PDA

View Full Version : The wonders of Wingspotting



Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 10:46 PM
Here's something I finally remembered to post about:

Much ballyhoo has been made about the graphics of this sim, which IMO are the only saving grace of it.

But even the vaunted graphics show the emperor has no clothes. Check this out.

You're flying along at 3.5km over one of the many terrains that is basically set up so that you can't see a gol'darned thing from that altitude. Even if you manage to spot a "globule" or one of the little "invisispecks", by the time you manevuer towards it, you're left squinting at nothing, and you've lost the dot. Even worse, sometimes the dot will see you easily against the sky, and climb up and blast you while you're still waiting for him to reappear. It's enough to drive an alt-monkey mad.

Well, here's one very suspect tactic, from a realism POV, but about the only thing that works in this situation.

Place your wing over the area where you suspect the dot might be hiding in plain sight. You'll see the dot in the wing graphics.

Unrealistic? Undoubtedly. Game-the-game? Guilty as charged. But, if you can't see anything at all anyway, and the only other way to do it is to dive into a general area and wait for the dot, and about six others to magically appear on your tail... well, you might be tempted to do what you gotta do.

This is one of those, whatchacall, graphic anamolies. Like when one of the big fluffy clouds just up and disappears when you're just a few km away from it. That's jarring...

Or when you can't see any planes in your immediate vicinity (and later action shows 10 of them were lurking in the weeds the whole time), but you can see the globule-dots of ground objects some 25km away, silhouetted against a cloud on the horizon.

What, exactly is so great about these graphics?

VF-51-Dart
04-02-2006, 10:57 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about Stigler. I suspect it's something to do with your rig and/or setup/config. I don't have these problems that you do.

Regardless. I'm left wondering why the hell you keep coming in here to ***** (yet once again...just as you did back in WBs) about a sim you don't like to fly anyway?? Shouldn't you be off over in TW's world slowly annoying the **** out of everyone over there??

Simple logic. If you don't like it, don't fly it. Just like a TV show - don't like it, don't watch. End of your troubles and you won't keep getting upset. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

T_O_A_D
04-02-2006, 10:57 PM
They keep your eyes exersized http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Heavy_Metal1982
04-02-2006, 11:10 PM
I've had the same problem, Whenever I fly online and tracking an contact a few KM away and when they get about 1km to 1.5km they disappear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I've learned to live with it, since I'm going to be upgrading my rig in the summer.

WTE_Ibis
04-03-2006, 04:00 AM
Um, I don't think it's your rig.


.

JG53Tunjah
04-03-2006, 04:14 AM
Just zoom in the highest level and you will see the dot/plane, i usually do from about 4k alt, and i don´t have an high end rig at al...

Old_Canuck
04-03-2006, 04:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif This post reminds me of a topic I was thinking about posting. Does anyone else miss those trolls from a couple of years ago?

In a fumbling attempt to get on topic, allow me to add that this sim has a few imperfections but as Stigler hinted the good stuff outweighs the anomalies. On the other hand, I have a few imperfections and my wife uses each one of them at random to cancel out all of the good stuff - real or imagined. Is there any justice in this world? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-03-2006, 05:49 AM
NO

WOLFMondo
04-03-2006, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif This post reminds me of a topic I was thinking about posting. Does anyone else miss those trolls from a couple of years ago?


We have Hayateace don't we? :P

RCAF_Irish_403
04-03-2006, 11:25 AM
i prefered trainspotting as a movie over wingspotting. having said that, pulp fiction was the best film of the 1990's

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 11:38 AM
Simple logic. If you don't like it, don't fly it. Just like a TV show - don't like it, don't watch. End of your troubles and you won't keep getting upset. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Typical fanboi rhetoric. You probably think of yourself as a "good 'Murrican", but you're just a typical hypocrite, because the basis of this country is not to "leave it cuz you don't like it", but to "work on it and fix what's wrong cuz you love it"

If it weren't for people exposing the flaws of this sim (of which I keep proving there are many), it would never get better. And, to answer your question, the reason I keep piping up on these things is because the potential still exists here for things to change; unlike Warbirds, which is one reason I stopped flying it. They don't always change in the right direction, but at least they do change, sometime.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by JG53Tunjah:
Just zoom in the highest level and you will see the dot/plane, i usually do from about 4k alt, and i don´t have an high end rig at al...

No good. Zooming in does NOT make dots and globules clearer, actually it makes them more impossible to spot. Try it yourself: spot a dot or globule at 90 degree POV at extreme range. Then, hit the first level of zoom. The dot/globule will not be bigger or clearer; it will simply not display.

Also, because my views are on a hat switch, unless the object is dead center of the zoomed in POV, you can't "find" it anyway without getting seriously disoriented.

And by the way, 4k (if you mean 4000 ft.) is just over ONE kilometer. Which is far too low to cruise and have any chance at survivability.

Cossack13
04-03-2006, 11:45 AM
Whenever someone points out one of the flaws in the game, I'm convinced that much of it stems from Oleg's work causing all of us to have raised our standards and expectations.

I compare this game to Their Finest Hour, which got me started on combat flight sims, and I'm just amazed.

I can't wait to see what his BOB is going to bring to the genre.

And how high our expectations will be after that!

georgeo76
04-03-2006, 12:10 PM
Ever notice how no body complains about how easy it is to shoot ppl down?

If you listen to Stigler and the other malcontents you'll notice the common thread in all their arguments is 'I was flying along one day and I got my butt shot off'. Aghast, they figure it must be Oleg's fault.

Where is the other side? There must be plenty of ppl out there flying these 'invisispecks' unfairly shooting down the Stiglers of the world. Where are these ppl? If you want to game the game, you ought to figure out how to magically appear on someones tail.

I'll let Stigler better the whole sim. All I know is how to better is my own ability.

DaimonSyrius
04-03-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif This post reminds me of a topic I was thinking about posting. Does anyone else miss those trolls from a couple of years ago?

