PDA

View Full Version : Will SOW actually have a solution to what I think is the biggest flaw of IL-2..



DIRTY-MAC
12-11-2008, 07:09 AM
I have been playing this game from the beginning and have loved it since, Its just the best there is out there. period
But one thing I always havent felt is correct is how buildings and ground stuff shows up when flying close to the ground. You just dont get a correct feeling of the size of the buildings until you are extreemely close to them, its the same when flying through a walley, I never really get the sence of flying trough one as there is something wrong with the enviroment.

If you compare IL-2 to for example battelfield 1942 and blasing angels. Dont get me wrong here , we all know they are not in the same legue as IL-2. ( Im only focusing on the perception you get of flying low and close to ground and buildings are. I think those two games give you a more right feeling of that than IL-2 does. (not talking about graphics here)
This is not a complain about IL-2, I love this game to death, Its just my objective wiew of it, and would like to discuss it. (in a mature way please)
Im not so good at expressing myself in english, but I Hope you understand me.
And maybe someone else can explain what I mean in better words.
What is your thought on this, and do you think SOW will be different in this regard?



Blasing angels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSrk0wZ9K8&feature=related


Battlefield 1942 low flying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JF5jpEPeE&feature=related

DIRTY-MAC
12-11-2008, 07:09 AM
I have been playing this game from the beginning and have loved it since, Its just the best there is out there. period
But one thing I always havent felt is correct is how buildings and ground stuff shows up when flying close to the ground. You just dont get a correct feeling of the size of the buildings until you are extreemely close to them, its the same when flying through a walley, I never really get the sence of flying trough one as there is something wrong with the enviroment.

If you compare IL-2 to for example battelfield 1942 and blasing angels. Dont get me wrong here , we all know they are not in the same legue as IL-2. ( Im only focusing on the perception you get of flying low and close to ground and buildings are. I think those two games give you a more right feeling of that than IL-2 does. (not talking about graphics here)
This is not a complain about IL-2, I love this game to death, Its just my objective wiew of it, and would like to discuss it. (in a mature way please)
Im not so good at expressing myself in english, but I Hope you understand me.
And maybe someone else can explain what I mean in better words.
What is your thought on this, and do you think SOW will be different in this regard?



Blasing angels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSrk0wZ9K8&feature=related


Battlefield 1942 low flying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JF5jpEPeE&feature=related

Erkki_M
12-11-2008, 09:39 AM
In both of those games you mentioned the planes fly much slower than what the "gauges" show. I think its simply the difference between "feel" and "realism" - how things really are.

Probably also a little in that the ground in both of those is much more detailed - the drawback is having 1500m x 1500m maps, though.

general_kalle
12-11-2008, 09:54 AM
you have a point though, when you watch gun cams it always looks like objekts are alot bigger than they look in Il2 if you flew similar.
i dont know if Gun cams are replayed at slower speeds than recorded but it also looks like the aircraft have much longer time to strafe then we have in il2..

crucislancer
12-11-2008, 10:05 AM
I don't know, I always felt the sense of speed you get down low in IL-2 was awesome, but it's not like I fly at 20 meters in my Warbird to work, so how would I know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blood_Splat
12-11-2008, 10:21 AM
Well It's like when you're passing light poles while driving. You don't feel like you are going really fast but from an outside perspective you are.

M_Gunz
12-11-2008, 10:29 AM
You want to see full size in IL2 then fly fully zoomed because that is the way to get apparent width of objects as real.
The FOV zooms things out and what do you know, they look smaller.

You want Quake-like view then you live with Quake-like distances and speeds.

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-11-2008, 10:31 AM
I think he's talking more about sense of scale rather than speed. This is one of the reasons the ground object detail is important to immersion and one of the points I was trying to make in the Oleg News thread where everyone was saying the detailed ground objects were useless. I can safely say that with the large increase in ground detail that SoW should most definitely improve this aspect of the game.

TooCooL34
12-11-2008, 10:40 AM
+1 on this post.

Watching Birds of Prey(console IL-2), it was good in sensation.
I hope BOB is a lot better than that.

DIRTY-MAC
12-11-2008, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

You want Quake-like view then you live with Quake-like distances and speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

take it easy man, no need to sound harsh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I have played this game from day one, and I love it as it is.
I just want to diskuss this, because I have thought about it, and I would like to hear what you others have to say about it. im not saying thats anything is more right than others.

