posted 05-14- 01:54 PM               

Any replies would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Werner

posted 05-14- 02:30 PM               

Yeah i Seen that too, Its on either the 109g or 109k not sure which.

posted 05-14- 02:33 PM               

We generate a visual frame, the prop is moved (multiple times since we generate more non-visual game frames than we do visual frames) and later we generate another visual frame. Depending on the speed the game is running, whether or not your video card is synced to the video refresh rate, etc. The prop may appear to be in the same position.

posted 05-17- 12:06 AM               

Werner

posted 05-17- 09:03 AM               

The props blur is harmanized by the prop HP & RPM ...

On a few of the 109s the combination of the two is such that at max throttle, the blur freezes/stops occilating.

posted 05-17- 09:32 AM               

It just happens by chance. The new SE5a prop appears to go very fast since I efected the result RPM. I don't think this is a bad thing. Sometimes when you see a real aircraft prop it appears to stand still, or move very slowly.

What causes this? Is it the eye/brain refresh rate? In film/TV this happens because of frame rate just like in SDOE.

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 05-17- 11:04 AM               

Brain refresh rate. HAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA

LOL

heheh

THAT cracked me.

I think I'm going to bump mine up a bit.

Maybe I'll get in there and play with the jumpers. Maybe slap on a huge case fan and raise the bus speed a bit.

While I'm at it I might get a new hard drive and some extra ram.

LOL

posted 05-17- 12:25 PM               

TS

------------------
Patch It!

TS Aircombat

posted 05-17- 12:55 PM               

You can not usually see the prop blur, but when the prop is shut off you can see what looks like this effect we are speaking of. It appears for a second that the prop twists backwards, then forward again. I think if it is slow enough that it is not 100% blurred but is stall hard to keep up with, then your mind gets tricked for a second as to what direction the object is spinning. But this may be for a whole different reason than "brain frame rate"

I think it can be hard at times because we see so many things ONLY on film! How many times have you seen a prop starting on a film? Now how many times in real life? Not fair if you are a pilot! It is funny how we perceive the world, and life imitates art! Look at all those lens glares added to sims! They make the sim feel real, because we see the inside of a fighter more on TV than real life!

posted 05-17- 01:05 PM               

You can see the same 'spinning in reverse' effect if you look at wheel rims when you're driving beside someone on the highway.

I took a film class and was told it's possible to have lense flare with your eyeballs but the flare is round like the human iris not angled like a camera iris. I've never seen it. It can also be a side effect of that laser surgery to correct your vision. Am I ever getting off topic I better stop now

TS

posted 05-17- 11:05 PM               

Zur- is there any way to throw one of the 'historically accurate' variables such that the planes' FMs aren't messed up but the prop haze still moves? My contention is that if planes like the 109 have prop haze then at least the haze should move, because when it's static it's easy to see the pixels and then the realism factor (imo) gets flushed.

Thanks,

Werner

posted 05-18- 01:45 AM               

This is one that pachy did that has the fixed spinner mapping and prop blur on the side facing away from the pilot, I still don't have one with prop blur facing both ways if someone sends me one I can add it to the .zip

TS

------------------
Patch It!

TS Aircombat

posted 05-18- 09:21 AM               

I'm currently re-vamping the 109s for the next planepack, In doing so, I've made some changes that would/will stop the blurs from going "static"

posted 05-18- 12:37 PM            

The reason everybody wants 60 fps is that's about the limit your brain can resolve changes over time. Hence a faster frame rate than 60 doesn't add much because your brain just averages the two pictures into one. In a television if frame rate (refresh rate) is less than 60 you get flickering images (like a strobe effect).

posted 05-18- 02:58 PM               

Spin - Hehe, I'm sitting in a room with my physics teacher and we just finished having a chat about electricity and magnetism (coincidentally) and it turns out 60 "fps" (Hertz in this context)is the frequency at which electricity is generated and distributed, throughout North America if not the world. Take for example fluorescent lightbulbs. If electricity had a frequency of greater than 60 or less than 60 (beyond a reasonable margin of course) the bulb would appear to flicker. See according to the equation c=(lambda)f where c is the speed of light (constant) lambda is the wavelength and f is frequency, as you change frequency you change wavelength, so for electromagnetic radiation (EMR) to appear as visible light the wavelengths must be between 400 and 700 nanometers, so the frequency must be (c)/(400nm) and (c)/(700nm) in order for it to appear as visible light.

