PDA

View Full Version : why dot view 3.11 was thrown to the garbage



raaaid
03-23-2005, 01:14 PM
now i hve just wandered half an hour looking for foes and the only way to find them is go down to see them above you

whats the point of gainning energy advantage if you cant see your foe then

the more i see the worse this game is becoming since the good old il2 good things like 3.11 dots are trown away while the not stalling of some planes (biplanes) stays

raaaid
03-23-2005, 01:14 PM
now i hve just wandered half an hour looking for foes and the only way to find them is go down to see them above you

whats the point of gainning energy advantage if you cant see your foe then

the more i see the worse this game is becoming since the good old il2 good things like 3.11 dots are trown away while the not stalling of some planes (biplanes) stays

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-23-2005, 01:20 PM
I agree things are WAYYYYY easier to see from below, but I'll take the "E" advantage + bad vis instead of the low "E" + good vis

TB

JFC_Warhawk
03-23-2005, 01:23 PM
While I agree the dots are not as big as they were in 3.11, I have no trouble seeing a far off, smaller dot.

Stiglr
03-23-2005, 02:25 PM
This is a horrendous affront to history, because the perch is one of the strongest positions you can occupy. There's a reason why, in the real war, fighters didn't really feel comfortable unless they had at least 3 to 4 km of alt under them before they went looking for trouble.

Oleg and his crew have gone out of their way to nullify this advantage in their sim; you can see it in how (overly) effective planes like the I-16, P-11 and I-153 can be. Since a smart, higher flying player has to basically shed all his alt and stored energy to dive in looking for these little gnatplanes, by the time he sees anything against the ground, he's blown his position, most of his alt and then has to either climb out (and lose visual) or mix it up on the deck where the gnatplanes hold all the aces.

The relative inability to see a moving dot vs. the ground is one of the chief problems with this sim's vaunted graphics. This is because it has the effect of voiding historical tactics.

whitetornado_1
03-23-2005, 02:36 PM
Wonder why they paintschemed planes blue
underneath and camo on top.And just how
easy was it spotting a camoflaged plane
from 4 klicks up?

How many planes did fighter escorts fly
over not being able to see them?

Blackdog5555
03-23-2005, 03:13 PM
I find myself in agreement of Stiglr. I wont say its an affront to history though. Sim reality or Sim History, yes. A course we are looking at pixels on a screen, not reality. I live on a mountain 10 miles away from an airport and watch with my bare **** eyes planes taking off and landing. At airshows, or video, watching WWII airbirds you can get a sense that a computer monitor at 1600x 1200 is lacking in that it cant capture true human viual acuity in spotting planes from high altitudes. The pixels are just not there. Thats why i liked the "spots" as a reasonable substitute. BD

Sturmtrooper
03-23-2005, 03:59 PM
This is my biggest gripe about this sim.

Not the "so-and-so plane is overmodeled" whine,or the "lack of a flyable.." whatever,or even the "we were promised by Oleg...." waaaa!!

My gripe is the way aircraft are almost invisible when viewed from above.Stigler has a good point!By the time that you get low enough to spot your opponent,you've lost all E advantage.

Everyone knows that the second most important rule in WW2(and WW1)dogfighting was to gain the altitude advantage.The first rule being to spot your opponent first.

It seems like in this sim you must sacrifice the second rule in order to achieve the first.

I say bring back the 3.11 dots!

Oh well,just my 2 cents.

EnGaurde
03-23-2005, 04:29 PM
i dont think anyone can seriously argue with the advantage of storing speed as height for straight line interceptors.

i too can see jumbo jets flying at contrail level, make out their flying surfaces quite easily. I flew in a Tiger Moth not long back, and at 1000 feet i swear i could distinguish faces ( not eyes or noses etc, but where the face was ) on a person from that height.

makes me think you could well see aircraft at lower level, haze / smoke / cloud notwithstanding.

Though the concept of pixel limits is spot on IMO, nothing can simulate the infinite LOD that the Mk I eyeball possesses. Not a screen worth < $500 anyway.

To blame design efforts is a little short sighted, as far as i know its always been that designers can put amazing LOD in, but have to work to Pentium 1.2 Ghz Celeron and 256mb ram people on one end and rather agricultural display systems on the other.

side note: ive always wondered why the rest of the hardware advances so quickly, but we cant get a pixelless / next gen and affordable way of viewing computer screens to save our lives. Its as if the useless 1.44mb floppy disk immortal phenomenon lives on in the giant electron gun or motion blurred pixellated LCD development black hole.

why wont moores law apply to screens?

Computer Displays: The Forgotten Generation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 05:19 PM
raiid, the answer to your Question is that Oleg releaced 3.01 dots with "dotrange" set too high, thus causing the dots to be fairly large at medium computer resolutions and at both close and long dot ranges. However this could be Fixed with mp_dotrange command, giving larger dots at medium range, and smaller dots at long range, just like real life.

Oleg posted about this method of configuring the 3.01 dots, but before Oleg could work with us about this and improve the dots for all, he retreated to small dots in the face of overwhelmingly violent internet dogfighter Protest.

Most interesting, we discovered that these internet dogfighters did not know about their own mp_dotrange command, which surprised us, as "mp" is for "multiplayer." Equally bizzare is none of them could talk about mp_dotrange, as if "large" dot size was not what they were really afraid of, and only offered Jokes about Basketball Dots, Beach Ball Dots, etc....

Below is common example of the Deception used at this webboard...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Wonder why they paintschemed planes blue
underneath and camo on top. <span class="ev_code_yellow">And just how
easy was it spotting a camoflaged plane
from 4 klicks up?</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stiglr never posted the higher aircraft is 4km above the lower aircraft. Stiglr only posted that the higher aircraft is flown at 4km above sea level (or ground level).

Also, dot size is Monitor Resolution dependent (according to some, lower resolution helps internet dogfight performance--although I don't totally understand why). As more and more people fly at higher resolutions, FB/PF Invisible Dots against the ground begin to contradict Real Life pilot accounts of seeing and conducting Bounce against lower aircraft. Most sad was the very brief Flowering of No Icon servers, to be crushed underfoot by the Invisible Dots return.

The real Mystery is why Oleg never talked with us who knew his simulator, and knew about mp_dotrange. That is the scary thing.

Stanger_361st
03-23-2005, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by whitetornado_1:
Wonder why they paintschemed planes blue
underneath and camo on top.And just how
easy was it spotting a camoflaged plane
from 4 klicks up?

How many planes did fighter escorts fly
over not being able to see them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the joke about this game. When you can get close enough to see a plane rendered, camo means nothing in this game.

How can you see camo when all you see is a dot. When the cammo is displayed in game the plane is big enough to see anyway.

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 06:57 PM
361:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When you can get close enough to see a plane rendered, camo means nothing in this game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try looking at a Winter skinned plane over a Summer map. Even better, look at a Void skinned plane over a Summer map. Cammo means everything in this game, as you will soon see.

Try it, and we see this game shows why real life pilots didn't use Winter skins during summer operations. You could also try bare aluminumnum USA skins and see the same Winter effect over the summer maps.

The highest contrast is Void skins over the dark PF water.

In fact, this cammo effect extends to distant dots, where somehow Oleg reads the skin brightness and adjusts the white "helper" dots accordingly.

--&gt; I must admit, the "small" current dots are still FAR better than original FB Truly Invisible Dots.

Stiglr
03-23-2005, 07:09 PM
Fact of the matter is, camo doesn't do all that much in "optimal conditions". It's much more effective for masking planes that are on the ground and not moving. Or, in poor light/weather conditions.

Also, a camoflaged plane has a better chance of remaining undetected during a quick search, but likely will not defeat a determined zone search. Our eyes are much too good at contrasting a plane against a background and seeing relative movement.

The crux of the problem for the sim is in rendering a small "speck" on a monitor that's not even close to the scale that represents our field of real life vision. For that reason, the graphics should err on the side of visibility, not invisibility when it comes to "dots".