In a fumbling attempt to get on topic, allow me to add that this sim has a few imperfections but as Stigler hinted the good stuff outweighs the anomalies. On the other hand, I have a few imperfections and my wife uses each one of them at random to cancel out all of the good stuff - real or imagined. Is there any justice in this world? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Excellent point, Old_Canuck, and a smile-inspiring one too, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

As it has been already pointed to Stigler, divorce is an option, and while divorcing from a wife can have all sorts of secondary effects, not to mention cost lots of money/trouble, divorcing from IL2 once and for all would be a great solution for Stigler, with no cost at all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: Simultaneity, georgeo76's point is a just as good one as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
Ever notice how no body complains about how easy it is to shoot ppl down?

If you listen to Stigler and the other malcontents you'll notice the common thread in all their arguments is 'I was flying along one day and I got my butt shot off'. Aghast, they figure it must be Oleg's fault.

Where is the other side? There must be plenty of ppl out there flying these 'invisispecks' unfairly shooting down the Stiglers of the world. Where are these ppl? If you want to game the game, you ought to figure out how to magically appear on someones tail.

I'll let Stigler better the whole sim. All I know is how to better is my own ability.

I dunno, Georgio, I have been at this a while, and I know the difference between my own poor flying (which happens as well as purple patches of brilliant flying) and poor simulation.

I also know a lot about the lessons of vision and situational awareness. These are almost more important than the various abilities of the plane you're in and the plane you're fighting.

In short, visuals and their effect on combat have a LOT to do with how combat ensues and how it ends. For this sim to have something this basic this wrong...well, I dunno what to tell you if you're willing to settle for it.

Also, I'll tell you that in other sims on the same era and with the same planesets, I have very little problem using tried and true spotting and attack methods to "magically appear on victims' tails" and gett much better results with them than I do in IL-2. The difference, of course, is that they model this CRUCIAL factor much better.

And I haven't seen ANY other sim where "wingspotting" is even possible.

joeap
04-03-2006, 12:29 PM
Point is, there is a difference between fairly criticising a sim (see my post at the ORR in the Ju-88 Supercharger thread) and ****ging it at every opportunity. "The only saving grace is the graphics and even..." is just getting tired. There are some very smart and coherent critics who don't come across as miserable gits, I enjoy reading their posts.

LStarosta
04-03-2006, 01:11 PM
What, exactly is so great about these graphics?



It really is that simple. If you don't like it, either make a real effort to change it (working with Oleg through the usual channels), or just leave it alone. You're not doing one or the other. Seeing as no one from 1C is ever going to read this thread, I believe you're wasting your time by proving to everyone how spoiled and whiny you really are.



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

Xiolablu3
04-03-2006, 01:22 PM
.Another moan, what a surprise....

I thought you had given up this sim?

The graphics in this sim are running on an ancient engine and are about to be obelete when BOB is released.

bweiss
04-03-2006, 01:28 PM
divorcing from IL2 once and for all would be a great solution for Stigler, with no cost at all.

GOT A PHONE? Then you got a lawyer.

A. Shyster, Attorney at Law here.

"Where no man is without a mouthpiece"!

PlaneEater
04-03-2006, 02:49 PM
Relatively simple solution: canopies and plane textures with high specular settings reflecting the sun at you.

Make a smaller 'metal reflection' version of the sun-glare, and a sprite for the reflection. Add some small bloom tendrils if you want to.

Whenever the sim can bounce a line from the sun, to a polygon on a plane with either the glass material or a material with a specular value of ~20+, and then within X distance from you (the pilot in your plane), draw the smaller glare.

When the sun is hitting one of those surfaces but it's not quite bouncing right back into your eyes, is just blends the 'reflection' sprite on top of it.

Instant canopy glitter and metal reflective twinkle. Shouldn't be to hard to piggyback that code onto either the clipping routine for rendering the player's POV, or the illumination calculations for the models themselves. Simple to optimize, as well: update at longer intervals at long range, reduce with distance.

Enthor1
04-03-2006, 03:33 PM
PlaneEater, please rush that to Oleg.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 03:34 PM
That might do it.

One of the abilities of the human eye in this regard is to recognize spatial differences between objects that are separated by distance, or even by materials.

Basically, it's the contrast and the motion that "catch your eye".

PlaneEater
04-03-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Enthor1:
PlaneEater, please rush that to Oleg.

I'll clean it up and clarify a bit first. I might even make the reflection-bloom sprite, to save them the work.

What the whole thing amounts to is poor-man's HDRI, but for a much much smaller performance cost (as in, nil).

BfHeFwMe
04-03-2006, 10:56 PM
It still doesn't fix the close in LOD issues. My gripe is not that it's hard to spot the enemy, but how can you consistantly fly wing for your pal's. Sure, it works fairly good when your flying certain planes like Lightnings and 109's with huge LOD's, but ever try hanging with a manouvering lead through a violent furball and keeping his six clean without losing him, in planes such as Yak's and Spits.

There's very little team work going on in some types. Guess the lonewolfs figure it's more of an advantage to turn on the cloaking device, than use a wingman. Or maybe they aren't capable of effectively using one.

Not hard to see online who's flying team, and who's doesn't have too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF-51-Dart
04-04-2006, 12:22 AM
Typical fanboi rhetoric. You probably think of yourself as a "good 'Murrican", but you're just a typical hypocrite, because the basis of this country is not to "leave it cuz you don't like it", but to "work on it and fix what's wrong cuz you love it"


Yeah, that's me a fanboi and a typical hypocrite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Quit blowing sunshine up your own a$$. You're not here to actually help anything, or else you'd have taken an entirely different approach with your "critiquing". You're just doing the same old "Stigler Stomp" you've done in the past, throwing a whine fest and and belittling a sim you've grown tired of. Fine, we all know how you dislike things in this sim. Good for you to yet again point that out to all here. Not that it's going to do one thing about changing an already old engine, especially given the focus of Oleg and team are squarely on BoB.

Move along now, nothing left to see here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-04-2006, 03:31 AM
Stiglr has alerted the community to the new Online WingDot Exploit. Give Thanks!

Now, Oleg must disable FB/PF Dots, taking away from Offline players what little dots they had left, to prevent Online WingDot Cheating. In replacement, Offline players can happily use on-screen text symbols, to preserve a Cheat-Free play Balance and true Online Dogfight Gaming Security.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I recall old RayBanJockey and how Oleg once disabled elevator trim and thus the flight models to "save" Online shooter play from Online slider trim cheating -- to the applause of the "real life" commercial pilot Online players. Stiglr is no RBJ, but to be honest, Oleg's tiny dots made for the old 1024x768 gaming resolution hurts the FB/PF sim far more than Stiglr's Whining ever has.

