Target visibility

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by pirke

i agree with you about visibility in real life because i am military pilot and its hard to see camouflaged plane in air and VERY hard on low altitude flight.

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns.

If you find on HL (IL2 1946) a guy named 6S.Marte you have to know that he's a military fighter pilot too. I asked to him before starting the research and he agreed about irrealistic target visibility (too difficult to spot and ID at long distance, too easy to spot and track at short distance).

Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.

We are talking about military fighter pilots who have a specific method to scan the sky. To my knowledge the ULM pilots and the glider pilots are not teached this method. Some posts above I asked about this to a poster who claimed himself as civil pilot but he did not give an answer.

So I ask Tuckie and pirke the same thing: what method are you using to scan the sky? And in which circumstance are you searching?
And Tuckie, I think losing a previously spotted contact because you're occuped to do something else is a realistic thing (as many civil pilots do... I've read on a document that they are looking at instruments the most of the time): it's different if you are actually tracking that plane and this one disappears in the sea of pixels (because of the many things explained in this thread)... Can you really 100% confirm that in RL you lose a contact even if you're constantly staring at it?

If there was "no sign" of me in this thread it's because I've promised to not expound my ideas anymore on this subject since the most of the people did not care. They want a "simulator" who does not simulate real target visibility ("Look I see a dot! Let's turnfight at 300m!").

If you really want to aid this discussion, proving to me and to the others that the studies made by the US military scientists are wrong and useless, please post some official documents.

This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using serious arguments...
I also found more accounts made by real pilots who spotted enemies at longer distance than the document states, but I discarded it because it was a "only" pilot's accounts... in the same way I discard the opinions of WW2 pilots claiming that the 109 could outturn a Spitfire and all the WW2 myths based on pilot's accounts.

I don't claim to be right (I'm not the teacher as you childishly claims), but still I've found out documents and the ingame test I made (the first post of the thread) proves that target spotting is very different from what we see on our monitor. I would be glad if somebody else can find me documents who claims the opposite because I'm not an expert too.

Anyway, KeBrAnTo, I hope you understand that nobody here cares about your statement about the "tall building" that you can't see. Add to this your "US Navy documents are BS" statement (where BS is not our new friend BlackSix) and we have a bingo of credibility fail. People don't care about your getting along with the other posters.

[drewpee]

Perhaps if we are unable to simulate what should recognizable due to the lack of resolution then at that distance(recognition) the game should use what ever number of pixels are required. The AC will appear larger than it should but at least it would be recognized as it should(a choice of one or the other). The need to have objects larger than in reality would lessen the nearer it got. It would solve the object identification problem but might hinder judgment of closure speeds. But like loosing an eye the brain will soon adjust.

Sorry it seemed simpler to try to explain in my head.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using serious arguments...

Manu,

have you now tried to standardize some of your observations (eg with correct FoV for your monitor setup etc) to see how good/bad visibility is under specific circumstances (and looking at different types of objects) for distant aircraft or ground vehicles ?

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.

This was all my point since the beginning, pal. Contacts are very difficult to be spotted, full stop.

Then all this technical stuff started to fly in all directions, that human eye is designed to focus on movement, etc .... stuff I've not discussed, but I'm not very interested about either, because I don't need to read about some kind of things to form my very own opinion about them, specially if that is realated to things I'm actually seeing by my very own eyes and thank god I stilll believe in them.The day they fail me maybe I'll start diving into some kind of documentation in order to find out what I'm actually seeing.

Some of you guys really need to chill out, honestly, in fact, that Zapatista actually bites !!!!!

Oh, by the way, you're not the teacher Manu.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.

except of course that you are completely wrong, and you have failed to understand the information he posted. in fact, he said exactly the opposite of what you think, and validated the spotting/tracking problem of aircraft in CoD (for the limited set of conditions he described)

hint: this "non native english speaker" poster was referring to using a "cheat" to enhance LoD model visibility in CoD (but at significant cost in fpsec) discussed here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...eshShowLod%3D1 and he stated that when using the cheat he can see some LoD models at some distances roughly correctly now, but ...... [against open sky (where they should stand out like dogs balls most of the time)
hint 2: no opinions provided by him regarding spotting/tracking moving objects below him while in flight when looking at them against a terrain background (of which there are various types), or locating stationary objects (vehicles/aircraft) on open roads or in open fields (other then him saying they are generally harder to spot then against open sky eh)
hint 3: people in some of these posts are also seeming to refer to a bug of some sorts which makes some LoD models almost disappear when you close in on the distant aircraft and loose sight of it (against open sky !), which is what he seems to be alluding to

