|
|
|||||||
| Technical threads All discussions about technical issues |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-27-2011, 09:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
As I'm not convinced about the icons, so I thought about a more historical and immersive approach.
IMO Luthier should perfection the radio vectoring to the targets, as it was in reality (both sides, actually Brits achieved it few months before Germans). For instance: The sector control center gives the usual alarm: 1 - Incoming fighters in M14, 3500 m, hdg 160 2 – Incoming bombers in K17, 4000 m, hdg 180 The player can either select a target, lets say by a keyboard combination as Ctrl + 1, or the sector control center assigns him a target depending on his position. The sector control center takes then care of vectoring him to the target with more precise and frequent directions, such as: <Leader, Hornchurch calling, 12+ dorniers coming in over Folkestone, vector 120, angels 25, 12 miles from your position> I believe that this is what we expected originally from BoB: SoW, and this alone can solve the enemy spotting and avoid the hatred icons. Of course dots and LOD's must be improved as well.  
|
|
#2
10-27-2011, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BoBII was nicely immersive in reproducing what you (Insuber) suggest, it was nice to pick your preferred mission among the several tasked by Ops center. The phone ringing and announcing the incoming raids was amazing too! my thought is Clod, sadly, maintains the monolithic appearance of Il2 series.
|
|
#3
10-27-2011, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i really can't stay with the 'icons solution'.
It would kill immersion while flying. The dots over LOD at the point where they now disappear would be ok, not perfect as in RL, but this is imo the best solution, unitl devs can't find something more realistic at least. This, added to Insuber radar vectoring stuff, would be great. S!
|
|
#4
10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting thread.
TopGum said it all for me. I am re-posting a doc abt Pilot detection range that I think belong to this thread. IMHO plane glowing had been completely put aside in the game and shld play a huge part in visual acquisition (SoW and RoF had this feature correctly modeled) . For example, all camo blend totally with the backgrd what is not achievable at close range.
|
|
#5
10-27-2011, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
10-27-2011, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you are afraid abt the low range value (1.6 +-0.1 NM), keep in mind that speed greatly affect detection range. The merge speed here being probably over 1000knots 
|
|
#7
10-27-2011, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tomcat Insuber is right; for the sight range see the documents that we found about it wrote by the U.S. Navy.
As simple example i would remember you that a runway of an international airport is from 1,6 nautical miles (3000 m) and 2,2 nautical miles (4000 m). If for seeing a contact with for example the sun behind your back you need to barely enter in formation with him we are really unlucky without radar.. About the contact visualization of moving objects it is simpler, cause the human brain (and of the animal in general) is made for enlight the moving objects. But i need to say that the image that you posted is really interesting because add to the discussion something that we lacked: info about the contact seeing in one of the worst situations, the one with the sun behind the contact.
|
|
#8
10-27-2011, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using the document let’s see the other factors who take part in the sim's "detection" algorithm, starting for the function of the curve above.
1)  In simulation: in CloD there should already be a model for these atmospheric/weather features, haze is reproduced on our screen, clouds are not there yet but they are working on it (and I hope that the dynamic weather is calculated before the mission as an event map, having the priority on the CPU only in that moment... it would be crazy to simulate that in real time!... I think Falcon 4 does something similar)... any way if you can reproduce it on the screen it means that you have the position of the modeled effect and its values. Did airplanes disappear behind a cloud already? Anyway oil smoke, sand, fog HAVE to matter on the windshield who have to be a factor too! These values can be used to weigh the atmospheric variable on the visibility algorithm. 2)  Yesterday I was talking with our military pilot about that: in fact it's true that in tactical formation (3km between aircrafts) with a not uniform background (low altitude) it’s difficult for him to detect his wingman... this is because he and his wingman are on the same vector at the same speed and the eye doesn't catch that airplane because practically "it's not moving". If his wingman accelerates or changes vector (some degrees of pitch are enough) he can be found again. I've read in WW2 pilots' books that sometimes they've lost the enemy because of this. In simulation: we are already living with this problem since in game our eyes don't focus on moving objects (all we see is moving pixels)... so many time we are going to lose a contact and here the fisheye camera (70 FOV) is helping us a lot! Anyway what's the problem in simulating relative motion in the sim? We already have speed and vector of the planes... it's all in the sim: we need only to weigh this factor in the visibility algorithm as difference between the observer speed/vector and that he has around him. 3)  In my opinion every model of plane in the game (not every instance of that plane in the sky) needs a visibility array that includes pre-calculated contrast values based on its aspects. Example: 1. A new skin is applied to the 3D model (you change skin on the plane's setting page) 2. The algorithm starts and calculate the average color of the model, the average brightness at EVERY aspect (30° or 45° differences are enough I think). Sure it should be better to include not the average but more ratio values. 3. The application save that array in the system.  Build an abstract map like the one above (but with not aspect index) for the terrain... it’s a big matrix and having the full map you can easily create an algorithm to calculate this value... more or less detailed (USE THAT RAM!)... Use these in game to see the contrast and you have a simulated visibility that doesn't base itself on "pixels" and better camos are now working (sure not at 100% as camos are intended but sure better than now). It's better if CloD allows the player to use his custom skin only if it's been supervises by 1C itself... like RoF does. No more BS skins please. In this case the pre-calculated array can be stored in the server and no more recalculation is need at every change of skin. 4)  In simulation: do we have light sources? I think it's enough... no more black dots looking in the direction of the sun: "Beware The Hun In The Sun!", even an average combat simulator should take care of that. As the document about camouflage says, light and reflections is a important factor on target visibility (as TomcatViP says too above, thanks for the addition!) and they need to be variables. As above if every plane has an array of surface reflection by aspect we are near to the solution. Light and its color its a multipler that puts a strain on the "contrast" value of that aspect... 6)  In simulation: let’s talk about vapor trails... I hope that they don't disappear suddenly like in the old IL2... did you see them? So there is a plane on its apex… 7)  In simulation: I’ll put it on the atmospheric model… Sure there are not real numbers for these factors. It’s all approximation and a tweaking matter. It’s not that we need target visibility to pass from 20% to 100% fidelity with reality. Like the realistic bombing/torpedo Mod of IL2 1946: we were at 40% with the stock 1946 and thanks to the mod we passed to the 80%... some were claiming that this feature was not complete (fixed 2 seconds for the activation), sure, but it was still more realistic than the stock one! We need to see on our monitor what the average fighter pilots see (one day maybe we could also set his visibility skill fatigue ect…) : we are not supposed to hunt pixels. IMO at the moment CloD is only a collection of beautiful pictures (Oleg is a photographer)... the sounds are coming, but this is intended as flight sim and COMBAT sim. The procedures that you are forced to follow are still not many. CEM is not a great thing neither: it can be difficult to be managed by the ones who come from IL2, not by players used to racing simulators for example. - If I want to see amazing pictures I watch at a Discovery Channel documentary at 1080p - If I want to have a great flight simulator I fly with Condor - If I want to do long and realistic procedures I fly with DCS A10 or Falcon 4 - If I want an air combat simulator I'll play with both games above and probably IL2 1946 (I want to be clear here: my love for it started to decrease the day I bought a 24" monitor and ultra detailed maps were released) I’ll post something that I think could be a valid solution (without taking account of resolutions, setting configuration and player's own eyes). It will be with labels BUT I assure you they will not be invasive and will keep a nice flight immersion.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 10-27-2011 at 01:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