The 4-pixel black dots of old didn't look like much, true, but they resulted in much more realistic action than the "light grey pencil marks" that pass for bogies now.

Anyway, the effects on maneuver and position in the sim are clear to see (bad pun, I know) for anyone who has an understanding of why it was a HUGE advantage to be able to look down at lower planes, pick a good target, watch it to determine its path, and THEN dive in and attack it. This sim all but forces you to dive in hoping to see a dot in time to set up a good pursuit curve and get a shot. Which is ludicrous.

JunkoIfurita
03-23-2005, 07:33 PM
I know playing with icons on (limited) knocks out some of the realism, but it certainly solves the 'dot' problem without favouring one set of hardware over another.

My favourite servers have a totally minimal icon - at long/medium range, you get a black icon, simply showing a +/- (their flight position). As you get closer you get a distance, and when you get close enough to see the shape, you get an ID on the aircraft type. No red/blue or anything like that.

As long as you don't play in DirectX mode (and let's face it, why would you want to?), icons are just as visible from below as they are from above.

----

JoachimvMayern
03-24-2005, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raaaid:
now i hve just wandered half an hour looking for foes and the only way to find them is go down to see them above you

whats the point of gainning energy advantage if you cant see your foe then

the more i see the worse this game is becoming since the good old il2 good things like 3.11 dots are trown away while the not stalling of some planes (biplanes) stays <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally in a real war, you'd have your bombers flying missions to destroy ground targets and the fighters would cover. In this game, unless it's a coop mission, people just fly to dogfight. So the guy down low in the slow but highly maneuverable plane really has nothing much to lose. If your in the faster, less maneuverable plane the you have to make a decision. Go low and fight or stay high and wait. Since the goal in the dogfight servers is only to destroy other aircraft, you have to engage, or just enjoy the scenery from above if you really don't want to lose that E.

LEXX_Luthor
03-24-2005, 12:34 AM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fact of the matter is, camo doesn't do all that much in "optimal conditions". It's much more effective for masking planes that are on the ground and not moving. Or, in poor light/weather conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They cammoed the NAVY planes dark blue, and the cammo didn't help hide them on a carrier deck. NAVY cammo was flying colours.

carguy_
03-24-2005, 12:46 AM
The most idiotic change that has been made is denying the value of 3.10 dots.

This hurts USAAF and LW while RAF and VVS benefit all the way.It is obvious those zooming planes cheat.They should come down and fight!Cowards!


Moreover the dots wouldn`t have been removed if USAAF/LW pilots welcomed them.The whole T&B lobby was for unrealistic eye aching dots plus 50percent of the B&Z lobby which gives 75% of gamers wanting new dots.

Never will I understand why it is realistic to STARE at a field of view for 10seconds and not spot the d@mn plane from 500m.

The compromise was great,best ever,but those denying the meaning of 'compromise' ruined it all.

"New dots are more realistic" by Oleg I take for complete BS.


BTW the Spitfire has a render bug at distances &gt;400m.Instead of the wings by which enemies` manuevuers are jugded they are not being rendered!This results in tactical mistakes.
How can I react to a offeensive yoyo when I see a running away plane?

LEXX_Luthor
03-24-2005, 01:06 AM
Read this~&gt; http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001769

These are honest FB/PF simmers. You won't find that honesty at this webboard. These are the serious flight simmers Oleg needs to pay attention to.

TacticalYak3
03-24-2005, 06:28 AM
Good discussion.

While I prefer no-icons one can certainly appreciate the usefulness of having some customized form of icons to compensate for lack of visibility.

I liked the original dot size Maddox Games released a while back, especially for spotting planes that were low to the ground when one was much higher up.

As I mostly fly Allied (Russian) planes the visibility issue is not as pronounce as it is when I occasionally fly a BnZ tactic using German planes.

I find this visibility a real problem especially when enjoying offline campaigns. AI planes certainly know who everyone is from great distances. You end up either wasting your altitude advantage, "cheating" by watching the reaction of your AI squad mates, or playing it too conservative and returning home without evening engaging a bandit.

Using a headset with sound turned up helps. However, Maddox reduced/tweaked the engine sound due to online cheating - rightly so I guess.

However, on a 1024x768 resolution using gun sight I personally find it difficult to ID beyond - what? - 1500 to 2000 metres. While I compensate using other clues, if this could only be addressed without using icons it would be great.

To conclude, the dot visibility isn't really the issue being debated I think, it€s the visibility of the aircraft from a reasonable distance (poor silhouette, lack of engine sound from a distance, and inability to see markings/etc).

In the end I wish they would provide the tools for better/more realistic plane ID in offline campaigns. While they could be exploited online allow hosts to disable such features. In the end squads or friendly (i.e., trustworthy gamers) servers might migrate to no-icon environments that feature enhanced visibility and engine sounds.

TactS!

Jex_TG
03-24-2005, 06:29 AM
I don't have too much trouble spotting dots on the ground, but I'm usually at around 1-2000m. I don't go higher for that reason as I'm left thinking "will I see anything". However, how realistic was this?

I do not mind scanning around for contacts. In fact, I do it almost without thinking these days. The amount of planes I've shot down simply because I looked around, saw them, and snuck up on them is more than my score where both pilots have visual.

I have yet to be attacked on my six by an unknown bandit. Sometimes I have just ignored guys on my six, trying to push for home, only to be shot down as I slowed for landing, but never surprised.

So is it just a fact that no-one can be bothered to look around there planes, and want an easy dot to see? To me this would seem to be the case because I sneak up on a lot of pilots.

In defence of this though, I also fly bombing missions, and a lot of those see me flying low on the deck on my ingress. Why would I want it to be easy for you guys to see me from above lol? It's hard enough getting through that flak, let alone being dived on as well.

I'm going to have to test this tonight and see what it looks like at 5000m or so. I agree that it is pointless being so far up and not being able to see a thing. Of course, you are perfectly highlighted against the sky, and I've yet to really give the B&Z tactic a go.

Of course the other annoyance is that when you do finally see a contact below you and you dive on it, it ends up being one of yours... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

lol

drose01
03-24-2005, 06:34 AM
I agree with the idea that there is a serious visibility issue.

I have sworn off any "full real" game (ie no icons) because too often I will lose sight of a plane that I am less then a few hundred meters above and pursuing. I cannot see the plane dot/silhouette because it blends in the dark shades in the landscape too easily, even in full daylight. While this would be realistic if I were farther or conditions were darker, it doesnt seem realistic at that proximity and conditions.

I think this is one aspect of a computer sim that lags well behind real life- we are modelling a 3D world on a 2D monitor. It is hard to render depth of objects, and we lack other cues like localization of sounds.

Jex_TG
03-24-2005, 07:35 AM
Oh for a holodeck, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aces_High_2
03-24-2005, 07:47 AM
Hi all

The uselessness of the dots and the inability to spot aircraft are some of the reasons why I fly so infrequently nowdays. When they brought in the new dots I thought "fantastic I can finally see the enemy", when they scrapped them I thought "here we go again back to the same old thing groping around trying to find anything to shoot at"

Why in heaven's name couldn't they make them an optional setting?. Certainly offline this wouldn't be so much of a problem and if they were a server-side setting then they'd be just like icons, padlock or any other optional settings. But to scrap them completely was, IMO, a big mistake and a big let down.

Regards

Aces

Drunken_Moose
03-24-2005, 07:55 AM
I don't know if I got it right, but are you guys talking about how it is hard to spot planes from up high?

I often climb to 5-6km high then... What? I NEVER can dive on anything, I just dive randomly beause it starts to get boring to fly for no reasons... Then I dive randomly and always find myself with a plane all happy to have someone's six freely. BOOM!

Was dotview 3.11 something that helped pilots to spot plane from above?

TacticalYak3
03-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Not sure about everyone else here Drunken, but while I preferred the previous DOT I can live with the present one. Seeing a BOGEY isn't the problem for me, ID a BANDIT is. Obviously you need to come closer to confirm the target, but one must come very close to do so in this game.

Sound, glass reflection, and better plane silhouettes would allow better ID from more realistic distances. In the end maybe this is a technical constraint, and yet if I could/should hear that FW engine a little bit further out I would know what tactic to employ.

Drunken_Moose
03-24-2005, 08:47 AM
But what was Dot view 3.11 ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

TAGERT.
03-24-2005, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Fact of the matter is, camo doesn't do all that much in "optimal conditions". It's much more effective for masking planes that are _on the ground and not moving_. Or, in poor light/weather conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, a camoflaged plane has a better chance of remaining undetected during a quick search, but likely will not defeat a determined zone search. Our eyes are much too good at contrasting a plane against a background and seeing relative movement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The crux of the problem for the sim is in rendering a small "speck" on a monitor that's not even close to the scale that represents our field of real life vision. For that reason, the graphics should err on the side of visibility, not _in_visibility when it comes to "dots". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The 4-pixel black dots of old didn't look like much, true, but they resulted in much more realistic action than the "light grey pencil marks" that pass for bogies now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Anyway, the effects on maneuver and position in the sim are clear to see (bad pun, I know) for anyone who has an understanding of why it was a HUGE advantage to be able to look down at lower planes, pick a good target, watch it to determine its path, and THEN dive in and attack it. This sim all but forces you to dive in _hoping_ to see a dot in time to set up a good pursuit curve and get a shot. Which is ludicrous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

See.. and you thought I just took the oposite side of the argument to pick on you.. Fact is Ill agree with anyone I *think* is right.. Problem for you is, your just wrong more than you are right! ;

PS
http://www.remnantsaints.com/AlternativeUtilities/images/hell_freeze.jpg

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 09:52 AM
*thud*

(paramedics rush in, place me gingerly on a gurney and hustle me to a waiting ambulance)

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 09:54 AM
So.... what's stopping us all from lobbying for a RETURN to the 3.11 settings? Even curmudgeonly Tagert is in agreement.

The only folks who disagree are those who simply like a "cloak of invisibility", no matter how unrealistic it is.

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 09:59 AM
(after going back a page and reading some more comments)

Sound is NOT an issue in this discussion. You won't hear anything but your own engine, except in perhaps the case where you're flying within 1km of a huge, droning bomber group.

Sound is not going to help pick a bogie out of landscape at 3km.

Drunken_Moose
03-24-2005, 10:17 AM
Arr..What was dot view? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

TheGozr
03-24-2005, 11:25 AM
DOT are fine the way they are now .
maybe add a litle bit of reflection down low.

TacticalYak3
03-24-2005, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(after going back a page and reading some more comments)

Sound is NOT an issue in this discussion. You won't hear anything but your own engine, except in perhaps the case where you're flying within 1km of a huge, droning bomber group.

Sound is not going to help pick a bogie out of landscape at 3km. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough, although in light that some apparently could hear planes some distance away before Maddox tweaked the sound system a while ago, I thought this could be a non-graphical solution (or partial solution).

Granted not realistic, just not as ugly as icons IMO, and more possible then Maddox investing any real time in the graphics department.

TROOPER117
03-24-2005, 12:34 PM
A good thread guys, lots of info and valid points.
Something to note though. A point I consistantly make to my soldiers in training. No matter how good your camouflage is, THE main reason you will be seen is movement! Movement attracts the eye, and you will be seen even in peripheral vision.
In reality, a fast moving aircraft against a static background should attract the eye. But I guess the limits of technology in the game may not be up to real life yet!!

Regards everybody.... Dave S

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 12:39 PM
Trooper117 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I guess the limits of technology in the game may not be up to real life yet!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly why icons are a necessary evil.

I could never understand why the "eye candy" people say icons are "so ugly", but are content to settle for visuals as bad as they are in this sim. The affront to realism in not seeing bogies you should see (which, I might add, is KEY to success in aerial combat) is much worse than a few colored letters over a computer screen.

carguy_
03-24-2005, 12:40 PM
Changing back to those dots is a dream now.Mudmovers like it cuz they go in and go out without being spotted,T&Bers have no problem whatsoever cuz most of the time they`re down low.

As for mudmovers after changes it all came down to:
-be lower than arriving bombers
-wait for tracers to appear


Everyone knows B&Z requires good positioning.You don`t just see a plane down low and dive on it.You go either from the sun or perform multiple manueuvers in order to spare the most out of the energy advantage.

In online wars most LW pilots cruise @3000m in a 15km radius from the target.If you don`t meet incoming bomber formations in your sector the mission is lost.

And IL2 are just as invisible as B25 bombers.

One cannot deny this having some experience flying LW.

TacticalYak3
03-24-2005, 12:56 PM
Icons never bothered me either. Our Squad likes using customized settings, which I do think places mates' low and high end computer systems on an even playing field.

Offline I prefer no icons for the added challenge and immersion. Yet one must accept the obvious ID disadvantage compared to AI pilots.

If I had it my way there would be an option to have a small, coloured symbol above/below an aircraft to provide identification. A good customized setup would show this symbol a certain distance away, with no symbol at close range and just a DOT further out.

Regards,
TactS!

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 01:48 PM
It's been my experience that the "No-icon Nazis" still don't even realize that icons are configurable, and can be designed to be fairly inconspicuous while they address some of the graphics problems the sim has.

They seem to think that there's only one flavor of icon: the "10km, full information on a billboard" variety. They fail to recognize that you can minimize enemy info by limiting the icon to "type only", minus the digital rangecounter, even minus the telltale color, if you want.

The ironic thing is, these same "No-icon Nazis" always trot out "full realism" as their reasoning, conveniently forgetting that it's even more unrealistic not to be able to spot enemy during a determined zone search at say, 3-5km, let alone right on top of the bogie at firing range, but over a forest.

It's not hard to figure out a good icon system that provides the right info at the right ranges, and supports historical flying styles, rather than pick one style and penalize all the others.

ARM505
03-24-2005, 01:56 PM
I fly planes for a living, which is why this bothers me. Even when guided to the right place in the sky by my TCAS, it can still be tricky to spot a plane against the sky, even with bright civilian markings. Even a large plane can be difficult. BUT, when they're against the ground, the relative motion against the background really guides your eye to it. They kind of 'stand out' against the background due to their motion more than anything. The plane would have to have fantastic camo to blend in so much that the motion didn't stand out.

HellToupee
03-24-2005, 03:45 PM
i always fly low because flying high is just a waste of time, flying high you see nothing but dive down and all of a sudden theres 10 fighters right there.

Pentallion
03-24-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is a horrendous affront to history, because the perch is one of the strongest positions you can occupy. There's a reason why, in the real war, fighters didn't really feel comfortable unless they had at least 3 to 4 km of alt under them before they went looking for trouble.

Oleg and his crew have gone out of their way to nullify this advantage in their sim; you can see it in how (overly) effective planes like the I-16, P-11 and I-153 can be. Since a smart, higher flying player has to basically shed all his alt and stored energy to dive in looking for these little gnatplanes, by the time he sees anything against the ground, he's blown his position, most of his alt and then has to either climb out (and lose visual) or mix it up on the deck where the gnatplanes hold all the aces.

The relative inability to see a _moving_ dot vs. the ground is one of the chief problems with this sim's vaunted graphics. This is because it has the effect of voiding historical tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You nailed it Stigler. It's Mr. Magoo in WW2. They need to fix the visibility issue. Until then, full real isn't.

Pentallion
03-24-2005, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JunkoIfurita:
I know playing with icons on (limited) knocks out some of the realism, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it actually is MORE REAL, since you are getting visual information the Mark I eyeball would REALLY give you vs the information no Icons is missing.

ucanfly
03-24-2005, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmtrooper:
This is my biggest gripe about this sim.

Not the "so-and-so plane is overmodeled" whine,or the "lack of a flyable.." whatever,or even the "we were promised by Oleg...." waaaa!!

My gripe is the way aircraft are almost invisible when viewed from above.Stigler has a good point!By the time that you get low enough to spot your opponent,you've lost all E advantage.

Everyone knows that the second most important rule in WW2(and WW1)dogfighting was to gain the altitude advantage.The first rule being to spot your opponent first.

It seems like in this sim you must sacrifice the second rule in order to achieve the first.

I say bring back the 3.11 dots!

Oh well,just my 2 cents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree completely. For the life of me I cannot understand why Oleg almost completely erased this patch within a very short time.

I feel so strongly about it that I am still using 3.01 (even though the flight models of some planes are a little too easy with that version).

BRING BACK the 3.01 DOTS! Just make the default visibility range shorter.

Stiglr
03-24-2005, 10:02 PM
ucanfly wondered aloud:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For the life of me I cannot understand why Oleg almost completely erased this patch within a very short time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very simple. Supporting the low flying aircraft at the expense of those with alt HAD TO be a conscious design decision. I can't see any other way to completely ignore the tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Besides, we all know which planes are more likely to be lurking down in the weeds... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2005, 04:53 AM
ucanfly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I cannot understand why Oleg almost completely erased this patch within a very short time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's very simple. Supporting the low flying aircraft at the expense of those with alt HAD TO be a conscious design decision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It may not be so simple. The 3.01 dots also increased the visibility of higher aircraft seen against the sky.

Another possibility: The 3.01 dots allowed the very brief flowering of No Icon servers. No Icon servers were unheard of in the FB online gaming world until Patch 3.01, and I think this threatened alot of competitive internet "dogfight" gamers who had become dependent on, or Addicted to, the Text Icons. These new realistic servers caused Panic among them, and this is why they posted total contradictions...And Stiglr is correct, these gamers *appeared* to not know how to use mp_dotrange to configure their dots. I think they did know ("mp" is for "multiplayer"), but refused to post about it, because they knew the Text Icon servers were threatened by the new configurable dots.

The most bizzare thing is Oleg not talking to us who knew how to configure his simulator using the mp_dotrange. Why he totally ignored us I don't know. Yes ucanfly, this was a ~very~ fast retreat by Oleg indeed, a stampede. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If Oleg thinks his most reliable flight sim support comes from internet "dogfight" Death Match players, he is making a tragic mistake for the future.

AFJ_Locust
03-25-2005, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is a horrendous affront to history, because the perch is one of the strongest positions you can occupy. There's a reason why, in the real war, fighters didn't really feel comfortable unless they had at least 3 to 4 km of alt under them before they went looking for trouble.

Oleg and his crew have gone out of their way to nullify this advantage in their sim; you can see it in how (overly) effective planes like the I-16, P-11 and I-153 can be. Since a smart, higher flying player has to basically shed all his alt and stored energy to dive in looking for these little gnatplanes, by the time he sees anything against the ground, he's blown his position, most of his alt and then has to either climb out (and lose visual) or mix it up on the deck where the gnatplanes hold all the aces.

The relative inability to see a _moving_ dot vs. the ground is one of the chief problems with this sim's vaunted graphics. This is because it has the effect of voiding historical tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

TAGERT.
03-25-2005, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's very simple. Supporting the low flying aircraft at the expense of those with alt HAD TO be a conscious design decision. I can't see any other way to completely ignore the tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Besides, we all know which planes are more likely to be lurking down in the weeds... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jezzz.. Let me see if I understand your conspiracy theory correctly.. Your saying that from the get go Oleg made a CONSCIOUS DESIGN DECISION to benefit the *planes* down in the weeds and penalize the *other planes* above them.. Is that what your saying?

Then tell me.. If that was the CONSCIOUS DESIGN DECISION sense the first IL2 then why oh why would he have ever spent the time and money to develop the dots used in 3.11, then release it in a patch. When his only reason for making IL2-Pf was to benefit the *planes* down in the weeds and penalize the *other planes* above them?

Kind of blows your whole conspiracy thery out of the water doesnt it? And that is where most people who belive in black helicopters and little green men stories fall apart. Ask yourself.. if they didn't want you to know about them.. Why did they land in your back yard, F with you, and then leave?

Stig, you would have a lot more credibility around here if you would stick to the facts and leave the conspiracy theory at home next to your aluminum hat!

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 10:24 AM
Tagert, in full f@nboi mode, rushes to the defense...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then tell me.. If that was the CONSCIOUS DESIGN DECISION sense the first IL2 then why oh why would he have ever spent the time and money to develop the dots used in 3.11, then release it in a patch. When his only reason for making IL2-Pf was to benefit the *planes* down in the weeds and penalize the *other planes* above them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same way he started all that work on Complex Engine Management, only to realize that it benefitted one side in particular (the "wrong" side)... so he gutted the whole concept, whitewashed it and made it into pretty much a non-factor in the sim.

Or, let me turn the question back on you: why did Oleg, after designing the dots and seeing that they create a more realistic viewing environment in which to fight (more realistic than NOT seeing dots you should see), then choose to go back to the "invisispecks"? Hmm?

Oscar_352nd
03-25-2005, 01:25 PM
This is going to turn into one's of those cyclic threads - just like others in this forum. Its a "He said - She said" argument.

Ultimately, each pilot or group of pilots are going to find what works best for their flight simulation purposes.

Have you played (rescripted) with the "mpdotrange" commands?

I fly with freindly icons at 1.5k and foe at 1.5k. Why, becuase they give me the feeling I'm looking for. I can still see - and quite clearly - aircraft flying out there at distances up to 5k away. I can't tell who they are until I am et to atleast 1.5k away and thats the way it should be - IMHO.

You might try downloading Grille Champo's ICONSCRIPT (http://scripts.sturmovik.de/html/index_english.html) and modifying them to you liking. THis scripts are easily modifable and allow you to change mpditranges in-game so that you can experiment until you find the one that suits you.

Arguing about the pixel size of a aircraft is pointless.

Oscar

TAGERT.
03-25-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tagert, in full f@nboi mode, rushes to the defense... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr, now in full realisation that his conspiracy theory is wrong switches to the weak fanboi label in the hopes that folks wont notice he didnt answer the question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The same way he started all that work on Complex Engine Management, only to realize that it benefitted one side in particular (the "wrong" side)... so he gutted the whole concept, whitewashed it and made it into pretty much a non-factor in the sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, let me see if I understand this correctly.. Your answer to the conspiracy theory question is to make another conspiracy theory claim? That might work in your ward with all the other tards, but out here in the real world it dont.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Or, let me turn the question back on you: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, I got a bright idea, before you turn it around on me, why dont you give it a try? In that Im sure that once you sit down and try and answer the question you will realise how silly your conspiracy theory argument really is. Deal?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
why did Oleg, after designing the dots and seeing that they create a more realistic viewing environment in which to fight (more realistic than NOT seeing dots you should see), then choose to go back to the "invisispecks"? Hmm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. why bother? It is clear that the only answer you will agree with has to consits of a conspiracy.. Thus I dont have an answer for you that you will acept.

But, still waiting to get an answer from you.. One conspiracy theory at a time please! Try and answer the 1st one then we can move onto the next. Also try doubling up on the aluminum.. It might give you the strenght to do so?

Stiglr
03-25-2005, 02:51 PM
@TAGERT

Oh, I guess you don't have the grey matter to draw a conclusion based on examples. I've got to spell it out for you. OK....

The answer to both those rhetorical questions is, "It took a conscious design decision to go the way he did, given that they produced fairly unrealistic results, and that they favored, *surprise*, the VVS planes, which do better lower rather than higher, and in the other example, that have a much higher pilot workload to manage their engines than the more "automatic" German designs.

