PDA

View Full Version : Variable Dot Visibility?



Stigler_9_JG52
06-21-2005, 09:52 AM
Would it be at all possible to make a variety of dot graphic schemes available as a server-selectable item, rather than just the [one] way it's hard coded into the system??

In my eyes (to use a horrid pun) visibility is one of the main BIG issues that affect this sim adversely. One can quibble about FM things and relative gun strengths and not really have a HUGE bone to pick overall... but when it comes to dot (in)visibility, I have to say this is a BIG failing of the sim, one that invalidates real world tactics. It also seems that it has something to do with what make of video card one uses.

It'd be nice to be able to either opt for the current "invisidots" or alternatively choose the larger 3.01 dots, or some version of standard, black 3- or 4-pixel dots.

Is this even feasible?

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2005, 05:50 PM
Wozop Stiglr. Good topic. I have found FB/PF Dots work well against the ground at 1024x768, but that low resolution is like so Last Century. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have found something interesting. StrikeFighters does not even use Dots. They have low poly LODs that just get smaller and smaller until they vanish. However, that vanish distance is configurable so it can theoretically draw to any large distance assigned. Of course it won't be visible because it will be naturally too small an image the farther the distance. I find the SF system, with mouselook and zoom control heavily modified, has given me the most immersive Dogfights yet. A lightning fast zoom control helps alot here because the small LODs are hard to see at wide angle view.

I got started on this because I watched a StrikeFighters' B-47 contrail passing overhead at 10km but the plane was invisible -- beyond the Default LOD vanish range. This was Porked because you always can see even tiny Learjets at the tip of overhead contrails. I increased the B-47 vanish range considerably and there it was at the contrail tip. The realistic thing is that the plane would not normally be spotted -- visible but not spotted -- because you have to know exactly where to look for it (which always helps). The tip of a contrail is a good pointing device to help you spot a tiny visible object that would otherwise rarely ever be spotted.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-21-2005, 05:59 PM
Aircraft visibility is the biggest remaining unsolved issue IMO, I just hope something can be done. And as Lexx said I am not dumbing down my settings to ones that were playable in the 80's to be able to see aircraft. I don't think 3.01 was the solution, but maybe a compromise.

ECV56_Pato1
06-21-2005, 08:18 PM
But still, the worst offenders are the first LOD's, with planes disappearing at .5 km while traking them...
Is it me or it just got worst with 4.01?
S!
Pato

Kwiatos
06-22-2005, 09:44 AM
I think the best solution would be DOTs from 3.01 until 3 km range - for better visible palnes at close range and actually DOTs above 3 km range.

Chuck_Older
06-22-2005, 09:56 AM
I lost a bright aluminum skinned non-painted a/c against the ocean last night, in bright sunlight, at a range of about 2 km. It was a like a magician's trick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifNow you see it, now you can't

For offliners, this alone makes padlock a needed crutch, because you can be sure the AI enemy didn't lose sight of me

JG7_Rall
06-22-2005, 05:19 PM
Yes, that would be awesome if this issue was fixed.

I'd love to fly with no icons, but at the moment it kills my eyes trying to squint at the monitor looking for aircraft.

Stigler_9_JG52
06-22-2005, 07:10 PM
Well, it doesnt' seem like I'm the only one having problems with this. It's such an essential part of air combat, why is this even TOLERATED????

As for 1024 x 768, I don't care how last century it is, it's a very common, usable resolution, and anything that's going to be visible should be visible in that res. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Recon_609IAP
06-23-2005, 04:59 AM
perfect mode helps I think, you can try raising the DOTRANGE to 20 instead of 14.

goto console >mp_dotrange DOT 20

I know this doesn't help in the range when the dot becomes an aircraft. I think you are encountering an issue with the 3d model, when the dot goes from a dot to the LOD. This happens to me often where I will see a dot easily, dive on it, it changes to the 3d LOD, I lose it, etc..

The best solution I have found is to toggle between wide, normal and zoom views at different stages.

Much imo has to do with the ratio sizes. ie. zoom/gunsight view is 1:1 I've been told. We are a reduced ratio when not in zoom mode, and obviously you can't fly around in zoom mode all day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I personally would just rather see the aircraft be slight larger.

For example - I have much less issue seeing the p48 or bombers. It's just large enough to spot better than a spitfire 'microdot'.

I would like to see Oleg increase the physical size ratio a hair - I think it would really make a big difference.

