Air to ground realism

[capera]

Here is some constructive criticism........

The visual perspective between aircraft to ground is not even remotely accurate.

When traveling at 400kts @ 500ft, there is no way that trees and buildings should be going by so slow. I have flown in real aircraft, and this is way off.
Is this intentional? Has the game been tweaked "down", to aid the noobie pilot?

This is not a bit@h'in thread.....but an issue that needs to be looked at.

Has this been discussed before?

[Lusche]

Next time you are flying low level, zoom all the way in and look to the side.  You will get a more "realistic" look.
It's a matter of perspective. At standard view, your field of view is compressed onto a small and very narrow computer screen.
I hope soon there will be someone better qualified than me to talk about that matter.

[BMathis]

I will say going 300+ mph,  10-20 ft down a runway, lined with hangers... The hangers did go by slower than I expected; I was not flying though. I was looking outside.  When I was flying the pass however, I didn't notice them as much. 

At 500 feet they go by a little slower.

I really don't pay much attention to this in-game though. You might be the first to bring this topic to discussion. 

[moot]

Lack of detail in the textures and low amount of shapes will do that.

[mechanic]

This is caused by the need to get a proper field of view when flying on a monitor. AS lushe said, but to expand it I have an example. On the motorway at 80mph the further from the car an object is the slower it appears to whizz by. What we are seeing is a tree that is further away than it appears virtualy. As lushe said zoom in to maximum and you get something like a real world perspective. Zoom in fully on a con at 2k distance and, i think hitech said this himself, that is the rough level of detail you would see at 2k in real life.

[moot]

The smaller the field of view, the smaller the sense of speed. This is the trick games like Wipeout used to give players the illusion of high speed. If you have a game like Quake 3, run around at FOV=80deg, then switch to 120deg - big difference and obvious corelation. The real problem in AH IMO is the lack of details to give that tactile "texture" of speed.  Il2 has something funny about it, everything is to scale apparently, and yet everything seems further away than AH by quite a bit.

[mechanic]

thats what im saying moot. In Il2 things look further away, AH2 they look closer and thus appear slower than they should when ridding past them at speed.

[moot]

I don't think it's field of view.

[capera]

On landing, it seems to be a lot more realistic. It is just when I am cruising along the deck at 400 kts, that the perspective seems to lose accuracy.

Wonder if Skuzzy can comment. I am sure the developers know a little more about this.

[Zeagle]

I am working on some films for my squad and I have some 250 or so hours of actual flight time.

Zoom  is the key. That's how I film and it looks great. Very realistic.  I agree with HT on the perspective at full zoom.

[colmbo]

On landing, it seems to be a lot more realistic. It is just when I am cruising along the deck at 400 kts, that the perspective seems to lose accuracy.

Wonder if Skuzzy can comment. I am sure the developers know a little more about this.

How much real life flying have you done on the deck at 400kts?  Do you really know what it looks like?

[pervert]

I've noticed this to but its more down to lack of detail on the terrain and variations on buildings and trees etc, but I'd rather have it this way than my pc having a constant heart attack below 1k its bad enough at the moment fighting over a few trees I get the s s s stutters and its hard to keep track of whats happening.
Also one thing I never liked about il2 is there is perhaps to much detail and its very easy to lose track of planes in terrain as you fight, there has to be a balance. What you can display on a pc screen can't match what a human eye could do in real life not yet anyway.

[Bronk]

Wonder if Skuzzy can comment. I am sure the developers know a little more about this.

Skuzzy wouldn't, he is the tech support guy. Now HT or pyro is another matter.

[Sincraft]

pyro might but why?

It's a game on a computer screen.  To speed things up artificially in appearance would lend to the need to fire your rockets quicker as the appearances are the same.  Plus you are looking at a great expanse of trees and a few buildings.

Fly REALLY low through the tow at 300mph, it'll seem fast enough for ya 

If anything I think they go by TOO FAST.  You watch the old ww2 footage and see those guys strafe, and methodically pull away.  Ground vis is very very very very very very very VERY limited in this game.

BUT there is a reason for that.  If you were to have any complaint - that should be it.  BUT they have it as such as we just don't have the processing power to handle a more realistic look.

[mechanic]

M00t, and everyone, which one of the clips in the short youtube below looks the most realistic and the fastest?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-sDIDYbNQ&feature=channel_page