Target visibility

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and there it is again... bigger and easier

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread. Albeit I proved that this is actually more realistic. What on earth did you think I was talking about all this for - to make spotting aircraft HARDER? Would that be more realistic in your warped view?


Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir, do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

All those things can give you a big edge over other players, and in a sense mandate others to do the same. But it would not be sensible to say that they should not be part of the sim. If that is what you are concerned about in the first place.

For my part, I don't even play online, although I most certainly WOULD use 30 fov to zoom in if I did.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And REALISTIC!

What's your deal anyway? Why does this bother you? (not like I don't already know)

Plus, I thought you know what I was saying ALL ALONG? OR did you JUST figure this out?

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Finally - tell me, how big is your monitor, what is it's resolution and how far away do you sit from it? Do you use track ir,

23" (its in my sig )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ) - but not all the time

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

I think you may find I said something slightly different...

unless of course, you gotten yourself a tad confused and where thinking back to this one?

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Why not, at least for head tracking users, just build in the option to change FOV on the fly to the realistic level (39?) so that we can at least conduct more or less realistic "scans" by zooming in the view and carefully scanning a section of the sky at realistic size? Sure, its not as quick or wide as 70 fov or our eyes in reality, and its not all that elegant, but it'd do the job better than most any other solution I'd think. Even if it would feel like using binoculars at times.

As many have pointed out anyway, it takes time to scan the sky.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Nah, I figured it in the first couple of posts...

Then you acted like an -------- (I will assume its the internet effect) and most certainly were trolling, but that's ok, because I am exceptionally persistent and patient.

Having said that, don't you think it would have been easier and more fair to all involved, not least myself, if you just came out with your agenda from the start?

Then at least we could debate all the upsides and downsides, which obviously are MANY.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

23" (its in my sig )1920 x 1080, about a meter, maybe a bit over and on occasion (again... its in my sig. ) - but not all the time

My own setup is 22" 4:3 CRT, 1600x1200 (fps) and about a meter. In both our cases we are going to have a big disadvantage compared to, say, someone with a 50" 1080HD plasma (roughly similar resolution) that is only a meter away.

So given this, why not zoom in to a more realistic visual acuity level to ease in spotting?

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I think you may find I said something slightly different

Really? Care to explain the following then;

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.

A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

and if you had of read an earlier post, it was suggested that normal FoV combined with zoom, would be far more effective (when scanning) than switching to a smaller FoV, or... a larger one. Why? for the very same reasons you, yourself, have pointed out.

Last post for now.

[Wolf_Rider]

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

and the old favourite... falsehoods

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

And REALISTIC!


I have been advocating the use of alternating narrow and wider fovs in order to make spotting aircraft EASIER with my very first comment in this thread.

~ do you change FOV's to 'zoom in' (which Btw YOU YOURSELF advocated earlier!)?

{wide angle, in reference, is for 90, which is wider than normal FoV 70... but in essence, user adjustable FoV alltogether)

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The better thing to do is, perhaps; forget about wide angled FoV altogether (because as mentioned before in threads were this has come up, all it does is alter the field of depth.


*body of text edited for brevity


A good headtracker and properly calibrated monitor, along with zoom (although some may consider zoom cheating, in fact zoom is the only thing really which could compensate for lack of peripheral vision/ depth of field limitations) would go far better for target/ plane spotting.

hmmm, yes.. I do believe I did say something different, and with the last paragraph (meaning normal FoV), it seems there is something we may be in agreeance on

[6S.Manu]

"Having objects at real size" was already discarted in my first posts IIRC.

Yes we can use a fixed 60° fov using a correct distance from our monitors... but here are some questions: how fast can our eyes rotate to gain SA on the peripherical vision sectors? How can we be aware of object moving in those sectors?

Eyes' movement speed is not reproducible with POV, mouse or TrackIR. With larger fovs you get a better awareness of the terrain around you, so that you can navigate in a correct way simulating the eyes movement.

All this thread is not about having a correct size on screen: it's giving the player the right informations untied from the current fov the player is using (and configurations as screen, resolution ect...). I just want a virtual hud about the virtual pilot sensations and conditions.

Lets think about the simulation of the virtual pilot's fatigue/stamina: this is a really important thing in WW2 airwarfare because of G effects, mission's length, pilot's wearing, controls' hardness. How can we know how much "tired" our pilot is?
We need a onscreen rollaway "bar" that give the player that information: it does not need to stay on screen all the time ruining the purist of the ingame immersion.

