Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bruin on August 09, 1999, 05:00:00 PM
-
It no secret, Plane size in WB is small.
Are you guys changing this with AH?
-
The plane size in WB is directly relative to the size of your monitor. Everything your watching on your monitor is modeled to exact scale. 1 foot in real life equals 1 foot in WB. Once you start fiddling with any one particular parameter you immediately begin messing up the function of the rest of the entire program.
I've heard that a 32" monitor will give you 1 to 1 ratio in regards to size. There is a place on the net (www.advancedsimulation.com I believe) that offers them for around $600 I think (maybe more). If you want perfection without fudging the sim then this is the route you need to take.
------------------
Windle
*Future* Aces High VF-17 'Jolly Rogers' 8X
-
I think that in a previous post Pyro said that the view system will be zoomable, so that you can effectively increase the enemy aircraft size at the expense of field of view. Sounds good to me.
------------------
Topcat
249 Squadron RAF "Gold Coast"
With Fists and Heels
Tangmere Wing
-
WB has 90 degree field of view.
Sit if front of your monitor so close that the field of view it occupies is 90 degrees.
That would be 1/2 of the display width (not diagonal).
Sit 8 inches from the display 20 inches diagonal.
Sit 6.4 inches from the display 16 inches diagonal.
Then you will see everything in the exact size the pilot would se from the real plane.
Of course the eye has trouble focusing at such a short distance, so I suggest using the fresnel lens - it magnifies and changes focus to infinity. You can sit very close to it.
The only other ways to magnify the image is either to restrict the field of view - make it narrow, or draw the planes out of scale - double the size of all the planes without changing the physics.
miko--
-
To get correct vision, depth-vise, you have to have a view angle of approximately 45 degrees projected on a monitor. With 90 degrees (as in WB) distant objects look small, while near object looks large and distorted, kind of fish-eye lens effect.
Bod
-
Fresnel lens, have any of you tried it, and is it as good as it sounds ?
I use a 21" screen, and with a fresnel lens I can get about 27-28" `screen` or more, right ?
How is picture disortion, low, med or high ?
As long as my monitor is as large as 21" is there any point in getting me a lens ?
PS. Ill do anything to improve my gameplay !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
The Wild Vikings
Commanding Officer
lasse-
-
In AH, you can adjust your field of view. Normally, you want a wide field of view to maintain your SA. I've found the zoom real handy to pick up on the other plane's aspect angle at long range.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
32" monitor!! $600 dollars!! (US I presume)
Where is that link!!!
------------------
Carrot
RNZAF
"Outta my way!! Lawndart in Progress."
-
HiTech:
In WB's I have terrible trouble in shooting Yak's. They're so small that in 640 3D (15" monitor) at range of D2 they're still so small they're missing wings. The pixels aren't simply drawn until D1.8 or so. At some angles they only drawn as a few pixels (the cowl and engine) at D5. Even Spitfire is larger at D12 than Yak at D5. Please address this in your graphics engine, there must be a way to prevent this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I guess it's a scaling thing but if not else some sort of force the engine to draw 1 pixel thick wings or so if they're still missing at D3-D4... or the zoom may help too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There's a zoom option in EAW aswell but it removes the whole cockpit and gives an uber vision for high deflection shots. Hopefully this will not be the case in AH.
Thanks, Bug
-
Sorry Carrot I was way off. Here's what is posted at www.advancedsimulation.com (http://www.advancedsimulation.com) >>>
Big Screen Computer Monitors
ARCADIA 3.1 AV 800X600 SVGA monitor by Princeton Graphics .. $1,599
31" view area. This is a true monitor and not a television with scan converter.
About two and a half times as much as I stated earlier. Still pretty good for 31 inches though!
------------------
Windle
*Future* Aces High VF-17 'Jolly Rogers' 8X
-
Windle,
Bugger!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Was looking forward to a HUGE screen.
------------------
Carrot
RNZAF
"Outta my way!! Lawndart in Progress."
