PDA

View Full Version : Poll: The Invisible Dots, has the Pendulum swung too far?



Buzzsaw-
05-10-2005, 01:40 PM

BigKahuna_GS
05-10-2005, 02:53 PM
S!


Agreed !



___

faustnik
05-10-2005, 03:04 PM
Buzzsaw is correct. We need a choice for better visibility. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Lixma
05-10-2005, 03:05 PM
I like the new dots.

Against low to medium altitude sky they're fairly easy to spot. The sky at high altitude being too dark is a seperate issue but it does exacerbate the concern about the new style dots.

Losing your dots against the ground is more frequent now but it happened in RL. It gives a chance to escape for the quarry - and cover for the hunter.

crazyivan1970
05-10-2005, 03:36 PM
I think this should be posted in GD...even that it adressed to Oleg. If you want maximum input of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Population of ORR is rather small http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I can move it over if you wish.

And yes, i agree.

BuzzU
05-10-2005, 05:53 PM
I agree. I can't see anything. As I said in the other thread. B&Z is sightseeing now.

fordfan25
05-10-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
I agree. I can't see anything. As I said in the other thread. B&Z is sightseeing now.

yea rgr that bro. ofcourse that just means well be diveing alot more wich means the wings of or stangs will be comeing off more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

TX-Gunslinger
05-10-2005, 06:51 PM
Thanks for taking the initiative to post this!


I agree!

The results of the "Dot overhaul" which occured in 3.04 are:

1) more low-altitude furballs, because higher altitude flyers can't see....

2) horrendous choice of low-res, or ugly (try Sharpen one of these days, if your graphics card supports it) graphics in order to be able to see A/C

It would be nice to be able to enjoy the benefits of all the "eye candy" that 1C has thrown into the sim, without comprimising the detection range of enemy A/C.

Additionally, players with higher end graphics cards can enjoy a great advantage versus players on other systems.

Let me add also, that the dot settings need to be controlled by the server, not the individual. If that is not possible, then only ONE choice needs to be available for online play:

BIG DOTS like 3.03m

S~

ECV56_MagOO
05-10-2005, 07:11 PM
Agree, but for me the most annoying thing is to watch them diappear into the background at the moment dot->lod happens, then is the complete blindness at normal B&Z heights.

I remember kindly that brief instant where you ,flying in HL, where able to actually use real world succesfull combat tactics, B&Z and energy fighting, on those spots circling frantically on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, for just one moment, fighting tactics changed completely for the truer/better, and miss it big time now.
S!
Pato

Buzzsaw-
05-10-2005, 07:31 PM
Salute Crazy Ivan

Yes, if you want to switch it to GD, go ahead. It was for the attention of Oleg though.

LBR_Rommel
05-10-2005, 07:40 PM
S!

Agree 100% this dot is a joke, planes just disapear

Rattler25
05-10-2005, 07:48 PM
Please people, remember to Vote ( bottom of the first post )

I personally believe in choice, allowing the server to set this online, or the user offline makes all happy....there are plenty of servers.

Back before the First IL-2 went gold, I personally
lobbied Oleg very hard via the old Dogfighter.com boards for 2 very important options, Padlock On/Off, and Icons On/Off and convinced Oleg, it was the right thing to do.
This is also, the right thing to do, its options like these that help this Simulation Series set itself apart from the competition, and give it life for many years to come, and keep people coming back with their $$$$$ for add-ons.

Please vote.
Rattler

FlatSpinMan
05-10-2005, 08:47 PM
I totally agree. I have started using range icons. I tried to vote but it wouldn't let me. I agree with ivan that this should go to General Discussion. I also agree with the post saying it is OUR fault for choosing this option. Thanks Oleg, for trying to please a bunch of people who are impossible to please. Get well, too.

===================================

Buzzsaw-
05-10-2005, 09:30 PM
Salute Ivan

People are trying to vote, but it doesn't work after the first 4.

zar1969
05-10-2005, 09:51 PM
I agree. There is something going on with the low detail models as well. When I go head to head with opponents I tend to lose them at about 3km and reaquire them only under 1km - that can't right...

zar

TAGERT.
05-10-2005, 09:53 PM
options are allways better than no options, I vote yes, allow the user to decide what is more realistic.

