What's up with those rumors
-
…serious simmers…
Thats kinda of a funny term. I Sim/Game for enjoyment, not to be serious, that’s my work life….
-
Field of view = sense of speed.
That’s how it works, IMHOYes I assume that is true.
We have seen many differently terrains in the history of this sim,
and regardless how high the mountains or how deep the valleys are in RL,
insim it always felt like flying through a tiny valley.In conclusion I (still) think there is anything to huge in size,
and it has been that way from the very first Falcon 4.0 release.Some have tried to play with FOV values, with slightly better results
regarding sense of speed.Anyway, while in the cockpit (Smart scaling disabled), I feel I’m fat and huge
compared to the surrounding terrain, … whereat I would rather feel like a tiny dot
in a big big world.Now imagine the cockpit view would be scaled way smaller, to be that tiny dot in the world,
… would it change the feeling of flying through deep valleys and the sense of speed positive?Not sure if above can be accomplished by FOV values only.
Maybe just a stupid approach, and I can’t explain better, but hope it helps.
Cheers, :yo:
LSMaybe I’m missing you here Lazy. I actually thought that the traditional Falcon FOV is too large, i.e gives you a feeling that the world is huge and you are tiny, and so sense of speed is missing. Actually for good sense of speed, I guess you need to not be that tiny dot, but you need to be “large” relative to the world, no?
But afer yesterday’s tries I’m not even sure that we have a problem really, I won’t know until someone else tries it. Maybe Falcas can give some feedback, as he also has that RL view of things.
Cheers!
-
@Lazy
I believe this also looks fat and slow (Maybe cruise speed?):
This on the other hand isn’t (Maybe attack speed?):
Ohhh we know u r fat and huge… we still love’ya… :lol:
//Arty runs and hides… :rofl:
Edit: Noticeable the intense shaking… hmmmm.
-
But afer yesterday’s tries I’m not even sure that we have a problem really, I won’t know until someone else tries it. Maybe Falcas can give some feedback, as he also has that RL view of things.
Cheers!
I am used to fly NOE IRL … in ops from 50 to 150ftAGL and peace time from 330 to 500ft AGL. Speed range from 180 to 240kts on my current a/c and 360 to 450 back in the time I was on Ajet. To me, the only issue we have in BMS relative to the sense of speed is certainty because of some of our buildings 3D models and their textures making them oversized compared to their texture details (windows, doors …) this is being updated by Nove’s new models and textures … auto gene would (will?) certainly improve it also. But except this fact, the lack of speed sensations is IMO mostly because of ppl wrong expectations … Before doing it in real, I thought that flying a jet would be like an X-Wing in the death star valley … I was somehow disappointed. … but as I said … what makes the difference is the workload. BMS users would have the same workload if they were flying with a real TPC navigation chart like in real in low level in BMS simulating all mandatory radio contacts avoiding every restricted areas and cities …
-
Edit: Noticeable the intense shaking… hmmmm.
Due to relief and wind in low level … makes the air mass very bumpy and turbulent.
-
Maybe I’m missing you here Lazy. I actually thought that the traditional Falcon FOV is too large, i.e gives you a feeling that the world is huge and you are tiny, and so sense of speed is missing. Actually for good sense of speed, I guess you need to not be that tiny dot, but you need to be “large” relative to the world, no?
Your actually thoughts ain’t wrong regarding the FOV, but I agree to one of your former post where
you said you think something is wrong.For the sense of speed we would need to be “large” relative to the world, yes,
and in same situation I want to be that tiny dot.
So I’m feeling fat and huge in the cockpit relative to the world.You see the conflict here?
We may want both when flying low level through deep valleys, sense of speed as a tiny dot.
Dunno if/how this could be accomplished or if that’s to contradictorily at all.
@Arty
Both vids are fine for me, but the feeling insim is differently, IMHO.Cheers, :yo:
LS -
Beside what DJ already wrote the only extra thing I would like to add here…
the camera make bumps and shaking look much much worse than you experience yourself.Gr Falcas
-
Your actually thoughts ain’t wrong regarding the FOV, but I agree to one of your former post where
you said you think something is wrong.For the sense of speed we would need to be “large” relative to the world, yes,
and in same situation I want to be that tiny dot.
So I’m feeling fat and huge in the cockpit relative to the world.You see the conflict here?
We may want both when flying low level through deep valleys, sense of speed as a tiny dot.
Dunno if/how this could be accomplished or if that’s to contradictorily at all.