But, someone needs to make the call - do we stick to realistic size with unrealistic viewing on unrealistic monitors, or make slight (I emphasis slight, I don't want wierd arcade things occuring) adjustments to, imo, make it more realistic for the hardware we currently have available.

ucanfly
06-23-2005, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by ECV56_Pato1:
But still, the worst offenders are the first LOD's, with planes disappearing at .5 km while traking them...
Is it me or it just got worst with 4.01?
S!
Pato

I have to say I agree with the above statement. It seems that especially against the dark background these LODs are really tough to discern even at close ranges.

Oleg you can fool around with the FMs and AI all you want. If we can't see the planes in a dogfight it ruins the game for me. Maybe it's why I have to take several months off this game every so often- it gets too frustrating.

CruiseTorpedo
06-23-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Recon_609IAP:
perfect mode helps I think, you can try raising the DOTRANGE to 20 instead of 14.

goto console >mp_dotrange DOT 20


Changing the dot range to 20 makes a heck of a difference! It doesnt make the dots look like 3.01 but yet they arent so light that you can look straight at a dot that passing over a stream and watch it disappear over a patch of grass a moment later from 4km away. I wish more servers chose the 20km range setting

Stigler_9_JG52
06-23-2005, 09:50 AM
Hate to break this to you, Recon, but the dots' relationship to the views is even more porked than the overall dot (in)visibility.

Try this: Fly in the fully "zoomed OUT" view (90 degree FOV) until you "just baaaaaaarely" make out a dot. Now, "zoom in" to the middle view, or the gunsight view. Chances are the dot will not become larger, or clearerâ€"ťit will simply disappear on you.

It seems there is an inverse relationship to the zoom and the dot size. I suspect the dot size stays the same, even as the view is "enlarged" on your screen to simulate "paying greater attention" to a smaller area of sky.

As for 20km dot setting suggestion, does that affect the color/darkness/size of the dots? The problem isn't in seeing dots between 10 and 20km.... the problem is you can't see dots 5km, 3km, even TWO km from you against terrain a majority of the time.

Recon_609IAP
06-23-2005, 05:28 PM
yep I have definitely seen this - you would think 'zooming' in would add clarity.

I have to constantly toggle looking for the best view and hoping I don't lose the bandit in a toggle.

Sad eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I still think though we aren't speaking of a dot but a 3d model.

The dot turns into a model at certain distance, it's the 3d model that is hard to see, not the dot. At least that is my perspective of it.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2005, 11:43 PM
Sad is icons as the only workable solution.

LEXX_Luthor
06-24-2005, 12:30 AM
(1) Setting mp_dotrange to maximum does not help much viewing against the ground when resolution is higher than 1024x768.

(2) I think the the maximum dotrange setting makes the Dots visible beyond what they should be.

(3) Setting dotrange very high to try to "see" Dots totally ruins the Dot fadeout with range--the Dots don't fade with range as fast as they should.

~~> For res > 1024x768, Dots need to be larger than one pixel, so they can get smaller with range until they are one pixel size, and then fade out beyond that range to nothing -- this range dependent on aircraft size.

I suggest take out the Dots and just use the smaller size LODs that simply get smaller and smaller directly related to range -- this is how StrikeFighters works and works well. Our grafix cards in 2005 should be able to handle much more than 25-30 small LODs during the Dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ManicGibber
06-24-2005, 09:01 PM
I wonder if there is a small possibility that the in-cockpit-view could be made the same as the f3 view, because f3 view looks very realistic? The plane outline just gets smaller and smaller as it moves away from the observer/viewer then fades out altogether..

|CoB|_Spectre
06-24-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, it doesnt' seem like I'm the only one having problems with this. It's such an essential part of air combat, why is this even TOLERATED????


Because we get what the developer is willing to give us? As with everything from FMs to DMs to guns and ammo effectiveness, we've got to work with what we have to work with. We don't have to like it, but we do have to put up with it or stop flying the sim. We can be hopeful Oleg will respond to our requests and ideas, but that's about all we can do other than choose not to patronize his product.

Fred_77
06-25-2005, 12:29 AM
I don't think it's the dot which is the main problem, but the 3d model. It's the 3d model which has a tendency to melt into the terrain. It gets frustrating in the extreme to stalk a dot from 10km out only to have the 3d model fade out right as it begins to come into firing range. I hate having to wait until the target gets far enough away that it becomes a dot again before I can re-engage. Maybe I am crazy, but I could swear that this gets worse with each new patch.

S!
Fred.

Badsight.
06-25-2005, 03:11 PM
since 4.01 came out . . . . . im getting dots just appearing & dissapearing at odd distances

your flying along & they just pop up , suddenly there

or your trailing them , looking stright at them & they just vanish

carguy_
06-25-2005, 04:32 PM
Yup,same experience here.Since 3.04 I went down to 800x600x16 and still had problems but 4.01 changed that and I rarely miss a dot in the background now.

LOD is FUBAR though.At around 300m LOD virtually dissapears and I have to zoom in to trace an aircraft.In LOD tracking my main sign is..markings.At LOD stage markings "glitter" which actually makes LOD possible to trace.

At 300m distance it looks as if background was "eating" the plane leaving only few pixels to trace.

F19_Ob
06-26-2005, 04:04 AM
Weren't the dots changed so the planes would be harder to detect?
As I remember there were posts about how unrealistic it was to be able to detect planes with camopaint from 1000m above against a forrest.

I guess we got it fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif wich proves that reporting in ORR works.

I always prefered the long visibility myself though since I could see planes from the air on those ranges in RL.

Cragger
06-26-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Weren't the dots changed so the planes would be harder to detect?
As I remember there were posts about how unrealistic it was to be able to detect planes with camopaint from 1000m above against a forrest.

I guess we got it fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif wich proves that reporting in ORR works.

I always prefered the long visibility myself though since I could see planes from the air on those ranges in RL.

Alot of those people complaining about aircraft being visible from above over forests conveniently forget one thing, sunlight. Metal surfaces regardless of how their painted 'shine'. Regardless if their painted flat matte, the very smooth surface of metal means more light is reflected uniformly instead of broken up. And when the sun is above you and someone else is above you the your 'wing flash' is far easier to see than the actual aircraft itself.

OldMan____
06-26-2005, 10:47 AM
Well guys. That is an issue that is not easy to solve. PLanes at dot raange are so distant that if rendered they would be smaller than a dot. So Oleg uses dots (single pixel).

When you get just under dot distance.. the plane will probbaly be rendered bigger than 1 dot, but maybe only 1 dot. Problem is that while dot is pure black, when rendering plane it may be a not so contrastant color. That is reason why things disapear.


In 3.01 Oleg ued double dots, black dots with white dots glued to them. Due to way our brain works, this helps us to locate things. But it sometimes is too strong.



There is a solution fo such problem. I tested in some of my engine works a possible solution. It works rather well, but is heavily GPU/CPU cost. I render scene to texture, then I read the color of pixels around place where dot object will be and select dot color to be as constratant as needed (something similar to HRDI, but focusing on contrast not light). An alternative is to render a small poly on same area with an pixel shader (could only make it with PS 3.0 class shaders) that enhances contrast.


All these solutions would bring FPS to knees if used today. So be pacient people. Oleg is not magician, he cn only do what is possible.

Stanger_361st
06-26-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Well guys. That is an issue that is not easy to solve. PLanes at dot raange are so distant that if rendered they would be smaller than a dot. So Oleg uses dots (single pixel).

When you get just under dot distance.. the plane will probbaly be rendered bigger than 1 dot, but maybe only 1 dot. Problem is that while dot is pure black, when rendering plane it may be a not so contrastant color. That is reason why things disapear.


In 3.01 Oleg ued double dots, black dots with white dots glued to them. Due to way our brain works, this helps us to locate things. But it sometimes is too strong.



There is a solution fo such problem. I tested in some of my engine works a possible solution. It works rather well, but is heavily GPU/CPU cost. I render scene to texture, then I read the color of pixels around place where dot object will be and select dot color to be as constratant as needed (something similar to HRDI, but focusing on contrast not light). An alternative is to render a small poly on same area with an pixel shader (could only make it with PS 3.0 class shaders) that enhances contrast.


All these solutions would bring FPS to knees if used today. So be pacient people. Oleg is not magician, he cn only do what is possible.

All this seems nice and warm and fuzzy and even seems logical but. I keep remembering other games view ststem like European Air War, MSCFS2, Janes WW2 Fighters and Strike fighters yet their view system seem a whole lot better then this game without the huge FPS hit.

Kwiatos
06-26-2005, 01:16 PM
You think that possible is DOTs from 3.1 for close distsance for example 1-3 km and actually DOTs for far distance more then 3 km???

I think that these woould be great solution!

LEXX_Luthor
06-26-2005, 05:00 PM
OldMan::
PLanes at dot range are so distant that if rendered they would be smaller than a [..single pixel..] dot.
Only at very low resolutions, like 1024x768.

At higher resolutions, the pixels are much smaller so distant aircraft grafix can be more than one pixel.

Strike Fighters does not use any Dots, but lets aircraft grafix get smaller and smaller. This is handled by a continously varying Zoom feature. Although SF's smooth Zoom is cripplingly slow with Default setting, a simple change lets you zoom in very fast without LOSING the target...Its the sudden Jump of changing zoom that helps cause problems of losing targets in FB/PF. Using sudden Jump zoom, the view changes drastically, but smooth zoom lets the eye follow the picture--and lets the player move the view--as the zoom changes smoothly.

