Plane size, Will they be a more playable size than in WB?

[miko2d]

lasse: this is a copy of my post on fresnel lens posted in different topic.

 The major thing that detracts from realism in the fligh sims and other first-person games is not the lack of binocular vision or size or even the field of view. It is the focus.
 Binocular vision does not matter at the distances over a few yards, and even if it did, we still estimate distance more by comparing known sizes. Try closing one eye and walking around - the world will be no less realistic and you will have very few problems (unless you are a boxer).
 Image size and field of view have best settings depending on the situation. In civilian sim narrow FOV and large picture are better - you mostly fly level, look in front of you and situation does not change fast.
 In military sim, wider FOV adds to situation awarenes and greatly simplifies switching views in a hurry.

 But whatever you do, even if you are flying with one eye closed (to simulate absence of binocular vision)there is another factor present which greatly detracts from your immersion. Your eyes know that you are not looking at the real plane but on the flat picture a feet from you because they focus on the surface of the screen!
 Solution - a fresnel lense. Good 25" diagonal lense can be had for $40 and high quality 30" diagonal can be bought for $200. I have one. It is a thin (3mm) piece of plastic. I set it about 6 inches in front of my 21" screen. It magnifies it slightly (to 25-27 inch - the greater the distance, the greater the magnification), but most important it changes the focus to infinity - I am looking not at but through the screen. Even when I try to touch the screen behind the lens I miss because I reach further.
 The effect is incredible and extremely immersive - the planes and ground are really out there and the screen becomes just a window to the world rather then a drawing surface.

 If you are interested, those guys sold it to me:
                    http://www.desktopsims.com/  
 940-484-9546

 Call them and ask about 25" and 30" lenses. They tried to persuade me to buy 25" lense for $40 rather then expensive 30" for $200 because that is what most gamers use and they are quite happy.
 Since I could not compare them side by side, I went with the one that said "higher quality". The size of the lense does not really matter, as long as it is greater then the size of the screen. Lenses are light and have adjustable legs and are very simple to set up/remove.

miko--

[Pain Killer]

Windle,
    Your're correct it is not a ground breaking topic.  The person who clued me into the size controversy IS an Oshkosh pilot also.  He's John Nolan, who writes for Computer Gaming World and Strategy Plus Magazine.  He's also a Delta pilot and wrote a piece about the size of the planes vs real life.  He had compared some real life pictures vs what we see in WB? at the same distances and it did demonstrate that most sims are too small.  He felt that Janes WWII was closer than WB to true size.  He's away right now for another round of jet training but I'll get him to comment here when he comes back.

PK

[fats]

--- Pain Killer: ---
He had compared some real life pictures vs what we see in WB
--- End ---

The plane size in WB is correct. The person who made the plane models in WB, FT, once said they are within +/- 2'' in direction of the correct size. And if you write a render engine it is easier to make it display them correctly than not relative to other objects, even I can do it.

Well since you don't belive that FT spoke the truth or HT has written code that renders them correctly, you can check it out for your self. Get any 3D rendering package out there, make a box representing the wing span of the aircraft of your choice and render a picture of it at 400yds in 1024x768, your camera you render it with must have 90 degree horizontal FOV like WB does. Also turn off all forms of antialising. Then go to WB and take a screenshot at the same resolution and I bet the planes appear the same size. It did the last time I checked when someone complained the planes were too small.

Why the real life photos didn't match WB plane sizes? Probably their camera had different FOV than WB's camera. While you're rendering that picture in some 3D software experiment with what FOV changes will do to the size of the aircraft. If it's a decent package it might have presets for 'real life' cameras too with different lenses.


//fats

[bod]

 

The plane size in WB is correct. The person who made the plane models in WB, FT, once said they are within +/- 2'' in direction of the correct size

What about the size of the planes compared to the 1:3 terrain?  

The obvious conclusion is that the planes are too large  

With a FOV of 90 degrees, everything will be too small, no matter what. With the zoom option in AH, this whole discussion will be outdated anyway.


Bod

[hitech]

When this topic first came up in WB, seem's like forever ago, I even went out and verified the entire system.If you took math in high school check it your self. Just put any plane a fixed distance away and measure its wingspan on the screen. Then the following will give you the viewing angle of the plane in the real world
Angle = arc tan (WingSpan/DistanceFromYou)

Now we just have to change this angle into a screen dimmension thats can be aproximated by just a simple ratio. Angle/90 * Width of screen.

Try it and you will find that the planes match that number exactly.

HiTech

[Frying Tiger]

Note that the 1:3 terrain is just the difference of the distances BETWEEN stuff, not the actual size of the objects in the terrain... they are all 1:1 scale (i.e. in WB the buildings and the airfields are all actual size, but they are 1/3 the historic distance apart.

