Contact sight problem.. really something to patch!!

[KeBrAnTo]

Originally Posted by Insuber

If the plane is a moving bright spot, reflecting sunlight at crepuscule against a darker sky, and the visibility is excellent, you can spot it easily at very long distances. It's a common experience. Everyone can spot a 10 m wide satellite at night or dusk ... Let me see, how is a satellite distant in your lang ...

you're talkin about far too many coincidences to fit your point perfecr weather, perfect reflection angles, against a dark sky ..... mmmm it seems the Oz land to me to try to spot a ww2 plane and try to speak the truth about this subject but well, Im not trying to convince but to put some logic into the subject, not fantasy

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

you're talkin about far too many coincidences to fit your point perfecr weather, perfect reflection angles, against a dark sky ..... mmmm it seems the Oz land to me to try to spot a ww2 plane and try to speak the truth about this subject but well, Im not trying to convince but to put some logic into the subject, not fantasy

Sorry I thought you were serious, I didn't understand that you were pulling our legs. Never mind, you are right and we are wrong, satellites are invisible, other planes can't be spotted from a plane, eheheheh wink wink ...

Cheerio!

[Insuber]

I made other tests: even a close plane disappears at times. Probably it is a multi faceted bug, involving LOD, antialiaising, rendering calculations and God knows what. A big bug.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

Well it seems that if US Navy says that must be true.

You do realise that you lost all credibilty with that statement.. right?

As many have tried to point out to you.. The human eye is very good at detecting movment.. Just because your life experances have not provided you with the situtaions to realise that does not make it false.

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

You do realise that you lost all credibilty with that statement.. right?

As many have tried to point out to you.. The human eye is very good at detecting movment.. Just because your life experances have not provided you with the situtaions to realise that does not make it false.

noooo why?
Only because the navy paid some professional officer to study an argument important as contact seeing and camouflaging and he produced a classified file on that?

Surely he studied more that argument with a plethora of complex instruments and interviews

[AV8R_]

I just started flying IL2-COD (been on IL2-46) online at 1440 resolution. Being
I fly a lot of 46, the spotting of a/c in COD was immediately noticeable. First
I measured the range to target with the gunsight to make sure the a/c were
properly scaled, and they were fine. Next I started to look for threads such as
this one and the other called "Target Visibility". Both threads are excellent.

Im one of those that refuse to back down my desktop or in game resolution to
get a bigger and sooner first pixel sighting. I can't stand sims on lower res.
So I was wondering, if anyone has done any in depth investigation on the
effects of the anti-aliasing and filtering settings as a function of visibility and
range?

Here we want to get rid of the jaggies and have smoothed and dithered a/c
graphics to make it look real, but are these same features also reducing our
long distance a/c profile visibility? Does it have an effect on the switching
between pixel and LOD switching? Just some thoughts.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

noooo why?
Only because the navy paid some professional officer to study an argument important as contact seeing and camouflaging and he produced a classified file on that?

Surely he studied more that argument with a plethora of complex instruments and interviews

I'm sure that if the study was done by the Royal Navy, or the Kreigsmarine, or the Regia Marina then you wouldn't be rolling your eyes, would you?

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I'm sure that if the study was done by the Royal Navy, or the Kreigsmarine, or the Regia Marina then you wouldn't be rolling your eyes, would you?

Tamat was rolling eyes on the guy (troll) who ridiculized the US Navy research found by Tamat himself, you should read the whole thread.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

noooo why?
Only because the navy paid some professional officer to study an argument important as contact seeing and camouflaging and he produced a classified file on that?

Surely he studied more that argument with a plethora of complex instruments and interviews

Anyone got a link to the face-plant picture?

Tamat.. that was my point! KeBrAnTo was poo pooing the NAVY's study when he said.. 'Well if the NAVY said it must be true than'

[Trooper117]

Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo

The problem is when you' re on a plane EVERYTHING is in motion respect your position so I don't think you have a point to be honest. If you then add a background when you're looking from above it becomes even more difficult.

I think all ppl who think this way should make difference of what they would like to be and what really it is, sorry m8.

Don't be sorry, it must be the military and myself of course that are wrong.. and you are correct, after all, I only teach this stuff..