled shape of loose pixels coming your way instead (and this is against open blue sky), but this is NOT the case in real life when it stays a solid object (because your eye resolution is higher then your pc display resolution, eg look at Mac's newer screens claiming "retina" high resolution (bit of a market gimmick, but you get the idea).

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.

II: one important issue is that 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)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298171510
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 had in il2-4.08 a "4 pixel dot" representing a very distant aircraft (ie, a distant one 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. the dot issue is however somewhat less serious in CoD because the greater amount of LoD models allows (presumably) more accurate distant drawing of very small objects

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 inferior 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 and deal with the fact we are looking at a 2D monior rather then looking out a window in real life, so these ingame objects are more 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 and CoD 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

zapatista, waiting for any changes from the team may take awhile. Why not just buy a Planar SA 2311W, if I remember right it, was only 220.- or so. :)

because compensating for one error by introducing other errors just leads to further problems down the line :) i, and most people here, also use their pc setup for a whole host of other purposes, and reducing quality has other flow on effects. i agree with you however that for people buying a new monitor for il2/CoD, this is something they should maybe consider. but then again we also need to advise those people to set their monitors to lower resolutions so dots and LoD models stand out more (and distort their color setups, a well calibrated monitor is again a potential disadvantage)

or instead luthier could fix the dot/LoD visibility issue, and we can all enjoy the glory of the new CoD scenery in its greatest beauty possible, as well as our hardware will allow :)

i prefer option b) :)

btw, using a 6 bit monitor doesnt really "solve" the issue, it just makes it significantly easier to spot a small moving dot (eg il2/CoD distant aircraft) against a static terrain scenery. even with that "glitter artifact" present under those conditions it still doesnt provide correct viewing/spotting/tracking/identification distances in CoD. for ex just try and fly over an airfield at 1250 meters and look down to see if you can spot static parked small aircraft or see individual vehicles driving around, i bet you cant :) (dont use a zoomed view, use a correct FoV for your monitor size only !!). yet in real life you could/can, that's the issue. its just that during these debates a small group of people has *less* of an issue with this, and that is where the 6 bit monitors come in

I took the zapatista challenge:-P, and yes the static aircraft are clearly visible for me 1250m. I had a truck driving around the aircraft, I would spot it, and then loose it at times...I'll edit, and post some shots...let me say that the shots are not as clear as viewed while flying

Sunrise, 1250m, 12 static Bf 109, one truck...just past wing end

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...5_115026-1.jpg


high noon, just ahead of leading edge

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...5_114317-1.jpg

lol, great :)

why dont you take this one step further and make it usefull for the rest of us !

make a recording track of your "event" so the rest of us can replay it on our own CoD and see what visibility we have. if i understand correctly how the il2 tracks work, and somebody correct me if i am wrong, playing the track will in effect recreate the event on our pc using our own CoD program (and use its detail and option settings) so the distant LoD and dots are recreated, not just "displayed as a recorded video clip" (if you see what i mean)

if that is correct, it should work fine as a comparison method to determine who can see what on their different systems

SlipBall, please make sure you are at 1200 meters and dont use a "zoomed view", because that is the equivalent of using a pair of binoculars strapped to your pilots head. use "normal view" (untill hopefully in the next patch luthier will allow us to set specific FoV's we are stuck with the 3 pre-defined ones). planes parked on the ground must be stationary (truck/tank can be driving around)

ps: dont have a truck "driving around the aircraft" plz (creates the same repeated movements in one specific location), just have a truck driving from point A to point B somewhere on the airfield, or drive in a wide loop as you might want to overfly the airfield several times. a single or multiple trucks driving on a small open road is also a good sample for our purposes.