 FT

[jedi]

The planes in WB are correctly scaled to their ENVIRONMENT, i.e. they are the right size relative to the cockpit graphics.

They're not the right size relative to your eyes, i.e. a real airplane at 100 yards will appear somewhat larger than a WB plane on your monitor at d1.  Also, don't forget that WB point-of-view is NOT where a real pilot's eyes are--it's moved back to the point where the gunsight AND all the instruments are visible.  A 90-degree field of view from that point takes in more space than one from a point closer to the windshield, so objects scaled to that view will be smaller, i.e. if the windscreen is 8 inches across on your monitor, a "properly" scaled fighter will be smaller than if the windscreen takes up 12 inches of your view.

I've never measured the WB planes, but I did the math (using HT's formulae above) for the AW planes several years ago.  In general, the AW plane images were about 1/4 the size a REAL plane would appear.  However, they ALSO were the correct size for the field of view being used (also 90 degrees, if I recall).

The only way to make the aircraft size approximate what you'd see in a real plane, is to either get a large enough monitor that the cockpit art (and hence field of view) was about the size of the real cockpit (a VERY large monitor), use a smaller field of view, or use a zoom feature.

I've always kinda thought we should use 60-degree field of view instead of 90, since we'd get a (50%?) size increase and still have overlap between the views, but I suspect FT and the gang have looked at that and found whatever drawback I'm not detecting  

The problem with zoom is that, in every game I've ever played that has it, your gunsight becomes WAY too sensitive to aim while zoomed.  Seems like a solvable problem tho.  Or just get a big monitor, or a fresnel lens.

I used a fresnel for a year or so.  It worked OK, but it did have a bit of distortion, especially if you left it in place for reading email, etc.
 

------------------

[Bad Omen]

I don't think the question is that the planes of Warbirds are the wrong size, I think it is simply the FOV problem. It all comes down to how you model the ability of the eye to see periphally(sp?) the world. It is a matter of SA. I do not fault WB their solution: a 90deg FOV. Of course it makes the world look smaller, because your squeezing 90deg of your normal view into a 15" flat window. I can't wait to see the zoom feature of AH, that might work well. We will have to wait for the day of high res VR helmets before we get the true picture.

[funked]

Hehehe plane size controversy.  Kinda like a guy buying a Corvair and calling GM about the "missing engine controversy."

Hmmm I was playing Grand Prix Legends the other day and I noticed the steering wheel was only 4" wide!  I'm going to start a steering wheel controversy campaign on the GPL board!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 08-16-1999).]

[Pain Killer]

Hehe. It's amazing how so many people can say so much and yet all be correct.  Playing warbirds is like looking in your side view mirror. "All objects appear farther than they are." I've never questioned the math. I know it's the FOV and the set back view in the cockpit.  It just would be more immersive if the planes looked closer to real life size as if you were in the cockpit. I dont want a full real size view which would be unreasonable with the limited view on the monitor. But a little increase size (proportional to the rest of the environment) would be nice.

PK

BTW I'm really impressed with all the effort you guys put into the explanations. You guys must have a real passion for this stuff to make all those calculations.

[funked]

PK There are some games that have oversized planes.  I remember on Falcon 3.0 you could customize it.  The problem is that they look too slow when you make them the size of a B-17.  

[Toad]

Hi all!

Pain Killer pointed me at this discussion and I would like to add my two cents. Excuse the length of this one, please.

First of all, let me say that I've been doing the online ACM for a while. I think AW was a ground breaking leader in the category but then they seemed to think they had the "perfect product" and evolution stopped. Enter HT and WB; WB clearly outclassed and outperformed AW and rightfully assumed the lead. Lately, WB's new owners seemed to fall into the AW mode, assuming perfection had been reached; minor changes, no evolution. I'm glad HiTech is doing Aces High; he's always tried to improve the state of the art and I'm sure AH will be another great, ground-breaking product.

As PK mentioned, I've spent a significant part of my life in the air. My logbook is sneaking up on 20,000 hours now. I've flown anything I could get my hands on, from Piper Cubs through T-38's and on to Boeing 747's. I've flown them all over the US and around the globe, in all kinds of weather. I've spent way more time in "state of the art" simulators than I ever intended to spend <G>.
(Doesn't make me any better at ACM games, btw, but I've seen what massive amounts of money can do when you try to simulate "the real thing".)


I acknowledge the need for the mathematical models on size and I'm sure they are probably correct given the fields of view.
I know monitors limit the viewing area; I know graphics consume a huge amount of programming and can load up a fast CPU, although the newest video cards are an immense improvement.

