Full Real - no icons - visibility

[Merlin-27]

I personally think sun reflections of some type could make a huge difference in resolving this. Especially, when looking below. I have become much better at spotting over time but I still think it can be improved. I have 20/15 vision but it doesn't feel that way in-game.

 

And I hate using labels and stopped quite a while ago but you can find yourself searching the sky for quite a while without the help of live map data or comms with the enemy.

[Pikey]

I disagree there is a problem with LOD, LOD is level of detail and a dot is not representative of a decent level of detail. There are natural display resolution issues caused by hardware and there is a current lack of glinting. We also appear to suffer due to the simulation of peripheral vision (or lack of) but I won't sacrifice some half baked idea to exaggerate dots and I played with labels a lot and it was all unrealistic. Just leave it. No one has any advantage.

[otto]

The average pilot "spotting distance" is about 8 miles. Giora Epstein an israelian pilot was able to spot aircraft at a distance of 24 miles (44 km) .I have also heard about pilots in the israeli arab wars that spotted enemy planes 11 km below them.

 

In simulators it gets easier to spot contacts over time.But if you use lower resolutions it's way easier to spot contacts which is unrealistic if you ask me.

[Fifi]

The average pilot "spotting distance" is about 8 miles. Giora Epstein an israelian pilot was able to spot aircraft at a distance of 24 miles (44 km) .I have also heard about pilots in the israeli arab wars that spotted enemy planes 11 km below them.

 

Yo!! 44Km!!??

The best aircraft spotter of WW1 was without a doubt R.Fonck (known for his awesome sight view), and he could spot planes not further than 8/9Km...

[rootango]

Yo!! 44Km!!??

The best aircraft spotter of WW1 was without a doubt R.Fonck (known for his awesome sight view), and he could spot planes not further than 8/9Km...

 

dont bring ww1 into it, most aircraft they were trying to locate/identify were significantly smaller then ww2 or modern aircraft, and the "spotter platform" (your own aircraft) was very unstable and had lots of vibration. being able to spot a tiny ww1 fighter plane from 8 or 9 km (against open sky) sounds very improbable, 3 or 4 km would already be amazingly good.

 

the main point also is that there is a huge difference in visibility and spotting-ability if you compare looking at a distant aircraft against open sky (easy) versus looking at it against terrain background (much harder). additionally, much depends on the angle you are seeing the distant aircraft from etc..

 

against open sky, on a day of good visibility, most commercial pilots will report they can spot nearby traffic anywhere between 10 and 20 km. for ww2 flightsims you should be able to spot nearby fighter aircraft (roughly 10 m wingspan) at least up to 2km against terrain background, and 7 or 8 km against open sky, and most current flightsims dont correctly simulate this (with the exception of Cliffs of Dover, where the latest ATAG mod addressed this issue effectively).

 

for a ww2 combat flightsim, having a correct and realistic spotting (and tracking) visibility distance for other aircraft in your vicinity is essential.

 

and if current pc technology is limited in how it can reproduce what we see with the human eye (resolution, FoV, contrast, light reflection on metallic surfaces, etc), then the dot/lod-models representing these distant aircraft on our screens need "visibility enhancements". this could be in the form of making the dot/lod model larger, darker etc, but what counts is not that it is pretty for the art fans amongst us, but that it represents correct historical visibility. recreating the correct situational awareness experience with the right visual clue's and visibility information is essential to simulating a ww2 fighter pilots experience, otherwise you end up flying around in a mini visibility bubble or playing "find the dot" by zooming in and out all the time (and obviously no ww2 pilot had a zoom feature)

Edited November 9, 2013 by rootango

[Wolf Rider]

sunlight reflecting (glare) is an isolated instance though, not a regular occurrence...

Edited November 9, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[horseback]

sunlight reflecting (glare) is an isolated instance though, not a regular occurrence...

On the contrary, it is a full-time daylight occurrence, whether the sun is ‘out’ or not. Any light will reflect in full off of canopy glass, and depending upon the available light, nearer objects (aircraft in flight) are generally ‘brighter’ than objects further away (like the ground, for instance). If you have been to an airshow at a military base where the aircraft all have low-reflectance ‘air superiority’ grey paint jobs, you will notice that they are far more effective in heavy overcast and much less so in bright sunlight, which is predominant at altitudes over 25,000 ft (at least over the continental US).

 

From underneath, the shadowed undersides of any aircraft (even those painted white) contrast pretty clearly against a brighter sky, and from above and the sides, the sunlit surfaces contrast strongly with the ground and the shadowed portions of the aircraft, and the shadowed portions stand out against the lighter sky. Some of that depends on the clarity of the air (mist, fog, cloud cover, smoke, etc) but that affects the degree of brightness reflected and contrast combined with the background with the distance factor, but if there is a light source, there is always some reflected light, and it is generally brighter than the background to the human eye.

 

In a simulation that takes into account the number of pixels your monitor is working with, I am just a bit disappointed that the idea that distant objects use the same number of pixels for high-density monitors as lower density monitors, which confers a marked advantage to the lesser display settings (with larger pixels). I would hope that the standard would be based on the size of the object relative to the display area in a simulation that operates in a world where distant objects are so significant.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[DGC338]

Have a read through this

 

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA241347

[Wolf Rider]

 

On the contrary, ~

 

 

You're talking about something different to the "glare" I meant, which is the bright flash of sunlight which is reflected off a surface into someone's eyes. It is angle (sunlight to object to eye) dependent.

 

@DGC338...

