PDA

View Full Version : Draw Distance



_Ddave_
07-11-2004, 01:12 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif I have a question about the draw distance in FB.I am rather new to this game but have for a number of years designed many sceneries in MS flight sims (3rd party addons).The draw distance for 3-d objects seems very short to me,especially if you make a scenery in an area where the 3-d mesh is using resources to reproduce mountains.Some objects do not become "visible" until you are extremely close,some times as close as 1 kilometer.This is my main objection to this sim.So many people are concerned about picking apart such a great sim as IL2 FB and I am not one of those.But if the concern is to mirror real life physics for aircraft performance and the like,I would hope that there might be a way to improve on the draw distance issue.I have built a few coops and sceneries and for instance,stone castles in the mountains do not show up till you are VERY close on final approach.Rather disconcerting and rather unrealistic.As fabulous as FB is, and with all the great minds working on this premier sim, i would hope that someone might be able to improve a little on this issue.Is there a solution using the grapics engine that FB uses?
Thank you for your time and thank you for such a wonderful flight simulator :-) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
Ddave

_Ddave_
07-11-2004, 01:12 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif I have a question about the draw distance in FB.I am rather new to this game but have for a number of years designed many sceneries in MS flight sims (3rd party addons).The draw distance for 3-d objects seems very short to me,especially if you make a scenery in an area where the 3-d mesh is using resources to reproduce mountains.Some objects do not become "visible" until you are extremely close,some times as close as 1 kilometer.This is my main objection to this sim.So many people are concerned about picking apart such a great sim as IL2 FB and I am not one of those.But if the concern is to mirror real life physics for aircraft performance and the like,I would hope that there might be a way to improve on the draw distance issue.I have built a few coops and sceneries and for instance,stone castles in the mountains do not show up till you are VERY close on final approach.Rather disconcerting and rather unrealistic.As fabulous as FB is, and with all the great minds working on this premier sim, i would hope that someone might be able to improve a little on this issue.Is there a solution using the grapics engine that FB uses?
Thank you for your time and thank you for such a wonderful flight simulator :-) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
Ddave

ZG77_Lignite
07-11-2004, 09:25 AM
Though there is no solution for 'us', the end user (beyond using the 'perfect' landscape option), it IS possible for Oleg to change this effect (he has adjusted things in the past, airfields for example). However, if it does not change, there is a reason; namely hardware. This sim is Still on the bleeding edge hardware wise, and the vast majority of machines playing it would not be able to cope with the increase in workload (draw distance).

All in my humble opinion of course.

LEXX_Luthor
07-11-2004, 11:46 AM
No, my ATI 9200 gives 30fps on slightly better than Excellent settings at 1152x864x32 (no AA AF). *

ATI 9200 proves that FB is ancient old grafix.

Oleg needs to make the horizon edge 30km instead of 20km for all settings now. Right now the 30km is said to be found only in Perfect mode which even the latest Beta test video cards still struggle with. Excellent settings are great for the common man/manette in the street (those that refuse to pay for the Privelage of Beta Testing newer ATI and Nvida products).

* I get better than Excellent settings by starting with Excellent and then putting a few manual tweaks into "conf" file. One trick I found involves a hidden "cloud detail" setting. In FB menu, the Simple Clouds draw clouds to about 5km, Detailed Clouds draw clouds to about 10km. In "conf" file I found a setting that draws clouds out to 20km--all the way to the visible map edge--with ATI 9200 at that.

The setting I founc involves one of these two settings...one changes my cloud drawing out to 20km, the other, when changed, wipes out the tiny puffy details in the high level 7km cirrocumulus clouds and makes them look like smooth cirrus clouds (useful for a change in sky appearance)

TexFlags.PolygonStipple=1
TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0

just forgot which is which

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Nub_322Sqn
07-11-2004, 12:11 PM
Polygon Stipple is a substitude for Stencil Buffer and Clamped Sprites is an old IL2 Graphics menu setting that is still showing up in the conf.ini but not in the menu anymore.

If I recall correctly it had something to do with clouds and smoke pufs (From the flak/aaa guns) and Clamped Sprites needed to be used if people experienced performance issues during heavy aaa fire.

So I assume it's the clamped sprites option that does something to the clouds lexx.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

_Ddave_
07-11-2004, 04:03 PM
Ancient or old graphix or whatever, IL2 is still eons beyond CFS1,and it has better draw distance than IL2 Fb.( I know,2-d versus 3-d).Still, you should be able to at least make out shapes of a city from 10 miles away, not just a black spot on the map till your right on it. That's the only real major drawback, is the draw distance.

I put a huge fortress/castle on a mountain top and you should be able to see from at least ten kilometers away,not one kilometer or less.Especially when you see runway fires,landing poles, etc first ,then at the last second,the fortress walls pop up. I don't know if the code for the individual objects can be adjusted or if its the graphic engine itself.In the Airport 2.60 airfield scenery design program you could adjust draw distance for any componet of a scenery to suit your needs.

