Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Toad on June 20, 2001, 08:00:00 PM
-
OK, there's been tons of discussion about visuals and comparisons of 2D 19" monitors and what you can or can't see in Real Life.
So here's two questions to see if you have a good idea about what you CAN see. (Former USAF that have knowledge of the T-38 please wait until we get about 10-20 guesses before you answer.)
The T-38A is not a real big aircraft and is decently comparable in size to some WW2 fiters, so it's a good choice. Plus, there's plenty of good pics around and the correct answers are essentially indisputable. At least to the USAF that handed out these "visual cues" to me a loooong time ago.
Size:
Length 46 feet, 4 1/2 inches (14 meters)
Height 12 feet, 10 1/2 inches (3.8 meters)
Wingspan 25 feet, 3 inches (7.6 meters)
OK, here's some familiarization shots so you know what I'm asking. If you want more data, put "T-38 pictures" in a search engine. Pay particular attention to the tail numbers and the "burner cans" (engine exhaust nozzles) The cans were about 2 -2.5 feet in diameter I think. It's been a while.
EDIT 2: Nexus, good point on the numbers. I should have said it is the numbers we're talking about, not the letters. I sort of remember them briefing that you should see the numbers but not distinguish them. That is, you can't tell an 8 from a 3 or a 0 but u can tell they are numbers.
IIRC (never saw it in print or measured it) those numbers probably are about 10-12" tall.
Maybe one of you that's been to UPT more recently has an input on number size?
[End Edit]
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/t-38-taxi-s.jpg)
(http://www.flightproducts.com/medialibrary/jpegs/f5/t38-2.jpg)
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/t_38.jpg)
(http://www.londonairshow.com/asl99/photos/t389017.jpg)
(http://www.londonairshow.com/asl99/photos/t389015.jpg)
This last two just to give an idea of size with a man in the picture. (http://www.frii.com/~kellyb/images/sand3.JPG)
(http://www.airamericafuelservice.com/Jeff_and_Dennis.jpg)
Question 1: You are flying #2 in "Trail" position (60 degree cone aft) at what distance are the numbers on the vertical stablizer "easily visible but not readable"?
All answer distances are in FEET.
A. 250'
B. 500'
C. 750'
D. 1000'
E. 1250'
Question 2: Still flying as #2 in Trail, at what distance do the "burner cans" (exhaust nozzles) assume a "black figure 8" shape rather than just a black blob or oval? All answer distances are in FEET.
A. 250'
B. 500'
C. 750'
D. 1000'
E. 1250'
Now these are for pilots with 20/20 vision.
The answers soon. :)
<EDIT> Sorry, some pic links didn't work; found new ones.
[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
1. B
2. C
??? Just guesses based off of not much in general.
-
Nifty, that's the whole idea of this.
I think it wouldn't hurt for folks to take a guess and measure their _perception_ of reality against the _actual_ reality.
This isn't to embarass or anything like that. It's more of a "pause to reflect" on what we REALLY know about how ACM things should look on a PC.
Thanks for being the first to take a shot at it! We get a few more, I'll give out the actual answers. You may be wrong or you may be right. ;)
-
Interesting question...
I've flown in cessana's before, was always amazed at how much detail could be seen from 2 to 3 thousand feet - like individual people walking, type and make of cars.
Those letters on the stabilizer appear to be 18" tall and the numbers 10".
We have a stop sign at the end of my street and the street is .2 of a mile long. Stop sign letters are 10" high. I have 20/20 vision and can easily read the sign from the other end of the street - that's about 1000ft. (Ok I cheated I measured these numbers.)
Driving home today I discovered that most of the freeway signs could be read from about a 1/4 of a mile away. From 1/2 mile away it's easy to see there are letters on the sign but not necessarily read them. And the letters on the freeway signs seemed to average around 18".
A 60 degree angle probably reduces visibility - but we're talking about distinquishing them as letters and numbers not reading them.
1. 1250'
2. 1250'
Nexus
[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Nexus,
See Edit 2 in the post. IIRC, the numbers are about 10-12".
However, as Nifty, you may be wrong or you may be right. ;)
[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Ok then if the numbers we are talking about.
1. 750
2. 1250
Nexus
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Step right up! Step right up!
Place yer bet, spin the wheel!
Every spin a winner!