If you follow the history of this sim, you'll see it: minimize German advantages (engine management, good visibility out of FW190s, porking 20mm cannon, etc.), maximize/enhance disadvantages (inventing Revi viewpoint problems, overstating Bf109 elevator stiffness, eliminating the ability for working lower planes from the perch, etc.). And the reverse for the VVS, as seen in La5FN, Airacobra and Sturmo modeling, as just the more egregious examples.

TAGERT.
03-25-2005, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
@TAGERT

Oh, I guess you don't have the grey matter to draw a conclusion based on examples. I've got to spell it out for you. OK.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
@THE GUY WITH THE ALUMINUM HAT

Drawing conclusions? More like assuming.. with a capital A an S and S in your case. As for your ASSumption.. The part that makes no sense what so ever is why Oleg would make the new dots in the first place.. if, as you say, his CONSCIOUS DESIGN DECISION from the begging was to FAVOR the lower rather than the higher.. If so, why make the new dots in the first place? When all they DO is UN-DO his CONSCIOUS DESIGN DECISION. Get it? Sense you like examples so much.. Note that the dots of 3.11 NOT ONLY made the planes below ezer to see, but also made the planes above ezer to see.. Thus really blowing your whole theory out of the water.. And yet another example that you might be able to relate to better.. It make no sense that little green men would want to HIDE from you, then, turn around and land in your back yard and hang out with you for a day. Get it? Or is that hat on too tight?

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2005, 06:27 PM
Well, it seems right after Patch 3.01, No Icon servers popped up everywhere like mushrooms on a wet morning, and generated much excitement on the boards, but the new servers and the excitement rapidly decayed after Patch 3.02.

The other spectacular event was the wild accusations made against board members who for the first time could enjoy No Icon servers, accusing them of wanting 3.01 dots to Cheat, of wanting BasketBall dots, among other insults.

TAGERT.
03-25-2005, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Well, it seems right after Patch 3.01, No Icon servers popped up everywhere like mushrooms on a wet morning, and generated much excitement on the boards, but the new servers and the excitement rapidly decayed after Patch 3.02.

The other spectacular event was the wild accusations made against board members who for the first time could enjoy No Icon servers, accusing them of wanting 3.01 dots to Cheat, of wanting BasketBall dots, among other insults. If Oleg in any way continues to let these hostile competitive internet gamers effect his flight sim designs, they will drag him to ruin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it seems right to alot of people that little green men have visited this planet too.. But it don't make it true. Stiglr just likes to get people riled up.. Why? God only knows what Jolly he gets out of it.. Too bad too, because he has a good point from time to time.. But, Stig is like a Steer.. A POINT here and a POINT there and a whole lot of BULL in between.

I personally liked the 3.11 dots! And would like to see them brought back! But, I think accusing Oleg of having some ulterior motives or being part os some conspiracy is not going to get you any support from the people here let alone Oleg. Unless you consider a few people with ALUMINUM HATS chanting DOTS! DOTS! DOTS support? This tach will result in one thing only.. Oleg reading it, laughing hard, and blowing off the whole idea because of the stupid and childish conspiracy accusations being presented.

Now if your goal is to beeeeeeeeyach like a little girl and get people upset, than yes that is a good way to go about it. Which come to think of it is what Stig sounds like to me in allmost all of his posts. Is he ever happy with anything? God, I feel sorry for his family! How would you like to be the kid who has to come home to a dad like that when all you have is 5 A's and 1 B+! No soup for you!

Von_Rat
03-25-2005, 07:32 PM
i have a good enough system to run 1600x1200, on 22in. monitor. but i gotta run 1024x768 to even stand a chance of seeing anything.

i dunno about conspiracys, but i know from reading the boards at the time, the tnb crowd were screaming the loudest, about the larger dots.

carguy_
03-25-2005, 07:45 PM
Complaints are being raised because Oleg simply ignored us.There was a poll and ppl liking those ugly dots were the majority than those willing to have new dots or those wanting old dots to be brought back.

Oleg argued that new dots are more realistic than those old,big ones but somewhere the ability to spot aircraft was,again,turned into a hide and seek contest.

You will never convince me that not seeing a plane against the ground from 500m is realistic.I mean see the plane,not ID it.

JunkoIfurita
03-25-2005, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its a "He said - She said" argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sings*
She Said, She said - I know what it's like to be dead! I know what it is to be sad!

And she's making me feel like, I've never been born.

I said...who put all those things in your head? Things that make me feel like I'm mad?

And you're making me feel like I've never been born...

----

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2005, 07:58 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I personally liked the 3.11 dots! And would like to see them brought back! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 110%

--

Can we all call them 3.01 dots now?

ucanfly
03-26-2005, 01:47 PM
I am agreeing vehemently with those that want the 3.01 dots back. Realism is the main attraction of this game to me, and the dot visibility is a joke IMO.

Don't blame bad dot visibility on our computers Oleg because you went a long way toward fixing the problem with 3.01. All you needed to do was make the default dot range smaller, so that the ignorant , lazy, or attention deficit among us would not have to adjust the range ourselves with the aforementioned mp_dotrange command.

BRING BACK THE 3.01 DOTS PLEASE.

If you do, maybe then I will use a more current patch.

Thanks for listening.

Aaron_GT
03-26-2005, 04:14 PM
Stiglr wrote:
"Oleg and his crew have gone out of their way to nullify this advantage in their sim;"

Whilst I agree with some of what you are saying, I somehow doubt that Oleg and crew are seeking to make it unrealistically hard to spot planes against the ground.

Firstly sometimes in WW2 it actually WAS hard to spot planes against the ground. Many of the engagements we read about where one formation swoops on another were conducted at a resonable altitude, and you have one squadron at, say, 20,000 feet swooping down on another at 15,000 feet highlighted against cloud.

In non optimial conditions contacting the enemy was often difficult. There are many log books with entries reporting failure to contact the enemy as they were simply not spotted.

Ultimately, though, it is tricky to reproduce the resolution of the human eye on a monitor which has only a fraction of the resolution and lacks stereo vision. The typical monitor subtends an angle at the eye which is mostly the foveal region, which has the best resolving power but is least sensitive to motion. In real life you spot motion very easily from the corner of your eye and can then focus on it. This is missing in simulation technology.

Basically the best that we can hope for is for Oleg to try different techniques that give the same subjective effect but using the technology we have. The complication is that this must also work on a variety of hardware and screen resolutions and not be prone to people gaming the game. It's not an easy thing to get right. In TargetWare the view distance and ability to initially sight things is longer than IL2, and probably better, but the transition as the object gets closer is much better than IL2. Each sim could learn from the other.

Aaron_GT
03-26-2005, 04:18 PM
The other thing about the view system is that a 1:1 sizing (i.e. objects out in the game world subtend the same angle at the eye as would occur in real life) only occurs at full zoom in. With full zoom in you can comparatively easily see planes moving over the ground. However you lose the field of vision you need to play the sim. The other views involve compromises of resolving power and distortion of the image field (just like all other sims) to correct for this. This issue will only really be resolved when we all have super high resolution HMDs with wraparound peripheral vision.

Stiglr
03-26-2005, 04:38 PM
Aaron_GT wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In TargetWare the view distance and ability to initially sight things is longer than IL2, and probably better, but the transition as the object gets closer is much better than IL2. Each sim could learn from the other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno if I fully agree with that.

For one thing, Targetware has the possibility for the server to be set with larger (or smaller) dot sizes. It's altogether possible to create the Oleg style of "invisidots". Mostly, people at Targetware see the folly in that sort of thing, and set the dotsize to an average or slightly larger size.

Transitionwise, Targetware faces the exact same problems as IL-2. But, no icon settings are a rarity there; it's pretty much understood that, because a monitor can't be a substitute for human vision, some gameplay devices (icons, dot size, etc.) are NECESSARY to create a simulation of that visual acuity; also, it is realized at Targetware that the inclusion of such devices are more important, or a better choice than "better graphics" that come at the expense of simulation. Let me make clear that distinction: "better graphics" are obviously something to value, but not at the EXPENSE of simulation of something as crucial to air combat as visual acuity and tracking.

I recall an experiment someone ran at Targetware with no icons. The "transition" effect of having a dot turn into an "invisible" planeshape was every bit as frustrating and every bit as common with the Targetware graphics system as it is in IL-2. Targetware offers some user-configurable commands to change the range at which the dot-to-planeshape conversion happens, but this did little to stop players from paradoxically losing visual at a key time in an engagement as the range decreased.

TAGERT.
03-26-2005, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Aaron_GT wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In TargetWare the view distance and ability to initially sight things is longer than IL2, and probably better, but the transition as the object gets closer is much better than IL2. Each sim could learn from the other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno if I fully agree with that.

For one thing, Targetware has the possibility for the server to be set with larger (or smaller) dot sizes. It's altogether possible to create the Oleg style of "invisidots". Mostly, people at Targetware see the folly in that sort of thing, and set the dotsize to an average or slightly larger size.

Transitionwise, Targetware faces the exact same problems as IL-2. But, no icon settings are a rarity there; it's pretty much understood that, because a monitor can't be a substitute for human vision, some gameplay devices (icons, dot size, etc.) are NECESSARY to create a simulation of that visual acuity; also, it is realized at Targetware that the inclusion of such devices are more important, or a better choice than "better graphics" that come at the expense of simulation. Let me make clear that distinction: "better graphics" are obviously something to value, but not at the EXPENSE of simulation of something as crucial to air combat as visual acuity and tracking.

I recall an experiment someone ran at Targetware with no icons. The "transition" effect of having a dot turn into an "invisible" planeshape was every bit as frustrating and every bit as common with the Targetware graphics system as it is in IL-2. Targetware offers some user-configurable commands to change the range at which the dot-to-planeshape conversion happens, but this did little to stop players from paradoxically losing visual at a key time in an engagement as the range _decreased_. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>suprise suprise.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2005, 06:06 PM
The transition from distant dot (possibly multiple pixels) to small aircraft image can be dealt with by high monitor resolutions.

MagnumHK
03-26-2005, 07:46 PM
This is a very very OLD problem with visibility that has been discussed in detail before. There have been a lot of good suggestions to improve this in the last FEW years.

However, the solution to ONE of the most serious problems in this sim remains at best elusive.

One really has to wonder WHY?

fordfan25
03-26-2005, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmtrooper:
This is my biggest gripe about this sim.

Not the "so-and-so plane is overmodeled" whine,or the "lack of a flyable.." whatever,or even the "we were promised by Oleg...." waaaa!!

My gripe is the way aircraft are almost invisible when viewed from above.Stigler has a good point!By the time that you get low enough to spot your opponent,you've lost all E advantage.

Everyone knows that the second most important rule in WW2(and WW1)dogfighting was to gain the altitude advantage.The first rule being to spot your opponent first.

It seems like in this sim you must sacrifice the second rule in order to achieve the first.

I say bring back the 3.11 dots!

Oh well,just my 2 cents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

me2

Clan_Graham
03-26-2005, 07:59 PM
Ah, you're right.
Lets not bother painting planes with camouflage like they do in real life.
Lets make every plane in the game bright, highly reflective silver.
That way even the newest noobs will never lose sight of a plane.
Heck, you wouldn't want to make this game tooooo easy. Like dogfighting in real life is.

Stiglr
03-26-2005, 08:05 PM
Hate to clue you in on this, Graham, but:

It's not an issue of seeing a "silver planeshape" or even a "camo'd planeshape".

It's an issue of seeing a DOT (that is, before the planeshape draws) at an intermediate range at which most people will tell you the eye WILL pick out an aircraft against the ground.

Also, people who do not check around will be surprised whether enemy or visible or not. That's just their nature not to be looking.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2005, 08:11 PM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>people who do not check around will be surprised whether enemy or visible or not.

That's just their nature not to be looking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly!

Clan_Graham
03-26-2005, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Hate to clue you in on this, Graham, but:

It's not an issue of seeing a "silver planeshape" or even a "camo'd planeshape".

It's an issue of seeing a DOT (that is, before the planeshape draws) at an intermediate range at which most people will tell you the eye WILL pick out an aircraft against the ground.

Also, people who do not check around will be surprised whether enemy or visible or not. That's just their nature not to be looking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry.
Allow me to rephrase.
Lets make every plane in the game at an intermediate range a bright, highly reflective...dot.

That way our job will be easier and we won't have to learn how to actually fly properly or develope any real skills.

Can you spell A-R-C-A-D-E ?

For that matter, what makes you so sure that the dots were right THEN as opposed to NOW?
It seems to me that if you lose sight of your opponant it makes little difference if he's a dot or not.
And if a plane is not clear off in the distance..well here's a thought. GET CLOSER !!!

Recon_609IAP
03-26-2005, 09:14 PM
I think the larger Russian community was in violent protest over 3.11 and so Oleg changed it.

Basically, although this forum voted for it - it's vote population was pale in comparision to the Russian forums.

At least that is what I was told...

Personally, I loved it - I could actually see ground objects and escort my bombers without the unrealistic 'zoom' view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A bit of a contradiction eh? tiny dots with unrealistic zoom views vs larger more visible dots in normal view....

As soon as Oleg switched it back, the icon servers all went back to icons - lol.

TAGERT.
03-26-2005, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clan_Graham:
Ah, you're right.
Lets not bother painting planes with camouflage like they do in real life.
Lets make every plane in the game bright, highly reflective silver.
That way even the newest noobs will never lose sight of a plane.
Heck, you wouldn't want to make this game tooooo easy. Like dogfighting in real life is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like Stig pointed out earlier, camo was not for flying as much as for hiding them while on the ground.

TAGERT.
03-26-2005, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clan_Graham:
I'm sorry.
Allow me to rephrase.
Lets make every plane in the game at an intermediate range a bright, highly reflective...dot.

That way our job will be easier and we won't have to learn how to actually fly properly or develope any real skills.

Can you spell A-R-C-A-D-E ?

For that matter, what makes you so sure that the dots were right THEN as opposed to NOW?
It seems to me that if you lose sight of your opponant it makes little difference if he's a dot or not.
And if a plane is not clear off in the distance..well here's a thought. GET CLOSER !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>dont be sorry, your welcome to your opinion, just dont confuse your opition with fact. The only FACT here is that a 21" monitor with a 2D display does not do a good job of simulating what people see in the real world. As for when you could see an airplane in real life.. I dont know.. But when you consider all the limitations we have to deal with in simulating a real 3D 120FOV world on a 21" 2D 60FOV monitor I think Ill have to agree with Stiglr when he siad

"the graphics should err on the side of visibility, not in visibility when it comes to dots"

That is my opinion, and Im not confusing it with reality, in that I clearly said I dont know what a real WWII pilot could or could not see.. The only thing I do for for a FACT is a 21" 2D 60FOV monitor does not do the real world justice. So, if you have to make the call on which way to go, side with giving us more, not less.

LEXX_Luthor
03-27-2005, 01:28 AM
Recon:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the larger Russian community was in violent protest over 3.11 and so Oleg changed it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fascinating. They say the original IL~2 dots were larger, of course back then probably everybody ran 1024x768 resolution and lower. I started out FB with 640x480. I am running ATI~9200, but I know how to get 1152x864 easily, and single pixel dots vanish in the landscape even with the white helper dot. It may be that the Russian market is using a much older class of video cards. But then we also had violent Protest at this western webboard by players using modern UltraPro video cards at Extreme low resolution for competitive internet Dogfight.

But, it was 3.01 not 3.11. We don't even have Patch 3.05 yet.

