This is, unfortunately, very true.

Really good insight Winger. I did not consider that issue. I would really like the view distance increased, but I do not know if that is something that can be addressed in the near term. If only they could use simple physics for distant planes; instead of a complex model for each plane. Then, I would imagine, the view distance could be increased greatly.

Yeates's flight Leader in the book "Mac" is very obviously 46 squadrons Donald Maclaren, top scoring Camel pilot.

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of programming this kind of application, but I don't think even simplified physics are required. The game is already aware of the position & maybe the attitude of more distant aircraft, otherwise the mission logic wouldn't work for the AI elements. All that is required is a representation of that position on screen.

I understand the unwillingness of NeoQB (or is that 777 studios now?) to go back to the 'dot', I find it kills 'immersion' too. I just think that no representation of distant aircraft is worse, and leads to the limited and unrealistic mission design we see at present.

BTW, I intend no slur on the dogfight mission designers, they've generally done an outstanding job within the limits which are placed on them - my complaint is about the extent of those limits.

W.

I like where you are going with this Winger. I just wonder what Ogami's thoughts are on this matter? If we could track position and altitude while scaling out all the other info, until machines get closer to each other, it seems like we could do what you are suggesting. I would rather have a dot, than not be able to see far away objests at all. It will certainly aid machines operating at high altitudes. I wonder if they could use a faded dot, so it is barely visible at extreme distance. (We can argue what extreme distance is or just ask the real life pilots and see how far they can see on a clear day! lol)

I can weigh in on that particular discussion. My own experience has been that I can see and identify light aircraft 3 miles away at least, and actually spot them at much greater distances than that.

Ira Jones states in his diaries of flying with 74 Squadron during WWI that he could identify aircraft at 6 miles - but he was known for his excellent eyesight.

I expect it's too much to expect to identify aircraft at greater than 1.5 miles in the sim - even modern monitors don't have sufficient resolution to permit that, not to mention the LODs that would be required. But I reckon we should be able to see that an aircraft is present at around 6-7 miles. I don't think it needs to be much, perhaps the occasional glint of sunlight reflecting from parts of the aircraft structure rather than a dot, which would give you a hint that an aircraft might be there.

I'm very interested to see how SoW will approach this perennial problem.

W.

Well...my definition of whining rules out the party which is happy. I'm happy. The party which wishes for a change over some perceived slight or unfairness tends to be the whining party. Again, I'm happy. BTW, this discussion has taken place in every fixed-wing combat sim made. The result has always been the same, "I'll choose my loadout, and you'll choose yours."

I find the visibility to be improved over what I experienced last summer. My eyes aren't great but they are corrected to about 20/15 (slightly better than what is required to fly professionally in America). My ability to spot light aircraft in the game is pretty close to what it is on the job.

(((That's not true. My ability to spot planes in RoF is much BETTER than it is on the job. Small planes are hell to see, particularly in the summer haze we have now. Even when the other plane is above under a clear, blue-sky backdrop, it's hard to spot anything at more than 3 miles unless you've already been told precisely where to look.))) Yes, I know Yeager claimed 20 miles but his vision was way off the bell-curve.

When searching, I always use the default view. 1) It's feels more "real" to me and, 2) It noticeably increases the distance at which I can spot planes.

I agree to an extent; white-painted planes (as most Cessnas and Pipers are) can be difficult to spot, especially in haze; but what you're really talking about (I think) is the general difficulty of spotting aircraft if you're not looking in the right place which is true regardless of how near or far they may be.

I find that dark coloured aircraft stick out like the proverbial sore thumb though.

My argument is that aircraft in this game are difficult to spot because they aren't there to be seen when you zoom out. And to me this feels more natural, because of the greater field of view; but I don't wear glasses while flying.

W.

I don't either...contacts ;-)

My guess is that the devs wanted a tradeoff for using unrealistic views, either zoom or wide. The full wide view is impossible in the real world, unless you are a housefly. And the full zoom view is impossible unless you fly with a telescope (and good luck with that). The game does not lock in a realistic view but it does force a tradeoff if you don't. Zoomed-in forces the player into target fixation and the inability to scan effectively without widening the FOV. Zoomed-out lowers the player's ability to see at distance.

If we all used TrackIr, I think the argument could be made to forbid all FOVs other than the default. But most players don't use a view tracking system so allowances must be made for gameplay.

I'm not sure I fully understand the argument about not rendering aicraft until ( whatever the distance is in RoF - 2.5km ? ).

Firstly, if in multiplayer, your system must know where everyone else is - their basic position at least so it will know when to render them ( even if their "flying" is being done by their client pc ). If in Single Player, your system is flying them itself, so knows even better where they are.

How then, can they say they cannot render them further away because of the CPU load ?
The CPU load must surely be there already - and what, the load goes up if you zoom in and see him at 5km, but goes away if you zoom out and can't ???

The game is already aware of the position & maybe the attitude of more distant aircraft, otherwise the mission logic wouldn't work for the AI elements. All that is required is a representation of that position on screen

Yes the problem is getting them to forget their 100%-accurate dubiously-gained information on your should-be-occluded position in clouds

Ming

The 10% fuel and long range sniping are all part of one big problem with all online games and that is that there are basically two types of players who want completely different things.

On the one hand you have the "Pros", who view it purely as a competition and who want to win, nothing else. They will do everything they can to do so. Not selecting 10% fuel would probably seem very foolish to them.

The other type of player views the experience as more important than winning. They would consider it mad to select 10% fuel and would never even open fire beyond 100m. I am firmly in this camp by the way. The "Pros" have invented a derogatory term for gamers like me - "Scrubs", (See this article for a laugh but be aware, they take themselves very seriously there - http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html).

I don't think there's any solution to long range sniping or stupid fuel loads other than playing on servers with like-minded people.

Exactly the same here...50% was automatic but I have that IL2 thing built in where I'm loading 25% for me and 25% to leak out on the way back