Heinz_Schuss
05-10-2005, 10:10 PM
I vote yes. Unfortunately got an "Error processing request" message, so here it is.

Schuss

dieg777
05-10-2005, 10:10 PM
I would like the option to switch to something like the old 3.03 dots. The old type really improved my situational awareness and made the game more enjoyable for me.

crazyivan1970
05-10-2005, 10:59 PM
it seems to be broken... shoot

IIJG69_Kartofe
05-11-2005, 02:50 AM
At this distance (+/- 2000 m ) the bare metal planes are reduced to the same greyed spot than a camouflaged plane ... Réalistic ??

jurinko
05-11-2005, 07:18 AM
funny that allied pilots complain. It is the froggy green I-16, P-39 and Spitfire‚¬īs grey-green camo, which makes them invisible. 109 G-6 with its light grey is visible like white Zero.

BuzzU
05-11-2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by jurinko:
funny that allied pilots complain. It is the froggy green I-16, P-39 and Spitfire‚¬īs grey-green camo, which makes them invisible. 109 G-6 with its light grey is visible like white Zero.

So, you can see my shiny aluminum P-51?

Te_Vigo
05-11-2005, 08:22 AM
I fly at 1024x 768 x 100Hz Perfect, with an FX 5900 Ultra....
Dots are just fine for me
I'm sorry to others but I thought the 3.03 dots were a joke and were big cartoon balloons blobbing in the air.
3.04 dots seem as I thought they should be but in not being a pilot myself but have spent many years in 'craft as a passenger, white commercial jets can disappear against the sky in bright, clear conditions.

The visible at 3k but disappearing only to reappear at 1k problem, sounds more like a VGA card/ rendering/ driver issue

MP_DOTRANGE can be adjusted ingame.

Remember, it is extremely diffcult to do real life with the current technology, that at best, can only give us something representative of real life.
What suits hires flyers, won't suit medres flyers, etc, etc, then there are hardware configurations to consider...late model cards, new model cards, etc, etc...quality of cards, quality of monitor, etc, etc...........

BuzzU
05-11-2005, 12:15 PM
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?

KG26_Oranje
05-11-2005, 01:16 PM
i vote yes give us the choice.

From the biggining i had trobbels to see dots.
Even wiht a new Vidio card i cant see it.
So i`m restrickt to play online wiht tags on.
Its fine if we all dont see it buht its not if
Some players see it from far far away and ahters dont see it even if the are very close.
Wiht tags on u dont have that divrants , its a fair game.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

faustnik
05-11-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?

Exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Jetbuff
05-11-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?
Some people just want to have their tussle in the weeds in complete safety.

S.taibanzai
05-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Not agree dots are just fine

Chadburn
05-11-2005, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?

It's an issue of target aquisistion. Camo was placed on planes for a reason even though it added weight. If the dots are too easy to spot then the camo effect is negated and an historical aspect of the game is lost.

Even if the dots were made larger,it would still not deal with the issue of LODs for certain planes that disappear too easily, even when you've already aquired them and are looking right at them at ranges of under 1k. If all LODs for all similar-sized planes presented a similar-sized target, then this would be fine, but planes that are already easy to track would become even easier targets, while others that would show up fine as dots would still disappear as the first LOD was loaded, right at the critical point in lining up a BnZ run.

ManicGibber
05-12-2005, 12:34 AM
I like the new dots as they seem to go more light blueish as they disappear. This is what happens in RL, for example I watched a Boomerang fighter fly past my house on Anzac weekend. I watched it as it faded out of view at around 10km on a clear day, and the dot was the size of a pin point for some time before it blended with the atmosphere. Our current dots are a whole lot larger than the point of a pin imo, and they also seem to sparkle at some angles and distances, which also can be observed in RL.

Diablo310th
05-12-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?

Exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif's

Te_Vigo
05-12-2005, 09:05 AM
I'm sorry but that is just a silly argument.
(Seriously, no disrespect intended)

Use Icons (limited even) if that is the case.

an idea:

If all could put their preferred resolution and graphics card and monitor types, etc, into the thread, we might come up with what exactly is going on and why these actions for changes in the dots might be being called for.

