some tests regarding aircraft drawing distances

[+mue 715]

Lately I read in the forums some complaints about the too short drawing distance of aircraft in sf2 and how it is not moddable.
So I decided to make some tests.
My test setup:
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1080
Game graphic settings: unlimited (horizon setting: very far)
Strike Fighters 2: Vietnam  (Jul 2013)

I used two different aircraft: B-52D and  MiG-17. I made the tests with three different zoom levels: gunsight view (fov = 30°), normal cockpit view (fov = 60°) and wide cockpit view (fov = 90°). Further, I varied the LOD005 Distance settings in the <aircraft>.ini .


In the following tables you can see the distances at which I could spot the aircraft:

aircraft: B-52D
                      fov:   30°       60°      90°
LOD005 Distance:
24000 (stock)                6.7nm     6.7nm    5.3nm
30000                        6.7nm     6.7nm    6.7nm

aircraft: MiG-17
                      fov:   30°       60°      90°
LOD005 Distance:
10000 (stock)                6.7nm     3.8nm    2.2nm
20000                        6.7nm     6.7nm    4.4nm
30000                        6.7nm     6.7nm    5.1nm


I came to the following conclusions:

1.) The maximum drawing distance is locked at 6.7 nm. And this can't be exceeded by increasing the LOD Distance settings. (Ok, that's nothing new. It was already described here: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB3w/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8850 )

2.) With stock LOD Distance settings the drawing distances for fighter aircraft in normal and wide cockpit views are very short. But you can increase the drawing distances in normal and wide cockpit views up to the 6.7 nm limit by increasing the LOD Distance settings.
Of course, you will not see the aircraft unless it has the projected size of at least one pixel. Because of that I saw the MiG-17 (with fov = 90°) at 5.1nm and not 6.7nm.
(Mathematical backing: An object that appears on the screen as a single pixel has the distance = (object size * (screen resolution width / 2.0)) / tan(fov / 2.0)
With object size = 10 meter (MiG-17 wing span and length), fov = 90°, resolution width = 1920, the distance is 9600 meter = 5.2nm. That matches my observation.)

Overall, apart from the 6.7nm limit, it seems the rendering is not that unrealistic.

[Fubar512 1,350]

This has been discussed many times over the past decade, and I am done with providing images to prove it. The limitation is pixel size, and the actual limit is the point at which you can render one pixel.  Also, if you zoom in from the cockpit, you can see (or at least used to see) a bomber rendered out to 17-18 nm, and a fighter at least half that distance.

[+mue 715]

This has been discussed many times over the past decade, and I am done with providing images to prove it. The limitation is pixel size, and the actual limit is the point at which you can render one pixel.  Also, if you zoom in from the cockpit, you can see (or at least used to see) a bomber rendered out to 17-18 nm, and a fighter at least half that distance.

I tested the patch level Jul 2013 and I definitely notice the limit at 6.7 nm. Probably you remember older patch levels without this limit?

[+Dave 2,322]

Because of the draw distance issues I use a modified huddata.ini that uses a dot instead of a square. Setting your visual targeting in the settings to NORMAL with the modified huddata.ini strikes a good balance of what I need to correct these issues. I attached my huddate.ini from my flight folder in case you wish to try it mue. 

 

 

 

So to piggyback on what Fubar said, we have been messing with this for years and never got something definitive. 

[+streakeagle 867]

Pixel size has not been the only limit since the terrain fade-in was added. B-52s do no appear until they are quite large. This problem affects medium and larger aircraft. Only smaller aircraft render at the correct 1-pixel distances since this falls within the new artificial limit.

[stingray77 4]

On his discussion board TK answered that he will not change this, as "it would most probably break a lot of mods"... Unless a crowd would ask him to nevertheless do so (and then this would take time, I read between the lines).......

Edited April 23, 2014 by stingray77

[+streakeagle 867]

His main argument is number of objects being drawn. He should have left it moddable/optional, then those with lower performance could use stock distance and those with higher performance could have the old "1-pixel range".

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Streak I agree and that's one of the reasons I'm staying with SF-1, but They will give TK  a hard time anyways. Look at any game forum, shucks I complained at ubi when I first played FB with Trident integrated chipset, lol. When I got my first real gaming card, ATI 9200, I learned my lesson hard.

[+streakeagle 867]

SF2 still allowed the 1-pixel distance until somewhere around one of the expansion packs when the new ground-object fade-in feature was introduced. Aside from the loss of multiplayer, the view distance limits, some previously open files being hidden/locked, and cloud altitude being limited... SF2 is way too much better for me to go back to SFP1. RWR/ECM, dogfight AI, SF2NA naval features, etc. make the game way better. I was never happy with the preferred 083006 patch level that dominated for so long until WoI was released. WoI with Expansion Pack 1 almost gives you the best of both worlds, but it had several bugs that TK never patched. It was also a lot of work to port over SFP1/WoV/WoE/SF2 content into WoI Exp Pk 1.