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though[only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns.

eh meaningless jibber jabber like most of your previous posts on this topic. but kind funny to see you put your foot in it so enthusiastically

now lets see if you swallow your own snake oil when its dished out to you instead. since this person who you by your own words decided was a conclusive authority on this matter, and he said exactly the opposite of your "opinion" , does that mean your going away now and leave it to normal posters to exchange meaningful factual information ?

lemme guess.............. i feel a psychic revelation coming on that allows me to predict the future.......if only the rest of life was so easy

you fail to grasp that if you are so happy with how you can see distant objects in the sim, then good for you, go play and leave the rest to discuss what problems they are experiencing and try and arrive at some meaningful numbers to compare spotting/tracking distances to real life experiences in ww2 aircraft another point your missing is that not everybody in il2 (or currently in CoD) is seeing the exact same thing on their monitors, even when viewing the same objects and scenery, eg what you see is not what others see for a multitude of reasons and variables. neither does it need your approval, or even understanding of the topic being discussed, for others to be able to discuss this issue.

it took literally several years to narrow down in il2 what the main problems were with "distant object visibility", given the information amassed in that debate we can cut through the same problems we now experience in CoD much faster

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by zapatista

except of course that you are completely wrong, and you have failed to understand the information he posted. in fact, he said exactly the opposite of what you think, and validated the spotting/tracking problem of aircraft in CoD (for the limited set of conditions he described)

Thank god I've got you round to explain to me other people's thoughts, even my own!, LoL.

Im not gonna try to explain to you what it is written in the post i was referring to, you should be able to understand whatever fits to your own requirements as you showed already.

Be water my friend.

[zapatista]

interesting thread !

the very poor object visibility (planes, ground vehicles, etc..) in the original il2 was its single biggest downfall as a "simulator" of a ww2 pilot experience. you simply couldnt see objects at their correct distances (compared to RL and ww2 pilot accounts), resulting in us flying in a mini-bubble of situational awareness (approx 30% of normal visibility, as if the pilot we represent was severely myopic)

i had high hopes this would be addressed in BoB as a matter of priority, and during the last few years before release oleg stated several times this had been addressed for BoB (there have been lengthy threads on this over the years in the main il2 forums). in pre release BoB beta video's bomber/fighter visibility seemed to have significantly improved, its worrying to hear from current users the old same visibility problem is back again in BoB/CoD and the old frustrations resurface.there is no excuse why this cant be sorted out in a modern sim/game in 2011

i expect that if a rational logical argument (based on facts, such as those presented so far in this thread) can be made to luthier, he will address this (once the immediate "playability bugs" issue is solved, which is hopefully with the next gfx engine rework to be released in the next few weeks). object visibility is a critical issue to get right, if BoB/CoD is going to make any claims to being the simulator it was intended to be. 80% of engagements rely on correct spotting, tracking and identifying of planes/vehicles AT THE RIGHT HISTORICAL VISIBILITY DISTANCES, if luthier and Co cant get this right we might as well all go home and not bother imho. solving some of the main issues isnt that complex either

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

There's got to be a way for the game to grab your monitor size and resolution from Windows device manager.

exactemoundo ! give the man a cigar

this is one of the very basic things to get right at the start of this type discussion. there are some very simple things that can be done to get correct "object visibility". and at the heart of this is the fact that to start out with, objects need to be displayed at their CORRECT SIZES ! the BoB sim is already programmed to do this (il2 had some object size discrepancies, but the same principle was valid), the problem is that most users use the incorrect FoV setting as "normal" view (because they have small monitors and want to see "more") and somehow still expect object sizes to be correct (wide view and zoom view imho are only intended to be used for brief moments to make up for the fact we sit behind a single monitor in our living rooms, rather then in a cockpit with +/- 270 degree visibility all around us, allowing us some way to partially try and represent what a real pilot could see/do).

point 1: "normal view" (which in the old il2 was set to 70 FoV, which is only "normal" if you had a 30' monitor), should be set to represent the monitor size in front of you, and the number of degree's it occupies of your field of view (FoV). for my 27' lcd this is about 50 FoV, if you have a 22' it might be 35 FoV, and if you have a 30' monitor it could be 70 FoV. there is a simple formulae that allows you to calculate this for your monitor size.

note: several older games already do exactly that during initial installation setup. it asks you to enter data for your monitor size and resolution, that is all that is needed. nothing needs to be "calculated" from that point, no code modification or complex new programing anything, just let the game set the right "normal" FoV for your monitor size at the start !