Lets just diskuss this in a objective mature way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now anybody else has any thoughts about this?

DIRTY-MAC
12-11-2008, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I think he's talking more about sense of scale rather than speed. This is one of the reasons the ground object detail is important to immersion and one of the points I was trying to make in the Oleg News thread where everyone was saying the detailed ground objects were useless. I can safely say that with the large increase in ground detail that SoW should most definitely improve this aspect of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, this is what I meant. thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

na85
12-11-2008, 10:55 AM
I know what you mean. The houses and buildings seem way too small in IL2... almost like toys

ali19891989
12-11-2008, 12:50 PM
slightly off topic but similar;

On the ground and sitting in the cockpits, big fighters like the Tempest and the Thunderbolt don't feel as though the pilot is far enough off the ground.

Anyone else notice this?

VW-IceFire
12-11-2008, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ali19891989:
slightly off topic but similar;

On the ground and sitting in the cockpits, big fighters like the Tempest and the Thunderbolt don't feel as though the pilot is far enough off the ground.

Anyone else notice this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only if I have nothing else to give me a sense of scale. Put the Thunderbolt next to another smaller aircraft and suddenly it feels like your on top of the world. Because the depth perception is being transmitted to you from a 2D projection...its difficult for your brain to accept the relative size differences without a direct comparison.

To be honest Blazing Angels is fun (I have Blazing Angels 2 for my 360) but the sense of speed isn't really there as good as it is with IL-2. Get down low and fast...say 450kph...and suddenly it feels like the whole world is just streaming past. Its a very authentic feeling...

Next try pulling back on the stick at that high speed and look out to your left or right...focus on the horizon and the sheer sense of scale as you zoom up. IL-2 does it better than anyone...only LOMAC's demo (never played the full game) ever gave me the same feeling.

crucislancer
12-11-2008, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Next try pulling back on the stick at that high speed and look out to your left or right...focus on the horizon and the sheer sense of scale as you zoom up. IL-2 does it better than anyone...only LOMAC's demo (never played the full game) ever gave me the same feeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was doing this last night, just messing around in the QMB with the Dora, going under bridges at 600kph+ then pulling up for a bit more. While I really don't know how right it was, it was thrilling stuff.

I don't think I've really paid much attention to the sense of scale with ground objects, the only negative that I have with the ground objects is the pop up effect and how big cities will drag down the frame rates.

Bearcat99
12-11-2008, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I think he's talking more about sense of scale rather than speed. This is one of the reasons the ground object detail is important to immersion and one of the points I was trying to make in the Oleg News thread where everyone was saying the detailed ground objects were useless. I can safely say that with the large increase in ground detail that SoW should most definitely improve this aspect of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.... and he is correct that the scale of objects in this sim when on the ground is off. Perhaps it could be corrected with mods in tis sim.. but I have no doubt that BoB will none of IL2's flaws... what few there are.

Skoshi Tiger
12-11-2008, 05:29 PM
Come on admit it! You just want to fly between the Hangers on one of the Hawian/Pearl Harbour airstrips! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
I have been playing this game from the beginning and have loved it since, Its just the best there is out there. period
But one thing I always havent felt is correct is how buildings and ground stuff shows up when flying close to the ground. You just dont get a correct feeling of the size of the buildings until you are extreemely close to them, its the same when flying through a walley, I never really get the sence of flying trough one as there is something wrong with the enviroment.

If you compare IL-2 to for example battelfield 1942 and blasing angels. Dont get me wrong here , we all know they are not in the same legue as IL-2. ( Im only focusing on the perception you get of flying low and close to ground and buildings are. I think those two games give you a more right feeling of that than IL-2 does. (not talking about graphics here)
This is not a complain about IL-2, I love this game to death, Its just my objective wiew of it, and would like to discuss it. (in a mature way please)
Im not so good at expressing myself in english, but I Hope you understand me.
And maybe someone else can explain what I mean in better words.
What is your thought on this, and do you think SOW will be different in this regard?



Blasing angels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSrk0wZ9K8&feature=related


Battlefield 1942 low flying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JF5jpEPeE&feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
12-11-2008, 05:37 PM
It is definitely a scaling issue.