<PUNT>
Man, I'd have thought that in a bunch of guys that seem pretty confident in their ability to judge what's "right" and "wrong" in PC sim visuals we'd have had a lot more answers by now.
Bashful or just don't know?
Go ahead, it's free and the bearded lady won't bite ya!
;)
-
Thanks for the multiple guess :) I'm not a pilot and have never assumed a 60 degree cone aft of......blah blah blah.
============================
1) A. 1000 Feet
2) B. 500 Feet
============================
-
I'd have to guess 1000 feet on both.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]
-
i'll guess C, to both.
"When in Doubt, 'Charlie' out."
--qoute attributed to proctors of many tests. :D
Hamish!
-
<PUNT>
Come on now. Where are all the "Icons? We don't NEED no stinkin' ICONS!" guys? Surely THOSE guys know how airplanes are supposed to look in the air at fairly close ranges?
TAC? what do you think?
..and the "more realism" guys. Surely THEY know what they are asking for and how it should look?
DeeZ, B52Charlie take a guess?
-
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
*crowd cheers in idiotic delight*
;)
Toad, have you played AH without enemy icons?
I dont give a damn if they dont look "as in real life" ..for feks sake its a computer! Its the ACM thats geting screwed thanks to billboards screaming your location and exact range. H2H enemy iconless, play it for a week, you will see this GAME turn into a SIM.
-
Yes, Tac. I also played WB HA and various no icon scenarios in both games.
To me, what you're saying is you don't care about "real realism" as long as the game fits your personal "perception of realism."
The difference between you and I is that I KNOW what it's supposed to look like.
I HAVE chased other WW2 era aircraft around the sky.
But of course you don't care about realism...unless it's your idea of realism. :D
Go ahead. Guess. It won't hurt you ;D
-
first of all the question seems highly variable due to different eye sight. are you asking the questions as a normal 20/20 or corrected to 20/20 person or are you asking as most U.S. fighter pilots are 20/17 or even 20/15? it makes a big difference. Also lighting, glare and visability make a huge difference. If it were me (20/17 ish) and i was flyin on a perfect day (unlimited vis) and the sun was to my back or somewhere behind me i would guess max distance on both questions.
BTW for those who don't know:
20/20 means you can see a letter at 20 feet that the "average" person can see at 20 feet.
20/40 means you must be at 20 feet to see what the "average" person can see at 40 feet.
20/15 means you can be at 20 feet to see what the "average" person must go to 15 feet to see.
ofcourse there are many other things that effect sight like unlimited variable amounts of color blindness and near/far sighted.
The idea fighter pilot would be a 20/15 but more importantly is not near/far sighted, so he can look at targets, look in cockpit, and look right back outside to targets. this also takes practice in focusing eyes.
Tak if we take away icons how will you know who to shoot? only way to take away icons is to make it a historical plane set, ie no u.s. vs u.s. or ijn vs german.
-AKHog
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: AKHog ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Now these are for pilots with 20/20 vision.
Opps didnt see that :).
-AKHog
-
Gotta be E) and E) for me.
Some of us have "sharpened" non-binocular vision :D
-
I'm a little confused why you are focusing on tail numbers. I don't think anyone who favors an iconless arena thinks it would work at all except in a historical configuration- i.e. all planes of a certain type are enemy, all of other types are friends. So if you are in a Spitfire and you see an Me-109 you try to shoot it down and you know that other Spitfires you see will help you. I don't think anyone would expect you to read tail numbers before deciding to fire on a plane.
There is no doubt that computer monitors cannot make an image as clear as real life, but one must consider the amount of departure from reality: iconless, where it is somewhat harder than real life to identify targets or icon- where all planes trail a 400 ft tall neon sign. I think both should be available- I doubt that any of those who want an iconless arena would want that to be the sole choice. I flew often in the icon free historical arena of Warbirds- it was an entirely different experience from an iconed arena. The intensity level was much higher, SA was extremely important as was communication and cooperation, and it was possible to bounce targets (or get bounced) by surprise. There was occasional confusion as to which dots were enemy- but you could often tell from their behavior and flight path. Besides, confusion as to which planes were enemy happened in real life (unfortunately) so it's part of 'realism'.
I think the main problem with iconless arenas is that they have to be historically based- axis vs allies, and that's a tad politically incorrect.