 

Nice read :thumbup:

[horseback]

You're talking about something different to the "glare" I meant, which is the bright flash of sunlight which is reflected off a surface into someone's eyes. It is angle (sunlight to object to eye) dependent.

You ignore the fact that when you are in an aircraft moving at approximately 400kph and looking for other aircraft also moving at similar speeds, the angles are constantly changing. Wartime pilots' reports and memoirs are full of references to this phenomenon--"I saw the sun flash off his canopy/wings at such-and-such distance and positioned my flight for the bounce."

 

There's a video early on the Bf 109K thread. If you watch it, you will be struck by how often and how much the canopy glass reflects back to the camera (Allied fighter pilots must have loved the Luftwaffe's affinity for multiple large flat glass surfaces). I discount the glossiness of the paintjob, because while the colors are close to authentic, LW aircraft of the era used a paint that seemed glossy up close but had matte qualities at any appreciable distance.

 

I live within a few miles of MCAS Miramar, and the low-vis painted F-18s from there are easily picked out on clear days from almost any angle at significant distances. When the wings are tilted towards you, it's almost like a spotlight, especially with the shadowed portions of the airframe add contrast. Of course, the Hornet is about the size of a B-25, but I was living here when the Navy ran Miramar and saw the same sort of thing from the A-4 Skyhawks and F-5 Tigers that the Fighter Weapons School operated back then.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[Wolf Rider]

 

You ignore the ~

 

 

I'm not too sure just as to what it is you think I am ignoring....

 

 

~ fact that when you are in an aircraft moving at approximately 400kph and looking for other aircraft also moving at similar speeds, the angles are constantly changing.

 

 

Is what I was saying earlier - thanks

 

 

 

~Wartime pilots' reports and memoirs are full of references to this phenomenon--"I saw the sun flash off his canopy/wings at such-and-such distance and positioned my flight for the bounce."

 

 

exactly right... except, the flash isn't constant - it is angle dependent... as you've suggested

 

 

There's a video early on the Bf 109K thread.

 

 

Which one, exactly? and is the camera stationary or moving?

 

 

you see, there might be a mix up on here (?) between specular and diffused reflection. Matt paint will cause a diffused reflection, of which I believe you may be referring to, whilst a polished surface such as a window for instance will cause a specular reflection.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[Suchacz]

Allied fighter pilots must have loved the Luftwaffe's affinity for multiple large flat glass surfaces

Flat surface reflects all the light to one direction, but you have a very little probability that the light will be reflected exactly to your position. It is reflected only to one exact direction. But curved surfaces reflects less light to one exact direction, but it is much more probable that you will see it. It makes the light to spread into a cone.

[EAKMotorsports]

nice topic.

[Alladyn]

nice topic.

You wanted to say "bump" ;-) but thank you, those pages are really good to read

:smilewink:

[gavagai]

A friend of mine sprung for a 65" 4k monitor. He says he gets a real-life perspective and doesn't complain about spotting issues now in DCS.

 

I'll have to really build up my equity with the wife before I can get one of those!

[tintifaxl]

Wow - nice. I have a 65 inch 1080p TV in the living room - and a lifetime ban for the PC and flight sim stuff there.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

A friend of mine sprung for a 65" 4k monitor. He says he gets a real-life perspective and doesn't complain about spotting issues now in DCS.

 

I'll have to really build up my equity with the wife before I can get one of those!

 

still doesnt solve the "box" bug, no matter the resolution.until this is solved you can't really claim spotting targets in dcs is realistic.

[otto]

This real life comparison with DCS visibility is amusing.

When a simulation that doesn't have zoom levels is released (real life doesn't have zoom) than it can claim it's somewhat comparable to real life.

 

What i think is that games where you could see well at normal levels of zoom are more realistic.In DCS i have to use insane amounts of zoom and concentration to track a plane. After 3 hours in mp my head hurts.

 

I have a real life helicopter pilot as my uncle who i can talk to .And he has a lot of real life pilots as friends.

 

 

If on a 65 inch 4k tv you don't use zoom and visibility is good than i would say that is comparable to real life .But there are few people who can buy something like that.

Edited October 12, 2014 by otto

[Eagle0110]

If an aircraft in the far really is represented sololy with a number of pixels, then maybe there could be somekind of calibration. Maybe to display some kind of dots and let the user to adjust it's size on his screen until he can or can not see that dot, then calculate how many dots are needed to present an airplane in different distance based on that result...

[gavagai]

If on a 65 inch 4k tv you don't use zoom and visibility is good than i would say that is comparable to real life .But there are few people who can buy something like that.

 

When I was walking him through the Fw 190 he pointed out the dial on the right wing that shows the flaps position. I never even knew that was there until I zoomed in...a lot. He spotted it with the default FoV no sweat.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

When I was walking him through the Fw 190 he pointed out the dial on the right wing that shows the flaps position. I never even knew that was there until I zoomed in...a lot. He spotted it with the default FoV no sweat.

 

 

quite interesting :), i actually noticed this instantly when first flying the 190 without zooming in.also i can read the flaps positions without a problem with 90°FOV.but i know i told a friend of mine who actually never noticed it was there.

[gavagai]

Can you read what it indicates with the default FoV?:yes:

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

well, i dont know what the default FOV is, but i use a constant FOV of 90°, and with that i can read it just fine.

[otavio]

So, are the LOD's getting fixed in EDGE or not?

[Teapot]

Smart scaling + my word on the subject:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1400330&highlight=smart+scaling#post1400330

 

 

Actually ... that's two words and a plus symbol. :huh: