Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#2960310 - 02/18/10 01:56 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Snuffy]  
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,763
Catfish Offline
Member
Catfish  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,763
Where the ocean meets the sky
Hello,
what it's all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n8deGdutaY

Greetings,
Catfish

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2960318 - 02/18/10 02:04 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Catfish]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Tvrdi Offline
Member
Tvrdi  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Earth
Originally Posted By: Catfish
Hello,
what it's all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n8deGdutaY

Greetings,
Catfish


lovely.....its even better when they pop-in......maybe some pilots are too excited with this new "beautiful girl" that they cant see her ugly but..... biggrin

btw, last night I was flyin without wings in a camel....ehhh
also I noticed fuselage DM is not modelled at all....

Last edited by Tvrdi; 02/18/10 02:06 PM.

Once upon a time, A. Petrovich wrote: "Thank you all, guys, for your attention to FM"
#2960360 - 02/18/10 03:00 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Tvrdi]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
I agree. No fuselage damage modelled at all!



Or is there?

Should things be improved? Absolutely. Is the sim an affront to man and worthy of being hailed as a human rights violation? No.

Nor is the draw distance to where the sim is unplayable. Lots of hysterical stuff, guys; call it fair on both sides.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2960392 - 02/18/10 03:42 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Tvrdi Offline
Member
Tvrdi  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Earth
Originally Posted By: Dart
I agree. No fuselage damage modelled at all!



Or is there?

Should things be improved? Absolutely. Is the sim an affront to man and worthy of being hailed as a human rights violation? No.

Nor is the draw distance to where the sim is unplayable. Lots of hysterical stuff, guys; call it fair on both sides.


here u go...this is what happens when someon is not fluent in english..like me...what i tried to say is....

you cant hit a pilot through fuselage/canvas...you cant destroy enemy plane hitting only its fuselage....you cant penetrate fuselage with bullets...fuselage wont show (visualy and psh) any damage after you hit him with BULLETS.....but, once you crash you will tear that fuselage...so DM is ok for crashes but for bullets....is like bulletproof....

now I hope you understod my pigin english

Last edited by Tvrdi; 02/18/10 03:43 PM.

Once upon a time, A. Petrovich wrote: "Thank you all, guys, for your attention to FM"
#2960471 - 02/18/10 06:04 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Tvrdi]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
cheers

Yes, that needs correcting as well...firing through the canvas should injure or kill the pilot or observer!

Most of the shooting instruction was based around the "meat and metal" principle. That is, if it isn't the engine or the pilot, one is wasting rounds. However, shooting the fuselage from dead six or from underneath or the sides should do the trick as well, as the bullets should transit the empty space of the fuselage pretty well.

I do wonder how much we want real "realism" on this score. Chances are if one's plane got riddled with a sustained burst one was dead. The only protection one had was the engine in front and a gas tank behind. If it wasn't full, the tank itself was just about zero protection.

Rene Fonck shot down enemy planes with as little as two rounds. He was a fantastic shot, but the truth of the matter was he also aimed for where the pilot was within the aircraft rather than going for the head. He'd fly as close as he could, aim for the pilot, and kill him. Treated linen wasn't really high on his concerns on whether or not the bullets would do their deadly work.

So the best thing would be a bit of compromise for the sake of keeping our fantasy - and sense of "realism" alive. I don't know how they would do that, though.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2960892 - 02/19/10 12:19 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Tvrdi Offline
Member
Tvrdi  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 916
Earth
but in your favour, now I saw at ROF site that someone posted a video showing him killing the Se5a pilot from below through fuselage....and it seams problem with bulletproof fuselage exists only in AI two seaters.....I need to do more tests it seams...

Last edited by Tvrdi; 02/19/10 12:20 PM.

Once upon a time, A. Petrovich wrote: "Thank you all, guys, for your attention to FM"
#2960896 - 02/19/10 12:30 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Tvrdi]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 130
Snuffy Offline
Member
Snuffy  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 130
FLA First Coast
Unless there is some magic out there that I am unaware of for programing bullet holes in canvas, I suspect that in order to get an accurately rendered bullet riddled aircraft, about half a dozen or so models need to be made showing this damage to the aircraft, and these models would need to be switched out during some of the most intensive calculation process of the sim ... it could cause slow downs and stutters.

I don't know for sure, I'm just saying ...