But what can a developer do? We are forced to view our "world" through a tiny electronic porthole.

Frankly I'm amazed at how real the sim does look, all things considered.

*EDIT*

Over the weekend I showed the sim to a friend who has never seen a flight simulation title before. Took her for a tour of a DF map I am working on based on the Ichi Go campaign in China '44/45.

I took off in cockpit view and when I got to altitude I switched to external for her.

She literally gasped.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/812/cacwva5.jpg

"It looks so real".

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

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-11-2008, 05:59 PM
It makes me giddy to think how we're all going to gasp when SoW comes out!

ElAurens
12-11-2008, 06:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
12-11-2008, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I think he's talking more about sense of scale rather than speed. This is one of the reasons the ground object detail is important to immersion and one of the points I was trying to make in the Oleg News thread where everyone was saying the detailed ground objects were useless. I can safely say that with the large increase in ground detail that SoW should most definitely improve this aspect of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then neither of you have thought this through. You play an FPS like Quake and the "rooms" are too small for 300kph let alone fast.
Speed and Scale are tied very tightly in VR. You want Quake-like scale then you are stuck with Quake-like speeds as well.
I only mention Quake because most everyone knows Quake.

mortoma
12-11-2008, 08:13 PM
I once parked by some barracks on the big USAAF airbase which is at the southern part of the New Guinea map. Although the scale of the hangers is correct, the barracks are way too small. Compared to my P-40 and the figure inside plane parked right by them, the doors would only be about 4.5 to 5 feet tall. As if the barracks were made for the Munchkins. The scale is way off for some buildings.

gamer025
12-12-2008, 01:57 AM
You're right DIRTY-MAC. When I'm building a map I notice that some buildings (like houses and factories) are not much larger than your aircraft. Odd that a house is smaller than my 109, isn't it?

grifter2u
12-13-2008, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You want to see full size in IL2 then fly fully zoomed because that is the way to get apparent width of objects as real.
The FOV zooms things out and what do you know, they look smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the principle of what you said is correct, but the way you put it isnt really accurate.



For the OP, the single main problem with il2 "not simulating" what a real pilot would see from his cockpit, is that most il2 gamers fly with the "wrong" FoV setting.

simply put, for whatever monitor size you have, and whatever distance you sit from that monitor, only ONE FoV setting will be correct for you (to see all objects in the il2 virtual world in their correct sizes). the approximate numbers are: (presuming the viewer is sitting at approximately an arms length from their monitor)

for a 30' widescreen 70 FoV (the "normal" default view in il2)
for a 27' widescreen: 55 FoV
for a 24' widescreen 40 FoV
for a 22' widescreen 35 FoV (the max zoomed in view)

so only a person with a 35' widescreen monitor (like a HD tv being used for monitor, while still sitting at arms lenght from it) could use the 90 FoV to get the decent peripheral vision in il2 and still see all objects in their correct sizes.

most people here fly with a wider foV setting then the size of your monitor allows, in order to get better peripheral vision and improved situational awareness, but at the same time all objects you look at have shrunk down in size, so are harder to see. this is a big issue, because suddenly the 1 cm wide 109 you are looking for at 1000 meters, if you have your FoV setting "wrong" (say a 22' screen owner having it set at 70 FoV) would now be searching for an object that is only displayed in the il2 world at 1/2 its real life size (ie 0.5 cm)

if you want to get a decent sense of speed when flying at low altitude, first set your FoV correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

after that main variable is taken into account, you can look at the other issues. for ex some object sizes in the il2 world are significantly out of scale (most buildings are 1/2 the size they should be). trees are also not right, you dont get the small shrubs (for the monthy python fans,..... its a shrubbery !!), and you dont get the really tall trees. with the more uniform medium size trees, it is very hard to judge speed when you are low near the ground !

lastly, yes more ground detail would help significantly, because if they are scaled right you get a better sense of speed.

there is no indication oleg will take account of this in BoB, or that the object sizes will be more accurate.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2008, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're right DIRTY-MAC. When I'm building a map I notice that some buildings (like houses and factories) are not much larger than your aircraft. Odd that a house is smaller than my 109, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, sounds about right if a single occupancy house.