your wide view can still be set to 90 FoV (allowing you to snap to it during close combat to improve SA briefly), and when aiming at a specific point of an enemy target you could briefly snap to a more zoomed view to improve gun accuracy. but most of the time people would be able to fly in their correct "normal view" for their monitor sizes and see objects in their correct sizes, and have the right visibility of distant objects (some of the more distant objects will need "visibility enhancements" that allow them to be spotted at the right distances if required (types of solutions for this is a side discussion)

note 2: some people will find this "correct FoV" to narrow because they have a small monitor, and nothing should prevent them from reassigning a new choosen FoV for their normal setting, but they then shouldnt complain that when using 70 FoV on a monitor that normally only should use 45 FoV will shrink all onscreen objects and make distant objects nearly impossible to see (because you just zoomed out by 2x by setting an artificially large FoV to gain peripheral vision).

note 3: there were a few flightsim games in the late 1990's which gave you a wider FoV on a small screen and compensated for the shrinking objects by artificially enlarging them, allowing you to see objects in their closer-to-correct sizes while using a wider FoV. this had an odd effect since more objects had to be squeezed onscreen, and it is probably to complex to implement for BoB/CoD with al the other cpu/gpu loads

conclusion: if at least have all people start in this discussion with their correct FoV's for monitor sizes, and then look at the distant-object-visibility problem again to see what kind of "visual enhancements" are needed to keep these objects visible at the right distances, then imho we are on the right track from the beginning.failing that you start with a distorted view of reality, and fail to use what is already possible/intended to correct the visibility issue. keep in mind many of us (if BoB lives up to expectations) will soon add a 2e or even 3e monitor to our main screen for gaming (24' lcd's are down to 200 or 300 $ now, and the future of simulation is in multi monitor setups)

note: the fact we are trying to represent on a lcd monitor in 2011 what an individual can see with the naked unaided eye from a cockpit, means that having correct object size on the screen might not be enough to make it correctly visible onscreen as it would be in real life, eg e few extra or darker pixels could be added to these different distant objects (no idea if this is a simple task, but all it might need is for the smallest LoD models to be altered and made artificially more visible, making "right visibility" a priority over "right color and shape"

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

If you talk about real life scale, then you also need to know distance from observer to screen for this to work. Windows device manager does not know that.

not true

for most flatscreen lcd's from 19' to about 27' the correct viewing distance is about an arms lengths away from the viewers eyes (video geeks have very straight forward methods to determine correct viewing distances for screes/tv's/projectors etc, plenty of info available on that and its pretty simple). for ex most 30' monitors significantly go up in resolution and have smaller pixel sizes, allowing the viewer to sit closer. larger then 30' usually means the person is using a lcd tv (which have lower resolutions and larger pixels), so the viewer usually should/would sit a little further away then the average pc monitor (or the blockyness of the onscreen image would degrade what you see)

[Prime Time]

zapatista is exactly right. I have a 55" Samsung monitor (http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consume...ype=prd_detail). I sit about 30"-36" away, which approximates a 80 degree FOV as shown in the following formula:

HOW TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO SEE A 1:1 REAL-WORLD IMAGE SCALE.

view dist. = (scrn width/2) / TAN(FOV/2)

Example:
Screen width = 50" (the measured horizontal display size)
FOV = 80 deg.

view dist. = (50"/2) / TAN(80/2)
view dist. = 25 / TAN(40)
view dist. = 25 / 0.839
view dist. = 29.8"

At this setting objects are their real-life sizes, there is never a need to zoom in or out. Its certainly easier to spot enemy a/c, and there is never a need for icons etc. Its very immersive.

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Prime Time

zapatista is exactly right. I have a 55" Samsung monitor (http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consume...ype=prd_detail). I sit about 30"-36" away, which approximates a 80 degree FOV as shown in the following formula:

HOW TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO SEE A 1:1 REAL-WORLD IMAGE SCALE.

view dist. = (scrn width/2) / TAN(FOV/2)

Example:
Screen width = 50" (the measured horizontal display size)
FOV = 80 deg.

view dist. = (50"/2) / TAN(80/2)
view dist. = 25 / TAN(40)
view dist. = 25 / 0.839
view dist. = 29.8"

At this setting objects are their real-life sizes, there is never a need to zoom in or out. Its certainly easier to spot enemy a/c, and there is never a need for icons etc. Its very immersive.

That is the problem of the people like me that have a 21 inches monitor... i should be attached to the monitor for seeing in real dimensions..