-
Windle,
Who told you that the plane sizes were correct. All of the real life pilots I know tell me that they are way too small even if you account for small monitors. A real life plane 1 mile a way looks huge in the air. In Warbirds they are a dot. Ever see any WWII gun cam footage where the planes look as small as they do in WB?
PK
-
I can tell you that a plane 1 mile away does not look that huge (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) How wide do you think a Corsair's 41 foot wingspan would look at 5280 feet away? Maybe the width of the tip of your pinky - maybe. I just got back from Oshkosh and got way too cozy with many other pilots sharing my airspace. If you wanna see how big a plane is one mile away, fly about 5500 feet over any airport between Louisiana and Wisconsin and you'll know exactly. I remember being about that height when we spotted three C-47's rotting away on the tarmac of a small field in Missouri. I could recognise what they were but that was about it. Three little cross shaped thingies with two engines and tapered wings. I can attest that a B-52 still looks pretty huge at 1 mile but mainly due to its dark, contrasting paint scheme and the fact that it IS huge! I was roughly 1000 feet behind a Mooney and still couldn't identify it as such until I flew past to one side and got a good look at the tail. I can guarantee you that you would never want to pull the trigger on something thats a mile away. One mile is right around d17 in WB. At d10 I can readily identify almost any WB plane to the point I'm tempted to pull the trigger too soon. I also have a 19" monitor which is worlds better than the 17" I had. I'm pretty damn sure if I got the prescribed 31" screen I could tell you the color shirt of the bad guy at d10. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I think the advice given was sitting with your nose 28" away from a 31" screen. Kinda scary if you think about it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
BTW I heard the 'relative size' info from a previous IMOL employee in an AGW post. This is not a groundbreaking topic.
Also, gun camera images depend on what focal length lens is used. I would think if the average pilot fired on the enemy at around 200 yards then the lens size would be optimised for use at this distance. If the lens I have on my camera right now was used you would have a speck on the screen at 200 yards. If your really curious you could do some research to discover what the standard focal lenth was on different gun cameras. I'd find that real interesting. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Windle
*Future* Aces High VF-17 'Jolly Rogers' 8X
[This message has been edited by Windle (edited 08-13-1999).]
-
To Bugjam:
You may not be aware of this, but a Yak-3 was smaller than a Bf 109E! It was the smallest combat fighter aircraft in large production of the war. So, if you are having trouble 'seeing' it, it's because you should.
-
If you realy want to boggle your mind some time think about this. There is no difference between making plane's biger vs making everything slower.
HiTech
-
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/ (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--
-
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
-
--- 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
-
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? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The obvious conclusion is that the planes are too large (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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.
------------------
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
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
-
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? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Andy
-
Methinks this is "Show Me" Toad, not "Tarheel" Toad.
Rolo
-
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
-
hahahahaha... well, if it looks like a toad, hops like a toad... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
We'll just toss you guys both in the same Val and pepper it lightly with .50s.
Andy
(Most often seen trying to blend in at low altitude, using jedi-mind tricks to keep people from shooting at him)
-
Thanks toad,
You said what i have been saying for 3 years, but with tact.
Wow 20,000 hrs, i have but 18,000 to go.
-
Hitz:
Don't be so eager to get to 20K on the hours....it usually means your an old, gray haired dude with lots of crows feet around the eyes. The Flight Attendants don't even look at you while they size up the co-pilots! <BG>.
Rolo:
HI! <should have said that before> I should have guessed you'd have moved on from WB. Glad to see ya!
Best Regards,
John
-
So if I got this right then what we do in AH is...
1. Work out your monitor size [I can do that]
2. For a realistic size view for the monitor size check out the presets for zoom in the game that AH will have [ie.. a setting for 14/15/17/19/21+ monitors in the zoom box]
3. Then see if this keeps yr SA adequate still with the reduced FOV [but bigger FOV the bigger the monitor of course]
4. Map this zoom setting to a button for close in fighting but keep the panoramic view for normal SA
5. Then see whether the puter can handle the frame rate [based on HT's comment earlier i this thread].
I got it right?
------------------
Audie VF-17 The Jolly Rogers 8X in WB
The dweeb formerly known as -audi-