OK, just one thing though, this will be the first track I ever made (crazy right!). How do you/where will I find it/ how do I package it?

when you make the track, give it a name that is easy to identify, because you then next need to go look in the folder where il2/CoD saves its tracks. then just rar or zip up the track into an archive file and upload it on the web somewhere :)

slipball,
i cant see anything there at your wingtip that would specifically represent a small prop aircraft or a truck, and i expanded the screenshots you posted to full size on my 27' monitor and looked over the area just above your wing tip with a magnifying glass :)

i dont doubt you see something, but i dont think it illustrates what allied pilots were describing when talking about going on a free hunt after the normandy invasion, and being able to pick out individual german tanks/trucks stationary in a field, or moving on a road. even if there was something to see in the screenshot you posted, i think it would represent what YOU can see on your setup, rather then have each of us looking at the same scenery from the same distances on our own pc setups.

a ingame recorded track might do that (hopefully somebody here knows more about how they work exactly when replayed on other pc's)

edit:
Replaced the broken track file, see below

Wow! you really are blind!:-P...with my monitor, I could have air superiority over each, and all of you:-P...screenshots are like 60/70% of what I see

made a track, photobucket can't seem to get it downloaded all the way:confused: file is below screenshot...how about this shot from 1200m, I moved the aircraft's to nearby the hangers, added 3 He111, and 1 tank on the move...as a side note, even when you get far away from the hangers, and they begin to fade/disappear, the aircraft remain visible!!...another interesting thing Zap, is that the aircraft shimmer just like a target in game. I think it is the yellow paint and the angle of the sun on them.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...015_133106.jpg

1000m

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...015_153254.jpg

800m

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...015_153438.jpg

600m


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...015_154741.jpg

the 3 he111's stand out very visibly as a glittering/shimmering cluster of "something", partic from one angle (at the start of your track) when the sunlight must hit them just right, then the middle part of your track as you round the bottom part of your "go around" loop they are pretty invisible to me, and then again become visible at the end of your "loop" (which is the exact opposite view point where previously they had been so visible, so probably again the sunlight angle reflects off them).

the single aircraft you parked a bit further away is not visible for me (barely if i use a magnifying glass to view the exact spot i think it is in), and the truck/tank is also not visible. i do get a faint hint of it when at one point i think it kicks up some dust, but all the rest is invisible to me (i can sometimes spot where i think he is with the magnifying glass)

for the purpose of our comparison here, the cluster of 3 he111's is probably to large, 2 or 3 single fighters scattered somewhere on the airfield might be a better measuring stick, but the driving vehicle/tank is illustrating the problem well for me, it is basically invisible unless i exactly already know where he is and then use a magnifying glass to confirm it is a small moving object (and neither is the single engine fighter)

1/2 the time in the video you posted i cant actually see them (the 3 he111's), 1/4 of the time they are very visible (as glittering/shimmering cluster, not as individual aircraft), and the last 1/4 i kinda can see something if i know where to look (but again cant see them as aircraft)

maybe the "remain visible" (to you) is similar or related to the bug that some people reported, where distant aircraft can be seen through clouds ? (which would be a bug)

ok this issue is complicated, but very interesting and some good comments and tests where already made....from my point of view, with my setup, i dont have a problem with spotting targets in the far distance...

but unfortunately because of my weak system, i have to lower my resolution to maintain fluid gameplay.
i tested it a couple of times, how the game looks when playing at native resolution, and even then, i have no problems with spotting those dots 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.(they are visible through clouds and hills as well).for example if i cross the channel, i can see all the static objects placed on the map at Hawkinge for example easily when im still closer to the french coast...they appear as deep black dots or small lines.

the problem to spot targets starts, when they get their 3d model,....or some seconds before, as some just completely disappear(like the spitfire).

the planes/objects suddenly switch from those deep dark black dots, to grey shimmering/(partly) disappearing objects...
i think that shimmering/disappearing is the biggest problem with keeping track of them.
i think as well, that it only looks like shimmering, but is in fact a temporary vanishing of certain parts of the objects.
(maybe if the devs would change that, and make those invisible parts look like reflections, it could help us tracking targets in a more realistic manner)

on a sidenote, ive noticed on atag a few days ago, that they have indeed reflections modeled sometimes in certain situations...i became aware of that, during a mission which started in the early morning before sunrise...as soon as the sun made its way to the horizon, i saw the pink/red colour reflected on a squadmate's plane...looked good convincing, and was good visible as well, although he was still pretty far away.

anyway, since release, the devs have obviously adressed this issue a few times already....i remember a patch, where suddenly all the planes appeared as white dots on the screen, to resemble reflections...that was way too visible, and didnt look convincing at all...
but i remember as well, that the "disappearing" problem, was not there at the release version of the game.if i remember correctly, planes disappear only since the last official steam patch...before that, they switched from beeing a dot to being a shimmering somewhat...now there is a gap between these two modes, where nothing is visible at all...it as well seems, as they have adressed this issue now with the latest beta patch for most of the planes, but i still have the problem with the spitfire for example..

its annoying, that i can see objects over half the channel with ease, but struggle to track a spit 500meters in front of me, and lose it as soon as it dives above terrain...