Snuffy - Ted
#2960901 - 02/19/10 01:04 PM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Snuffy]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute Offline
Hell Drummer
komemiute  Offline
Hell Drummer
Hotshot

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
@Snuffy: Not necessarily that impossible. We have loads of examples of bullet holes in different materials.
Just take GTA IV damage model applied to vehicles. Bullet holes are additional textures applied on top of the car model.

Half life 2 additionally apply a fake lighting around the holes to make it look like the material has been bent inside by the impact...

Heck the entire last 2 generations of FPS has rendering of bullet on whatsoever surface.
Even ARMA! (albeit a limited one)

Yeah, sure you'll not be able to see through, but that's not the point.

It can be done.

Side note:
In MP the whole system can be on-client-side to reduce networking load, so probably no 2 people will see the same holes but, hey. Seriously.

Just my opinion.

Last edited by komemiute; 02/19/10 01:08 PM.

Click to reveal..
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum

"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice

"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster

"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
#2964144 - 02/21/10 06:51 AM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: komemiute]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,093
Teddy Bär Offline
Member
Teddy Bär  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,093
Ogami_musashi,

Thanks for the in-depth answer here and at RoF.

From your answers I take it that when a plane is not rendered in-game i.e. under 2500m and not visible to the player from his aircraft; then the aircraft while tracked (I presume otherwise they would not show up) has no active FM or DM?

This raises a lot of questions which I presume you may not be in a situation to answer so the questions are both to you and Neoqb.

What happens in regards to damaged aircraft when they are not being rendered in-game?

Is this why I see many aircraft that should not be flying because of severely damaged wings not only still flying but partaking in combat?

What does RoF do for other aircraft damaged in AI dogfights? Does this mean I will never come across a damaged aircraft?

Presuming the above is not correct and that damaged aircraft are not only tracked but the damage accounted for, are we to understand that the RoF engine cannot not accommodate a situation where the complex FM/DM are loaded at say 5000m and up to maximum rendered distance the simplified FM/DM is used?

I think RoF is a long way from having 100-200 A/C being in a 10k range (my preferred maximum rendering range) and as such I think that, preferably as an option, the ability to render aircraft at 10k (for example) should be implemented.

What does this mean for the dogfight servers? How many aircraft can they expect to be able to participate in a battle and as mentioned, if the draw distance is 2.5k or 10k it makes no differences because at some time they will have to be in the same space and while they may move in and out of the 2.5k range in relation to other aircraft they will often be in that range.

Sadly I find I am unable to enjoy RoF as I want to fly a career and not quick battles spread out over a long patrol as there is little point with the 2.5k draw distance as means there is no advantage or benefit or value in looking for the enemy to gain the advantage or not be jumped, not helped by how sterile the career structure is.


Cheers,

Teddy Bär

One of the stupidest things in game design is the lack of uncertainty given to the player

"beatings will continue until morale improves" brought to you by Ubisoft DRM!
#2964156 - 02/21/10 08:43 AM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Teddy Bär]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
Quote:
What does RoF do for other aircraft damaged in AI dogfights? Does this mean I will never come across a damaged aircraft?


I've come across more than one damaged aircraft.

However, the dogfight between AI was fairly close (outside of draw distance, but within flying distance) and the RoF stars and moon aligned so that they didn't *poof* into the ethosphere.

Now, then, I'm going to pop a flare on the "we don't want to bog down missions" statement in regards to draw distance. It's finely screened B.S. I have track files and screen shots of AI planes taking off, flying, fighting, and landing more than 2500m from my aircraft. They're doing their thing just fine, and yes, it hits my system when they're far away and fighting.

To say that they can't be displayed by a pixel or two because it will be a knock on my system seems weird. One would think the AI routines, the FM and the DM would be the bulk of the drain. The dot would be small potatoes, since they have to be tracked in relationship to the player anyway.

The stock career has planes spawning - often from the aerodrome and making their own way to the front - beyond the draw distance. Neoqb isn't giving itself credit for the work being done by the sim and system already by not allowing the player to see them.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2964180 - 02/21/10 11:31 AM Re: Very difficult to see other aircraft [Re: Teddy Bär]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Originally Posted By: Teddy Bär
Ogami_musashi,

Thanks for the in-depth answer here and at RoF.