F6_Ace
04-04-2006, 03:36 AM
...and and belittling a sim you've grown tired of. Fine, we all know how you dislike things in this sim. Good for you to yet again point that out to all here...

So, only uninformed gushing noobs ("I just purchased this game and it's fantastic! Can anyone tell me if the planes fly differently...?" etc) or the established ("I've been playing it for ages and it's the best thing since sliced bread which means I'll go out and unnecessarily purchase the DVD even though I already own FB+AEP+PF but I'll occasionally I forget about that and post hypocritical complaints when my plane is changed after a patch even though the FMs are supposed to be right in the first place") are allowed to critique the game?

Stiglr's just pointing out what everyone really knows but glosses over and that is that the visibility in the game is poor, irrespective of what rig you run.

Of course, if you're an F6 ace, it doesn't matter if you can see dots or not because your 360 degree radar will fix that little problem for you.

Lucius_Esox
04-04-2006, 07:28 AM
Visibility in this game is not good,,, understatement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The gfx are still quite pretty even by today€s standards though.

I hope in Bob Oleg and his boys really concentrate on realism issues. Visibility, FM, DM.

I think though that to concentrate on these issues could have an impact on game sales ultimately..

Bob will have to appeal to as wide an audience as IL2 did to be commercially viable, and that in a lot of cases means things extraneous to h/core player€s imo.

gates123
04-04-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Also, because my views are on a hat switch, unless the object is dead center of the zoomed in POV, you can't "find" it anyway without getting seriously disoriented.



Well there lies the problem. Its the pilot not the sim.

Von_Rat
04-04-2006, 11:42 AM
the visiability of dots, lods going invisable, etc. is one thing i really hate in this game.

HayateAce
04-04-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif This post reminds me of a topic I was thinking about posting. Does anyone else miss those trolls from a couple of years ago?


We have Hayateace don't we? :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it's a good thing with so many folks having their cranium so far up Oleg's back door they can't see the light. Gotta a clue for you folks, the Bs109 was no Mitsubishi Zero, but in Oleg land it flies like one. Keep dreaming cupcakes, but revisionist gameplay is never going to change the outcome of the airwar in WW2.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-04-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by VF-51-Dart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Typical fanboi rhetoric. You probably think of yourself as a "good 'Murrican", but you're just a typical hypocrite, because the basis of this country is not to "leave it cuz you don't like it", but to "work on it and fix what's wrong cuz you love it"


Yeah, that's me a fanboi and a typical hypocrite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Quit blowing sunshine up your own a$$. You're not here to actually help anything, or else you'd have taken an entirely different approach with your "critiquing". You're just doing the same old "Stigler Stomp" you've done in the past, throwing a whine fest and and belittling a sim you've grown tired of. Fine, we all know how you dislike things in this sim. Good for you to yet again point that out to all here. Not that it's going to do one thing about changing an already old engine, especially given the focus of Oleg and team are squarely on BoB.

Move along now, nothing left to see here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a rather graceful way for you to yield the podium and simply admit that you have nothing to say to refute my point, and thus have nothing to say at all.

Instant segue to "fanboi attack mode". Change the subject to personal digs and perhaps nobody will notice that, once again, I have a very good point.

Well done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

VF-51-Dart
04-04-2006, 05:33 PM
Your posting in here about all this is once again just another session of €œStigler Ego Stroking€, as you try to wax eloquent on the subject AFTER you first slam it. Then you get all haughty and defensive about the types of responses you get, and not just from me.

If you were genuinely interested in rectifying these problems (of which I haven€t experienced yet myself) then, as has already been pointed out by others in this thread, you could have posted your findings in ORR, or used the appropriate emails to send your tried and true findings off to Oleg and 1C. But, no, you€d rather just come into the General forums and post another typical Stigler slam against this sim and stir up the pot, not actually contributing to your €œcause€.

Well done! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Treetop64
04-04-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by VF-51-Dart:
Your posting in here about all this is once again just another session of €œStigler Ego Stroking€, as you try to wax eloquent on the subject AFTER you first slam it. Then you get all haughty and defensive about the types of responses you get, and not just from me.

If you were genuinely interested in rectifying these problems (of which I haven€t experienced yet myself) then, as has already been pointed out by others in this thread, you could have posted your findings in ORR, or used the appropriate emails to send your tried and true findings off to Oleg and 1C. But, no, you€d rather just come into the General forums and post another typical Stigler slam against this sim and stir up the pot, not actually contributing to your €œcause€.

Well done! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Bro, being as infinitely self-absorbed as he is, getting into an exchange with Stigler, no matter how civil and no matter the outcome, will only serve to encourage him to continue his banter with even more determination. I fear we are all, for the most part, simply "feeding the junkie".

I had to learn that the hard way...

Stigler_9_JG52
04-04-2006, 07:46 PM
It'd also help if you had a point worth bringing up to refute the points I bring up.

No, I'm not always right: case in point. Someone asked a question about the ratio of Hurri IIBs to IICs, and I reacted completely wrong. Someone pointed that out, to which I could only reply, "I stand corrected".

So, yes, I will abandon an argument if I'm proven wrong.

But, sadly, when it comes to things like the physics, the visuals (beyond just pure eye candy), the AI, and I could go on and on.... there are a lot of BIG holes in this sim. I'm right about that, like it or not.

And yes, I have a pretty thick skin, so baseless 'fanboi' attacks on me, or my sarcastic posting style or my perseverence roll off my back like water off a duck. If you don't like it that I dare to expose the failings of Oleg's "masterwork", and that's all you can bring to the discussion, well, you're pretty much going to have to get used to just not likin' it. Or, in short, "tough".

Treetop64
04-04-2006, 09:19 PM
Stig, it has never been a matter of who is right or wrong, or who you feel has a point and who doesn't, or how smart and insightful you think you are. None of this has anything to do with YOU. Or any one of us individually, for that matter...

Moreover, as for you saying "I could go on and on...", simply replacing "I could go" with "I have repeatedly gone" would by far and away be much more apt. However, to say that would be more accurate flies so far beyond understatement as to completely defy comprehension.