@Arty
Both vids are fine for me, but the feeling insim is differently, IMHO.Cheers, :yo:
LSMy main gripe with F4 terrain is not the sense of speed as it comes from ultra-wide views + points of reference (objects/terrain details). It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4. Maybe it’s F4 terrain resolution is too small. maybe it lack details that help player to judge the distance, maybe ground tiles are too big in relation to textures (ie for ground textures we have tiles should be 500x500m or 250x250m). Dunno.
Here’s few vids for comparision. Looks tad different than F4 and I think that ones got it right.
also few static screnies (sorry for referencing other forum) https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?307009-Aerofly-FS2-Innsbruck
-
It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4.
This describes my feeling as well.
The world (terrain) feeling way to small and in comparison the 3D objects are to huge in or visa versa.
(there is an old thread on this topic somewhere on this forum)While it has been already proofed that terrain distances and AC speed and timings are
correct (as possile with the current terrain projection) insim, there must be something else …Thanks a lot for posting vids of Innsbruck, because I started to tile that area for an (now long time)
abandoned project years ago and IIRC the feeling was not close to those Aerofly vids you’ve posted.IMHO, it would be very nice if we could get Aeroflys feeling.
Btw. dunno why I dislike the x- plane vid.Cheers, :yo:
LS -
My main gripe with F4 terrain is not the sense of speed as it comes from ultra-wide views + points of reference (objects/terrain details). It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4. Maybe it’s F4 terrain resolution is too small. maybe it lack details that help player to judge the distance, maybe ground tiles are too big in relation to textures (ie for ground textures we have tiles should be 500x500m or 250x250m). Dunno.
Here’s few vids for comparision. Looks tad different than F4 and I think that ones got it right.
also few static screnies (sorry for referencing other forum) https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?307009-Aerofly-FS2-Innsbruck
Yes of course everything you mentioned is a factor for sense of speed:
Mesh resolution
Textures resolution (Mainly measuring meter/pixel)
Ground objects density and possibly also size (Although I do want to believe that new 3D models of features are built with correct size)Falcon world size “feeling” is indeed a combination of all of those.
BTW I felt like the XP vid is a bit slow actually, maybe the jet was indeed pretty slow, but maybe also sense of speed isn’t “as we think” and as D-J confirmed above from his RL experience.
Also, I’m a bit surprised to see XP11 has such exaggerated “bump holes”, I think it’s a bit too much and breaks the feeling of natural land a bit. Don’t know maybe the vid lie but in the snow period at ~5:40 it feels none-natural, like they tried too hard create extra extra details. But maybe just my feeling.I’m sure however that things for BMS will improve in the future, we are already in better state now and it’ll only get better.
-
My guess is it’s not about size of the objects/terrain per se, but how presented on the screen. As far as I can understand our eyes are like wide angle cameras, things very close seems to be huge, scaling down quicly with the distance growing but as distance grow tempo of scaling goes down.
Just for experiment I was looking at the back of my car and stepped back from about 1 to 50 meters. For first 3m reductin of relative size was huge, above 10m of distance till the final 50, relative size of the car was quite similar.
So maybe algorithm of on display size as a function of physical object size related to distance from POV should be reviewed.
It’s kinda related to the video EGHI posted but kinda reversed. I mean we shouldn’t think in terms of how large in screen pixels object should be but rather how many miliradians of our FOV it should take at given distance. -
I have some cross-country glider and GA aviation experience in Germany (VFR only) and I can say from my end that the lack of detail on the ground is what matters.
I don´t have videos at low altitude in RL, but, I-hawk, if you want I can upload a video of FW-190A3 flying at 300knots at 300ft in IL-2 and compare with an F-16C in BMS, same altitude and speed, all with details and graphics maximized. The difference is brutal. In Falcon you barely feel the sensation of speed. -
Sense of speed depends on the point your eyes are focused, see the posted video of F18 when camera is pointed at distant objects in the fromt sense of speed is similar to what we have in F4, when it looks to the sides at close objects things move very fast.
And yes more details as a points of reference helps alot. -
Thats kinda of a funny term. I Sim/Game for enjoyment, not to be serious, that’s my work life….
To each their own. Id prefer to be paid to fly fighter jets, but as that isnt happening, I get enjoyment from trying to replicate that experience - as exactly as I can - but thats me.
And I think Im probably a bit weird.
-
And I think Im probably a bit weird.
Don’t think you are. All the guys in my VFS are like that and I know at least 2 more squads which are as well. I’m like you, if it’s not 100% serious, it’s not fun.