From your answers I take it that when a plane is not rendered in-game i.e. under 2500m and not visible to the player from his aircraft; then the aircraft while tracked (I presume otherwise they would not show up) has no active FM or DM?

This raises a lot of questions which I presume you may not be in a situation to answer so the questions are both to you and Neoqb.

What happens in regards to damaged aircraft when they are not being rendered in-game?

Is this why I see many aircraft that should not be flying because of severely damaged wings not only still flying but partaking in combat?

What does RoF do for other aircraft damaged in AI dogfights? Does this mean I will never come across a damaged aircraft?

Presuming the above is not correct and that damaged aircraft are not only tracked but the damage accounted for, are we to understand that the RoF engine cannot not accommodate a situation where the complex FM/DM are loaded at say 5000m and up to maximum rendered distance the simplified FM/DM is used?

I think RoF is a long way from having 100-200 A/C being in a 10k range (my preferred maximum rendering range) and as such I think that, preferably as an option, the ability to render aircraft at 10k (for example) should be implemented.

What does this mean for the dogfight servers? How many aircraft can they expect to be able to participate in a battle and as mentioned, if the draw distance is 2.5k or 10k it makes no differences because at some time they will have to be in the same space and while they may move in and out of the 2.5k range in relation to other aircraft they will often be in that range.

Sadly I find I am unable to enjoy RoF as I want to fly a career and not quick battles spread out over a long patrol as there is little point with the 2.5k draw distance as means there is no advantage or benefit or value in looking for the enemy to gain the advantage or not be jumped, not helped by how sterile the career structure is.



Hi teddy bear;

Unfortunately in my post to explain why aircraft that pop up are far heavier to handle that non popped up one i came to the point of giving confidential information about ROF structure so i had to stop.

All i can say is that of course there IS a big difference between non drawn and drawn plane as far as calculation are done;

But that's not necessary a fate;

I'll stop talking about it with this sentence smile

#2992664 - 04/10/10 12:47 PM Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 967
ft Offline
Member
ft  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 967
400' MSL
In another thread, a 2500 m limit to seeing other planes was mentioned. This is beyond ridiculous, and I thought I’d learn GIMP and show just how ridiculous it is.

If you extend your arm and raise your bent index finger, it will be about 30 mils wide. That means it will cover an object 30 m in size at a distance of one km. At 2500 m it will cover an object 75 m in size.

A DrI has a wingspan of about 7.2 meters. This means it will be 7.2/2.5 mils in size, or 2.88 mils. Almost one tenth the width of your index finger. This is what a DrI turning in, followed by another aircraft further away, will look like at 2500 meters, compared to your index finger held out as described above:




Hold out your hand, find an object in the distance which is of the right size to appear approximately that size compared to your index finger, and see if you have a problem picking it out.

If we are to assume poor enough eyesight to actually make sighting an aircraft at 2500 m difficult, this is what your world will look like:



If that’s the case, flying at all is probably a very, very bad idea. Note that you’d still see a moving blurred spot without too much trouble, so the truth is it’d take even more blurring to make the representation truly accurate.

In another thread, I suggested some alternative ways of handling the visual representation of aircraft at long distances without a severe performance hit. Quoting myself:

It is really hard to accurately simulate visual perception on a computer monitor. Resolution is one thing, but then there's the eye's sensitivity to motion, especially in the peripheral view. A monitor, where everything is made up of constantly changing dots, makes this difficult for the eye. Even an irregular backdrop will at least be statically irregular in real life, whereas an irregularly textured backdrop in a simulator will be a constantly changing field of dots. Considering that an aircraft at a bit of a distance will unavoidably become one to a few dots, this presents bit of a challenge to the eye!

Il-2 compensated by having aircraft within visible distance turn into a minimum of one solidly black dot. In my opinion, this was overcompensation with two significant drawbacks. Firstly, it made it virtually impossible to miss aircraft at long distances. The net result was that it was in fact often easier to spot aircraft beyond "dot distance" than aircraft which were in fact represented as a 3D object. Combined this really put a dent in the immersion of the simulator. Secondly, it rewarded players who put competitiveness ahead of visual quality and immersion and who where prepared to lower their screen resolution in order to increase dot size.