My problem is losing aircraft in the Haze! as they are the same colour (light grey) as the Haze! This is incorrect as proven with photographs, aircraft as long range appear as black dots, as BOB pilots keep mentioning when talking about German formations .. "a sky full of black dots". This is because the light reflecting off far, dark aircraft loses most of the light before it gets to your eyes. Opposed to that, reflective aircraft (US) would glint brightly.

So .. i like the idea of darkening aircraft @ long range .. shouldn't be too difficult ?

.

david,

what type of monitor do you use (brand model and name plz) and what resolution do you play ?

using less then native resolution will introduce another variable, since i/we have no idea if that also affects distant LoD visibility. the most distant aircraft 'dots" are then obviously bigger, because dots in il2/CoD are defined as a little cluster of a specific number of pixels

one good thing about CoD is that distant aircraft seen against a backdrop of water/ocean, or the sky, stand out much more then in the old il2 series. probably the increase number of LoD models is responsible for this. but as a stationary or moving object against a terrain background we have a MAJOR problem still (for most users)

Which is why we need to have the LOD models redone.

I think the Developers should open this issue to allow the community to see what they can do to solve the problem, there is not that much work to be done, and I think people would be motivated.

Right now the developers likely are not interested in spending the time.

Either that or we need to have reflection modelled properly, but that is probably not going to happen at earliest till BoM.

Reflection makes all the difference in RISE OF FLIGHT, you spot the LOD models regularly when sun reflects off a wing.

totally agree buzzsaw!
i think the community would be well motivated....for me right now this is the most pressing issue with clod...
but i think, that it wouldnt be that much work for the devs either...i think only minor adjustments would be necessary to get a somewhat realistic visibility...

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??

S!

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

"the correct FoV for any monitor is between 60 ~ 75 degrees... and "zooming" in or out, is an adjustment of the FoV.

Field of View does funny things with Depth of Field, and that is where your "problem" is.


ATM, the FoV for outside view in the sim is set to (iirc) 30 degrees


Seriously.. if you want the "problem" solved, get three monitors and set the view port on each monitor to 20 ~ 25 degrees... don't put 60 ~ 75 degrees across the whole thing ;).
This puts the monitors into the viewer's 60 degree of vision and gives the more realistic real world seeing without flying in myopic tunnel vision

what is you monitor model number and brand plz ?

From a earlier release just as a comparison

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

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

here you go zap:

GERICOM 19"
Model: MT9FNK

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

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).

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".

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)

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

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.

S!

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

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.

OK, from 1200m sun high, aircraft can still be spotted, but its more of a particular one that glitters and gets your attention. Moving mid size ground vehicles are easy to spot and track, but you would need to drop down to be able to identify exactly what it is.

thx flanker,
http://www.prad.de/en/guide/screen7358.html
so again another TN monitor (giving the better distant LoD/Dot visibility)

yeah thats pretty much it, even if i fly in native resolution, the dots in the far distance are smaller, but still good visible....unfortunately i have to fly in low res, but that doesnt give me a real advantage...

as already mentioned, my problems start in medium distances, where contacts start to flicker and disappear...

interesting about TN monitors....as i have no clue about it, it was something new you mentioned.

perfect slipball, that one suits our purposes well :) with no low sun, the glare caused by the reflecting sunlight plays much less of an issue, and we can (try) to just make out the stationary single engine aircraft or moving vehicles.

i basically cant see ANY aircraft on that airfield from that altitude and distance on my screen (a corectly calibrated 27' 8-bit color screen). what i can occasionally see is a few little specs that briefly glitter a little and then disappear from view. i cant make out if its a latrine, a lunch soup van, or an enemy fighter, or potentially even a person holding a little survival mirror and reflecting the sun back at me to attract my attention. from some angles i can occasionally see a dark dot in the same spot where there was glitter before, and that presumably is the same object, but then whatever it was is invisible again a few sec later and no black dot or glitter at all.

