Target visibility

[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.

[Wolf_Rider]

silly question: Do you zoom or change your FoV?

zooming, should bring the target a bit closer (larger) but switching to a wider FoV will, in effect, push the target further away.

[Strike]

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Strike

I really like your post and suggestion Manu, but I have a few personal touches I'd consider too.

If we implement your "scan box" area, it's going to work much like a pseudo-radar scan. Like radars, target size, distance and relative velocity make important factors. For gameplay and new guys, or an online dogfight server this is useful. For players who prefer the action over the hunt and kill this is excellent, I'd leave it as is.

But for more "realism/immersion" players I see a different approach. I'd keep your basic "eye vision radar" with calculated probabilities of discovering targets, but change the way these targets are displayed. Generally speaking, most WWII dogfights were faught during daylit conditions, and so the sun was usually available. Therefore it could be implemented as a bright flash (like a lone star in a night sky) or similar to modern planes anti-collision lights. Maybe with a bit of flare to it and random duration.

This way, if scanning sectors, you will catch a glimpse of a flash at distance, revealing an unknown contact. This will let you focus your scan at this location, and give you a direction to pursue the contact if visual ID cannot be made (like RL). If on the other hand you have ground radar guiding you, and you know the general direction and altitude, this small flash will almost guarantee you that you have found your enemy (since he's been ID'd by radar).

Well, what if its overcast or rainy? Well, the clouds make for a better silhouette detection, but the ground is still tough (like RL). The game already has shadows casting from clouds, so maybe a small detection script could tell if your plane was in a bright spot and broadcast "blinks" to nearby people within range, looking in your direction. Other than that it's the naked eye.

I think this "blinking sun glare" feature would be warmly appreciated for most guys looking for the "realistic" approach. At nighttime developers should consider exhaust stack flames as it was in real life night ops.

Just my 2 cents. The vision radar is a good idea imho, but i personally hate markers. I'd prefer a chance of seeing that reflection blink, telling your flight to check 10'o clock cause you think you saw something there. Then everyone could focus at the same spot and you'd have a much higher chance of discovering the enemy.

Hi Strike, the "blinking sun glare" is a really good idea.. still in these days me and my teammates are discussing about a good solution and the blinking object is been one of the solutions, provided that this effect is triggered every x seconds because of the resolution problem.

I mean that if there are 2 planes manouvering at 2km below of me they could be changing their vector many times in a range of 10 seconds. Focusing your sight on that airspace you should be able to spot AND track those planes. One blink should be very near to the next one (talking about time).

[irR4tiOn4L]

I've just put buttons for 30/70 fov on my joystick and use them in conjunction with TrackIR.

While it would be nice to be able to set a realistic fov, say 39 or so, switching between them is easy, intuitive and very quick. It should also make spotting aircraft about as difficult as in reality.

Given this solution, do we really need more complex dots?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

I've just put buttons for 30/70 fov on my joystick and use them in conjunction with TrackIR.

While it would be nice to be able to set a realistic fov, say 39 or so, switching between them is easy, intuitive and very quick. It should also make spotting aircraft about as difficult as in reality.

Given this solution, do we really need more complex dots?

It's still not realistic since by using the 30/70 FOV function (who I use too ) is like looking through a tube. Your SA is too much limited.

The 30 FOV in a sim is there to give the real detail of an object but we can't see anything around us, while the 90 FOV is there to give us more SA but all the 3d objects become too small.

In real life vision skill is an improved version of these both combined.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

It's still not realistic since by using the 30/70 FOV function (who I use too ) is like looking through a tube. Your SA is too much limited.

The 30 FOV in a sim is there to give the real detail of an object but we can't see anything around us, while the 90 FOV is there to give us more SA but all the 3d objects become too small.

In real life vision skill is an improved version of these both combined.

I understand that Manu, BUT I do not believe that functionally this makes a large difference. In reality pilots must undertake systematic scans in order to spot things, and in a sense this is what you do when you switch between 70 and 30 fov to look for planes.

Having just flown with it, 30 fov still leaves quite a large chunk of sky visible and by moving it, you can effectively scan the sky in detail just as you would in reality.

Yes, your SA is limited while you are doing this, but by doing a quick scan at 70 fov beforehand, you already know that there is nothing in your immediate vicinity.


Is this perfect? No, of course not, its not nearly as good as our eyes which see such detail all the time in much larger sections of the sky with peripheral vision. But it is reasonably close and, I believe, a better approximation of a pilot's vision (and more immersive) than just larger dots for 70 fov.

Having said that, I do see the problem with 3km dot size at 70 fov, and agree that some improvement should be made. But by making dots larger, you also butcher the size, camouflage, shape and reflectiveness differences between the planes, all of which make a difference when spotting aircraft at 30 fov.

So changing the dots is going to be a tradeoff that I am not quite convinced is necessary (beyond fixing the disappearing at medium/3km issue)

[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.
The flyer there sits looking a screen and it doesn't come into account how close or distant that flyers sits at his screen, the image doesn't enlarge or reduce accordingly... the flyer just closer to/ further away from the screen.
In effect the screen is a window, a window of fixed size regardless of resolution.
That window opens onto the virtual world of the sim and that world is always only going to be relative the the screen, the window. It doesn't matter if the flyer moves closer to or further away from the screen, the virtual world doesn't expand or get closer/ further away... it all remains relative.
In effect, it is almost a tunnel type vision, not literally, but it called be called exactly that - tunnel vision.
Peripheral vision, which is really what detects movement, can't be modelled with today's technology.
The sim, is a 3 dimensional presenation on a 2 dimension screen... even with a 3D screen - because it is still drawn on a 2 dimension screen.
Game developers open with a FoV which, they, feel gives the better visual representation of the virtual world/ cockpit, etc, so that the product "looks right" in relation to the screen ie the Depth of Field... remember, everything ties back to the screen - the window... the cockpit, the other objects, the background, etc and what the flyer sees on his screen

Now, when selecting to go with a wider angle FoV... what happens?
well, the screen doesn't get wider or larger and the flyer doesn't move closer or further away.
What happens is; a wider part of the virtual world is fitted to the screen - the window, that same size window... so naturally, the depth of field is altered and because there is a larger image fitted to the screen of fixed size, everything in a way gets compressed to the scsreen, but because the cockpit, the other objects, the background etc are all still relative to each other in effect and without actually doing so everything gets pushed back.)

Changing the FoV only changes the depth of field.
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.

[irR4tiOn4L]

That's all true but there's a reason we use wider fov's; they may not make the 'window' any larger, but unless you have a 50" plasma right in front of your face (some do, and its an awesome idea) your 'window' wont be large enough to give you satisfactory situational awareness/a usable view.

For example, I have a 22" CRT about a metre in front of me. It's a great monitor for picture quality. But I ultimately have to switch between 70 and 30 fov because the sim is simply not comfortable (and doesnt feel right) at 30 fov all the time. It would be better if i could set a fov closer to 1:1 for this monitor type, but it would still not solve this problem.

It may be just a window and there is great value in being able to zoom to 1:1, but you should still make full use of that 'window' by using wider fovs as well

[Wolf_Rider]

That's just it though... switching to a wider FoV just (perhaps a clearer description) shallows everything out, thereby ultimately losing definition.
The LoD settings don't change with the FoV change