I think the best compromise is that suggested by BlueRaven, with dots of varying color. When the aircraft occupies a visual space less than a pixel large, decide the angular area of the aircraft and the average colour. Then decide the angular area of a pixel. Colour the pixel the average colour of the background and and the aircraft, weighted by the relative angular area. If the aircraft covers 100% of the angular area of the pixel, then the pixel is the colour of the aircraft. If the aircraft covers 10% of the area, then the colour of the pixel is 9 times the colour of the background + 1 time the colour of the aircraft divided by ten.

This would, I gather, be the same thing as having the aircraft remain in the 3D world - at least with AA on. Those more clued in on the workings of graphics card, do correct me if my assumptions are mistaken. The best solution would, of course, be to just reduce the LOD of the aircraft to the point where it is represented by a very simple shape of about the right colour and just leave it in there up to the point where it is, in fact, no longer visible at all in the 3D world. Might give a slight hit on those running low resolutions, but let's face it: If you have a rig capable of running RoF, the cost of a 1680x1050 monitor is marginal in comparison.

Another solution would be to have the world antialiased but distant aircraft not. This would probably give enough of a difference between aircraft and backdrop to enable the eye to pick up the motion. I doubt it is technologically doable though.

Finally, "the engine does not allow it"? That's an argument which never holds water. It's like the DMV or whatever authority telling you they'd be glad to provide the service you need, "but the computer won't do it". It's an artificial limitation, put in there by whoever designed the engine. Engine an in-house product? Then it's easy - friggin change the engine! Engine third-party developed? Let the supplier know that you are not happy with the limitation, let the customers know that you are putting the pressure on the supplier to get the limitation removed - and shop around for an engine which will not have the limitation.

The ground objects and their viewing distances need some serious work as well. A big frigging artillery piece, including a revet, goes from a pixel to being 30x30 pixels in an instant seconds before coming within firing distance? WTF... ?!

Right now, this is us in RoF:


Unless you follow the digital arrows, with missions where all flights loiter at some predetermined point, you will end up seeing nothing, nothing and nothing at all. The chance of two aircraft independently patrolling spending more than seconds within 2500 m of each other is very, very slim indeed. Forget historically accurate navigation using map, compass and chronometer. You have to stay on the trackline with a precision in hundreds of meters.

Anyone who knows how to get the ear of NeoQB is free to copy this text and the images and distribute it to them. Me and many with me would be very interested in their comment, so please report back. Have they perceived the problem? Do they have a short term fix for it in the works? A long term fix?

From time to time, I come back to RoF hoping it will finally the awesome simulator it has potential to be. Each time, I find a new snag spoiling it. They’re making progress, but it’s got a long way to go. I guess RoF is still making money, but unless it gets sorted before it stops providing a living to the good people at NeoQB I hope they are sorting their CVs instead, as there will be no sales of any follow-up products.

This time, the latest patch apparently got me past the problems with using Patrick Wilsons amazing mission generator (which they should pay for and include in the simulator code!), but what’s the use of good missions if you’ll never see a thing unless you throw the map overboard, turn on the flight director and follow it blindly?

Shiny side up...

#2992691 - 04/10/10 01:57 PM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: ft]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 541
Vanderstok Offline
Member
Vanderstok  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 541
Netherlands
Good post. I have been making missions ever since RoF came out where the objective was to patrol the front and try to find enemy scouts. I could put in 4 enemy patrols in a 10x10km objective zone and most of the time you wouldn't find anyone. It's not just horizontal distance; if you're flying at 3500m, you well never see an enemy flying flying at 1000 m directly below and vice versa.

Your idea of testing the view distance by holding your thumb is a nice one. In the photo it isn't very clear, but if you do it yourself and pick an object (for me it was a bicycle further down the road) you will notice that you can see it clear as day.

However, the latest patch did provide some sort of a solution: lowerin the FoV ("zoom in") will increase the visibility distance. If you are patrolling the front in RoF you may want to scan the horizon every now and then with the view zoomed in and you will pick up aircraft much earlier than before. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a start. If this zooming was coupled with a TrackIR forward/backward motion it would possibly be even easier to use.

Another thing I noticed: You also need to learn to see other aircraft (just as in real life I guess:) ). In some missions I was furious that I couldn't spot an aircraft, but while looking in external view I knew it was in my range. I made recordings and after close examination it showed that the other aircraft WAS in my view all the time, but I just hadn't seen it. Like you say, it's very hard to spot a couple of pixles against a constantly moving background. Nowadays it seems I actually see them sooner than before...

