Labels on servers

[Weta43]

It's been raised before but Hey - I'll just do it again because I think it would be a good idea.

 

Most of the servers fly with no labels & no externals. I understand why - red & blue labels with aircraft type and distance undermines the need for IFF and learning to use your radar / RWR.

ALso a fifty metre high label growing out of an igla or stinger units head makes him a fair bit easier to pick out among the buildings.

 

Every time I see screenies of default labels I see why servers turn them off.

 

But - planes are designed to give the pilot good visability because the pilots eyes are a key part of his SA & the visibility in LO with no labels isn't as good as it is in real life (your eyes don't only sample at 14 time a second when you're low over a city for a start..)

 

So somewhere between no labels & some labels is probably nearer the truth.

Personaly I play with labels on about 1/2 the time now, but I've changed the labels so both sides have the same - fairly hard to see - colour & they don't show any range or type information (planes get a . at about the distance you can just see the flickering dot onscreen then _|_ from about 15km ( but at 1600x1200 these look a lot smaller). Ground units have a ' from about 8km but nothing else till 2km or so then unit type, cause I figure at 2km you could tell by eye.

 

You get the idea.

 

I think it would be a good idea for the servers to be able to set a customised label parameters at their end and force this on clients if they choose to enable labels.

 

The S-77th is presently running a mission for newbies with labels on, which means they don't need to IFF. customised, single colour labels would bump up their SA, but force good habits.

 

 

Anyone else see value in letting the server have the option of forcing label parameters (not use, so you could still turn them off if you wanted) on clients?

[Crusty]

Hmm, I can see what your getting at, some kind of limited label could be considered a balancing factor compensating for less overall visual cues of game v RL, but somehow it would make me feel sorta....well....dirty:shifty:

[Gunja]

Would be a good idea for the next patch (like IL series did) to make objects on longer distance be seen as black-ish dots (nothing complex). No need for labels then. I agree that you see an object size of a jet IRL sooner and on larger distance than you do in LO.

[Rhen]

Sure, it's a good idea because of the limitations of monitors and graphic cards and the graphics engine. I've been suffering from the 2nm sudden disappearing act when trying to track bandits or my own wingman. This would certainly - while not totally realistic - give the pilot the ability to see something that they can see IRL.

 

On another note, I also wish the servers would increase our ability to look behind the jet. While it's hard to slew the head and twist and lean the torso around under G's it's still possible and I'm always irritated that we can't look behind us.

[GGTharos]

Yeah. It seems that a whole lot of people like to think that it's 'not realistic'. Heh.

[Weta43]

That's about it - you should be able to tell something is there earlier than in LO, both on the ground & in the air, but not who they are, what side they're on, what they're in...

I think there is a place for "easier" labels on servers for learners, but can't see how team colours are ever a good idea....

[GGTharos]

In that thread about the B-52 fly-by though, in the quote it says they had difficulty seeing the buff until 2nm or so.

[Weta43]

And a whole lot of people who've got used to the unreality of it like to think it is realistic :-)

Like Rhen said - at 4 or 5 km in reality you can pick the plane type. In LO you've just changed LOD & the damn thing goes invisible.

[Weta43]

"in the quote it says they had difficulty seeing the buff until 2nm or so"

They do - but from memory only till the pilot told them to look down not up. No-one is suggesting neon lights. You should still have to LOOK for the enemy, but I live by an airport & the real things are easier to find & keep an eye on even once they are between me and the mountains than they are in LO.

A few months ago someone posted a "test your aeronautical knowledge" quiz & linked to a (NASA?) site that said in clear air a fighter sized object was visible at 30miles (50k).

Personaly I think that's optimistic, but wherever you see it from it should keep getting easier as it approaches, not easier then harder then easier again then harder again as you move though the LODs (not bashing E.D.s work - just the limitations of hardware)

 

edit - I've only ever been to airshows with routines by prop planes, but during large airshows how far away from the spectators are the jets when they're at the other end of the box? How hard is it to keep an eye on them once you've found them?

[britgliderpilot]

I live by an airport & the real things are easier to find & keep an eye on even once they are between me and the mountains than they are in LO.

 

I was bored, so looked it up - Aro Valley's a suburb of Wellington, right? So assuming you're looking towards Wellington International?

 

 

A commercial airliner is 200 feet long, and painted in nice, shiny, conspicious colours.

 

A fighter sized target is a maximum of 60 feet long, and usually carries a low-vis paint scheme . . . .