Still, there is NEED for improvement in the way games display opposing aircraft.

Here's a "sidebar" I wrote on EAW for CGW. This is what it said _before_ editing...word counts are closely monitored <G>. (Not my strong point as you can see by the length of this message!)

*****
"A Boeing B-17 (Wingspan 104’, Length 75’) and a Boeing B-737 (Wingspan 93’, Length 110’) are roughly the same size. In the game, a B-17 in profile shows as a dark horizontal line around 3 miles. Inflight, a real B-737 shows a similar line but at 10 MILES! At 5 miles the vertical stabilizer appears; at 2 miles you can tell if the gear is up or down. The paint scheme and cabin windows are obvious when a 737 crosses your runway a measured 5000’ away. Obviously, the game’s planes are too small and lacking detail.
Not convinced? Try this: cruise the local Interstate looking for the route signs. Those blue and red shields are close to the size of the insignia on a Hurricane’s wing. On a straightaway, check your odometer when you first spot the sign and again when abeam it. Most players will easily identify the shape and colors around 3/10 of a mile, roughly 1500’.
At that distance, using High Detail, a Hurricane is small, generic "plus sign". Insignia shows around 400 feet, 25% of a "realistic" distance; the situation is worse at lower detail settings. So, to provide the necessary ACM visual cues, a gaggle of totally bogus "cheats" are supplied. Neon targeting boxes/data tags, disappearing cockpit artwork, padlocks, "zoom" views and other crutches take the place of realistically-sized plane art. "Fox Two" on the WWII ambiance and immersion, Maverick.
*****

The above inflight distances were verified using ground based radars (ATC), the on-board TCAS system (Terminal Collision Avoidance System) and spacing over known ground points on approach (parallel ILS approaches to runways separated by a known charted distance. My fellow crewmembers verified that they were seeing what I was seeing...my eyes are good, but I'm no "Chuck Yeager"; I don't see 190's at 50 miles.

So, given these simple real life experiences, despite the mathematical certitudes, what we see on our monitors are airplanes that are just too small to show the necessary visual cues and detail.

Another clip from a CGW article on AW and I'll quit for now:

*****
Eric Hartmann, a top World War II Ace, used a tactic of "See, Decide, Attack and Break." The first part is hard to do in Air Warrior III, as it was in every previous version. The argument is that the aircraft are correctly sized, given the wide-angle view and pixel dimensions of the screen; unfortunately, the resulting image is merely a black flyspeck until within about 1500 yards. Even as you close, the planform doesn’t emerge until about 1000 yards. That’s a problem when you want to "do some of that Basic Fighter Maneuvers stuff, Mav" because you have to know your spatial relationship to the bandit in those "footless halls of air." To accurately recreate a WW II encounter, you need to see his planform at realistic ranges to determine angle-off and aspect. With a 90 degree angle-off, you should see a B-17’s vertical stabilizer sticking up at a minimum of 2500-3000 yards, so the game gives you about half the normal time to "See and Decide." It still works since all players are identically handicapped...."
*****

Therein lies the problem. The newer simulations are pretty good at modeling performance, gunnery, target hardness, etc., etc., to the point that the lack of NORMAL visual cues throws the whole ACM equation out of whack.

You can't rely on your eyes to deliver a timely, realistic appraisal of an opponent's nationality, plane type, position, etc., at a REALISTIC distance.

Now, does it ruin the game? No, we all played AW and WB despite the visual handicaps of small aircraft and lack of detail. Because, essentially we all were similarly handicapped.

I do suggest, however, that in our ever relentless pursuit of accuracy and REALISM, that we find a way to render the planforms and detail necessary to give the player accurate visual information at REALISTIC ranges.

If this means a smaller FOV or slightly increasing plane size or some other modification, so be it.

IMHO, we are actually _sacrificing_ realism when we slavishly bow to the mathematical modeling that produces tiny, undistinguishable dots at ranges that would clearly show plane type and planform in the real world.

We can and should improve in this area.

Argue away <G>.

Best Regards,
John Nolan

[Brick]

Thanks for posting that info, Toad!  ...btw, is this the same Toad seen scooting about the skies, terrorizing women and small children in his Val?  

-Andy

[Rolo]

Methinks this is "Show Me" Toad, not "Tarheel" Toad.

Rolo

[Toad]

Ah, the amphib question...

I was Toad on Air Warrior, with Phantom's old Pain Squad for years and years.

When we went to WarBirds, the "Tarheel Toad" had beat me to the handle so I became "Toed"...

I plan on beating him to Aces if I can...then I'll have 2 out of 3 and the name will be mine...muahhahahah!

Best Regards,
John