FX5900 Ultra
1024 x 768 x 100Hz x 32 bit colour
2x AA 2x Aniso 71.89 driver
Sony 19" Trinitron monitor
OpenGL Perfect mode

Dots as per 3.04m are fine
Dots as per 3.03m are too big

HeinzBar
05-12-2005, 10:16 AM
S!,
I have to agree that I lose visual contact w/ targets every night when I try to track them while looking down on summer maps. However, I absolutely hated the big ugly balloons of 3.03. IMHO, they were an immersion killer for me. Seeing these big, black blobs floating around from any distance was just too much. I much rather lose track of a target and extend away than having the ability to track a blob. Given a choice between 3.03 & 3.04, I'll take 3.04.

However, I'm of the mind that players should have the option in single player mode. Online, everyone should be forced to use the server's choice. The same thing should be said about clouds too while I'm at it.

I'm not running anything special to help me see contacts any easier btw. I run PF at 1280x960x32 2xfsaa 2xaa in opengl on a hitachi 19" .22dot CRT.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have multiple eyes in the form on excellent wingmen. Rarely, do I fly w/o one anymore ... I need their help.

HB

BuzzU
05-12-2005, 10:19 AM
Like I already said. Do you want to fight or hide? I don't care if you see me. As long as I can see you too. What's the big deal?

carguy_
05-12-2005, 10:27 AM
I will never except LODs rendering and dots in this game presented after 3.01!My eyes hurt,I see nothing below in summer and Spitfires have no wings d@mmit!

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2005, 12:09 PM
LOD's less visible (by far initially) than the dot the plane was are the worst problem.

And I'm not sure but there may be a point where LOD's are black and then take on color.

Camo paint is good, but not at all distances from both observer and background does the
camo paint reflect or show exact match to background or even like itself at other distances.
What we have is crayon plane over crayon trees, always same color, always both change by
light conditions the same. No difference of closer plane over farther ground under any
haze or air layer, or any compensation. Is it possible to have ground textures use a
certain part of the color palette that for the player could change with altitude? Maybe
that would be too tricky trying to make planes below also work the same, custom paintjobs
would also have to use limited color choices. And we couldn't lose those.

Chadburn
05-12-2005, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
Like I already said. Do you want to fight or hide? I don't care if you see me. As long as I can see you too. What's the big deal?

If I'm flying jabo in a 190 with an AB 500 strapped to my belly, I want to hide. If I just got chewed up by AA or took a beating in a dogfight but managed to break contact and I'm limping home, I want to hide. If I meet you in a situation where I think I have good chance to shoot you down, then I want to fight.

I'm just not sure it's realistic to fly at 5 or 6k and still expect to spot como'ed targets 4 or 5k below you. As I said, it seems to completely negate the effect of camoflage.

Stachl
05-12-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Do you want to fight or hide? What's wrong with letting us see each other without getting eye strain?

It's an issue of target aquisistion. Camo was placed on planes for a reason even though it added weight. If the dots are too easy to spot then the camo effect is negated and an historical aspect of the game is lost.

Even if the dots were made larger,it would still not deal with the issue of LODs for certain planes that disappear too easily, even when you've already aquired them and are looking right at them at ranges of under 1k. If all LODs for all similar-sized planes presented a similar-sized target, then this would be fine, but planes that are already easy to track would become even easier targets, while others that would show up fine as dots would still disappear as the first LOD was loaded, right at the critical point in lining up a BnZ run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is EXACTLY right in my opinion! Despite the fact that in RL it was one of the smallest fighter aircraft in WWII, the most visible fighter in the sim right now has got to be the 109, and it's not just because of differences in camo. Now if each each individual aircraft LOD image were based on it's RL size, relative to other aircraft, and we used the current 109 LOD size as the comparative base model for size . . . well we'd no longer have visual problems between 1000 and 500 meters period. Currently planes like the Spitfire, Yak, Lagg and several others have a huge visual advantage over 109s on summer maps. I'm certainly not advocating short icons as it goes too far in the other direction, but as Chadburn said, it would be nice if the visuals were represented in a more equal way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2005, 05:15 PM
Listen to <span class="ev_code_yellow">Te_Vigo</span>

I fly at 1024x 768 x 100Hz Perfect, with an FX 5900 Ultra....
Dots are just fine for me
I'm sorry to others but I thought the 3.03 dots were a joke and were big cartoon balloons blobbing in the air.
FB Dots were originally created for the standard 1024x768 "gaming" resolution used at the end of the last century. FB Dots work well at 1024x768, and don't need to be larger for that resolution. What the poll results show is more and more gamers are moving into this century and higher grafix settings.