-
715,
I think we would both agree on what constitutes the "heart" of WW2 ACM.
It has to be the visual cues, doesn't it? Without visual cues there can be no "visual only" guns solution right?
So this isn't about "focusing on tail numbers" at all.
This is about the accuracy of visual cues that any "guns only" game should afford its players. (Missiles and track/shoot radar would change the WW2 ACM equation, agreed?)
In short, these two questions give us a chance to see if we, the players, even have a clue of what we SHOULD be able to see at what range.
Apparently, most of us don't know because not many players have the confidence to go ahead and post an answer. There's no penalty here; you don't lose playing privileges if you're wrong. ;)
There is an idea out there among some players that, no matter what, more difficulty means more "realism". Making something harder is making it more realistic.
This area of visual cues and detail is one of those areas and those people are unfortunately incorrect.
Given the limitations of PC hardware, for the most part the visual cues given by the aircraft themselves in these games are ALREADY significantly less informative and thus "harder" than real life.
I have never said there wasn't room to experiment with other types, sizes, colors, ranges, etc. of icons.
I have repeatedly said that the aircraft alone do not provide realistic visual cues.
In a game, assume you see a planform of an aircraft at range "X" and at this range the monitor cannot provide the detail to tell you if he is belly-up to you or canopy-up to you.
Yet in RL this exact same aircraft at this exact same range would provide more than sufficient visual detail and cues to provide that information.
So then the game programmer adds some type of artificial visual cue (call it an icon) to tell you the plane is, say, canopy up.
Which is more real, more correct? To program the game w/o such an icon or with it?
Which would result in a more true to life opportunity to solve the ACM equation?
As I said, the whole point of this thread is to give you an honest opportunity to see if you really know what you should be seeing.
It's not the numbers we're focusing on... it's the detail of the visual cues the aircraft alone provides. What should you be able to see and at what range?
So go ahead, take a shot at it. ;)
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
OK. Sorry, I understand now. It's just a point of reference.
Again, however, I agree there is no doubt the computer cannot give as good visual cues as real life: I can easily distinguish the difference between F18s and Harriers that fly over my lab at distances way beyond a mile or two. In AH at 1 mile the target is essentially a single pixel. Nevertheless, I still enjoyed the HA in WB way more than the MA. With the neon sign it is impossible for anyone to bounce anyone else without being detected. It's a matter of taste and it would be nice if both sides had an arena to choose from (iconed and iconless).
-
Originally posted by 715:
Again, however, I agree there is no doubt the computer cannot give as good visual cues as real life....
...It's a matter of taste and it would be nice if both sides had an arena to choose from (iconed and iconless).
That is the point. If you truly want "realism" (the word that launched a thosand ships ;) ) then some sort of icon system is mandatory at this stage of PC technology.
As to the second comment, yes, it IS a matter of choice.
However, the choice is not between "levels of realism". The choice is between artificially imposed levels of difficulty. Because, again, at this stage of PC technology, no icons is a level of difficulty, not a level of realism.
-
I wanna know the answers! :D I'm not patient enough to wait on everyone else to answer! Email 'em to me, please! :) nifty23@home.com
-
TOAD;
I have thought along the same lines as you since forever. IMO will just not happen under current technology.
We need technology that corrects two essential things:
1) Disengage the mechanics of our fingers pressing buttons to simulate the movement of our heads and eyes. Skill at "Head Movement" and obtaining the correct view becomes almost the most important skill in the game.
2) Force feedback controls that paralell the operation of those in a real aircraft. The "Spring Return to Center" technology is a quantum leap for the controls of the era.
-
C'mon give us the answers. I'll check this thread one more time, getting sick of no results. :)
So, you'll miss making yer point if ya do not give me the answers :D
-
Come on Santa.
Show some ...er... brass.
I think a lot of you guys want the answers without making a guess.
With all the "realism" talk I really had expected some of the more vocal "no icon" and "too easy" types to rise to the challenge.
I'm coming to the realization that apparently NOBODY has a clue here.
So all this talk really HAS been unsupported speculation on the part of people who have read a few books and now know just how it is supposed to be?
Please, please... prove me wrong.