-
@ I-Hawk, yes I’m pretty sure things will get better and better, you guys are doing wonderfull ‘job’. I’m just trying to help to nail this particular issue. I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
[edit]
Thinking even more about sense of speed. Riding a motorcycle helps a bit to understand how it works.
I thinkt it’s acombination of FOV, details as a points of reference and distance related scaling. It reminds me about a paragraph from original F4 manual about when is a time to start a turn in merge.You can see plane as small dot for a long time once it rapidly starts to get bigger - turn.
So it’s like: small … small … small … small small …small … a bit larger … a bit larger … even larger …WHAM!!! it’s huge … gone.
The faster you go the it takes less time from a bit larger stage to huge.
For the sense of scale the other way around large and very distant objects/terrain features just sits there without changing it’s relative size for ‘eternity’ like you’d be standing still. -
I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
I don’t think I have a choice here. For sure I intend to get that thing right. That’s why I said above, it’s hard for me currently to judge exactly if there is even a problem with Falcon itself or it’s “just” the current state of mesh/objects/textures. I already verified yesterday that the speed of the F-16 (And probably anything else) in BMS is 100% correct relative to the world, so at least that was sorted. The next suspect is FOV, and of course there is the well-known problem of the engine itself - Too low-res mesh, low res textures and mostly empty areas (objects-wise).
-
@ I-Hawk, yes I’m pretty sure things will get better and better, you guys are doing wonderfull ‘job’. I’m just trying to help to nail this particular issue. I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
[edit]
Thinking even more about sense of speed. Riding a motorcycle helps a bit to understand how it works.
I thinkt it’s acombination of FOV, details as a points of reference and distance related scaling. It reminds me about a paragraph from original F4 manual about when is a time to start a turn in merge.You can see plane as small dot for a long time once it rapidly starts to get bigger - turn.
So it’s like: small … small … small … small small …small … a bit larger … a bit larger … even larger …WHAM!!! it’s huge … gone.
The faster you go the it takes less time from a bit larger stage to huge.
For the sense of scale the other way around large and very distant objects/terrain features just sits there without changing it’s relative size for ‘eternity’ like you’d be standing still.After reading all of this, I think your close to what the differences between the vids that have been shown. There is certainly one aspect that has not been discussed much here. Subtle terrain elevations. Even when flying through a valley, there are subtle elevation changes. The eye straight ahead see’s almost a flat and level terrain. As you fly towards it (and faster) the subtle elevations become only slightly seen until your right on top of it. Once overflown, the subtle elevation has a point of reference that quickly becomes defined or pronounced. What this amounts to in the Falcon (BMS) world is LOD elevation detail, scaling from a distance. Yes, more detail to the terrain is part of the feeling of speed, as well as FOV, but subtle elevations (and not so subtle) create depth of field (almost a 3D experience) we perceive with our eyes in real life. The same can be said for flight sims. DX9.0c could have subtle elevations added as I described, but the lack of smooth transitions and greater detail of terrain elevation (subtle or not) would not be so much of a dramatic of an effect as DX11. It is a new GFX engine (DX11) BMS needs for this kind of performance.
-
I bet absolute numbers are right, I just wonder I the screen representation is right. Our depth perception is not linear, more like EEGS funnel (because that’s what it visualises) and I still think if F4 rendering engine recreates it right. I guess that part is mostly the same from the very beginning (given all the F revisions have this distinct look).
In the end all of the thinkgs yu’ve listed gonna be improved at some point -
After reading all of this, I think your close to what the differences between the vids that have been shown. There is certainly one aspect that has not been discussed much here. Subtle terrain elevations. Even when flying through a valley, there are subtle elevation changes. The eye straight ahead see’s almost a flat and level terrain. As you fly towards it (and faster) the subtle elevations become only slightly seen until your right on top of it. Once overflown, the subtle elevation has a point of reference that quickly becomes defined or pronounced. What this amounts to in the Falcon (BMS) world is LOD elevation detail, scaling from a distance. Yes, more detail to the terrain is part of the feeling of speed, as well as FOV, but subtle elevations (and not so subtle) create depth of field (almost a 3D experience) we perceive with our eyes in real life. The same can be said for flight sims. DX9.0c could have subtle elevations added as I described, but the lack of smooth transitions and greater detail of terrain elevation (subtle or not) would not be so much of a dramatic of an effect as DX11. It is a new GFX engine (DX11) BMS needs for this kind of performance.
If there gonna be upgrade to new 3D GFX API I hope it’l be Vulkan. It is not that Vulkan is so much better better than DX12. All of them (Vulkan, DX12, Metal) are apis quite similar in capabilities, but only Vulkan is not prioprietary one tied to one platfom.