Dude163, Administrator of sinhq webboard, is one of the few honest Online players to admit he/she drops to as low as 800x600 to see FB Dots when in a competitive Online mood.

BuzzU
05-12-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuzzU:
Like I already said. Do you want to fight or hide? I don't care if you see me. As long as I can see you too. What's the big deal?

If I'm flying jabo in a 190 with an AB 500 strapped to my belly, I want to hide. If I just got chewed up by AA or took a beating in a dogfight but managed to break contact and I'm limping home, I want to hide. If I meet you in a situation where I think I have good chance to shoot you down, then I want to fight.

I'm just not sure it's realistic to fly at 5 or 6k and still expect to spot como'ed targets 4 or 5k below you. As I said, it seems to completely negate the effect of camoflage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand why you want to. The question is, should you be able to as it is now?

Buzzsaw-
05-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Salute

I will come back with a couple more comments:

1) Oleg obviously can't afford to spend a lot of time on this. For that reason, I suggested in my opening post of this thread that he offer the same option he did prior to the dots being 'set' in 3.03, ie. allow us to choose either 3.03 settings, or 3.04 settings in the server config. This should not require too much effort.

2) However, IF he can do it relatively easily, I would suggest the following change as an 'ideal' option:

I like what Oleg intended with 3.04, just that it has gone a little TOO far. I like the way the aircraft gradually blend into the ground and how aircraft which are cammoflauged have an advantage. I think in a perfect world I would have 3.04, but instead of the aircraft blending in at distances over 2k - 3k, they would blend in at distances over 5k - 6k.

Jetbuff
05-12-2005, 05:59 PM
Flying NOE should only really provide protection from ground-based observation such as radars and visual look-outs as well as airborne radars. Even there, it's not the camo that's hiding you but the contours of the ground/ground clutter.

I have never heard of planes deliberately flying below the enemy (in WWII or otherwise) to escape visual detection. Yet in this sim it's a sure fire way to avoid detection and that's just plain wrong. Want to avoid detection? Use proper tactics: take a roundabout route to your target; use cloud cover; get your team-mates to mount a distraction. An altitude advantage was the most important factor in air combat during WWII - rather than a hinderance as it is in this sim.

The other problem is the questionable LOD's of some planes. As some have noted, the 109, one of the smallest fighters of WWII, has one of the biggest LOD's in the game. Again, simply wrong. The 109 was miniscule when compared to say the P-51 or P-47 yet they show up as the same size in the LOD with possibly the edge going to the 109! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2005, 06:39 PM
Setup two formations -- 2 Bf~109s and 2 Bf~110s.

Compare LOD vanish distance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif Maybe they mixed them up years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Remember (abouit Dots not LODs) --> the plane you are External Viewing does not use the mp_dotrange commands, but all other planes do. This sets up much confusion. This is why we use multiple plane formations in Dot tests and not one single plane and look at that one in External View.

carguy_
05-12-2005, 06:48 PM
Weird thing is,real life pilots really like 3.01 dots as a good compromise whereas ppl who "saw" an aeroplane fly tend to opinions that LOD is correct.

Buzzsaw-
05-12-2005, 07:03 PM
Salute

Amazing how every thread gets turned into a Luftwhine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

First of all, in regards to the grey German camo showing up more than the green allied... I don't find that to be the case. And even if it did, you can switch to one of the hundreds of green camo schemes in a heartbeat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

In regards to 109's being so much smaller: The main determinant in visibility air to air is wingspan. The 109 has a wingspan only 12% smaller than the Spitfire or P-51. Even the P-47 is only 18% bigger. It's only when you look at the P-38 or Me-110 that you start to see aircraft which are 40% bigger than a 109.

Let's get back on topic please, and try for an improvement which will help everyone.