Where are the brave lads who've "told us how it REALLY was"? TAC, a big-time no icons guy has critqued me but he won't take a guess. What's up with that? ;) Where are DeeZ and B52Charlie? They've both been posting for less "gameplay concessions" and more "realism". Do they know what to ask FOR? :)
I expected more particpation than this!
What are you guys afraid of?
Take a guess!
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Here's another way of asking.
I've got my AH video set to 1280x1024 32 Bit.
I went offline and flew off the wing of Superfly's orbiting P-51.
The P-51 has a real big "P" on the vert stab and standard serial numbers under that on the tail.
Around 240 feet I could see the serial numbers well enough to tell they were numbers. (Default view, no zoom)
Is this correct, that is, is it realistic? Does it correlate to the T-38 (the numbers would be about the same size).
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Every plane I've ever seen has had numbers on it.
Why have numbers on airplanes if they were not ment to be read?
They are painted large for a reason - to see them from a far distance.
What are the FAA traffic rules: 1000 feet lateral and 500 feet vertical separation between planes?
So I would guess those numbers should be readible from at least 1000 feet.
Time's up Toad - give us an answer - I too am getting tired wanting for this answer.
Nexus
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
OK, here you go:
The answer to BOTH questions is 1000 Feet. These two references are simply used to keep the wingman in "trail". Just stay in a 60 degree cone aft and within a 1000' using them.
My point here is NOT AH specific; this technology/programming situation occurs in all the online ACM games. AH at least gives you a useful variable "zoom" to compensate, one way to attempt to balance the ACM equation.
There are a few ways to check this out in AH. It's probably easiest to do it offline. In general, I think you'll find that you have to get within about 275-300 feet of an aircraft in AH to see the visual cues that you'd see at 1000 feet in RL. (Again, not a complaint about AH; it's typical for these games.)
Think that doesn't change the ACM equation from real life?
I waited a week to see who amongst our famous "harder is real-er" posters would even venture to guess.
The answer to that question is NONE of them.
I'm forced to assume they have absolutely no idea about what they should see in terms of visual cues.
Which doesn't surprise me in the least. :D
-
Well supported/defended point Toad <S>.
Now.. how big do those numbers look at night? :D
AKDejaVu
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]
-
Thanks Toad... :)
DejaVu,
They glow in the dark - everyone knows that :p
Nexus
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Cool, I got em both right!
-
Well done Toad.
And this problem will only be solved if we get much greater screens (imo 24" or more)
and much higher resolutions (imo around 3000x2000).
So this is no task for HTC but for Intel/AMD and all graph chip producers, to bring us huge graph performance to an acceptable price.
-
The problem is not only screen resolution, but the field of view. I'd like Toad to repeat his reallife test, looking through an wide-angle lens and see how close he needed to be to read both tailshape and numbers :D
The human eye got (roughly) a field of view, similar to a 35mm lens (roughly 55 degrees, I believe), where as AH uses 90 degree FOV...but we also got a periphial view of about 160 degrees.
In WB3, you can change the FOV, between 90, 75 & 60 degrees...60 degrees gives a lot more realistic size of planes,(At 300 yards they look big!) but it narrows your view too much to really be used for all but gunnery on stable targets and all stick movements appears enhanced. (This is a perception as we're too used to move the stick X-amount to move the crosshair X-amount and that all goes out of the window when you have a 60 degree FoV).
The solution?..180 degree screens :).
Daff
-
Daff, there's no doubt FOV is important.
In fact, isn't the "zoom" in AH a variable FOV? At least that's what I thought we were doing. When we zoom in, we are narrowing the FOV, gaining detail and sizing more accurately.
I'm quite sure you could go to 1000' in AH and zoom in enough to distinguish numbers as numbers (corresponing to the T-38 example). But you'd give up almost all of a human's normal peripheral vision in doing that.
It would be quite interesting to see at what FOV that occurs. There's some good data on the web about human FOV and Peripheral vision.
Peripheral is REAL important in a game like this. Here's a clip of why I think so:
"The peripheral retinal system is sometimes called the "where" retina. It is involved with the subconscious control of human navigation. It is an old visual system, having evolved long before central visual processing. The evolution of the retina is played out as you go from the extreme edge of the retina (the oldest system in evolution) to the retinal "center", the fovea, where central processing occurs.