 

. . . . . . it's useful, but IMO it's not an entirely valid comparison . . . . .

 

 

I rarely have to look for fighter aeroplanes, but they do flit around here sometimes - if you get out over Wales then the RAF or USAF are often playing in the RAF Valley tactics area.

 

Spotted a four-ship of something-or-others a while ago . . . . . and they are very small, and very hard to see.

 

 

I'd love to know what kind of eyesight and lighting conditions you'd need to see a fighter head-on at 30 miles. Planform, perhaps, but head-on . . . . . . ?

[rlogue]

lol ... this forum kills me .. if I said it was raining outside .. someone would try to disprove me.

[britgliderpilot]

lol ... this forum kills me .. if I said it was raining outside .. someone would try to disprove me.

 

Hell yes!

 

 

. . . . post where you live and I'll Google up a weather station, biznatch!

[Weta43]

I actually live on the north ridge of the valley heading away from town directly below the "L" of Lambton, so a little further from the airport than you guessed (good initiative though)

In the Summer there was a (pitts special?) bi-plane doing an acrobatic display over Petone (the bit of urban under your scale up from Days bay) - I could see him without any great trouble from my house, which on your map would put him about 10 - 11km away - & he was smaller than any jet fighter.

 

edit - I wouldn't have put money on who he was flying for though.

[britgliderpilot]

I actually live on the north ridge of the valley heading away from town directly below the "L" of Lambton, so a little further from the airport than you guessed (good initiative though)

In the Summer there was a (pitts special?) bi-plane doing an acrobatic display over Petone (the bit of urban under your scale up from Days bay) - I could see him without any great trouble from my house, which on your map would put him about 10 - 11km away - & he was smaller than any jet fighter.

 

edit - I wouldn't have put money on who he was flying for though.

 

 

ph34r teh mighty Soviet AN-2!!!1!one!

 

;)

[Shaman]

I've always been having problems spotting our grey/silver TS-11 trainers - they blend with sky really well on certain clear sunny sky conditions. Sometimes I knew where to look, and still couldn't seen 'em till last moment.

 

And about LockOn.. I have no complains about flying without any labels in LockOn, you just need to look around.. the planes can be spotted, nothing really super hard about it - just keep looking, like you do in life, and when you spot one, try not to take your eyes of it. Loose the sight, loose the fight.

I fly at 1152x864 res if someone wants to know.

[dynamocl]

Been doing a bit of web research (I know, everyone is an expert!!) on the visual acuity and representation on screen.

 

I too was at an airfield today, stood near the threshold watching a Pitts Special takeoff. It was a little more than 2 minutes before the aircraft disapeared out of sight, and less time than this before I could say it was a Pitts. (and I have 20/20).

 

Visual Resolution of the eye and other conditions have a major impact:

 

http://www.adacel.com/press/whitepapers/TowerSimulationWhitePaper.pdf

 

Check out the link for some decent information. Generally what they say is that on current Hi Res monitors 1600x1200, these give us a representation of what someone with 6/20 vision would see. Assuming the aircraft are modelled at 1:1 size.

 

For "real" representation, we will need a lot better monitors/graphics cards.

 

However saying that, I am happy with labels off (completely, no dots, no ' no |). But after all, its what people are happy with.

[AndyHill]

Personally I think the issue of simulator visibility can be summarized with an equation that contains framerate, resolution and viewing angle. Of these only framerate and resolution are even in the ballpark when comparing computer simulation and reality. (Disclaimer: From now on I'll be quoting numbers from memory and they might be wrong. I'd like to see more research on the subjects if anyone can provide them) It would only take a constant 80-100 fps to get close to the human limits and although that's possible in some games it's not very likely in Lock on. I think I remember reading somewhere that the human eye's resolution is in the region of about 10000 x 10000, but a lot of it is concentrated in a very narrow region (of about 2 degrees?) giving the human eye a distinct edge over any computer screen. The last, but definitely not the least advantage is viewing area. Humans usually see about 180 x 120 degrees, which is a LOT more than most screens can offer. Depending on your screen and the distance you sit from it your mileage may vary, but chances are you won't get close.

 

Because of these differences we're flying virtually blind. If noticing camouflaged aircraft against the ground and keeping track of bandits and maintaining SA is an uphill struggle for a real pilot it's the Himalayas for us. Of course there are no labes in real life, but if you want to simulate the reality of air combat they may well be necessary. A neat little experiment to try is to look out of the window at an object about 100 feet away. That's your wingleader. Now move your head around and note how much "sky" you can scan while still keeping the wingleader in the corner of your eye. Now fire up Lock on and do the same. Note that to keep resolution and object size comparable you'll have to zoom close or really close depending on your monitor.