if we game-the-game, then knowing something glitters on an open enemy airfield i can safely presume it is going to be an enemy fighter/plane, but i cant SEE it is. eg if there were a few vehicles/planes parked in fields somewhere on the map, with other glittering house/objects spread throughout the map, i have no way to identify one of these objects might be a tank or a parked enemy plane. you can then further use our artificial zoom method (narrowest FoV setting) to scan the ground and look for objects, but that is the same as a real pilot using a pair of binoculars (which obviously wasnt used historically).

now compare this lack of visibility with what you can see from a small modern prop plane at the same altitude, looking either at vehicles or roads, or parked aircraft at your local airfield, the visibility is completely different (and much better, allowing you to identify the individual planes shapes and silhouettes, even color often). and that gentlemen, just about sums up our current problem in CoD. from the multiple threads on this topic over previous years, most experienced pilots of small aircraft will concur with that last "visibility summary" of what it looks like in real life in comparison to the visibility problem we have right now in CoD.

it would be helpful if other people could comment on the airfield object visibility in that last slipball track (so see how much it varies from person to person), and if those with real life flying experience in small aircraft at a similar altitude/speed could comment on what they can specifically make out on the ground compared to what they see in that track (IvanK ?)

note: i suspect the slipball scenery detail is set to medium ? it can obviously be another variable if the scenery is set to very high or low, since in a very bland and sparsely drawn scenery these plane/truck objects will stand out more. but at least we are now all looking at the same tracks and can compare apples with apples :)

the good news is that CoD now runs well enough for most people, that we can actually start to worry about these types of issues and focus on creating a SIMULATOR rather then a "game".

TN based monitors were a good choice many years ago for gamers when most lcd's were still pretty expensive. and initially many of the the mid-range better quality panels (MVA and PVA, both 8 bit color) where not quite fast enough for fast moving games like FPS. but within a few yrs these 8 bit monitors also improved in speed and came down to around 8 - 12 msec (and hence speed wasnt an issue anymore), but they always stayed 30 - 50% more expensive then the TN technology. in the last 3 or 4 yrs with prices having come down so much further, still buying a TN screen is not really justified anymore (unless price is the only selection criteria). if you hear/see a sales pitch of how fast a particular monitor is they are trying to sell you, your next question should always be "sure, but how good is it at doing anything else" :) (eg, how good is it at displaying video, the color and tone quality for detailed images, and what problems does it have with "display artifacts"). and even then dont trust the sales person, go and look for some in depth online reviews from reliable sources.

its all horses for courses tho. if you dont want to spend much money and want as large of a display as you can get for your $, you by very definition will land in the TN price zone. but with more careful background reading you could well end up with a significantly better display at 25-30% more money.

the best type of lcd's (with the most true color fidelity) were always IPS, but at roughly 2 or 3x the price of MVA and PVA only professional gfx artists etc could justify the cost initially. in the last 6 yrs or so prices have radically come down for lcd's, and you can now even buy a cheap korean 27' IPS screen for around 300$ or so for ex (but buyer be aware, not all IPS screens are as good as the specs might sugest). btw, one of the things that makes the screens on the recent iphone series (4, and 5 i think) so nice to look at is not just the higher resolutions they started making them, but they deliberately chose IPS technology (same with Imacs). a similar issue with the new high quality samsung lcd tv's in the last few yrs, the series 8 (top of the line, highest price) uses IPS technology, the series 7 (still very good but one notch lower) uses a MVA type panel i believe (and the soon to be released series 9 is also IPS). for the average TV viewer this might not matter much (most LCD tv's are not properly calibrated or setup anyway), but if you look at good quality source material on a well calibrated panel, the differences can be very significant (a bit like the difference between 480p and 720p). for us, hunting little grey/black dots and "little clusters of jumbled pixels" sliding across the screen against a terrain background, that difference in display technology can be all the difference between "now you see the distant aircraft" and "now you dont" (with in our case, "display artifacts" helping to identify that distant aircraft, so the worse the panel, the easier you can see it)

