Sense of scale

[xclusiv8 35]

Hii guys.

 

I was looking at some youtube videos of Rise of Flight and it struck me how the sense of scale in that sim is just amazing. Its pretty obviouse that those early airplanes were not able to reach that high in the sky yet when you look at the game and IRL you can see that 4000 feet is pretty damn high.

 

Is it me or is this kind of feeling not there in the SF2 series? Somehow it always feels like i am very close to the ground even if i am 30 000 feet up in the air. Maybe its just my imagination? What do you guys think of this matter?

[+Dave 2,319]

I think it has a great sense of scale, especially at 30,000ft and the contrails start. I think it might be your imagination.

 

 

[xclusiv8 35]

I think it has a great sense of scale, especially at 30,000ft and the contrails start. I think it might be your imagination.

 

 

 

hehe proberbly is, considering i have never been in a jet fighter 30 000 feet in the air.

[Wrench 9,614]

scale has always been an issue, at least from my point of view (ie: filling terrains with objects). Don't forget, most terrains are 63% normal size, making things like runways and buildings appear MUCH larger than they should be. Meaning that if you have an object EXACTTLY the size of it's real life counterpart, it ALWAYS apppears much larger than it should.

 

TK once mentioned the reason, but I can't remember what it was (other than 63% being the difference between and mile and KM)

 

but for just flying around, something i've never really noticed. We're supposed to be looking for Enemy Aircraft ™, not the ground eye candy

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Fubar512 1,350]

Actually, I find it to be quite the opposite. Having flown light aircraft in real life, I can tell you that when flying much below 200 feet, it appears as if one is scraping the ground, and about to trade paint with cars. You don't quite get that perspective in any flight sim I've ever played.

[UnknownPilot 33]

They could get there, it just took 'em a while.

 

The Albatros D.Va had a cieling of 20,500ft, and the Camel could reach 19,000ft. The biggest issues for them were first the pilots, then engine power, which is what drove supercharger development. Many people would feel the effects of o2 deprivation, but they didn't know what it was - they called it altitude sickness.

 

 

 

What maps are you flying over mostly? I know what you mean about how some sims do it better than others, but some of that is related to the aircraft itself too, and also the map.

 

For instance, take the Expansion Pack 2.0 North Vietnam map for SF2:V, there are some RTAFB bases high in the mountains (about 3,000 ft), and the peaks reach up into the clouds up to anywhere from 6 to 9 thousand feet. When you are at the base of them, they appear quite large indeed, so you do get the impression of height/scale.

 

But on the other hand, when you are able to reach 30,000 ft in a matter of seconds, how high can it really feel? Compare to a slow moving kite that takes 35 minutes to reach just 16,400ft (Albatros D.Va). Once you get acclimated to that speed and climb rate, it'll feel like it really is much higher.

 

Add to that terrain detail and also terrain surface type (flat, mountainous, etc), and it can just compound from there. (ie, you get a better sense of altitude flying over the hilly terrain of South Vietnam than you do over the ocean out of sight of land)

 

For sake of comparison, take Orbiter. That sim is focused on space flight and orbital mechanics. Even though it DOES model atmospheres and atmospheric flight, it's really not the point, so it takes a back seat. It's most concerned with amospheres for drag, re-entry, max Q, landing, and air-breathing engines. As a result, there are only painted details for planet textures (no 3D features at all). And that, combined with the fact that you are in rockets which can reach space in a matter of a few scant minutes (reaching space and orbital insertion aren't the same thing remember, hehe ) it basically ends up meaning that 80,000 feet up isn't that big a deal, and it just doesn't FEEL very high either.

 

 

If you're up for an experiment, try finding some really old, slow (and if possible, open pit) plane to download, and some very mountainous or canyon rich terrain to fly on, and see if you feel a difference. (I'm not saying you will - I'm curious myself, it's just a hypothesis, but one that seems sound)

[UnknownPilot 33]

scale has always been an issue, at least from my point of view (ie: filling terrains with objects). Don't forget, most terrains are 63% normal size, making things like runways and buildings appear MUCH larger than they should be. Meaning that if you have an object EXACTTLY the size of it's real life counterpart, it ALWAYS apppears much larger than it should.