RedDeth
03-27-2005, 04:32 AM
dots now are a joke. plain and simple. when flying a mile up in air i can look over the side and down.

then i can see a tractor on the ground in a field plane as day.

now try seeing a plane sitting on ground from a mile up in this game. it aint happening.

totally fake view system. compared to real flying and real planes. i dont have to flip my plane upside down to look straight down either. as i said i just lean to the side and look straight down with the plane flying level.

the views are porked. they need to be more realistic as in easier to see.

in all truth arcade is more realistic than fullreal cuz anytime a plane is moving in the air and its lower than me it stands out like a GIANT sore thumb.

get rid of externals cuz they are fake but make it possible to look straight down and to see planes moving from way far away and at long range.

those large dots from 3.01 were a step in right direction but not enough to mimic real plane views.

Recon_609IAP
03-27-2005, 07:31 AM
errrrr 3.01 not 3.11

Luthor - that is true - da man told me that the Russian community was not in favor of those dots. Many complained that it was not very realistic that you could see these dots from so far away.

Remember too - the 3.01 dots were released without Oleg knowing of this change from my recollection. One of the developers released it this way.

As far as up close, the argument is simple to discuss - it is a dot up until it becomes the 3d model. The issue is never the dot to me, it's the 3d model - and yes the camo plays a role.

Up until around 2.5km or so, the object becomes the plane and not the dot. The dot is really not hard to see, it's when it shifts to the 3d model.

Turn on icons and study the range the object comes into focus as a 3d object. Note that even against the ground - you'll see a white dot - now dive. As you get closer the aircraft will disapear.

Pilots would say this is opposite, you would not see the white dot from so far away, but as you dove in closer it would be MORE visible, not less.

Again, issues of technology really - but, now, my personal view: offset the limitatons of the technology by adding things to the aircraft - such as reflective canopy to make it easier to see at that 2.5km range. But I must add, I've flown full real since I started with the original IL2 and getting kills is not an issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would actually do away with gunsight view outside of the gunsight (aka 'zoom') and return to the 3.01 dots LOL

TAGERT.
03-27-2005, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
errrrr 3.01 not 3.11

Luthor - that is true - da man told me that the Russian community was not in favor of those dots. Many complained that it was not very realistic that you could see these dots from so far away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There were only two types of people imho that beeeeeyach about the 3.11.. Errr 3.01 dots. People running 1024x768 online to have an advantage, and people who trully belive that it was that hard and that the PC monitor does a great job of simulationg a 3D world. Both are wrong imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Remember too - the 3.01 dots were released without Oleg knowing of this change from my recollection. One of the developers released it this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive.. If true, it sounds like an excuse so Oleg can save face.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
As far as up close, the argument is simple to discuss - it is a dot up until it becomes the 3d model. The issue is never the dot to me, it's the 3d model - and yes the camo plays a role.

Up until around 2.5km or so, the object becomes the plane and not the dot. The dot is really not hard to see, it's when it shifts to the 3d model.

Turn on icons and study the range the object comes into focus as a 3d object. Note that even against the ground - you'll see a white dot - now dive. As you get closer the aircraft will disapear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I experanced the same thing now and with 3.01.. It was more noticalbe with 3.01 because you could see the dot.. then not.. now it is just not not! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Pilots would say this is opposite, you would not see the white dot from so far away, but as you dove in closer it would be MORE visible, not less. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Make sense

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
Again, issues of technology really - but, now, my personal view: offset the limitatons of the technology by adding things to the aircraft - such as reflective canopy to make it easier to see at that 2.5km range. But I must add, I've flown full real since I started with the original IL2 and getting kills is not an issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Getting kills in a fur ball DF.. But getting historical types of kill.. Hard if not imposable to do in IL2-PF because it is hard to apply historical tatics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
I would actually do away with gunsight view outside of the gunsight (aka 'zoom') and return to the 3.01 dots LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, the PC's 60FOV 2D 21" monitor does not do a good job of simulating our 180FOV 3D eyes. Thus things have to be fudge to MAKE UP for that FACT! The ZOOM is just one example of them trying to do that. I think we need more, not less of that fudging!

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 01:26 PM
Graham wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lets make every plane in the game at an intermediate range a bright, highly reflective...dot.

That way our job will be easier and we won't have to learn how to actually fly properly or develope any real skills.

Can you spell A-R-C-A-D-E ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just the other extreme, and not what I'm after at all.

Making it unrealistically hardER to see than normal is just as wrong as making it easier. I'm after, simply, "a good simulation of human visual acuity as seen by a trained military pilot".

What we have now isn't even CLOSE to that. You simply cannot consistently see anything below you against the ground the way you should be able to. This invalidates historically proven tactics. So, to use your own words, it's pretty useless to "fly properly and develop those visual and searching skills", because you can't see what doesn't appear. It's really that simple.

MagnumHK
03-27-2005, 04:44 PM
You know they have a lot of real world pilots (40+ last I heard) testing flight models and the like.

They should get these real world pilots testing the visibility issue, which has been a real thorn in the flesh for quite some time.

It would be actually nice to hear what these test pilots have to say on this visibility issue.

Perish the thought, but this may result in a realistic (what you can actually SEE out of an aircraft) solution.

However, don't count on this as it makes too much sense.

It is better to go on and have endless debates on this matter with no real solutions in sight.

LEXX_Luthor
03-27-2005, 05:50 PM
But the "real life" pilots must tell what monitor resolution they used.

Oleg posted that "real life" pilots told him 3.01 dots were too visible. If that is true, these pilots were only looking at dots high in the sky while they flew at low altitude, and not looking at dots below them against the ground.

Or...the "real life" pilots were using low monitor resolutions. These were Russian pilots I think, and Russia has much lower average video card then the richer west.

The strange thing is that Oleg posted the suggestion to use mp_dotrange to configure 3.01 dots to make them realistic and he never gave any indication that he did not like the new dots (his talk of mp_dotrange shows me Oleg did like the new dots). Shortly after the Whining became intense is when Oleg came up with the "real pilots think invisible dots are realistic" theme.

Drunken_Moose
03-27-2005, 06:01 PM
Oh well, if I get it right yup, flying at 7000m is pointless.

Stiglr
03-27-2005, 06:07 PM
Even flying at 3km is pointless as it stands now.

Drunken_Moose
03-27-2005, 07:58 PM
I am a 3.04m newbie... So before you had something like tags to see the enemy down there?

Badsight.
03-28-2005, 01:45 AM
no , planes in Fb have been historically hard to see when they are over 2 Km away & lower than you against the ground

tags are not what people are meaning here , rather there was a change in how the dots looked in the 3.01 patch

they stood out real clear aginst the ground & made finding bandits much much eaiser

the downside was at co-alt , the new dot against the sky was clearly visible as well , up to 10+ km away

this put many people off them , but the 3.01 dots were like night & day

i have followed planes in near verticle dives , at certian distance , the dot which you are starting directly at can simply vanish

although , irl plames can be very hard to spot as well when moving aginst the ground lower than you

but computer screens do a poor job of replicating real life long distance detail , & shows especially when the things you are looking at/from are "moving"

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 02:18 AM
Tagert wrote something like
"Camo is for hiding planes on the ground"

The USAAF may have thought that, but the RAF thought it was also for camouflage in the air.

RedDeth wrote
"totally fake view system. compared to real flying and real planes. i dont have to flip my plane upside down to look straight down either. as i said i just lean to the side and look straight down with the plane flying level."

Lack of lean is a problem. The other problem is that the human eyes have so much more resolving power compared to monitors. People can just possibly about tell the difference between a 7MP and 5MP digital photo printed out in 8x10 format. That's about the limit. This would mean to have the same resolution a monitor would have to have about 30MP, or in 4:3 format be around 5000 pixels across, or about 3 times the maximum we currently use.