Last edited by Vanderstok; 04/10/10 01:57 PM.
#2992786 - 04/10/10 05:02 PM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: ft]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Originally Posted By: ft
...


Good post, i'd like to answer you on the topic of visual ID in simulators, but before that i'll give you the position of neoqb.

There's of course a LOD technology in ROF already, the thing is, this LOD do not go till the DOT state and for the reason the engine was not coded with that in mind, it is impossible for now to change the core to handle that.

So 2500m limit is indeed an engine limitation to save FPS.

The solution of zooming is a short term solution that neoqb thinks is not less realistic than the dot solution.

Neoqb also thinks it is not so much a problem (for gameplay) in ROF because closing speeds of planes are low; In future projects of course this will be tackled because you have far greater closing speeds.

So while you're right on your example, note that Neoqb didn't cut a 2,5km to say "past this distance you don't see"..this is simply engine limitation.

You solution about constrast is really good (and that is something used in military sims) but that doesn't solve the drawing distance problem, until neoqb finds a LOD technic to do that without killing FPS.


Now to expand on the topic here is something you might want to consider:


You have the power of resolution of your eye which is the minimum distance between two points of an object so that you can distinguish it from the background; This is a raw property depending on the aperture of the eye's lens.
The power of resolution is only viable into the fovea and decreases enormously when the light rays do not strike the fovea.

So this is bring us to the second fact: the focus or accommodation which is the process of making incoming light rays coming into the fovea.
When you look at different distances you have different accommodation from the lens which makes that you can see clearly (with your max power of resolution) objects you focused on but objects on distances outside the focus plan are not distinguishable.

For the fixed points, the two parameters are thus the size of the object relative to you (as you pointed in your example) and the focus distance of your eyes.

Now for moving points; Basically you can point at them depending on the speed difference relative to you; size of the object, and contrast over the background;
You have pointed that scotopic vision can help to that, that's true because of the lower requirements of light to see the object; however colors are not as good.


The problem of visual ID in simulator has always been a problem, be it in professional simulators or gaming ones.

It is an even bigger problem in gaming one because people have different screens/resolutions, are not placed at the same distances from the places and because they can zoom their centered views.

The actual state of the art in professional simulators is the head and eye tracking system that creates the host of vision specs depending on where the pilot is looking at, this is called "area of interest system", A camera tracks the contraction of the eye's lens and then make the foveal cone focus distance appearing clear while the outside is blurred with decreased contrast.

Of course resolution of professional military simulators (of the new generation) is phenomenal and they don't have distortion problems (in mosaic domes) like with our screens.

In ROF an auto focus mode was added, but because there's no eye tracking, the system isn't quite practical which is sad because it could greatly help detection.

The dot technology is not used in pro simulators; they use accurate profiles to depict the way the pilot would see the an object over a distance.

So the future may lie (not for Rof) into something like that but that's complicated.

To end up on this topic and drawing distances,You'd be surprised to know that top generation military simulators actually have quite short drawing distances! Boeing's F15E DMT can only render 4 boggies at 3miles away despite running 360° and 9*(1600*1250) on multiple CPU's and GPU's.


Lock on was a big example of rendering distances that completely destroy your FPS.




Last edited by Ogami_musashi; 04/10/10 05:06 PM.
#2992996 - 04/11/10 01:14 AM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: Ogami_musashi]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
OMG, this is what happens when one becomes a trained Forward Observer.

Btw, my fingers are skinny and I had to shave five mils.

[edit]

Um, why aren't you using fingertips? Knuckle is the wrong part of the finger to use.

Last edited by Dart; 04/11/10 01:28 AM.

The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#2993045 - 04/11/10 03:01 AM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: Dart]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,093
Teddy Bär Offline
Member
Teddy Bär  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,093
Ogami_musashi,

I know you are only the messenger.

Zooming in with my bionic eyes is far less realistic than the IL2 dot while making it difficult to fly as your field of view is so narrow and reducing your situational awareness.

Same as having the wide field of view zoom out... damn unrealistic.

I am not sure what the rate of closure has to do with anything as it is about situational awareness and the restrictive and impractical bionic eye solution does little to address this.