 

TK once mentioned the reason, but I can't remember what it was (other than 63% being the difference between and mile and KM)

 

but for just flying around, something i've never really noticed. We're supposed to be looking for Enemy Aircraft ™, not the ground eye candy

 

wrench

kevin stein

 

 

Does that mean that the entire terrain is compressed? Or just cut short? Or just smaller in terms of distances? What I mean is, would a mountain end up being only 63% as high as it should be (compressed), or would you just not be able to reach certain points on a map that should be within it's borders (cropped/cut short), or would cities, bases, mountains etc just be 63% closer to one another, but with their sizes intact (smaller in terms of distances)?

 

Sorry if it's a stupid question, just something I've wondered about.

[xclusiv8 35]

You make a good point UP.

 

I mostly fly over germany in high powered jets. (Practising in the F100 )

Reaching 30 000 is easy and fast in an F15. Maybe it is the speed that makes it feel small like you said. And germany is pretty damn flat aswell hehe

[Romflyer 25]

You make a good point UP.

 

I mostly fly over germany in high powered jets. (Practising in the F100 )

Reaching 30 000 is easy and fast in an F15. Maybe it is the speed that makes it feel small like you said. And germany is pretty damn flat aswell hehe

 

 

As I was reading this thread I was thinking about how flat much of the stock scenery is, and how that can really mess with your perspective, my favourite scenery for this game is "Mountain Thaw" which is repaint of "American North-West" what makes it so great is the mountainous terrain and canyons to.........play in here is a link with some screenshots http://forum.combatace.com/topic/44981-mountain-thaw/page__fromsearch__1

Also Wrench's Southern California gives some much needed depth to the ground terrain.

[TurtleHawk 6]

I added the height field mod to the Germany terrain, and it enhances my sense of perspective regarding altitude and speed, another example would be the American Northwest Terrain.

I'm echoing the comments about flying in the SF2:V map; mountains, valleys give an improved sense of those things, at least for me.

[xclusiv8 35]

So I did what UP said. I tried it with a slow airplane, the C-119. It changed my whole perspective. It really felt like the map was huge. I think there is a word for this phenomenon, speed blindness.

Took some screens: http://forum.combatace.com/topic/33627-screenshot-thread/page__st__6520__p__383397entry383397

[UnknownPilot 33]

 

It's not something I've actually tried myself, so it's good to see the results panned out that way.

 

 

[+elephant 36]

A scale spoiler for the game also is the different level of detail on various ground objects and the terrain texture tiles... the ground looks blury and the objects crisp...

When you fly close to the ground they look like floating on it.

Is there a way to fix this?

How this is not yet adressed in SF2? I mean what's the need for a 1024x1024 mp pilot skin that the game supports, if it can't support larger ground tile texture resolutions...

Am I wrong?

[+Spectre_USA 7]

Rumor has it TK is working on a new terrain system, which I am elated about.

 

I've been grousing about the disparity from sweet looking aircraft/objects to blotchy terrain for years.

 

As to the RoF terrain, it is wunnerful. Would love to scorch some kerosene burners through those skies!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Fubar::

Having flown light aircraft in real life, I can tell you that when flying much below 200 feet, it appears as if one is scraping the ground, and about to trade paint with cars. You don't quite get that perspective in any flight sim I've ever played.

"Looks too slow" is a common complaint about flying low in The Sims. I think one reason is everything that should be around you is instead concentrated inside the monitor way out in front of you.

 

Say you play THE SF with 90 degree field of view, and that is compressed to about 30 degrees in front of you on the monitor. That has to make terrain pass too slow.

 

About the contrails. They were first noticed late in World War 1, and may have been predicted before then (not sure though). Very interesting accounts I'll see if I can find some of them.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Fubar::

"Looks too slow" is a common complaint about flying low in The Sims. I think one reason is everything that should be around you is instead concentrated inside the monitor way out in front of you.

 

Say you play THE SF with 90 degree field of view, and that is compressed to about 30 degrees in front of you on the monitor. That has to make terrain pass too slow.

 

About the contrails. They were first noticed late in World War 1, and may have been predicted before then (not sure though). Very interesting accounts I'll see if I can find some of them.