Hendley
03-28-2005, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Making it unrealistically hardER to see than normal is just as wrong as making it easier. I'm after, simply, "a good simulation of human visual acuity as seen by a trained military pilot". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This from the fella who thinks any view other than the one with some ruddy great immobile canopy frame blocking 1/3 of the tiny screen is "wonder woman". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One thing about those big dots, for me anyway, was that they broke the immersion somewhat; they were just too square and blocky and gnat-like. While acknowledging that the current system results in far less visual acuity than in RL, it seems like an okay compromise; not too prominent to spoil the overall graphical look, but not as hopelessly obscure as pre-3.01 days when you couldn't see a ship from less than a kilometre or so away... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Drunken_Moose
03-28-2005, 07:59 AM
Client side option for offline play and Server side option for online play?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Aaron_GT
03-28-2005, 08:45 AM
Itt'll all be fixed by 2030. According to Ray Kurzweil we'll have fully immersive virtual reality via nanobots in the brain by then.

TAGERT.
03-28-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
This from the fella who thinks any view other than the one with some ruddy great immobile canopy frame blocking 1/3 of the tiny screen is "wonder woman". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! ironic aint it? Im starting to.. Well not starting, pretty darn sure that Stig does not take up the side of an issue he belives in as much as he takes up the side of an issue that allows him to beeeeeyach about IL2-PF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
One thing about those big dots, for me anyway, was that they broke the immersion somewhat; they were just too square and blocky and gnat-like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but if you had to choose?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
While acknowledging that the current system results in far less visual acuity than in RL, it seems like an okay compromise; not too prominent to spoil the overall graphical look, but not as hopelessly obscure as pre-3.01 days when you couldn't see a ship from less than a kilometre or so away... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do like the ability to see ships better now than before.. but.. as badsight pointed out.. I can be right on top of a guy, both of us on the same angle and dirction of the dive.. and he can completly disapear.. That just does not *feel* right to me.. I can understand I might not spot a plane that is down in the weeds sneaking up on my six if I dont apply good SA.. But when Im looking right at him and nothing else? That just seems wrong.. In that it seems imposiable to apply some of those tatics we have heard about.

TAGERT.
03-28-2005, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert wrote something like
"Camo is for hiding planes on the ground"

The USAAF may have thought that, but the RAF thought it was also for camouflage in the air. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure they thought it wouldnt hurt, but Im sure that the driving reason for doing it was for when they were parked parked on the ground. Note, it was not until later in the war, when the USAAF took up bases close to the front (ie not just england) that they started to paint the P51s, P47, etc.

Stiglr
03-28-2005, 10:30 AM
OK, Hendley:

You explain how having NO canopy, fuselage, nose, wings or anything else is a better solution than having a cockpit (realistically speaking) and then we'll talk about the irony of my liking that and the concept of visible dots.

Get your thoughts together, then figure out how these are two different visual concepts... then maybe you'll feel a strong urge to reconsider that weak attempt at a dig.

TAGERT.
03-28-2005, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
OK, Hendley:

You explain how having NO canopy, fuselage, nose, wings or anything else is a better solution than having a cockpit (realistically speaking) and then we'll talk about the irony of my liking that and the concept of visible dots.

Get your thoughts together, then figure out how these are two different visual concepts... then maybe you'll feel a strong urge to reconsider that weak attempt at a dig. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now who is taking up the extream example? Good Ol Stig.. You can count on him to take up any side as long as it is the side that makes IL2 look bad or Targetware look good.

Badsight.
03-28-2005, 10:14 PM
Stigler = realisim to the max , apart from the things he doesnt like

next time i shoot you down Stiggy , i promise it will be with the Mossie

Drunken_Moose
03-29-2005, 08:36 AM
I fly with the pit off, so... Why should this even be proposed as a solution when the problem is the rendering of a model at extreme distances?

Stiglr
03-29-2005, 12:20 PM
Tagert, the same problems with visuals apply to Targetware as with IL-2; it's the approaches and the design decisions that separate the two.

So, once again, you've got me all wrong.

@Badsight: my GOD, we agree on an issue? In the same week me and Taget agree? I'm about to faint dead away again.

And, I doubt you'll ever get me in a Mossie, buddy...

LEXX_Luthor
03-29-2005, 02:59 PM
Hendley:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One thing about those big dots, for me anyway, was that they broke the immersion somewhat; they were just too square and blocky and gnat-like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg releaced 3.01 dots with "dotrange" setting too high, so they may seem large to many simmers. As Oleg pointed out, the mp_dotrange command allowed offline player (or online server) to change 3.01 dots so they were fairly large dots at close ranges, medium dots at medium ranges, and tiny dots at long ranges, just like Real Life.

Right now, the small dots are only realistic when the player uses Extreme low monitor resolutions--generally this is done to gain competitive advantage on internet Dogfight.

Badsight.
03-30-2005, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, I doubt you'll ever get me in a Mossie, buddy... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>unlike the time i cruised up on your six in a externals on coop ?

i was like "wtf is he doing im about to shoot" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

i not saying i would need a Mossie here

Hunde_3.JG51
03-30-2005, 12:42 AM
Probably my biggest remaining concern with this sim. I play at 1600x1200 all of the time and I can't see s**t as soon as an aircraft dips below the horizon. Many feel that the visibility is unrealistic at 1024x768, try it at higher resolution and it gets even worse, much worse. Still, I refuse to dumb down my settings for game limitations and I wish a solution could be found. I just can't see (no pun intended), that things are right the way they are now, especially with differences in resolution. I think the 3.01 dots were good against the ground, but against the sky they didn't look right. Against the ground they seemed to mimic the reflection that someone else mentioned, and maybe a compromise could have been worked out. At this point though, I'm afraid we will have little influence on getting this changed and it is a shame because it is such an important aspect of air warfare.

Drunken_Moose
03-30-2005, 10:07 AM
Right now, I'm playing offline only mainly because of this.

The newbies follow the rules "fly high, keep your E" but **** this gets boring since all you can do at 4-5km high is....fly...endlessly...

DarthBane_
03-30-2005, 04:52 PM
Voting results were in favor of bigger dots. That visibility patch was great, but than came the mob of strange old customers who dont like the things to change. And we lost the new, better view. The result for me is that i play on servers with external camera ON. You cant be yumped by invisible AC there. Game is already blind enough with cockpits on.

Badsight.
03-30-2005, 09:34 PM
to be fair those new dots did stick out like dogs balls

i could keep SA on planes 10+k out from me

yes they fixed the "dot dissaperence" we get , but at co-alt against the sky they were plain as day , this turned many off them

the cursed thing is the were customiseable , people who didnt like them could join games with the dots altered to suit

its not wewere stuck with them , the option is needed imo

Stiglr
03-31-2005, 09:06 AM
However big they were, they would draw your eye if you made more than just a half-arsed attempt to survey an area. In the case of multiple dots, it is always a challenge to keep SA on more than one, because the 'situation' changes every few seconds. Eventually, you'll have to choose which to track and which to leave for your "mind's eye" for what could be a few very vital moments.

Whether this offends the sensibilities of those overly concerned with "looks kewl" graphics, it simulates how a LOT of combat took place: spotting was done at medium-to-long range, depending on the circumstances, the first side to gain visual had to usually do some kind of positive IDing, and then an attack was mounted (or an evasion took place). In the case of planes with an alt/positional advantage, it wasn't a case of "Well, I can't see anything down there, but I *think* there should be some trade down there, so I'll just dive in and hope I see something", and then after the dive, here's 10 bandits or Indianer milling about. Unless there was a significant weather problem below, a plane with alt, or upsun advantage could survey the area and pick his fights with quite a bit of control. Of course, if his job was to escort bombers or low-flying strike planes, well, that limited his options quite a bit.

Still, visible dots are important to being able to simulate how battles shaped up, because that has a lot to do with how they also shake out.