The extreme far edges of the retina are purely reflexive. When an object moves on the far retinal edge an immediate reflex swings the eyes in a direction which aligns the moving object with the fovea. Closer in, the peripheral retinal tissue can "see" movement, but there is no object recognition. When movement stops, the object becomes invisible. Closer in still, the medial peripheral retina monitors optical flow, the velocity of objects moving across the retinal surface. It is this optical flow that is the basis for the subconscious human navigation system, the "where is it" system."
Our problem is when we alter the FOV in the various games, we lose most of the peripheral vision.
I really don't think there's going to be a good solution until we either get half dome projection monitors or really, REALLY good VR goggles. :)
-
ummm 300d in the game = 1000ft right?
1d = 3 FT in the game?
RWY
-
Robert, yes as far as I've read, 1d = 1 yard (or meter, depending on what your used to) = 3ft.
On another note, IBM has developed a 22inch 200dpi monitor.
With 200 pixels per inch and more than 9 million pixels in total on its
22-inch screen, the new display is as clear as an original photograph and
4.5 times sharper than top-of-the-line high-definition television screens.
I'd like to see one of these in action.
ibm news article here (http://www.ibm.com/news/2000/11/10.phtml)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I'm quite sure you could go to 1000' in AH and zoom in enough to distinguish numbers as numbers (corresponing to the T-38 example). But you'd give up almost all of a human's normal peripheral vision in doing that.
So are you suggesting that icons are only available in the central screen zone that would be seen in zoom mode? and never available at more than 1000 ft unless in zoom mode? (ie carfully scrutinizing the object)
Tilt
-
No, I'm only saying that it is possible to zoom the AH FOV to where you can distinguish numbers as numbers at 1000'. As in the RL T-38 example.
This narrows the FOV, of course, but at least it does give you RL type detail at 1000'.
You give up a lot of peripheral vision doing that however.
I'm not actually suggesting anything.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Around 240 feet I could see the serial numbers well enough to tell they were numbers. (Default view, no zoom)
240ft or 240 on the AH icon, which shows yards?
When you're at 240ft, the AH icon reads something like 80 yards, right?
Camo
-
Correct, Camo.
240 Feet, right around 80 yards on the AH range; I was using the numbers under the "P" on the P-51 tail.
It's not an exact science. Your range may vary due to your eyesight, monitor, resolution settings and how well you can stay in formation. ;)
Suffice it to say you have to be MUCH closer than RL when using the default view.
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Interesting thread !
This is a very difficult subject to discuss, due to the many variables !
I just had a look out my window towards the airport and measured the distance on a map: over 8000 yards. I can identify all the jumbo's easily... no lighties there.... but 2000 yards further I can see cars on an overpass and easily identify Mac trucks. I remember seeing trucks driving on roads below as a passenger in a jumbo from 30000 + feet, but Im not sure if I was just imagining them..... however I can see buildings from that hight though.
Buzzing around on weekends Im always lower than 4000 feet... I regulary spot and lose sight of aircraft in haze.... You have to keep your eyes peeled! Aircraft sometimes come out of nowhere.
Most of the time you can spot and ID other aircraft many, many, many miles away... but not always.
Things which interfere include:
* haze
* clouds
* ground clutter
Personally, Id love to have only friendly icons as a MA online setting..... I'd like to be able to sneak up on a bad guy without a neon light giving away my position.
I dont agree with TOADs assessment of the use of icons.... they do not add to realism in my opinon. I'd love bloody great Icons IRL then I could just quickly scan the sky and never miss anything.
'Beware of the hun in the sun'
'Call out those bandits'
'All of a sudden the sky was empty and I was alone'
'He came out of nowhere'
'The first thing I knew was cannon shells exploding on my fuselage'
Just because I can READ the details of another aircraft at 1000 feet doesnt mean that I will aways SEE that aircraft.
Hence my statement that this is a difficult topic! I doubt that it will ever be resolved to my satisfaction!
-
Originally posted by Starbird
Robert, yes as far as I've read, 1d = 1 yard (or meter, depending on what your used to) = 3ft.
Doesn't matter what you are used to, you can't switch between meters and yards at will.
Icons in AH show distance in yards. d300 = 300yds = 900ft.
Toad, was that 240 you mentioned what the icon was reading? That would be 240yds (720ft.)
-
Toad already stated that the icon read "80", which he then translated into ft.