It gets old, bro... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
04-04-2006, 09:30 PM
What gets old, the same old VERY LARGE problems with the sim, or my carping on them?

I agree the former gets old...usually every single solitary sortie I fly in Forgotten Physics brings it up to the forefront, since I try to fly using so-called "smart tactics"...tactics that seem to work much better in Warbirds, in Aces High, in Targetware, in almost any other "uglier" sim.

As for the latter, I'd GLADLY, and I mean GLADLY stop yapping and even turn into a complete fanboi myself if these HUGE problems would get sorted. They're so huge, though, that they render the sim almost incapable of simulating the subject matter. The Wingspotting problems, combined with the "alt = invisibility below" problems totally belie indisputable FACT about the dynamics of air combat in the pre-missile age. There was a good reason why most pilots did not really feel that confident of going looking for a scrap without at least a good 10 - 12,000 feet under their wings.

The various physics inaccuracies make boom and zoom a "razor edge" kind of tactic that you must persecute with absolutely NO room for error, otherwise, you get blasted. Again, not so in real life, by any reliable account.

Sookke
04-05-2006, 12:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifBoy its amazing that the **** people come up with when there bored http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif! Visual refrence in RL flight or actual traffic patterns is just as confusing or harder to actually see, sun light refractions , fog, rough air, hot air, ploughed fields,different tree colurs , rocks , houseing the list goes on and on,the point bieing things are not always clear and stable to look at . Ive been surprised by planes appearing out of no where in RL and not just on a single occasion but a number of times,one min clear skies the next this guys goes by at 250 Knts in the opposite direction and waves at me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif When you see a dot infront of a cloud or other object that allows you to tally a contact try holding heading and changing your view i always seem to be able to reaquire my target very rarley do i lose it , and my skills are now better then some or worse then others so i dont see the point ? you practice what your weakness is make it strong and you use it as your left arm !

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2006, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Sookke:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifBoy its amazing that the **** people come up with when there bored http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif! Visual refrence in RL flight or actual traffic patterns is just as confusing or harder to actually see, sun light refractions , fog, rough air, hot air, ploughed fields,different tree colurs , rocks , houseing the list goes on and on,the point bieing things are not always clear and stable to look at . Ive been surprised by planes appearing out of no where in RL and not just on a single occasion but a number of times,one min clear skies the next this guys goes by at 250 Knts in the opposite direction and waves at me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif When you see a dot infront of a cloud or other object that allows you to tally a contact try holding heading and changing your view i always seem to be able to reaquire my target very rarley do i lose it , and my skills are now better then some or worse then others so i dont see the point ? you practice what your weakness is make it strong and you use it as your left arm !

Word!

Real life isn't "easier" its just different m'kay?

It takes time to train your eyes in real life. My eyesight isn't great (short) but I can see distant objects well and judge depth/distance. It still takes a long time (well for me it is) to learn this and some are naturally more adept than others. I haven't had the 1000's of hours that some of you guys have (and I'm sure will freely admit to sometimes not seeing something ordinarily you would have) but I know it is in part a learned skill.

Scanning a ptach of sky and keeping reference to everything in 3D (and not looking at crud on the canopy or some bits of dust on your glasses etc) and still looking around to cover a lot of sky quickly enough - is hard.

In this sim we have some advantages over real life visibility, but there are some disadvantages that's just technology.

But there could be a few changes to help with the limits of technology which I think is Stiglers point. We all know its a sim, an approximation - if you think it is any more you need to get outside more.

georgeo76
04-05-2006, 11:28 AM
I might point out that IRL pilots were often looking down on groups of Aircraft that are much easier to spot both in-game and IRL.

Also, I imagine that most of these groups of aircraft might not be flying NoE the way many do online.

Furthermore, IRL you might have a wingman or two helping you look and even coordinating the attack.

I'm not going to argue w/ Stigler that there are 'very large' historical problems with this sim. But by the time you log onto a dogfight server, for a lone-wolf search and destroy, your already trading history for entertainment. Nothing wrong w/ that, but let's call it what it is. By this point, WWV seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? I guess we choose what we are willing to tolerate and what we aren't.

I like to fly the cooperative servers. Not that they are any more realistic, seeing that the lone-wolf mentality is still prevalent and the external views are almost always on. But I do find myself in historic situations much more often. And I'll tell ya, those energy tactics frustrating Stigler work quite nicely. When you have groups of Aircraft flying against other groups, it's a totally different game, and IMHO, not unlike what I've read about the real thing.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-05-2006, 11:46 AM
Fackenhel!

I just read through 2 pages of s hit looking for the wingshooting discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Nothing to see here...I'll go back to sleep now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

GoToAway
04-05-2006, 11:49 AM
I think it's interesting that Stigler maintains that this sim is terrible and completely wrong, yet posts more than many other people on this forum.

Then again, 95% of his posts read like advertisements for Targetware.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-05-2006, 07:38 PM
georgeo76 erote:

But by the time you log onto a dogfight server, for a lone-wolf search and destroy, your already trading history for entertainment.

That doesn't apply all the time, g76. Especially on the Eastern Front, small formations, including pairs and solos were used all the time. I agree there were many more squad and wing level sorties, but they were NOT the only way combat ever happened.

georgeo76
04-05-2006, 10:31 PM
I'm aware of these small sorties Stigler. But DF servers are far removed from the accuracy and realism you hold in such regard.

Don't you overlook these VERY LARGE problems because there is something you like about the DF format that (OMFG!!) outweighs the pure realism aspect?

I hate DF servers myself. One of the big reasons why is that I find the energy tactics and strategy I enjoy next to useless on them. I find there are three reasons for this:

1. my skill
2. the nature of DF servers
3. the limitations of the game.

This is where our similar view points split , I think the first two reasons have much greater impact on my success than the last one. Which is good news because I can improve my flying and improve it while in coops. Best of all, I don't need a patch to do either.

Xiolablu3
04-06-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's something I finally remembered to post about:

Much ballyhoo has been made about the graphics of this sim, which IMO are the only saving grace of it.

But even the vaunted graphics show the emperor has no clothes. Check this out.

You're flying along at 3.5km over one of the many terrains that is basically set up so that you can't see a gol'darned thing from that altitude. Even if you manage to spot a "globule" or one of the little "invisispecks", by the time you manevuer towards it, you're left squinting at nothing, and you've lost the dot. Even worse, sometimes the dot will see you easily against the sky, and climb up and blast you while you're still waiting for him to reappear. It's enough to drive an alt-monkey mad.