My settings,...zapatista did you notice fighters on the hanger pads, are always visible.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/Vis.jpg

yea i did, having them contrasted against the uniform color of the concrete makes a big difference, but i cant specifically make them out as individual aircraft, or even that they are aircraft. what i can see is that the little black dots (multi-pixel) representing them stay pretty much constantly visible as you fly around the airfield

btw, you seem pretty comfortably flying that me109, no sense of nationalistic guilt bothering you :P

thanks :)

Ha ha funny...I am of full German decent, but the reason I enjoy the 109 is because of the engineering. I fly red very often too, I love the guns, awesome!

Hi all.

Easiest solution and most realistic solution, turn icons on, not red for allies nor blue for axis just plain grey for both sides with aircraft type from like 5 miles out and you would react realistic to what you see. From that distance, in RL, you can even dinstinguish a Cessna 150 from a 172 and even easier a 109 from a Spit or a Hurricane.

Then it wouldn't even matter what kind off monitor people use nor what resolution they use to spot other planes. To me, a long time glider pilot and PPL, "full switch" = full realism is nonsence due to the fact that you can't id anything more than some hundred yards away without icons.

Regards

One of the most important aspects of WW2 era ACM has to be the visual cues we get from other aircraft prior to engaging.

Going back to the original Il-2 one of the major failings of that game, and more so in CloD, is some planes simply vanish “right in front of you” as the LOD changes. Not only that spotting contacts (read as “dots”) at real life ranges is much more difficult – not just because of our 2-D monitors. Some of the issues with visual cues in CloD rest with the programmers.

Even so there is an idea that, no matter what, more difficulty means more "realism". Given the limitations of our PC hardware the visual cues we get from other aircraft are already significantly less informative and thus "harder" than real life – less realistic.

As a result of the limited visual cues its my opinion that we see less “realistic” air combat in these games as a result. I heard some folks complain about their inability to find combat on a highly populated server – they simply can not find the “dots” and when they do the dots vanish. Some of that has been posted on this forum. Others simply give up on “air combat” and race across the channel to the closest enemy airfield to “vulch”.

Icons are not the answer and I would never fly with icons “on”. However, in a “certain” way icons do allow for more realistic ACM.

I don't have a “solution” but there has to be a better way to represent aircraft at different ranges then what we currently see in CloD - something that would result in better “true to life” air combat.

Wotan

The concept with LODs is alright (and necessary from the technical point of view because the 3d model needs to get less and less complex when further away (= less polygons), it just needs to be tweaked a bit I guess.

For the record. Depth of field does not apply for objects further away than about four meters. Not if you want to simulate the way our eyes sees reality.

An enemy aircraft at a distance closer than four metres will definitely stand out against the background, but for a more obvious reason:-)

The current problem is that when the black spot turn into the first LOD level, the plane is so far way that you just lost the track of it. If they tune that transition (black spot to first LOD level) to a closer distance, lets say about the dist you can start to identify the plane, we will have less problems. I think that will be easy to do, it's just a tunning matter.
Again, an over tuned highlight surface sun reflection effect, will help too.

That could be a good solution too.

Not the case according to real WWII pilots I talked to.

According to them, and I have seen this written in other accounts, the big difference between experienced pilots and rookies, was the ability to focus the eye on several different distances on the same patch of sky when scanning for enemy aircraft. This was a learned skill. A enemy aircraft at a given distance might be missed by the rookie who was focusing only at one particular distance.

i agree with your logic, but there is one problem with that,

when in il2/CoD the very distant "aircraft dot" transitions to the first and then 2e Lod level, it does so because the LoD is actually an object that is LARGER then the previous 4 pixel "dot" (as it should, a closer aircraft should be larger). our problem is that these most distant 2 or 3 LoD levels (getting each time larger as we come closer) are made up of little jumbled clusters of pixels that keeps changing shape (as illustrated earlier in this thread), the end result being your eyes cant focus very well on this cluster of moving pixels and it blends in with the background to much.

