Target Dot

[nearmiss]

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

Something along these lines makes sense. I wouldn't care if it was interpreted for a person with best vision. I'm thinking the AI sees the player at around 5 km anyway. '

Real human vision is unbelieveable at times. You can pick up miniscule movement peripherally, yet you can't see a darn thing. A human eye can pick up a miniscule quick flash of light and you know you are not alone. So... in a manner of speaking an 8 km blip or flash periodically would not be unrealistic. So, the tradeoff is a dot or couple pixels at 8km. As I think on it, maybe it's not so bad afterall.

At some point the devs should probably give us a heads up on whats up.

[Faustnik]

I love the new dots.

[SEE]

From above the dots seem to suggest 'reflection' (e.g off the canopy) making it easier to see low flying ac and that seems to work well. May also stop hugging the deck syndrome.

A formation flying overhead, or as you approach at a similar altitude, looks like a formation of flying saucers and doesn't work as well. Getting used to them but they could do with a bit of tweaking regards relative size to distance and at what distance they disssappear.

The main problem is ac suddenly disappear as you close in even though they were visible at a longer distance. (Not the ghosts dot problem)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SEE

The main problem is ac suddenly disappear as you close in even though they were visible at a longer distance. (Not the ghosts dot problem)

Agreed 100%

This is a subjective topic.. but I don't have a problem with the dot size.. it is the dot tranitions and colors.. As SEE noted.. they are ezer to see from a long distance than close up.. Which just 'feels' wrong.. And the problem is the 'sudden' change in the dot color.. it will go from black to light-blue-grayish.. not a transition in colors but a suddent snap change.

On a related subject.. Not sure why.. but the detail of the dot at a distance is.. well.. a dot.

In RoF they seem to figure out a way to actully render something that looks like a plane with wings at a distance.. not just a dot

[David198502]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

Something along these lines makes sense. I wouldn't care if it was interpreted for a person with best vision. I'm thinking the AI sees the player at around 5 km anyway. '

Real human vision is unbelieveable at times. You can pick up miniscule movement peripherally, yet you can't see a darn thing. A human eye can pick up a miniscule quick flash of light and you know you are not alone. So... in a manner of speaking an 8 km blip or flash periodically would not be unrealistic. So, the tradeoff is a dot or couple pixels at 8km. As I think on it, maybe it's not so bad afterall.

At some point the devs should probably give us a heads up on whats up.

that is a really good idea i think!that would resemble reflections much more as they are only apparent in certain angles.
at least its a good idea for far distances.a short flash of light,disappearing again.if you are lucky, you will notice it.as you head into the direction, then the "reflections"/dots should appear in higher frequence until they become a stable visible object.
the dots should not change colour at all i think.i think the most realistic look, would be that first the whole plane is represented by this white dot.when it gets closer and therefore is made out of more pixel, the reflection dot should not increase in size, but neither should change the colour.it should remain this one or two pixel white dot, until the plane is fully visible.and even then this dot could remain a little longer on the canopy for example.
i also think that the dots shouldnt dissapear suddenly.it really looks strange, and as SEE pointed out, enemies are much easier to spot in far distances.that is just wrong.
besides that, they absolutely should not be visible through clouds or land.that just looks horrible.

[PissyChrissy]

when trying to track a distant aircraft, if lost against the sky, i'll back the FOV out to a very wide field, which lets me easily pick up the aircraft again because while the image is zooming out, the aircraft's target dot stays the same size on the screen. This is completely unrealistic. Again, it's like having a radar.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

1 Km = 8 pixel

2 km = 4 pixel

3 km = 2 pixel

4 km = 1 pixel

5 km = zero pixel

No these the above are not what I think they should be. No way the dots should be the same at different distances.

Yet, online players have always wanted at least 2 pixels are very long distances.

----------------------------

.

Problem with this is in Real life you see planes furhter htan that. to give you an example, you can clearly see an airliner 10 km above, a few other km aside and still clearly see the same outlines you get of a B17 at 500 meters in il2.

[adonys]

Actually, dots size and rendering distance might be linked with pilots skill RPG-like progress: the better a pilot is, the easier and further he will see the dots.

This would need the server to keep track of pilots records, and sending individual command to clients regarding to dots size and maximum distance rendering (instead having it enforce a single dots setting for everyone).

This mechanism is a safe way to make pilots wants to live and progress in a MP environment.

you might also link this with individual neg/pos Gs supported, and the amount of force they can pull, also server individually enforced (not big values, but enough to make you want to have them).

[ElAurens]

This is one of the limitations of virtual flying on the computer. We look at the world through a small view port that is really not very accurate. Even the best professional monitors cannot come close to the acuity of the Mk. 1 eyeball.

So, we have to make compromises. Real fighter pilots can spot aircraft quite a long way off, the only way to do this on a computer monitor is to have a dot. There simply is no other way. I'd rather have a long range dot than no visual of the opposing aircraft at all.

As much as we protest to the contrary, there is very little that we do in a sim that is actually realistic. It's all a series of pretty large compromises.

[phoenix1963]

I thought you'd be interested in the following quote from "The Sky Suspended" by Jim Bailey,

"I was learning how to see by night and by day, and the results were surprising. For instance, a properly camouflaged aircraft, flying hard down on the sea, was invisible from a mile or two away. But if you were lower, another aircraft would then be silhouetted against the sky and become apparent at six or seven miles... Again, a properly camouflaged aircraft becomes quickly invisible against the blue of the sky. But if you are higher than your opponent and can set him off against the cloud, he will stand out at seven to ten miles."

And on the sun, "It had once seemed to me to be difficult to come at an aircraft out of the sun.... for the sun is small. But I soon discovered that it fills a quarter of the sky and twenty thousand feet, for at ground level the glare is lessened by the atmosphere."

ISBN 0 7475 7773 0

He comes across as a rather strange man, perhaps understandable as he started on Defiants in the BoB.

56RAF_phoenix