Well, here's one very suspect tactic, from a realism POV, but about the only thing that works in this situation.

Place your wing over the area where you suspect the dot might be hiding in plain sight. You'll see the dot in the wing graphics.

Unrealistic? Undoubtedly. Game-the-game? Guilty as charged. But, if you can't see anything at all anyway, and the only other way to do it is to dive into a general area and wait for the dot, and about six others to magically appear on your tail... well, you might be tempted to do what you gotta do.

This is one of those, whatchacall, graphic anamolies. Like when one of the big fluffy clouds just up and disappears when you're just a few km away from it. That's jarring...

Or when you can't see any planes in your immediate vicinity (and later action shows 10 of them were lurking in the weeds the whole time), but you can see the globule-dots of ground objects some 25km away, silhouetted against a cloud on the horizon.

What, exactly is so great about these graphics?


I didnt even read the post properly because I was sure it was just another useless moan, but now I have I realise there is something wrong with your setup.

I CANNOT EVER see dots thru my wings, and clouds never disappear.

You should go to the tech support forum and post your problems there.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Here's something I finally remembered to post about:

Much ballyhoo has been made about the graphics of this sim, which IMO are the only saving grace of it.

But even the vaunted graphics show the emperor has no clothes. Check this out.

You're flying along at 3.5km over one of the many terrains that is basically set up so that you can't see a gol'darned thing from that altitude. Even if you manage to spot a "globule" or one of the little "invisispecks", by the time you manevuer towards it, you're left squinting at nothing, and you've lost the dot. Even worse, sometimes the dot will see you easily against the sky, and climb up and blast you while you're still waiting for him to reappear. It's enough to drive an alt-monkey mad.

Well, here's one very suspect tactic, from a realism POV, but about the only thing that works in this situation.

Place your wing over the area where you suspect the dot might be hiding in plain sight. You'll see the dot in the wing graphics.

Unrealistic? Undoubtedly. Game-the-game? Guilty as charged. But, if you can't see anything at all anyway, and the only other way to do it is to dive into a general area and wait for the dot, and about six others to magically appear on your tail... well, you might be tempted to do what you gotta do.

This is one of those, whatchacall, graphic anamolies. Like when one of the big fluffy clouds just up and disappears when you're just a few km away from it. That's jarring...

Or when you can't see any planes in your immediate vicinity (and later action shows 10 of them were lurking in the weeds the whole time), but you can see the globule-dots of ground objects some 25km away, silhouetted against a cloud on the horizon.

What, exactly is so great about these graphics? Poor stigie.. So sensitive.. So depressed.. Here, allow me to give you something that might chear you up

Targetware DVD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JOFQ/102-3183087-3465746?v=glance&n=130)

But.. Im sure you allready pre-ordered it

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


I didnt even read the post properly because I was sure it was just another useless moan, but now I have I realise there is something wrong with your setup.

I CANNOT EVER see dots thru my wings, and clouds never disappear.

You should go to the tech support forum and post your problems there.

There's not a thing 'wrong' with my setup. I have a Radeon 8500LE card with current drivers and 256MB of video RAM, a 1.4GHz chip (which, while not nearly top of the line any more, has enough oomph to get the job done), and I'm running at 1024 x 768, one of the most common screen resolutions for ALL applications. So, please, spare me the "try [exotic resolution]" or "drop down to 800 x 600, with cruddy looking graphics" diatribes. The sim should support standard 1024 x 768, end of story. Other sims I fly all do fine with it, so IL-2 should be no exception.

By the way, just last night, I had another exercise in frustration flying over the Normandy map. I managed one kill of a "all white" Mosquito which still managed to hide comfortably over the "dark grey" North Sea and over the green/brown farmland of France without being seen. Had to resort to a chance acquisition courtesy of my all-seeing port wing.

Then there was the Spitfire that was loitering over the V2 site; a comedy of invisibility as neither of us could maintain a visual on each other long enough to get in a telling shot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Once you start maneuvering in close, you let that invisispeck out of view for half a second, forget it. And in that situation, in close quarters, you can't afford the luxury of trying to find him with your wing.

VF-51-Dart
04-06-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


I didnt even read the post properly because I was sure it was just another useless moan, but now I have I realise there is something wrong with your setup.

I CANNOT EVER see dots thru my wings, and clouds never disappear.

You should go to the tech support forum and post your problems there.

There's not a thing 'wrong' with my setup. I have a Radeon 8500LE card with current drivers and 256MB of video RAM, a 1.4GHz chip (which, while not nearly top of the line any more, has enough oomph to get the job done), and I'm running at 1024 x 768, one of the most common screen resolutions for ALL applications. So, please, spare me the "try [exotic resolution]" or "drop down to 800 x 600, with cruddy looking graphics" diatribes. The sim should support standard 1024 x 768, end of story. Other sims I fly all do fine with it, so IL-2 should be no exception.

By the way, just last night, I had another exercise in frustration flying over the Normandy map. I managed one kill of a "all white" Mosquito which still managed to hide comfortably over the "dark grey" North Sea and over the green/brown farmland of France without being seen. Had to resort to a chance acquisition courtesy of my all-seeing port wing.

Then there was the Spitfire that was loitering over the V2 site; a comedy of invisibility as neither of us could maintain a visual on each other long enough to get in a telling shot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Once you start maneuvering in close, you let that invisispeck out of view for half a second, forget it. And in that situation, in close quarters, you can't afford the luxury of trying to find him with your wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An 8500LE and a 1.4Ghz chip. That video card is three year old technology man. Right there, that is suspect off the bat Stigler. No offense, but you are running outdated hardware for this sim now, given all the changes to it over the years. While that setup may have been the cat's meow back when FB first came out, it's certainly substandard now for what is required of the sim to get the most out of it. Fact of life, as you should well know, that if this stuff is one€s hobby then one has to assume they will need to upgrade hardware every couple of years to stay abreast of the latest developments happening in the genre.