Need I say, at high resolutions, aircraft Identification is extremely enhanced because the aircraft grafix for a given size are made of many more pixels. Also, most immersive is seeing the sky above filled with dogfighting planes rendered with smooth grafix at high resolutions instead of the blocky Blobs you get at low resolutions.

OldMan____
06-26-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
OldMan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PLanes at dot range are so distant that if rendered they would be smaller than a [..single pixel..] dot.
Only at very low resolutions, like 1024x768.

At higher resolutions, the pixels are much smaller so distant aircraft grafix can be more than one pixel.

Strike Fighters does not use any Dots, but lets aircraft grafix get smaller and smaller. This is handled by a continously varying Zoom feature. Although SF's smooth Zoom is cripplingly slow with Default setting, a simple change lets you zoom in very fast without LOSING the target...Its the sudden Jump of changing zoom that helps cause problems of losing targets in FB/PF. Using sudden Jump zoom, the view changes drastically, but smooth zoom lets the eye follow the picture--and lets the player move the view--as the zoom changes smoothly.

Need I say, at high resolutions, aircraft Identification is extremely enhanced because the aircraft grafix for a given size are made of many more pixels. Also, most immersive is seeing the sky above filled with dogfighting planes rendered with smooth grafix at high resolutions instead of the blocky Blobs you get at low resolutions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Lod system is used in IL2 as well, as in 99% of games. But use it up to such great distances is only good at higher resolutions. You must keep in mind that most people cannot play it with full quality at above 1024x768. I myself cannot play with water 3 and everything up maximum and FSAA and AF on at any resolution above 1024x768. And my machine is a Atlhon 64 3500+ and a GF6600 GT.

Sure Oleg could make some special code for 1600x1200 and this would probably be a reasonable short time solution.


In our game (http://www.taikodom.com.br) we render real world scale space of solar system. This means sun is light seconds away from earth and all space among them is represented meter by meter. We have to face similar problems, fortunaltely our simmualtion does not have any non icons setup :P.

LEXX_Luthor
06-26-2005, 09:39 PM
OldMan::
I myself cannot play with water 3
Nobody can play water = 3

OldMan:;
Sure Oleg could make some special code for 1600x1200 and this would probably be a reasonable short time solution.
So the code written last century for 1024x768 is even more short term solution.

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

OldMan:;
everything up maximum and FSAA and AF on at any resolution above 1024x768. And my machine is a Atlhon 64 3500+ and a GF6600 GT.
Yes, I used ATI~9200 at high res, but with no AA and AF. If you have not, try 1280x960x32 and czech out the planes in the sky. Very sweet. You may be proving that FB/PF simmers max out their modern video cards with AA and AF at low res because the sim is not usable at higher resolutions because of the invisible dots. We must do something to justify the expense on the newer video cards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
06-27-2005, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
OldMan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I myself cannot play with water 3
Nobody can play water = 3

OldMan:;
Sure Oleg could make some special code for 1600x1200 and this would probably be a reasonable short time solution.
So the code written last century for 1024x768 is even more short term solution.

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

OldMan:;
everything up maximum and FSAA and AF on at any resolution above 1024x768. And my machine is a Atlhon 64 3500+ and a GF6600 GT.
Yes, I used ATI~9200 at high res, but with no AA and AF. If you have not, try 1280x960x32 and czech out the planes in the sky. Very sweet. You may be proving that FB/PF simmers max out their modern video cards with AA and AF at low res because the sim is not usable at higher resolutions because of the invisible dots. We must do something to justify the expense on the newer video cards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you don't get it. I play on above setup WITH water 3 on. Not using modern PS is even more last century than 1024x768 and I will never disable pixel shader to be able to use higher resolution.

You should try FSAA. It makes 1024x768 look as smooth at 1280x960.

LEXX_Luthor
06-27-2005, 05:04 PM
I do get this...which you did not want to talk about.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan::
Sure Oleg could make some special code for 1600x1200 and this would probably be a reasonable short time solution.
So the code written last century for 1024x768 is even more short term solution.

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


I guess you are right about water=3 -- it has become playable by some since PF releace. I have not tried it, I mean, its um...water.

You should try 1280x960 (if you can, or 1152x864). You can identify aircraft at longer ranges then with 1024x768 and this is one example where higher detail enhances game immersion. And, the planes look much better in the sky. Better, the high res does not hurt framerate nearly as much as the AA/AF in my experience. I usually have AA or AF set to 2x maximum. It does help with some terrain features, but I don't usually enter combat with the terrain--well, sometimes unintentionally. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ya, but if you try high res, you need Text Icons since you can't see the Dots below you. We are going in circles here.