What about the G effect? What about the chaos during a spin? Does stick's hardness still needed to be simulated as FAKE lost of autority of the control surfaces (IL2 109's elevators)?

These are my priorities in a combat flight sim: 3D models' fidelty, the colors of landscape are welcomed, but they are not what distinguishes a simulator from an arcade game. All these ohhhh and ahhhh to the screenshots make me angry since the FMs and DMs are still wrong, with disappearing LOD you can't use realistic tactics... the best simulator... pfff...

Because of this I stated (as many others) that I'm going to play CloD until things above will be fixed (realistic target visibility is no mandatory to just play the game as an arcade one).

So, returning to the issue about visibility, zoom is needed to have the right definition of the object... calling it a cheat is ridiculous since our eyes have not the same resolution of our monitor.
Dots are pixels between hundreds changing pixels and without the focusing capabilities of our eyes they can'be tracked...

The real cheat is the guys flying a low altitude over the forest to literally disappear: no, camo is not so magical...

[Wolf_Rider]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...light=fov+dots

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...light=fov+dots

?

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

its amazing how the label "troll" comes up when someone is caught out and in reference to someone who isn't agreeing with the name caller. Name calling just says "no firm basis of argument"

If by 'caught out' you mean someone who didn't know the first thing about FOV and couldn't answer the most basic questions, yabbering on about 'projection' vs 'photography', then yeah, I caught you out.

Otherwise, you are literally the biggest and most obnoxious moron I have met on these forums and you still don't see where you went wrong. That's not name calling. It's calling a spade a spade.

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.


Manu, I read your suggestion and it is interesting but it is not in the game as is and might be obtrusive. Switching between FOV's while using trackir is practical, simple and works well, hence why I think it is the most practical solution at the moment.

As long as we agree on one thing - and that is that objects on screen are NOT being displayed at their real size and are NOT as easy to spot as in reality (depending on monitor size, viewing distance and other factors) - which is apparently beyond some to admit - then I believe we can move forward with suggested solutions.

To be so hung up on multiplayer gameplay that you wish to insult players by suggesting they are cheating or whining when they use narrower fov's or to try and guilt them out of or prevent them from doing so for your benefit is just unacceptable imho. I don't want to play online with players who will reduce the realism of the sim to protect their vested interests. And obstructing more realistic methods of spotting aircraft is doing just that.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

If by 'caught out' you mean someone who didn't know the first thing about FOV and couldn't answer the most basic questions, yabbering on about 'projection' vs 'photography', then yeah, I caught you out.

Otherwise, you are literally the biggest and most obnoxious moron I have met on these forums and you still don't see where you went wrong. That's not name calling. It's calling a spade a spade.

Congrats, you just made the ignore list.


Manu, I read your suggestion and it is interesting but it is not in the game as is and might be obtrusive. Switching between FOV's while using trackir is practical, simple and works well, hence why I think it is the most practical solution at the moment.

As long as we agree on one thing - and that is that objects on screen are NOT being displayed at their real size and are NOT as easy to spot as in reality (depending on monitor size, viewing distance and other factors) - which is apparently beyond some to admit - then I believe we can move forward with suggested solutions.

To be so hung up on multiplayer gameplay that you wish to insult players by suggesting they are cheating or whining when they use narrower fov's or to try and guilt them out of or prevent them from doing so for your benefit is just unacceptable imho. I don't want to play online with players who will reduce the realism of the sim to protect their vested interests. And obstructing more realistic methods of spotting aircraft is doing just that.

wow... you're certainly rattled and still name calling... wow, and also off target
Spotting other aircraft in real life, is not as easy as you think, or want it to be either, so yeah - do keep trying, or rather crying that you "can't spot the dot".

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

In IL2 I started to fly at different resolution (1280 instead of 1920) because I can't stand anymore to be a blind pilot... that or I had to uninstall the game.

LoBi, what about my idea? Have you an opinion about that?

I believe that was, effectively, "flashing neon arrows"

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I believe that was, effectively, "flashing neon arrows"

What was? What are you referring to?

And what about the thread you linked above?

BTW have you read the documents provided by this thread?

I already had a long discussion with you on another argument, I know well your troll-like attitude, but I'm a patient guy so please explain yourself.