keeping these more distant LoD levels as a "dot" for longer will still make them relatively hard to spot (compared to real life situation, because the object should gradually become larger and easier to spot as you get closer). a potentially better solution would be to have them turn into something like for ex a little "blue water droplet" type shape, with the "droplet" getting gradually larger (but lighter in color ?) at the same points in distance that the next 2 or 3 LoD models would engage (blue might be a good choice for this so they wont stand out to much against open sky, because a progressively larger black dot would then stand out to much). that is just one suggestion of how it might work, others here might come up with better idea's

as the object gets closer, it might be sufficient to have the LoD model painted with a black border on its surface (as the OP suggested), so these closer aircraft LoD models stands out more against the background, but this imho would not be sufficient for the most distant LoD models that are just displayed as an incoherent jumble of little pixels (see earlier illustration in this thread)

the problem with that is that the same "reflection" effect also acts on other objects, like houses etc.(as seen in slipballs first track posted recently here) the end result is that the effect (currently) is to strong and the distant aircraft stand out TO MUCH, and lots of other visual effects affect the quality of the scenery to. but we'r on the right track, at least more people are starting to recognize we do have a problem spotting/tracking distant aircraft and ground targets like trucks/tanks (compared to visibility in real life).

You won't get your "reality" with current technology... sorry

Depth of Field applies all the way out to infinity, sorry to say... especially when modifying the FoV in projecting a 3d image onto a 2d screen. :rolleyes:

Yep at 1200m, really only when there is a contrasting back ground such as the concrete, can the aircraft be identified as such. Tanks definitely have zero glitter output so that's a problem, but should be expected to be that way. What I should have done was use a winter skin here and there, and even put a couple of Su 26 on the field.

has anybody actually looked in detail at the LoD models themselves in CoD ? (i think there are 7 for each aircraft)

if some people are reporting a "vanishing" aircraft (several people mentioned this about trying to keep track of a spitfire) from relatively close up (say 500 meters), it is possible that there is an additional issue with LoD model errors, ie in how correct the LoD model drawings/representations are (this could be an issue with the big rush of getting CoD ready for release). like the infamous seafire in the il2 series that was missing wings on the 2e and 3e LoD model, making it MUCH harder to spot once it transitions to the smaller LoD's.

the only way i know to check LoD models in CoD is to zoom out on a paused aircraft suspended against open blue sky, and take a screen shot of each progressive Lod model, and then magnify these screen shots and see exactly how "complete" each aircraft is represented, and the color scheme used for that LoD. there might be a better way (by looking at specific files for ex), but with the amount of vanishing aircraft problems reported by some, i think that might be worth consideration.

I think the majority of the problem has to do with the lack of AA.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg

I agree.

Since some of us don't have the vanishing problem, that would suggest either a monitor issue, or simply a pilot loosing track. As for the airfield at 1200m while using the zoom, aircraft look like aircraft and no problem to id model, details, colors,...not a problem at least for me, and so 'pilot binoculars' should perhaps be in the realism settings??. Seems to me that Zaps point about the monitor using TN is again something to consider.

Not a snipe but ROF handles the problem of LOD's very well, what are they doing and COD not?

Is it the FSAA?

some people have previously suggested that lack in AA can be a factor to some degree, but that the effect created would work in the opposite direction. mainly because lack of AA makes the distant LoD models and "dots" more jagged and square, hence they would stand out more against a background scenery that is more uniform in texture (with some exceptions of certain types of terrain textures probably)

i know that in the old days with il2. some online "point junkies" would use all kinds of tricks to make enemy planes stand out more, to the extent of significantly degrading the overall visual quality of the game: lowered resolution, no AA, special color profile configurations for the game etc

with the greatly improved gfx engine in CoD is this still the case ? i have no idea, we cant compare AA on/off to know. but it is possible, in theory the more detail and the higher the resolution the clearer the picture and the more easy it should be to see them (not true in the past with il2)

currently i dont think luthier has looked at this issue in detail yet for CoD, and during SoW development they have mainly focused on "more lod models will provide a more accurate visual representation" of distant objects drawn in the game (which is true), our issue now is "does the visibility of that distant object reflect what a real pilot would/could see under similar conditions", and the answer to this is a big NO, we are currently flying around in a myopic cocoon with about 1/3 to 1/4 the visibility of these distant objects we should have

How do u do that??