AnaK774
05-12-2005, 08:19 PM
IMHO old (2.04) dots were much better than test dots3.02/3.03?, they were bit too much...

But Current is horrible... no visual contacts below your flight altitude

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2005, 09:45 PM
It probably wouldn't hurt if the distance where dots change to LOD's is made shorter.
But still only help a little, I have seen LOD's vanish in plain sight which is why to
seperate the colors. Colors is palette, data not code even if the data may be hard
coded for speed. To change them would not require debugging but yes, require time.

Jetbuff
05-13-2005, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Amazing how every thread gets turned into a Luftwhine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

First of all, in regards to the grey German camo showing up more than the green allied... I don't find that to be the case. And even if it did, you can switch to one of the hundreds of green camo schemes in a heartbeat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

In regards to 109's being so much smaller: The main determinant in visibility air to air is wingspan. The 109 has a wingspan only 12% smaller than the Spitfire or P-51. Even the P-47 is only 18% bigger. It's only when you look at the P-38 or Me-110 that you start to see aircraft which are 40% bigger than a 109.

Let's get back on topic please, and try for an improvement which will help everyone.
How is it a whine when even you note that the 109 was smaller (albeit marginally) and yet all it's LOD's are larger than "similar" sized planes? It is a legitimate complaint!

Back on topic, dots need to be less dependent on resolution (try 640x480 for a revelation) and LOD's need to be revised.

Blackjack174
05-13-2005, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Back on topic, dots need to be less dependent on resolution (try 640x480 for a revelation) and LOD's need to be revised.
Try 320x240 with conf.ini edit , good for a laugh, and yes , I agree indipendent size no matter what resolution would be the best, I cannot imagine how big the OLD grey only dots where in 1920x1200 res, maybe a dot could consist out of a fixed size sprite texture (like a smoke sprite) and it would be placed at a constant distance, or even dynamic and become bigger until LODs kick in.
I dont get the big LODs anyhow , in other sims they made the wings 2 dimenional at larger distance (say falcon4.0) and it was still perfectly possible to tell where the wings where at reasonable distance, now if you look at the il2 model at distance, it has 3-5 meter thick wings for god‚¬īs sake ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
I wonder who came up with that wonderful design idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG54_Arnie
05-13-2005, 02:01 AM
Oleg only needs to change visibility for planes flying nearby against a green background, all else is fine IMO. The big dots we had as a test before were way over the top and ugly. But there must be a way in between where planes dont just dissapear.

Rattler25
05-13-2005, 01:14 PM
People, what the final question should be is it worth Oleg's time to program an OPTION ?

If you like the current system, you shouldn't have
any problem with an OPTION, only unless you feel its not worth the programming time to satisfy those (how many are there?) that aren't happy.

If you like the current system,thats fine, but do you believe its a waste of man hours to place
in an OPTION?

Thanks,
Rattler

Jetbuff
05-13-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Oleg only needs to change visibility for planes flying nearby against a green background, all else is fine IMO. The big dots we had as a test before were way over the top and ugly. But there must be a way in between where planes dont just dissapear.

The big dots are only ugly at low resolutions. I'd like to see those old dots (as they appeared at 1152x864 or so) applied uniformly at all resolutions. Right now you can get bigger sized dots by lowering your resolution.

LEXX_Luthor
05-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Buff::
The big dots are only ugly at low resolutions
Yes. The sim was created years ago for 1024x768 resolution. For that low resolution the Dots work well. This thread shows as more gamers max out their 400$ Beta Test UltraPro video card with the highest Perfect AA/AF and still have framerate to spare, the only thing left will be increasing resolution. Then they too will see the Dots are a failure in this sim.

The best reason to up resolution is the nearby aircraft are easily identified without Text Icons, and the dogfight sky is stunningly immersive when you see LODs clearly all around the sky, but only at higher resolutions like 1280x960. At 1024x768 the aircraft grafix LODs are just...Blobs...ugly Basketball Planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Buzz::
Amazing how every thread gets turned into a Luftwhine...
If (?) I recall my last test, Bf~110 LOD turns to Dot at closer range than Bf~109.

Who me LuftWhiner? Puh~Lease