 

You've clearly misunderstood. I've never once said that it "looks too slow". Reread my comment...I'm implying that the perspective from low altitude is all wrong in EVERY sim I've tried (when compared to real life), due to the lack of depth perception, and scale. At 60-70 knots @ 200 feet MSL (typical final approach in a Cessna 172), one gets the impression that they're floating just above the rooftops, and in danger of hitting tree tops, cars, and trucks.

[jomni 6]

A bit off topic but somewhat related. In most of my SF2 playing time, air combat happens at 10k feet and below. Going from waypoint to waypoint is also quite low (maybe hugging the ground to avoid radar). Is it really that way in real life? Should combat not take place higher say 20-30k feet like in Falcon?

[+Baltika 84]

Does that mean that the entire terrain is compressed? Or just cut short? Or just smaller in terms of distances? What I mean is, would a mountain end up being only 63% as high as it should be (compressed), or would you just not be able to reach certain points on a map that should be within it's borders (cropped/cut short), or would cities, bases, mountains etc just be 63% closer to one another, but with their sizes intact (smaller in terms of distances)?

 

Sorry if it's a stupid question, just something I've wondered about.

 

This issue, and the solution to it, is addressed in Gepard's terrain tutorials in the KB.

 

There are a number of points.

 

The stock TW terrains are 63% (or thereby) of full-scale.

 

When you import terrain DEM data to TE, the default settings will give you terrain which is 63% scale, or thereby, in the x and y axes. You can alter the heightmap data in TE to give 100%, 150%, or whatever you want, of the heightfield. As Gepard explains, and as he has done with his WW2 BoB terrain, Israel2 and others, if you export the heightmap as a .BMP file, and expand it in photoshop, gimp or whatever, then re-import it to TE, you can have a full-scale terrain. Edward has done this with some of his WW2 and WW1 terrains which are still available here at CA.

 

You also have to play with the following values in the terrain editor.ini, depending on the maximum peak height of your chosen terrain, so you don't get chopped-off mountain peaks:-

 

[bitmapExport]

HeightScale=22

 

[bitmapImport]

HeightScale=22

 

 

These are my settings for my recently released Kamchatka terrain.

 

So, you can make full-scale, full heightmap terrains for WoX using TE. My preference is to have an x- y- axis map about 100% of RL, and bump the heightfield up to about 120% of full scale in TE. This gives a nice, large, flyable map with some serious looking mountains.

 

What I think we tend to forget is that most of the world is as flat as a pancake , at least when viewed from any sort of altitude. In a game, things should be exaggerated, because it's more fun.

 

To see what I mean, shameless plug here, check out my Kamchatka terrain

 

Having said all of that, my current guilty pleasure is the Wings of Prey PC demo, because it runs like a dream on my 6+ year old machine, the terrain detail and ground clutter is second to none, and the sense of speed at low altitude is amazing. Those guys just raised the bar, and hopefully we will all see the benefits.

 

I am very excited at TK's recent mention of a new terrain engine for SF2:Tomcat. Terrain will be developed in Gmax and Photoshop, with TE providing only final data (all this on TK's boards) so we can only imagine the possibilities.

 

And personally, I find using the F2 cockpit view makes me feel like I'm really shifting, especially at low altitude

 

Cheers all,

 

Baltika

[Rambler 1-1 9]

Is the 63% terrain compression why we don't need IFR to strike Hanoi from Nha Trang, Phnom Penh and the RTAFBs?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Fubar::

You've clearly misunderstood. I've never once said that it "looks too slow". Reread my comment...

Sorry mate, I was thinking of simmers in general. I lobbed that quote in your direction to fire up the idea that "feels to slow" is how combat flight simmers deal with sense of scale in the only way they know how. Pushing all that 3D stuff that surrounds you onto a small 2D screen way out in front I'm guessing is the problem. Any ideas there?

[+streakeagle 866]

Is the 63% terrain compression why we don't need IFR to strike Hanoi from Nha Trang, Phnom Penh and the RTAFBs?

 

That is certainly one reason why you can fly long range missions without refueling. Another reason is that the drag coefficients are usually too low allowing a much lower throttle setting (and lower fuel consumption) to maintain high subsonic speeds.