Again, you€re accusing the sim of being a POS when it€s more likely most of your problems are stemming from your current setup. So it runs WBs and TR ok. Big deal, they€re not nearly as taxing on a system as this sim is. Be sure.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 12:51 PM
If you check the box, you'll see my setup is well within "recommended" parameters, and there's a "minimum" rung below that. The one area it does fall short in (recommended CPU, which is stated at 2.4GHz), doesn't affect visuals (only possibly the speed at which they display).

The various upgrades to IL-2 haven't really changed much about what I can and can't see since the very beginnings. The "globules" were a new addition, but they show as much as "dots" with this wingspotting phenomenon.

Still, in the end analysis, that the sim would even have this phenomenon as a possibility (spotting objects through solid objects) is a bit questionable.

Xiolablu3
04-06-2006, 01:37 PM
ANomalies come from different driver versions, every PC owner knows that.

Graphocs card companies try and squeeze every last drop of performance out of their cards and it often goes wrong.

Do you see these anomalies with every driver version? Have you tried messing with the settings?

Every PC game you could think of has graphic anomalies with some versions of ATI's/Nvidias drivers.

If you have messed with different drivers, graphics settings etc and still no joy then
you can buy a Geforce Ti4600 128mb card for around 20 now off ebay, I am using this card on excellent settings with no anomalies. I suggest you pay 20 for a new card or even better spend a little more and get a more modern card.

VF-51-Dart
04-06-2006, 02:33 PM
Again, I have NEVER seen anything appear through my wings, or any of the other problems you've stated you're having, so this leads me back to thinking the problems lie in your setup/configs. And even though your gear fits within the parameters of what this sim says you can use, you're considerably behind the curve.

Regardless, you might reconsider looking over your config files thouroghly and seeing if indeed there is something you could do to rectify some of your problems.

Von_Rat
04-06-2006, 04:24 PM
theres lots of people with top of line rigs, who have trouble spotting planes that go invisable when your looking right at them.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 04:32 PM
Indeed, this goes beyond just my rig.

Fact is, the graphics in this sim have elected for aesthetics at the expense of realism.

In the first versions of IL-2, way back when, dots were, well, dots. Big, obvious, black dots. So, you stood a much better chance of seeing one with a determined search, while a very quick scan could still hide a dot among the black details of forests and such.

But then, the "invisispecks" were invented, little grey pixel arrays that remind me of the light marks made by a very sharp pencil. Utterly invisible against green, brown, the yellow that mars late war Luftwaffe canopies, invisible against almost anything.

The new "globules" are a little better, but they're inconsistent. Sometimes they help greatly in spotting, other times they're just as useless as the invisispecks.

I have a sneaking suspicion that nVidia cards might handle this sim better than ATIs, and have seen some posts to that effect, but, not having an nVidia card to swap out and test that, I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

TX-Zen
04-06-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
theres lots of people with top of line rigs, who have trouble spotting planes that go invisable when your looking right at them.

I'm one of them.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
Don't you overlook these VERY LARGE problems because there is something you like about the DF format that (OMFG!!) outweighs the pure realism aspect?

I hate DF servers myself. One of the big reasons why is that I find the energy tactics and strategy I enjoy next to useless on them. I find there are three reasons for this:

1. my skill
2. the nature of DF servers
3. the limitations of the game.



Back to this, Georgeo.

Whether you're in a DF server, a coop or an online war (and I've flown all three extensively), real world tactics should work in any of them. Whether your opposition are an organized strike force at 5km, or a bunch of milling rabble down in the weeds, you should be able to see them, if you're looking, and you should be able to then decide for yourself if you can stand a reasonable chance of surviving if you attack.

Also, not all DF servers are simply furballs. Some do have ground targets, a mix of fighters vs. strike planes and even bombers. Same problems with IL-2 visuals and modelling ruin immersion in these, too.

As for your list of three factors, I've been at this hobby for long enough to know when my own f*ckup causes me to die, and when the modeling or sim design contributes to it. And I'm honest enough with myself to recognize the difference. Also, I have other sims to compare my experiences to, and I find in other sims, both B&Z and T&B can work if done properly; and I also find that realistic spotting and situational awareness tactics also work elsewhere; only in IL-2 is a height advantage so penalized and is B&Z so gutted as a viable tactic.

ATLAS_DEATH
04-06-2006, 06:37 PM
I notice I can spot planes and ground targets better online than offline... is this on purpose.. am I seeing things?.. A bug?..

I'll turn icons on whilst flying offline... enemy plane will show up around 3k range... online the dots show up 5 times as far.. Perhaps it's a safe guard as my comp has to do everything instead of sharing a little of the load with the server?

carguy_
04-06-2006, 07:15 PM
The general reaction to this thread is more than expected.

80% of ppl fly between 50m and 4000m and they`re T&Bers most likely.

We`ve had airline pilots stating that this game has a terrible dot/LOD render system,yet this version that we have now is widely accepted.


Vast majority of this game`s planes completely blend into the background when either in LOD or dot rendering stage.
Not being able to see an aircraft from 4km is normal here.
If there`s anything that leads to spotting a plane`s silhouette in the background those are tracers.Yup,the basic scenario is to gain altitude,circle few time over the target area and wait for tracers to appear.Not that there were no planes flying below there.They were although the terrain made them behave like fecking Predators - yeeees,the jungle came and took him or in IL2 jargon it flew behind him and banged him.

Normandy map is famous for this.Just select a Spitfire/Yak9/LaGG and fly below 3000m.Guaranteed no Luftwaffle/USAAFie will spot you let alone track you down and attack.

Currently high altitude/B&Z aircraft are unable to effectively
1)escort low bomb raids
2)sweep enemy fighters
3)spot low bomb raids


The B&Z tactic is perfectly usable in winter maps and unusable in summer maps.


The thing that counts in aerial combat the most is Situation Awareness.It has been completely ignored by IL2 creators.
One of the results - inferiority of B&Z tactic - is just a side effect.


B&Zers are unable to effectively protect their ground targets, unable to protect their bomber formations,unable to use the altitude advantage in 1v1 scenario.


Winter maps are a good "fix" for this and an example of what could have been going on with good dot/LOD rendering system in summer maps.

