Target visibility

Originally Posted by Insuber

To ensure some playability, and avoid boredom killing this game, we need above all to improve DETECTION range by increasing the dot visibility and contrast to 15-20 km, with normal visibility (as in the US Navy document posted by Manu earlier), and also solve the issue of disappearing contacts - linked to the LODs probably. A darker dot would do, imho.

Then, as far as IDENTIFICATION, I agree that in RL you can tell a Spit from a Bf from a longer distance than in this game (I think to events like Duxford, where the plane's silhouettes and colours are identifiable from very far away, let's say 3-5 km). Color of camo helps a lot, and in old Il2 the LOD's at far range were typical of a certain model (more squared for Bf, thinner for Spit); working on LODs to differentiate them a bit may be a solution. Skilled players could then ID a distant contact from the predominant color of the camo and the form of LOD.

Cheers!

Keep in mind that the aircraft to be spotted in the US Navy experiment was about or even more twice the size of the planes we discuss here (why do I have to repeat myself?). So I have very very strong doubts that you just can take the findings there and transpose it to fighters here.

I think the dot contrast is fine so I do not need a change here. If you have some difficulties finding the dots due to contrast please first tweak your own monitor settings or the graphic card settings before requesting a change in game that is fine for many others

I agree that something should be done with the presentation between first appearance as dot at 4 km and a presentation as a scaled down model at 2 km). I'd propose to use a something like a dash or so (could be a bold dash at a certain distance).

Sorry but I think it is absolutely unrealistic to see a fighter plane in 20 km distance even as a dot. These fighter planes have a wingspan of about 10m only. Do not compare it to airliners that have 6 or 8 times that wingspan.

The 4 km may be to pessimistic but the 20 is imho unrealistic. Please keep in mind that the 15-20 km in the US Navy experiments were obtained with a bigger aircraft and with the pilots knowing EXACTLY where to look. Both conditions (big aircraft, exact knowledge of position of plane to be spotted) do not apply for fighters in the situations we discuss here. So probably if you knew exactly where to look for a plane you could see a fighter at 7-10 km. But only if you knew exactly where to look.

The only real big issue that I see is that planes with a 3d model suddenly disappear into a dot or what I frequently experience that when zooming my view on a dot or a small plane (at about 2km) it gets invisible (perhaps a smooth zoom in function could work).

[Insuber]

Stormcrow the US Navy document I was referring to was in another thread, and it treated about fighters. I will look for it later for you.

Cheers!

[6S.Manu]

I've found a gem!
"Visual Search in Air Combat" (1990)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA241347

Here a really interesting graph (page 6 of the original document):


Of course there are factors like camos, sunlight, haze ect...

I'm going to do some calculations to get the positions of ww2 fighters on that curve.

I would only remember to you that it's not a personal problem: all this discussion its to greatly improve the sim.

Great find, Manu.

This is quite in accordance to what I guessed would be a reasonable limit for fighter visibility (when seen from the side) that is about 7-10 km. From front one would see it from perhaps 3-4 km. From belly perhaps from 15km. From top view over land my guess is that the visibility will be worse.

Interesting is also that apparently aircraft type plays a big role in visibility ranges and tendencies can get reversed depending on view angle.

[Insuber]

Here is the Manu's post with US Navy study I was referring to (Naval Air Development Center, Guide to Aircraft In-Flight Camouflage, 1969), : it speaks about fighters, not airliners, and 10-15 miles under "moderate visibility", or 30-40 miles under "high visibility". This matches better with the day to day experience.

Cheers!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=43

Originally Posted by Insuber

Here is the Manu's post with US Navy study I was referring to (Naval Air Development Center, Guide to Aircraft In-Flight Camouflage, 1969), : it speaks about fighters, not airliners, and 10-15 miles under "moderate visibility", or 30-40 miles under "high visibility". This matches better with the day to day experience.

Cheers!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=43

ty. Will read it soon.

I just hope we do not go back to old IL2 times with its ridicuously high visibility.

[JG52Krupi]

Stormcrow u should try out the ATAG server bliss recently changed the settings and it's much better than what it was like before

[6S.Tamat]

talking about the FOV actually to have a feeling like the real one we should have a grid of monitors with the single monitor FOV calculated on a certain standard distance from the head.
Probably the Fov could be less than 40.
Modifying the lod to see like the reality would be impossible tecnically i suppose and would mess everything and probably let us feel to be in a platform game for the perspective aberration.

My thoughts changed alot studying with manu the difference between the real sight and the monitor one.
I have to say that despite my own dislike about icons we should think more about that.

First of all the black dot is an icon, because on the monitor without the help of the "artificial dot" the contact would have been invisible also for reasonable distancies. Talking in the wing someone suggested that if the dots are appearing too close a solution could be to give for further distancies a dot with a more gray colour, to let it difficult to see, but not impossible.
That could be a solution, but for greater ( in degrees) contact like a ship from far or an airplane from closer we should think about something different. The label "ship" with the distance is horrible and helping too much, but everyone understand the difference between a ship and an airplane also at 20 km away and between a spitfire and a wellington from 4 km. something like one dot for fighter, two for bomber and five for ship could be something.

I know that everything added ruins a bit the feeling to be in a simulator, like the speed bar in Il2, but we need to think also that some instruments like the compass are really more difficult to understand on the simulator than in the real life, and anyone that flew once in a real little aircraft can say that without problems.
We (as we can be help, but really the developers) should think more about a simulation than a feeling, because we need to think on the precedence list:
physic simulation, manouver simulation, navigation simulation, feelings etc etc etc.
At the end it is the same that everyone does comparing different simulators like xplane and flight simulator each other.
Let me give another example: i don't think that in the reality there were alot of people able to physically sustain a long dogfight at high G like all we do in il2.. so now, should we calculate that or not? Should we do real aircraft limits and let us feel all like superheroes hartmanns (like it is) or should we avoid with some limits (the dark sight is not enough, cause don't simulate the physical stress and the muscle fatigue also in pulling the bar)?
Obviously i don't have the perfect answer, but would be interesting, retourning to the sight argument, to fing a compromise that would let us to "see like in the real world" but without hurting nobody's feeling..

[Wolf_Rider]

silly question: Do you zoom or change your FoV?

zooming, should bring the target a bit closer (larger) but switching to a wider FoV will, in effect, push the target further away.

[Strike]

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.