the reason i brought up the TN panel technology is because there is a small number of CoD/il2 users that will complain the least, and that is a consistent variable with them (and as we already saw in this thread, a few posters that had less visibility issues all had TN monitors so far). but i think even for most of them their visibility is still nowhere near as good as it should be, compared to what it would be in real life

the other big issue is "the right FoV setup" for that individuals monitor, and most people will not know about it or for their own reasons prefer to fly with an incorrect FoV to get better peripheral vision (while flying around in a scenery populated by dinky-toy models, or will use the zoom-cheat to search for objects and say "but i can see them fine". people can use the sim as they like, but to define "what is normal" and how bad the visibility problem is in CoD it is the most important setting to be right at the start of any discussion on visibility.

does anybody know if in the files we can have a look at the individual LoD models, or if this is locked and hidden ? (probably is hidden , otherwise you could give all enemy planes a bright fluro orange skin and make them stand out more)

well, what they really want is the bright fluro orange skin... (or flashing neon arrows :)

How bad the visibilty is? the age old "we can't spot the dot" has reared it pathetic head again, pure and simple ;)



http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2...da-flyover.jpg

Maybe on the size issue, maybe not...next time you are on that flat straight highway, observe that Porsche that just passed you as it gets further and further away. I know for me being on the water a lot, other boats, or even vehicles on shore get quite small...1200m is what 3/4 mile, should be easy to set up that distance right in your own neighborhood, for someone to try. With some object to view at a known distance, say an airport or a parking lot vehicle.

I have this problem since the beginning of the sim. As yet I have not found a solution and have given up for the time being. None of the patches have changed this.

For me, as I approach aircraft they first appear at a distance, then as I get closer they dissappear and then as I get closer still they will re-appear.

In the first video the E/A is approached from astern.

Make sure to enlarge the screen and set the vid to HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2K18QZc-TE

In the second video the E/A in a headon pass flickers and then briefly disappears at 2K....It is easier to see with the icons 'on'....As there is a fast closing speed the invisibilty zone is passed through quickly but as you will appreciate going through this zone from behind an aircraft will render it invisible to me for for long periods of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kOjhqmhD38


The solutions I have tried are: Different monitors, MeshShowLod=1, Post processing AA and lower resolution.

None of the above worked.....

Hi gpang
I think there two reasons, the first is I believe with my monitor I have excellent distance viewing quality. The second reason is, I won't continue chasing a dot if I am not making a gain, or it dos'nt feel right for me to devote the time.

no slipball,....its definitely not a a monitor issue nor a pilot loosing track problem...
if i have a spit in my REVI 2km distance i can see it perfectly...
i gain on it,..still in my REVI 1,8km,...its starts to shimmer...
i still come closer,..still in my REVI 1,6km,...its suddenly invisible(if i zoom into it, it suddenly appears again)
there is a distance, where they will become visible again(cant say exactly what it is now).
the reason i know that its not a monitor issue is the fact, that this bug was introduced with one of the patches last year...this problem didnt exist in the release version.

Maybe I did over state, I assume now that this happens on-line?

online and offline its the same problem...

Interesting, I will look further into this to see if I can replicate. Again though zapatista has found that those using TN monitors seem to not notice this.

well slipball, according to zapatista i have a TN monitor!

I don't really know what to say because I don't have the problem, I'm sure others do though...tell me if the dot disappears for you during the veiwing, there is a point at about 1.8 that it gets smaller, but still visible for me all the way to 5.35

yeah and i totally believe you, and some squadmates say that they dont suffer from this either....
i tried as well every possible combination of graphics settings, but to no avail...
all i can say is, that its definitely a ingame problem,...maybe it has to do with how the game handles different systems and how it draws textures according to it...

for example some of us have problems with almost invisible revis, and not loading textures properly....

So David you were unable to track the dot in my file?...not sure what system you have but these are my settings, not sure if a factor.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...Ball/page1.jpg


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...Ball/page2.jpg

I dont think those setting will matter as they only apply to the steam client (run off steam.exe) and not to CloD which runs off launcher.exe (you have to manually add this iirc).

Yea but those are my Global settings as well, launcher is in there too I just didn't bother to use the drop down:)...thanks