In short, yes, the eyeball's fixed framerate is approx. 60 fps.

Now I know why I'm taking physics.

Werner

posted 05-18- 03:23 PM               

For example, film runs at 24 fps and that's acceptable to the vast majority of people. But when people are shown movies shot at 70 fps or more the most consistent comment is that it looks more realistic. In fact, it looks so realistic that the brain gets confused an the incidence of vertigo skyrockets.

As another example, about 10 years ago most computer monitors used to run at 55-60 Hz. Then a study in Sweden showed that at 60 Hz a fairly high percentage of people could detect flicker and it caused fatigue and eye strain. That's why all card/monitor systems run at least 72 Hz these days.

OTOH, while 72 Hz is high enough to eliminate flicker, people can still discern a difference between games running at 75 fps on up to 120 fps (the max of the one test I read about.)

So there's a wide range of values here depending on exactly what you're talking about. There's the minimum refresh rate at which flicker is discernable, which is very different from the maximum frame rate that's discernable, and both of which can vary significantly depending on the medium.

What does this have to do with seeing flicker in airplane props or wheel spokes? My experience has been that outside of film and TV, if you see the blades/spokes it's because something else is strobing them. Like, you're driving over a bridge and the sun is getting blocked regularly. Or, you can see past the wheel and you're catching sight of something behind it, like the spokes of another wheel, which alternately blocks or shows light. Or one more possibility, the wheel is getting bounced or vibrated at a frequency that matches how fast the spokes are moving which makes them appear to sit still for an instant.

posted 05-18- 06:27 PM               

re: monitor flicker, the reason some screens flicker at lower scan rates has to do with how long the phospors light up after they have been scanned. In the olde days I tried a "high persistence" monitor where the phospors would stay lit much longer than a normal screen. You could run at 30fps scan rate and the picture would look rock solid (it would scan odd and even number lines on each consecutive scan to achieve higher resolutions). The same signal running to a normal monitor would flicker like crazy.

posted 05-18- 11:05 PM               

Werner

posted 05-19- 12:34 AM            

Interesting stuff Mighty.

I didn't mean to suggest 60 Hz as a fixed "brain" frame rate. Where I was heading is that you take inputs over time and distance and average them. It's that averaging that allows flip books to generate a reasonable moving picture. Television works because it can fool the eye into thinking it's always on when in fact only a small portion of the screen is excited at a time. If you've ever taken a picture of a TV screen you'll usually get a band of the screen's image.

Like TS said long persistance phosphors can work at lower framerates but generally aren't good for video speed - the image gets blurred.

posted 05-19- 10:37 AM               

Mighty, your notion of the "light-blocking" just may be it as far as what I see on car wheels sometimes.

As far as film, doesn't higher frame rate mean less blur in action shots? If so, this could help explain the "it looks more realistic" observation. On the computer we never have blur though... this must make a big difference in the way the two mediums are perceived. Isn't that way TV interlaces? To create a sort of motion blur? This smooths out action at 30 FPS. Isn't it 60 if you count interlacing? Or is it 15 fps for every other row?

posted 05-19- 02:25 PM               

And actually, you can simulate blur on computers. I know some programs implement it, and I believe some cards accelerate it. But the couple I've seen so far look horrible.

US TV is 60 fields per second, aka 30 frames per second. The interlacing helps fool the brain because the lines are small enough that the eye has a very difficult time discerning them individually, depending on what's being shown. So for your usual TV show, the fact that a person moving across the screen actually has half his lines moving each field is all run together by the eye and it looks pretty good.

OTOH, if you see computer text on an interlaced display the flicker as every other line is lit and fades becomes very apparent. For images of natural scenes, interlacing is a reasonable tradeoff. With text, interlacing is terribly annoying, unless the text is very large compared to the video lines.

There's persistence of vision, persistence of the phosphers, how long a film frame is lit vs how much darkness between frames, how the eye detects motion and passes that on to the brain. Lots of factors figure into this.