Even multiplayer dogfights will happen over distances greater than 2.5k's and Neoqb expect people to use a zoom function, pfff.


Cheers,

Teddy Bär

One of the stupidest things in game design is the lack of uncertainty given to the player

"beatings will continue until morale improves" brought to you by Ubisoft DRM!
#2993151 - 04/11/10 11:51 AM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 967
ft Offline
Member
ft  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 967
400' MSL
Originally Posted By: Dart
Um, why aren't you using fingertips? Knuckle is the wrong part of the finger to use.


That's the way we're trained. You can use any fixed size body part at a known distance, provided you are able to see it and know how many mils it covers.

If I was to guess as to why, fingertips taper and make estimating the coverage harder than using the knuckle which is more square. A knuckle will also be less changed by wearing gloves than the fingertip, which is of interest if your area of operations include the higher latitudes.

Besides, as was pointed out in this thread:

Originally Posted By: Dart

Btw, my fingers are skinny and I had to shave five mils.


Fingertips may be too skinny to be 30 mils. Perhaps the guy above should have used his knuckle instead of the fingertip, which is the wrong part of the finger to use. wink

#2993176 - 04/11/10 01:04 PM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: ft]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,004
Hedgehog Offline
Member
Hedgehog  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,004
New Orleans, LA & Sunrise, FL
As long as we're talking about changing the game/sim engine, let me (again) throw in a vote for similar treatment of ground objects/landmarks.

Instead of having things like aerodromes and towns suddenly appear as they come into visual range (about 5 km for landmarks, best as I can tell), some other sort of at-a-distance representation is needed.

A town might be represented by 50-100 discrete buildings and other stuff, so I clearly understand why the whole world can't be faithfully rendered at appreciable distances. But some compromise that is better than a whole town simply blinking out of existence at 5km is needed.

#2993251 - 04/11/10 03:07 PM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: Ogami_musashi]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
RocketDog Offline
Member
RocketDog  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
Bath, England
Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi
Originally Posted By: ft
...
You have the power of resolution of your eye which is the minimum distance between two points of an object so that you can distinguish it from the background; This is a raw property depending on the aperture of the eye's lens.
The power of resolution is only viable into the fovea and decreases enormously when the light rays do not strike the fovea.


Actually, you are wrong, but it's a common mistake.

The resolving power of an eye or camera is diffraction limited as you say and depends partly on the diameter of the lens or aperture (smallest anglular seperation resolvable = 1.22 * wavelength of light/aperture of camera, the Rayleigh diffraction formula). This defines your ability to see detail or to distinguish two point sources of light as being seperate. However, you can easily see objects that are too small to be resolved. A good example is a star seen against the night sky. Its angular diameter is far too small to be resolved, but the signal/noise ratio still means it can be detected. Similarly, a black dot can be detected against a light background even if it is too small to be resolved.

Cheers,

RD


Beyond gliding distance
#2993276 - 04/11/10 04:18 PM Re: Regarding the 2500 m visibility limit [Re: RocketDog]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Originally Posted By: RocketDog

Actually, you are wrong, but it's a common mistake.

The resolving power of an eye or camera is diffraction limited as you say and depends partly on the diameter of the lens or aperture (smallest anglular seperation resolvable = 1.22 * wavelength of light/aperture of camera, the Rayleigh diffraction formula).


Actually this is what i meant, it's a language typo sorry; "aperture" in english is close to "ouverture" in french which makes think of diameter, so what i actually meant is what you said.



Quote:

This defines your ability to see detail or to distinguish two point sources of light as being seperate. However, you can easily see objects that are too small to be resolved. A good example is a star seen against the night sky. Its angular diameter is far too small to be resolved, but the signal/noise ratio still means it can be detected. Similarly, a black dot can be detected against a light background even if it is too small to be resolved.


I agree but you have to be in focus because if not not enough information is sent to the brain.




Last edited by Ogami_musashi; 04/11/10 04:19 PM.
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Hans Zimmer North American concert tour 2024
by NoFlyBoy. 03/16/24 10:54 PM
Steam Spring Sale.
by RedToo. 03/15/24 09:09 PM
Starship Attempt Three
by F4UDash4. 03/14/24 12:06 PM
This is one cool turbofan model
by Zamzow. 03/14/24 02:41 AM
Map Errors
by F4UDash4. 03/13/24 11:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0