If Oleg could fix that then he really would have a flawless flight sim in my opinion.Hopefully in Pacific Fighters or BoB this issue will improve.I think that it is an important component for a good flight sim.

Just my 2 cents worth.I'm not looking for an explanation ,just sort of hopeing out loud that someone who can do something might read this LOL.

Again thanks for your time,patience and space in this forum.IL2 FB is still the best :-)
Dd

LeadSpitter_
07-11-2004, 04:54 PM
your one of those!

And half of us agree with you, the other half will call us whiners.

In the last few patches they got reduced pretty short which is difficult for bombing from alt. I liked it the way it was before and dont notice any significant fps increase. It seems we have no way to change the draw distance either. I also noticed the meshes look like the deform even when landscape is on 3 which i think is the highest in the config.ini

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

plumps_
07-11-2004, 06:06 PM
Your settings for visibility distance do influence the draw distance.

It may also depend on your hardware. I think if you have more RAM the draw distance will be increased. Can anybody confirm this?

I agree that the distance is too short for most of the larger objects, especially for the cliff object #10. It's also inconsistent as there are some large objects that are drawn later than some smaller objects.
Increasing the distance may enormously increase the number of objects that have to be rendered. A possible way to improve this would be to create simplified models (LODs) for the map objects, but we don't have that in FB.
Regular towns will still be visible from large distances as there's a grey texture below these objects. Unfortunately you can't use this trick yourself when you place objects on the map.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

Mysticpuma2003
07-13-2004, 02:04 PM
Guys, I think that this is a very good point, and I'd just like to add my support to this thread. The only way I have made the ground 'appear' more consistant is to use the zoomed view, not wide, normal but zoomed. This acts like a telephoto lens and compresses the perspective, effectively cutting out pop-up. This only works from an F2 view though, as in the cockpit, I assume to look at the ground it would be prohibative. It's only a quick fix, and I agree it should be looked at. Good call!

http://www.aqqm31.dsl.pipex.com/Mysticpuma.jpg

JG14_Josf
07-14-2004, 01:25 PM
I believe the zoom view is a misnomer.

It would be nice to know this as a fact and not an opinion.

Narrow angle view is a more appropriate term to describe the supposed full "zoom" view.

The idea is such that the narrow angle view represents the most accurate representation of what the eye would see within the area contained on a 17" computer monitor.

In other words the best simulation of what a real pilot would see is if multiple 17" monitors were placed all around the player and all the monitors were set to full "zoom".

Consider the same situation with multiple monitors only instead of being in full zoom these monitors were set to Wide Angle view. In this situation the monitors would be duplicating areas of view instead of a seemless representation of the area being simulated.

Zoom is actually not zoom it is instead a peripheral compromise and in my opinion a very good one.

It would however be nice to have a wider range of peripheral adjustment where the player can select more viewing angle (at the expense of less veiwable detail) when needed.

That is the compromise: to fit more viewable area on the one hand and less viewable detail on the other. Zoom in for detail (actaul size of objects being viewed) and zoom out for a larger peripheral view (stuffing more area into the limited space on the monitor).

Once a player becomes proficient at changing the view angle the value of this feature becomes obvious. And it becomse clear that the feature is anything but magnification.

Again, the ideal situation would be to have multiple 17" monitors all set to narrow view angle (zoom) placed all around the player with no gaps or overlaps to fully simulate what the real pilot would see.

Antisub
07-17-2004, 02:55 AM
The effect (zoomed in, normal, wide view) is like a camera with interchangable lenses. The in-game zoomed-in view is actually (I believe) like a 50mm normal lens, close to what the human eye would see. The "normal" in-game view is more like a 35mm wide-angle lens. The "wide view" in-game is more like a fisheye lens (or looking through binoculars the wrong way so you get a really wide view but everything is extremely small).

You're right, we all need many, many 17" monitors to simulate what the human eye would see looking out the cockpit. It ain't gonna happen. I would be happy if they'd just make the external planes larger in the "normal" and "wide" view, so you could actually see the enemy.

Here's an exercise: cut a 17" hole (or 19" or 21" depending on your monitor) in a box, sit in your parked car with the box hole a foot and a half in front of you (normal monitor viewing distance). What do you see? Almost no "cockpit" just like in the in-game zoomed-in view, and other cars (planes) are normal size. Now do the same thing while looking through binoculars the wrong way. You see a lot more "cockpit" but the other cars (planes) are so small you can hardly make them out. Can you imagine driving like that? Yet that is how we all fly in the game. Game purists insist on flying with icons off and cockpit on, as that simulates "reality". No "real" pilot flies while looking through binoculars backwards.

Sorry I got on a soapbox. I know the three view angles compensate for having to look through a 17' hole. Yeah, there may be a problem with draw distance, but everything should be referenced to the zoomed-in view as it most accurately simulates what the human eye would see.