Yaaaah no one remembers we took Stalingrad after three and a half days of online winter campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

willyvic
04-06-2006, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

...I have a sneaking suspicion that nVidia cards might handle this sim better than ATIs, and have seen some posts to that effect, but, not having an nVidia card to swap out and test that, I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

Many of us Nvidia users suffer the same dot problems Stig. The damn things blend into the landscape, disappear at medium range, and heaven forbid you track across a canopy spar...you lose em from one side to the other! Forces many, many folks to battle it out down low where they have chance of painting the opponent against the sky.

I resist the down low urge most times and try to be content with whatever happens to come up to my alt.

WV.

mortoma
04-06-2006, 09:07 PM
I have a PC way older than Stigler's and I don't have the problem he has. It has to be his setup or drivers or something. I have a TI-4600 for cryin' out loud!! I built this rig in 2001, an Asus A7M266 mobo with a AMD XP-2100 processor. I have 1 gig of PC-2700 DRR but it runs at 2100 speed. I have none of the trouble he has. I run in DX too, not OpenGL. I run 2x AA and 2X Aniso at 1024x768 graphics. Also run in Win98!! I also use Nvidia Win98 56.64 drivers, which are old, because the newer Win98 drivers from Nvidia stink. I do have to play at lower game graphic settings, no nice water settings here.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-06-2006, 10:20 PM
nVidia card. It seems, as I said, that ATI cards are perhaps suspect for IL-2.

But ATI is one of the more popular card manufacturers around. Again, no excuse for them not to be properly supported.

If it was "Jimmy's Bargain Super Graphics Card", ok, but this is a leading card manufacturer. And I'm running an extremely common screen res.

gkll
04-07-2006, 12:03 AM
Well pit on with icons might be a little too far for your average full switch player.... however it certainly takes away all this (valid) chit chat regarding low flying advantages you gentlemen rightly point out....

Those icons are pretty 'settable', get creative. Anyways I have always felt that the most 'realistic' settings are some form of icons with pit on. Or better dots... however the icons you can set right now. Hard to find such a server though, as there is a lot of sneering at icons by the 'FR' crowd..... rather play with absurd tactical disadvantages compared to RL than have it marginally? too easy as with limited icons. Anyway Im always bleating about this... just my 2c

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 11:38 AM
Completely agree on this count, gkll.

There doesn't seem to be much middle ground between the "full switchers" and the "arcadists".

A system with cockpit always on and distance/info limited icons, IMO, works best. You can even simulate coordination and training by giving friendly icons an extra km or two on the distance, but keep the enemy ranges tighter.

But even if you can convince a "full-switcher" to try these, they usually resort to making them friendly only (which is absurd; you don't need help spotting the friendlies so much, it's the invisible enemy that is problematic) or so short (inside 1km) that they're basically useless.

TX-Zen
04-07-2006, 11:46 AM
I really thought Warclouds had the best icon settings since they were no color and limited to Type only at about 1.5k. That was before the inviso dots took over though, so these days I have yet to see any icons that can compensate for the limitations imposed by the inviso dots (which came around during Aces expansion IIRC).


As arcade as it sounds, I'm beginning to think that the default 5k colored icons are more realistic than what most of us see and accept in the no icon/full switch servers.

When everyone can see you because of your big fat 30 mile long icon, no one flies below 3-5k and ironically enough, thats generally supported by history.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I really thought Warclouds had the best icon settings since they were no color and limited to Type only at about 1.5k. That was before the inviso dots took over though, so these days I have yet to see any icons that can compensate for the limitations imposed by the inviso dots (which came around during Aces expansion IIRC).


As arcade as it sounds, I'm beginning to think that the default 5k colored icons are more realistic than what most of us see and accept in the no icon/full switch servers.

When everyone can see you because of your big fat 30 mile long icon, no one flies below 3-5k and ironically enough, thats generally supported by history.

Well, 1.5km icons don't really solve the problem at all. At that range, the planeshape is there, and for all but a few "optimistically camoflaged P-39s and Yaks" (*cough* *cough*), visuals are much less of a problem. And, if the planes are traveling at higher speeds or are late model planes, by the time a icon "pops into view" at 1.5km, it's too late to do anything about it, and if you do evade, the plane leaves that range and goes invisible again, stopping you from manevuering for the next merge.

The problem is the 1.5 - 5km range, especially when a lot of that range is in vertical altitude, and not horizontal seperation.

Your 5km suggestion is NOT arcade at all, provided they're not the overly long name/designation/plane type/range/player's social security number http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif. I'd think simply either range only or type only for enemy would suffice, limited to anywhere from 3km to 5km. All they're needed for is to stop them from so easily becoming invisible at maneuver and tracking/stalking ranges. If it were possible, it would be great if they would stop displaying inside 1km, since you really don't need them that close.

It's kind of funny that, when it comes to icons, the "full switch crowd" is as completely polar in thought as the arcadist "WonderWoman" crowd. The WW people are willing to pretend the cockpit isn't there at all to marginally improve visibility around struts (which actually was a factor in WWII planes).... and the full-switch people are willing to pretend that one can barely see anything in order to simulate "difficulty" as opposed to reality.

Von_Rat
04-07-2006, 12:36 PM
to bad any server with default icons also seem have open pit, externals on and other arcade stuff. i like default icons except when i fly blue. im colorblind a little and cant see the red icons nearly as good against ground as i can see blue icons.

TX-Zen
04-07-2006, 12:43 PM
For my own flying enjoyment, I prefer to see 5km colored icons with NUMBER only, that way its a relatively unobtrusive small 2 digit number. It's not glaringly obvious and definately helps my own chronic visibility issues when looking down over forest, Normandy or the pacific ocean.

In fact for me, target acquisition over water is so bad that I basically won't fly any PF missions at all...its nothing more than an exercise in futility despite trying various resolutions and graphics settings. Colored icons help to find the bandit, but being able to discern his heading or attitude is nearly impossible unless I crank the detail way down. Rather than having a shoddy looking game in order to see the bandit, I just stick to land based missions and do the best I can there.


My point about WC's 1.5km icon is that imho, it really helps when looking down during BnZ or close fighting. It prevents the disappearing LOD problem, which while not a constant thing for me, can and does happen often enough to get annoying. It doesn't help with the inviso dots like a 3-5k icon would, but thats not an LOD issue either...two different problems are in play and probably require two different solutions in combination.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 01:03 PM
The only bad thing with the number being, it's a digital rangefinder. That's one of the knocks the full switch crowd make, and I actually agree with that point. Perhaps if only they would show "1" or "2" to say "about xkm" instead of being a digital counter, it might be better.