The typical interwar, British Universal semi-detached design has two main rooms of around 12' square, and alongside a passage and kitchen of around 6'. Thus the floor plan size per family is 21x28 (taking into account walls), and for the whole building about 42x28. So if a P-47 pulled up to such a building its wingspan would be a small amount less than the frontage. If a 109 pulled up to a single family equivalent (some on the Universal pattern were built to squeeze in an extra house here and there) its modest wingspan would exceed any floor plan dimension.

[Edited for punctuation.]

Aaron_GT
12-13-2008, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">most buildings are 1/2 the size they should be) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've trundled planes up to houses more than once. Whilst some are a bit out a lot seem to be correct but people seem to have an expectation that houses should be bigger than they are. A typical interwar, British single occupancy house would be smaller than the wingspan of any of the aircraft we have. I doubt the typical size of house was much different in France, Germany, USSR.

Choctaw111
12-13-2008, 07:47 AM
Land your airplane in a small town, park it, go to externals and see how the size of the AC and building, houses, etc compares. I don't think it is that far off.

Thekid321
12-13-2008, 10:19 AM
A while ago i was making a base using the table with the checkerboard on it, and I put a guy from 4.09 on one of the chairs and the guy looked like he was only like 3 feet tall. Check it out some time.

M_Gunz
12-13-2008, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grifter2u:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You want to see full size in IL2 then fly fully zoomed because that is the way to get apparent width of objects as real.
The FOV zooms things out and what do you know, they look smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the principle of what you said is correct, but the way you put it isnt really accurate.



For the OP, the single main problem with il2 "not simulating" what a real pilot would see from his cockpit, is that most il2 gamers fly with the "wrong" FoV setting.

simply put, for whatever monitor size you have, and whatever distance you sit from that monitor, only ONE FoV setting will be correct for you (to see all objects in the il2 virtual world in their correct sizes). the approximate numbers are: (presuming the viewer is sitting at approximately an arms length from their monitor)

for a 30' widescreen 70 FoV (the "normal" default view in il2)
for a 27' widescreen: 55 FoV
for a 24' widescreen 40 FoV
for a 22' widescreen 35 FoV (the max zoomed in view)

so only a person with a 35' widescreen monitor (like a HD tv being used for monitor, while still sitting at arms lenght from it) could use the 90 FoV to get the decent peripheral vision in il2 and still see all objects in their correct sizes.

most people here fly with a wider foV setting then the size of your monitor allows, in order to get better peripheral vision and improved situational awareness, but at the same time all objects you look at have shrunk down in size, so are harder to see. this is a big issue, because suddenly the 1 cm wide 109 you are looking for at 1000 meters, if you have your FoV setting "wrong" (say a 22' screen owner having it set at 70 FoV) would now be searching for an object that is only displayed in the il2 world at 1/2 its real life size (ie 0.5 cm)

if you want to get a decent sense of speed when flying at low altitude, first set your FoV correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

after that main variable is taken into account, you can look at the other issues. for ex some object sizes in the il2 world are significantly out of scale (most buildings are 1/2 the size they should be). trees are also not right, you dont get the small shrubs (for the monthy python fans,..... its a shrubbery !!), and you dont get the really tall trees. with the more uniform medium size trees, it is very hard to judge speed when you are low near the ground !

lastly, yes more ground detail would help significantly, because if they are scaled right you get a better sense of speed.

there is no indication oleg will take account of this in BoB, or that the object sizes will be more accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, sorry but note that FPS's and certain games like them also have wide view FOV -- screen made to cover 70+ degrees.
But they can get away with it by being and staying close to objects, walls, etc. Only way to do that is move slow compared
to the 80 to 200+ m/s of a good flight sim. I've dived and flown between buildings in some on-map cities and looked into
windows while slide-showing (my FPS cut deeply) by, the view was convincing enough.

On building sizes... some people maybe never saw a bungalo? When the rebel army here had to hide out for over a year they
did so at a place later named Valley Forge. The men slept in small log cabins. There are many replica cabins there and they
are quite small but you see how it would be possible.
There was and probably still is one original cabin up near the chapel and I tell you it is less than half the replica size.
Front door is maybe 4 feet from memory, I've seen it a few times as I went to HS very close and VF is a nice park to go to
though not so nice since the Feds took over.
When you live in real cold and you don't have big money for heat the ceilings get lower and rooms smaller of necessity.
It is a matter of poor getting by and as old as history.