 

_____________________________________________________________

Lock on MUST have a dynamic campaign engine with multiplayer support!

[dynamocl]

A fresnel lens could help increase viewable size (and helps with eye strain/depth of field). Currently considering having a play with one:

 

http://www.rickleephoto.com/rlcoll.htm

 

http://www.3dlens.com/shop/largefresnellens.php

 

Good idea for increasing the preceived size of monitor and also for seemlessly joining togehter two of more monitors for a video wall.. An interesting project. Has anyone tried this?

[Weta43]

"I fly at 1152x864 res if someone wants to know."

 

My experience it is that the higher the res you play at the smaller the pixels are & the harder the single pixel "dots" of the low LODs are to see.

I play at 1600x1200 (no AA, no AF) & once made a movie at 800x600 & the "dots" looked HUGE (I guess 4x the area).

 

"It was a little more than 2 minutes before the aircraft disapeared out of sight, and less time than this before I could say it was a Pitts. (and I have 20/20)."

 

A pitts does 185mph flat out - about 298km/h. Say he was doing 250km/h. In a little over 2 minutes you were losing sight of him. At 250km/h he'd be 10km away in 2min 24sec ( I could see a simillar plane over Petone which is more like 11km from my home - but I guees these are ballpark similar)

 

A pitts special is 15 foot long, 17 foot span & 6 foot tall & you could see it at about 10km (but not pick the type)

 

An Su-27 is 66 foot long, 44 foot span & 18 foot tall.

 

If it's 4.5 times as long, you should be able to see it 4.5 times as far away - or about 45km.

 

 

but -

"Generally what they say is that on current Hi Res monitors 1600x1200, these give us a representation of what someone with 6/20 vision would see."

& with eyesight like that we'd never get into the airforce :-)

So something to bring our SA back to where it would be with 20/20 is fair & makes the overall effect more realistic, even if the means to the end are unrealistic (& make some people feel dirty)

 

Andy Hills post - agree completely..

 

Making the lowest LOD larger would be a way around it, but fairly inflexible, where allowing servers to set label charicteristics would let them turn them off & be "hardcore" for those that think harder is always better & like to set their missile slider to 100% - or have minimal label information for somewhere in the middle - or have the whole "side, name rank & serial number" thing going for people who want that...

[3Sqn_Sven]

From my experience in the industry 1024 x 768 with no AA is a pretty good representation of how far away you can see a/c.

 

Seeing a Su 45km away.... no way man. Just think how hard it is to see airliners cruising above you. Unless they are contrailing they are really hard to pick out, and they cruise between 4 and 6 miles up.

 

Personally I play at 1024 x 768 and no AA to as it gives in my experience the best representation of tally distance. Unfortunately it doesn't look real good, but the a/c get too small at the higher res' and AA's. In this respect the sim could be improved.

 

PM me for more detail if you wish.

[Weta43]

20m (66feet) at 45km

20m/45000m = 0.00044444

At 1m (1000mm ~ 3.25feet) something 0.444mm makes the same angle.

Maybe a 3x longer than a full stop & the same hight on my monitor when I'm a metre away . (In LO I have a single full stop at 1600x1200 as the label for a plane at between 20km & 30km, at 20km _|_ but at 16*12 it's a reasonable amount smaller than this - maybe 2mm.)

Could you find that 0.44mm spot on a blank wall a meter away from your face - It might take a bit of finding, but again depending on the lighting it might not (I find the dust on this thing easily enough) but whichever - once you knew where it was you'd probably not have too much trouble finding it again - I think...

 

So - I don't think you'd be likely to spot a SU-27 cold at 45km - it's a little thing in a big sky & there's a lot more atmospheric distortion at 45km range than at 10km, but at 30km on a clear day you might if you knew where to look, & once you had it you'd probably find it again.

[MonnieRock]

lol ... this forum kills me .. if I said it was raining outside .. someone would try to disprove me.

 

 

Dude !!! Thanks for a good laugh :megalol:

 

 

I agree, it is difficult to see sometimes. I like to use 2048x1536 resolution. I would use 10000x10000 if I could Andy :thumbup:

 

 

Monnie

 

Dual Core Poll Please Vote

[Guest Cali]

You guys are all crazy :)