For me, icons of plane type only do the job great and when you really get in close, I find I don't notice them at all: I'm concentrating on a rather large plane shape at that point.

TX-Zen
04-07-2006, 01:23 PM
Not RANGE btw, NUMBER...the player ID is a 2 digit number and thats it.

I agree that if range only changed in full KM increments it might be better.

Lordbutter4
04-07-2006, 04:43 PM
Am I the only one who dosnt suffer from this inability to spot aircraft? I fly servers with no icons and have absolutely no problems following and finding aircraft, be it over water or over forest.

Im using a Nvidea 6600 GT. I dont fly perfect settings. Maybe thats why? I also havent messed with any settings in Il2. My settings are straight out the box. Maybe you have tweaked yourself into this problem?

Maybe your just too dam high to see them? Objects disappear with distance. If your 15000 ft above them thats almost 3 miles. Its not so easy to spot lone aircraft that are camo'ed into the surroundings from 3 miles looking down. I dont know if your talking about spotting low flying aircraft or just chasing them.

LEXX_Luthor
04-07-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
theres lots of people with top of line rigs, who have trouble spotting planes that go invisable when your looking right at them.

I'm one of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm two of them.

The best way to fix this is user or server configurable dots -- think of dot as a form of "icon" but not text icon. There really is no difference here, except that the text icons clutter the sky above and below with ... sky writing.

I run my primitive ATI-9200 at 1152x864, and I used to run my ATI-9800 at 1280x960, and I refuse Oleg's suggestion of using the text symbols, and I refuse to drop to lower resolutions. I fixed the problem by going over to StrikeFighters, which don't even use "dots" but normal LODs which simply just get smaller and smaller with distance -- just like Real Life -- up to a (user configurable) LOD vanishing distance.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-07-2006, 06:17 PM
Yeah, but with StrikeFighters, you're lowering yourself to flying a "sim lite" which is even worse at accurate model than this one is...

And I believe the visuals there are just as harsh if not harshER as far as spotting goes.

OldMan____
04-07-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
nVidia card. It seems, as I said, that ATI cards are perhaps suspect for IL-2.

But ATI is one of the more popular card manufacturers around. Again, no excuse for them not to be properly supported.

If it was "Jimmy's Bargain Super Graphics Card", ok, but this is a leading card manufacturer. And I'm running an extremely common screen res.

Not IL2 fault. ATi have a horrible OpenGL implementation, failing in several points to reach the standard. ATi only GL concern is with Doom 3 engine. I worken in other GL games in last 2 years, and every new driver ATI ****s something on OpenGL.

LEXX_Luthor
04-07-2006, 06:33 PM
Stiglr::
And I believe the visuals there are just as harsh if not harshER as far as spotting goes.
This is where higher resolution will help you, alot. Also, ramp up the smooth zoom control speed since the default is frustratingly slow, and map it to a joystick hat switch (move to mouse view but you must ramp that up too). You mentioned earlier that FB/PF instant "jump" zoom makes you lose sight of tiny dots and LODs when you switch field of view. SF offers smooth zoom transitions but you need to push up the zoom speed -- and the panning speed if you use mouse to view around. That's one thing about SF -- the default control and grafix settings are horribly conservative. The smooth zoom control is what makes SF dogfighting so immersive, at least once you ramp up the zoom and view panning speeds -- alot.


VIEWLIST file in Flight folder...

[ViewClass002]
ViewClassName=CockpitViewClass
ViewType=FIXED_VIEW
ViewGroupID=1
DefaultView=CockpitFront
AllowFromDiffGroup=TRUE
SnapView=FALSE
InsideView=TRUE
FocusObjectOnly=TRUE
<span class="ev_code_yellow">FOV=90.0</span>
PitchControl=CAMERA_PITCH_AXIS
YawControl=CAMERA_YAW_AXIS
RollControl=
ZoomControl=CAMERA_ZOOM_CONTROL
JumpToViewSameGroup=FALSE
JumpToViewDiffGroup=TRUE
SmoothAngleTransition=TRUE
SmoothPositionTransition=FALSE
SmoothFOVTransition=FALSE
RememberAngle=FALSE
RememberFOV=TRUE
LimitPitch=TRUE
LimitYaw=TRUE
LimitRoll=FALSE
ZoomFOV=TRUE
<span class="ev_code_yellow">ZoomScale=0.10
PanScale=0.01</span>
// I'm still experimenting here...
MinSpeed=000.0
MaxSpeed=000.0
Acceleration=000.0
AngleRates=480.0,360.0,360.0
FOVRate=60.0
MinAngles=-135.0,-20.0,0.0
MaxAngles=135.0,110.0,0.0
<span class="ev_code_yellow">MinFOV=30.0
MaxFOV=90.0</span>
OffsetDistance=0.06
TrackIRUseAbsolutePos=TRUE





Yeah, but with StrikeFighters, you're lowering yourself to flying a "sim lite" which is even worse at accurate model than this one is...
Its releaced and advertised as 'sim lite' but can be made into sim hard -- including flight model, as its open sim. But, it takes alot of work.

zoinks_
04-08-2006, 01:32 PM
sounds alot like a big wobbles post. i got it. i don't.

tried a variety of settings, reformats, video drivers, and fresh installs over 3 - 4 months. i agree with Stigler.

amd 3700
asus a8n premium
2x1g crucial ddr400 dual channel 1T 3-3-3-8
pc power and cooling turbo-cool 510-sli
evga 7800 gtx ko
esi juli@ sound card
hitachi 250gb sata2
lian-li pc-7BplusII mid-tower
19" samsung syncmaster 955df

make offer

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-08-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
For my own flying enjoyment, I prefer to see 5km colored icons with NUMBER only,..


Colored dots or 1-2 digit numbers do a good job of compensating for the lack of proper visibility. I don't like the increased liability of not being able to stalk as you can with no icons. Good eyesight and being able to spot your adversary without him spotting yo were the things that dictated victory more times than not. The reality, though is this sim attempts to portray a fully 3 dimensional world on a 2D screen so, compromise is inevitible to maintain player interest and playability.

In short, I agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif