Leaderboard

Centurion C-RAM 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

I'll check out the mod, we can put it forth to the team even as an option if everyone things it is worthwhile. Thanks! PS I added a poll on here, if you have tried it, please vote. Thanks.

What is it? This mod aims to address two specific issues with the current implementation of contact dots in DCS: Dot size is always one pixel, which means smaller dots at higher resolutions, and that the lower your resolution, the easier it is to find contacts. Dots are rendered too far. As long as an objects model is not culled, it will get a dot drawn on it. DCS' draw distances can go out to >40 miles, making it possible to see the dots of an aircraft before even your radar can pick it up. This is accomplished by adding these new rules to how dots are rendered: The size of the dot gets bigger with screen resolution, using the reference resolution of 1920x1080. The dot becomes fully opaque at distance of ~6 miles. The dot is completely transparent at a distance of ~18 miles. When between those two extremes, the dot will fade at an exponential rate. Download The mod is available on the DCS user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330454/ How to install Unpack the "Bazar" folder in your DCS World root directory. This will overwrite the "dots.fx" file. By default, this is located in "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World". As of the May 18 2.8.5.40170 openbeta patch, this NO LONGER PASSES IC. FAQ So what does this actually mean? 1. It means that dots are no longer visible from extreme ranges. You won't see planes 20-50 miles away. 2. Playing a high resolution (in this mod, defined as a screen height of >1080) you should have roughly the same "dot acuity" as somebody playing at 1920x1080. This corrects the common practice in DCS of people reducing their resolution to make the dots bigger. Are ground vehicles easier to see? Generally, no. At high resolutions, the dots become rectangles, since half the 2x2 dot is now under the ground. The dot also fades with distance the same as aircraft (the shader can't tell the difference), so you won't be able to spot vehicles from 30 miles like you could before. Why did you pick the ranges you did? Experimentally gathered data, from a paper that is infamous on this forum and won't be named, found that T-38s were spotted around 4-6 miles, depending on conditions. Knowing where the target already is can boost this detection distance by about 5 miles. Based on that information, I tweaked the opacity values and formula such that I was able to consistently find a dot around 4-6 miles, and could find and track distant dots (which are faded to ~50% transparency by this point) at around 10 miles, when I already knew where to look. Are dots completely invisible past 10 miles? Not completely invisible, but they are extremely faint. You'd have to already know they were there to find them, and they are very easy to lose. By about 15 miles they are basically impossible to see. Do I need to turn on labels to use this? No, the dot system in DCS is completely independent of labels. There is some confusion around the label system having a couple "dot" settings, but what those do is draw a label with a little . over the target. Labels are (at present) not obscured by clouds or the cockpit frame. The dots in DCS meanwhile are a completely separate function and do not interact with the label system at all. They are always on, cannot be turned off, and cannot be modified by players without messing with the shader itself as this mod does. To eliminate the chance of confusing labels with the dots, I recommend turning off labels completely when testing this mod. What makes 1080p special? In my experience, the dot size at 1080p resolutions is big enough to be useful, but not so big that it becomes distracting and strange looking. Therefore it was chosen as the reference resolution for which I wanted higher resolutions to have parity with. Does this mod do anything if I already play at 1080p? The only difference you'll notice is that contact dots fade away as they get further. Does this mod work on ultrawide? Yes. The only thing the mod takes into account for sizing the dots is the vertical resolution. Does this mod address the ability to see dots through clouds? No. I did make a brief attempt to see if I could fix that, but it's likely something that Eagle Dynamics will have to fix themselves the correct way. If I zoom into a dot that's far away, does that cause it to fade in? No, the dot opacity is based on a hard distance calculation. FOV has no effect on the opacity of dots. Does this mod address the exploit of raising the FOV to max in order to enlarge dots? It does not. The old impostor mod I made many years ago did this, but I wanted to keep this mod as simple as possible. I might add it in later if there is demand. As with the impostor mod, I'd likely just fade the dots over some field of view. What happens if I play at a resolution under 1080p? Dots will still increase in apparent size at resolutions lower than 1080. Initially I wanted to either try and make the dots "subpixel" by rendering them appropriately smaller at low resolutions, but this isn't feasible without engine changes. I also tried fading the dots proportionally when under the reference resolution, but this created problems with flickering models. The biggest advantage that low resolutions used to give was seeing dots from tens of miles away. Since the dots are now guaranteed to fade with distance, I figured it was best to just let the low resolutions keep their slightly larger dots. Why can I see missiles now? Unfortunately the only information I have to work with in the shader is the object's position. The shader is completely unaware of the model that is under it, so all the logic applies equally to all visible objects, regardless of their size. For objects larger than the average fighter, this works itself out and isn't an issue. However for smaller than average objects such as missiles, this can look a bit strange. Fixing this requires Eagle Dynamics to provide more information to the shader such as an object size. Does this mod pass IC? As of the May 18 2.8.5.40170 openbeta patch, this no longer passes IC. Update v1.1 See the below link for more information.

One of the biggest reasons why we configured Overlord to not be restricted by LOS is because of the state of spotting in DCS.

I'm speechless.

Sorry, but when in a Rift S I can instantly see a fighter at more than 30 miles because there is a big fat dot appearing, something is wrong. Irl spotting a jet at this distance is insanely hard, borderline impossible if you don't know where to look. Meanwhile people at 4K have difficulties spotting anything at more than a few miles. Knowing that ED is satisfied with that is unbelievable to me.

After reading the thread and some more experimentation there's a few comments I want to make. 1. I played a bit more with settings last night and noticed that the mod only works "as intended" when MSAA is enabled. I messed up the math somewhere, making the dots not perfectly pixel aligned. Without MSAA, the dots can flicker or appear smaller than they're intended to. This can probably be fixed easily by someone with a better understanding of the shaders. If I happen to find a solution to this I'll update the mod. 2. Based on feedback from VR users, the mod's effects are less predictable due to the wide amount of variance in VR optics and display technology. For VR, what matters most is the apparent pixel density, i.e. how many "pixels per degree" you get. On common headsets such as the Quest 2, the mod seems to be working as intended. However for more exotic and extremely high resolution headsets such as Varjo Aero, the mod doesn't do much since pixel density is so high that the 2D formula just doesn't work. On the bright side, headsets like this are at the extreme end of the spectrum of support and very much the exception. What this really exposes though, is the inherent limitation of a pixel based solution. I've said this elsewhere, but dots are really not a great solution to making visibility more realistic, especially in isolation. Dots scale best at low resolutions, and can be useful in creating hard and absolute limits to contact spotting. In my opinion, combining dots with some kind of scaling solution is a much better way to go, as you cover both bases. Scaling the visual models (or some simplified LOD) scales much better with higher resolutions and higher fidelity graphics options, since the actual geometry is still there. Dots meanwhile scale better with low resolutions, and combination of the two means the dots will cover lower resolutions, while scaling covers higher resolutions. 3. There's been some discussion on if the ~10 miles spotting distance is too short. Especially enlightening about this conversation is the comment, "I can see the ISS". I've already stated in the OP why I chose the numbers I did, but I want to expand on that rationale. TL;DR: the numbers are based on the distances at which you should be able to consistently spot fighter sized targets. There are absolutely certain circumstances in which it's possible to see small aircraft from extreme distances. The most common example of this is when the sun glints off something on the plane. The human eye is very sensitive to these sorts of "hot spots." It's why you can see illuminated streetlights and traffic lights from much further than you can make out the actual light/lens assembly itself, why you can see stars and planets in the night sky, and why when a plane catches the sun just right, it appears a bright speck of light despite being tens of miles away. There are some older sims which tried to emulate this idea. I'd give more specific examples but AFAIK that's a bannable offense. Regardless, I think it'd be nice to work out a sensible way to make sun glinting work. I did briefly experiment with this, but I couldn't get it working in a way I thought looked nice, and you also have to be careful to make it somehow never apply to ground units, which is difficult because the shader has no knowledge of the object under it.

yes, we working on EFM right now, Su35 will come later after Su30 EFM, then will come Su34, still also collecting more open data to make the more more useful. The most important now is EFM, still there is now ETA since people are working on their free time, we can say it's more then 80% we passed Alpha stage we are on Closed Beta tests. Keep tuned

Yes, of course, we can spend a lot of our time looking for documents with seals for you... But we are talking about things that are completely obvious. I will give you an example from your new logic that you have now patched. Your opponent is 2 f16 aircraft: 1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target) 2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you) That is, from this example, we conclude that the American army specifically made the device in such a way as to specifically misinform the pilot about threats in order to hasten his death? Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are defending just such a logic of the operation of this system in your update, which is in complete confrontation with common sense?

I think this is more of a language issue. When players say "this feature is broken", they usually mean "it feels broken". The feature might not be broken and work just like its programmed to do, but creates an experience so poor for some player they couldnt even tell if its broken or not. Or that it breaks aspects of their gameplay experience, rather than anything technical. Players cant now the technical base or how its supposed to work, but they can get give pretty good impression of how a system "feels". And the label system is soemtimes needed, but feels rather rough a lot of the time. Considering how big of a response this topic always creates, its clearly a big issue to the playerbase, that they would even prefer a simple bandaid to the current system. To then say this needs to be checked for integrity... sure, you got a reason for saying that, since it could be modified for cheating, and unsatisfactory dev priorities arent your fault, but clearly that will feel tone-deaf and frustrating to players who dislike the current spotting system. 100% agreed on that one, thats another major issue. In VR you get a much better impression of where the enemy aircraft is moving in relation to your aircraft. Also way easier to understand the orientation of everything; I could do things intuitively on my first flight in VR, which I needed to train for a long time with flat screens. And thats with VR suffering from bad resolution (because ultra-high FoV).

@NineLine I know, it's a miracle i've found something, i will spend more days searching, but i don't think i will find a 4k resolution video showing that instrument functioning in a combat/exercise arena. And i don't even get paid for that lol So on some thing we need to use the flexible approach. What is the most probable behaviour of that instrument? Let's use some of common sense, all documents, even not exacltly specific (the one on ALE-43, mentions exactly the AN/ALR-56m, so it is specific) speak about ranging, so we can't have an implementation that ignore completely this evidence. All the "vague" evidences says we were closer before the latest patch. And i think a lot of users here think the same. In latest patch the ranging has been removed, this mean that your specific, public, an/alr56m manual says explicitly "the range of scanning radars is not visualized". That's a pragmatic and simple way of see this. And, after all my research is highly unprobable that your manual say that, it would say at least something vague that has been interpreted in a way that leaded the team to remove any type of visualization of the "scanning radar ranging", possibly even unintentionally. But now this is a problem, because, even without a precise evidence, it's obvious from a lot of sources that this is not accurate.

I don't understand that... there are obvious flaws with current ED implementation, and a guy makes a mod which, even if not perfect, improves things a lot, and ED is like "we don't plan to change anything". Just... why? It's minimal development time, and would improve one of the most important aspect of air combat for WW2 and early cold war!

ED, I think what guys are saying here are 100% correct. Just check this image, which means RWR in current version in USELESS! pic: each line represents one moment (f10 map and rwr situation at one point) I was really suspicious about RWR behaviour, specially on Sunday's TACT Persian Gulf mission , I just couldn't get any decent info from RWR, now I know why. Thx guys for all the contribution, I hope ED sees their error. And now I did this simple test of comparison real situation from F10 map, and RWR. And here is the strange result. There is no threat that EVER comes into inner circle. Strange, right? From so close distance that the bandit shots at me. f16_RWR_issue.trk

I’m a professional pilot with well over 10,000 flight hours and I can tell you that IRL it’s damn hard to spot a wide body airliner at 16km. If people are using mods to spot at 60km in DCS then they are basically cheating as far as I’m concerned.

Just did some tests starting with disabling the transparency code and using only the resolution scaling. It's absolutely glorious to have that kind of visibility at higher resolution. I just played a campaign mission and it's crazy how much it adds to the game to actually be able to see where other friendly flights are in your package without having to rely on labels or datalink. Of course you could always do this at low resolutions, but having this kind of spotting with 4k graphics is amazing. Thinking about it a bit more, I do actually like the idea of transparency that scales with distance because it gives the player a sense of how far away objects are. I still think 18 miles is way too short of a distance for aircraft to become completely invisible however, as it's not realistic (doesn't match up with what fighter pilots report), and is going to have far-reaching consequences in non-BVR servers. I think transparency scaling up to 40 miles before becoming completely transparent would be a better ballpark for this. I really hope ED implements some changes to this stuff before they lock down the dots file. Otherwise it's going to feel like a kick in the teeth learning that this whole time we could have had the graphics of 4k with the spotting of 1080p by just editing a file, only to have it disabled after a week or so! Another thing I want to add is that I hope ED realizes how it negatively affects the perception of their game when everyone streaming MP on Twitch is running the game at 1080p or lower. You guys have a beautiful game, let people actually enjoy it without being at a massive disadvantage!

Agreed, amazes me how ED can think dots and spotting are not broken while they completely are, especially on higher resolutions. And what fascinates me, is that these are long lasting problems which would require a pretty easy temporary fix while waiting for a definitive solution (like the bomb splash damage) or even better, have already been patched up by the community. I'd rather have slightly too easy spotting, than the situation we face now where you can literally lose track of an object in front of you just because it has passed through your canopy frame for a second (problem is particullary bad in the Mig-21 and F-14 for example) or because you glanced at your instruments. And I don't buy the "spotting is hard IRL" thing, since living near an airport makes it pretty clear to me how "hard" spotting but more notabily tracking airplanes is.

Spotting is the most persistent issue with WWII or Cold War modules in DCS. Don't have much to add other than of the few folks I fly with regularly, spotting is commonly brought up as a sore spot in the experience. ED, please nail the flying experience, which includes innovating systems for aircraft spotting. The current system doesn't reflect the attention to detail that exists in other fundamentals of the sim.

Hope this starts a drive for ED to look at smart scaling?

We have an internal fix. Undergoing testing right now.

Normal humans interpretation: oh literally hours away. DCS: two weeks...

Lethality is a mix of things. Something out of range is not lethal, regardless of lock or not. USAF and F16 operators knows this because you know the range of the weapons a certain threat uses. The same we can say on this sim. An/Alr56m is programmable by crew operators, so it's safe to say you can also adjust the span of intensities associated to the range positions, a specific type of threat, have on the display. How do i know? It's mentioned in the public brochure on Baesystems official site. (I don't think i have to pm that) Anyway i also found a document which confirm an/alr56m is unclassified. So i don't think ED have to be so strict on some evidence interpretation. But i don't know, by the way i appreciated the Nineline explanation, many people maybe doesn't know the weight of some matters. Anyway, responding to Nineline, in this specific case i think there is nothing complicated, what the community here is asking is not a change with something new, maybe classified or maybe you cannot keep in this simulator or because some player asked without a precise evidence. The community is just asking to roll back on something you have sell for years and you still have in the stable release, because we're all convinced that the previous implementation was more correct from all the evidences we can find. And probably this convintion is the same ED had for YEARS since F-15 has been modeled, and then the F-16C, someone found wags video, someone ED manuals, you still have F-15C another USAF rwr in the sim which act in that way(so if it's a legal problem it would persist). I don't want to go offtopic but think about hotter topics like ECM or IFF. We all know that we are not getting those systems simulated high fidelity because of classified info and so on, but the sim has a simplified version of them. So given it's an instrument hard to see in function clearly, is being strict on interpretation of "we dont know which manual" the best approach? No. And this was your answer, you confirmed this with all the patches before this, for years. In fact we had for years an instrument which nobody complained about(specifically to this topic) because in-line with many, you can call "vague", info and evidence you can freely find.

Great summary and this thread should tell ED to put some more effort into fixing well-known and undesirable issues in the core engine (*** insert long list here, including spotting ***) I am an avid DCS player and have a lot of aircraft, maps and campaigns. And according to my wife, I spend far to much time and money on DCS . But I (mostly) love it! In my humble opinion, too much time is spent on eye candy and more should be diverted to make the overall game experience better. I think the engagement seen in this thread support that impression. When I made a serious and neutral post to bring this topic up some time back, my whole post was deleted without warning or notice… Please ED, divert some more attention to fixing the well know core issues (including spotting) and you will get an even larger crowd of fans and loyal couch pilots

SSAA has been discontinued!

If we cannot say it is broken, can we say it works very poorly Resolution shouldn't give you an advantage

We are simulating an F16. So why aren't we simulating the pilot? Real F16 pilots need to be able to maintain a 15 second 9g turn in the centrifuge without help of the G-suit. So why does the DCS virtual pilot start blacking out after a few second of 8g? (while wearing a virtual g suit) Dont tell me its sudden onset of G's. In the centrifuge it goes from 1 to 9 in less than a second.

This is a very old image, but the dot system hasn't changed since I took this screenshot. I think that's bad.

This is a very frustrating response to something that is clearly broken. There is no reason spotting dots should outperform radar, and there is no reason for spotting to be easier or harder depending on your screen resolution.

Newy, wrong file. This is dots.fx. Can ED at least improve the dots before removing our ability to alter them? Maybe implement the mod as a permanent change so that playing at a higher resolution isn't a negative?

with the aid of @2IAE-CrashBG (Who provided his redone normals, template and the underside) I've compleltely redone the Syrian Air Force livery with custom roughmets, weathering and normals. the result is an almost 1:1 recreation with the real life livery in excruciating detail. below are some images showcasing the livery: https://imgur.com/ktiOCtT Compared to IRL references: Download link will be up shortly

Well, it all depends, are they teasing us because the map releases tomorrow, then teasing is fun, are they teasing us this much, but the map is still two weeks away, then it's annoying.

This script can RANDOMLY generate CAS missions in a specific zone. "Random" means the location is randomly chosen, the 9-line is randomly generated and the target is also random.(However in finite choices actually...but you can customize it.) There is a demo mission with radio voice generated by AI in the attachment below. You can use those sound files in your own missions freely with the script(change 'miz' to 'zip' if you don't know how to see things inside a miz file). When you use the script in your own mission, you'll need to create zones and groups like what I did in the demo mission...So it's very important to check out the demo mission first if you want to customize the script. All of the interactions are through the F10 radio menu. You need to enter the mission zone first, and then use radio menu to get yourself assigned with a mission. Then follow the 9-line briefing, report IP inbound. After you have been cleared hot, kill the target and request BDA. The JTAC will tell you if the mission has been accomplished. If you want to try it in an online server, you can go to 36.150.108.238:10320. But the radio commands are in Chinese. Below are some screenshots (the 9-line is telling you that the target is marked by laser and red smoke, this is also randomly generated) null null null null null CAS-demo.miz InfiniteCAS_Release_v1.0.lua

Definite improvement. It's hard to quantify. I'm going to spend a few more days playing with it, but so far I'm quite impressed. Well done @Why485, it's a great little mod.

Agree with all of this. The recent changes to the AN/ALR-56M are a massive mistake. The one good thing about the ED F-16 vs the F/A-18 was that the RWR was somewhat better modeled. The very fact that your initial implementation was based on signal strength and range was clearly based on documentation you must have had (maybe......you've still got it)..... The -56M was clearly not just a port over of the Hornet RWR. You went out of your way to model it (correctly) in 2019.... Now this had changed. Why? What has changed in the reference documentation? The ALR-56M is now modeled as a incredibly simplistic RWR that only differentiates between presence / lock / firing. It's supposed to be more advanced (Wild Weasel CJ/CM remember). This is clearly not how it should behave. ED knows this (or did, why did they model it correctly in 2019?). 'Other sims' know this for about the last 22 odd years as well. To me this is a cynical butt-covering exercise that has nothing to do with simulation accuracy. It's by ED's own admission about reducing exposure to possible legal concerns. We all understand security concerns but please just be honest and upfront and give that as the reason for the change. That would be preferable over the frustrating butting of heads over the interpreting or mis-interpreting of reference manuals. You've just seriously handicapped a core F-16 sensor/system and we're all adult enough to deserve to know why..... This really highlights the folly of trying to model the more modern aircraft without really thorough research first. Hard to acquire reference material, and its interpretation has been a serious frustration throughout the DCS Viper's life and is now really spoiling the quality of the simulation.

How can it not be worthwhile? Spotting is absolutely broken...

@BIGNEWY There is nothing about @Mr. Wilson case: 1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target) 2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you)

VERSION 7.2.0 You can now download version 7.2.0 in the Original Post! Celebrating 20,000 downloads! Thank you so much for all the love I received through different channels through the years. It means a lot. As of today, the mission, in its different versions, have been downloaded 22,218 times. I would never have thought that the interest in landing pixel planes on pixel boats in the most difficult of ways while getting nitpick feedback from a script would be this popular. But you guys proved me wrong. Pattern Mode As you know, Pattern Mode was broken in the last version. This is now fixed and available through the comms menu. Pattern Mode enables you to skip the break, and instead turn directly into the downwind after the cat launch, much like how CQ is performed IRL. This is a good way to get quick reps, especially if flown with hook up. <profanity> Hot Breaks I have been quite ambivalent regarding adding this feature. The whole point of the mission has always been to help people flying safe, consistent passes. Experimenting with SHBs sort of distracts from that. However, I got this feeling that "now is the time". While <profanity> Hot Breaks look really cool, they also serve a purpose. Coming in as a division (4 aircraft) actually requires the lead to break over the ship, in order to not have #4 break 4 nm or more past the ship, while respecting proper break intervals. So it makes sense to practice this. However, I also think it makes sense to start with the ordinary breaks, and do at least a hundred or so of those before even looking at SHBs. To initiate a SHB, all you need to do is to break really early. The script will identify the maneuver, and give you automatic perfect score on all the first parts (regardless of how you pull off the break). Then it will start the normal tracking as you pass over the wake. If you extend the downwind during a SHB you will get a -20 penalty (compared to -10 during normal breaks). The SHB support can be seen as an experimental feature. The scoring isn't necessarily perfectly fair, and should probably not really be compared to ordinary breaks. Speed and Wind I have always had the wind at zero. The reason is that I wanted the boat to have correct wind over deck even as it turns around and steams south. The cost of this has been small crosswind that is generated by the angled deck. For this version, I changed it so that there is a light wind, and the carrier steams a little slower. This will reduce the sidewind. As the boat turns south, it will not longer be perfect. I figured that 99% of the users mainly run this in SP and air start anyway, so that it's worth it. If you're running the mission on a 24/7 server, it might make sense to set the wind back to zero and the boat speed to ~25 again. Just go ahead and change it in the ME if you prefer that. Have a nice spring everybody! //Bankler CHANGE LOG 7.2.0 * Fixed Pattern Mode. * Implemented support for <profanity> Hot Break. * Carrier is now slightly slower on its north leg, and there is a little natural wind. * Added minor turbulence. * Added ice halo. * Increased number of flares in Hornets from 30 to 60. Enjoy!

Applies a gain adjustment to the auto throttle computer. It takes more throttle to produce the same amount of thrust on hot days, less throttle for the same thrust on cold days.

Thank you Avimimus for your interest in this aircraft! Yes bombs could by released on second pass. To MBD and KMGU,you are right and as far as I remember it is the same system as on the Su-25. And yes interval can be adjusted. If i have more time, I will try to explain a little how it should work properly. And guys big thank you for your comment, follow and interest!!!

I use a 4k flat screen wiv Trk IR. I like the sharper realism of this resolution. This spotting distance disparity for those of us who like to play at high resolution has been a bug bear for years. There is no doubt that lower than 1440 res players have an unfair advantage in air to air against us high res peeps. While this mod should be applauded for trying to address the issue, it isn't mandatory to use it. Let's face it, why would lower res players give away a "legitimate" advantage? I'd like to see the reverse of this mod being implemented as part of the game core, so it can't be avoided, i.e. make a 4k dot 4x the pixels, 2k dot 2x pixels, etc... My question to ED is this - what are you going to do to address the advantage disparity in a way that is fair to all?

Here's my experience with this mod in VR with a Valve Index at full resolution with no anti-aliasing. Setup I have a mission set up with co-alt F-5s at 0.25nm, 0.5nm, 1nm, 2nm, 4nm, 8nm, 16nm, 24nm, and 32nm. They're offset by a small angle at each distance to give visual separation. Please see the attached mission. I start the mission and close the briefing by clicking the X at the top right, instead of clicking Fly, to keep the game paused while I look around. Observations Without the mod and without any zoom, the 0.25 and 0.5nm contacts are clearly visible models. The 1nm contact is a very flickery model/dot. Contacts at 2, 4, 8, and 16nm are faint dots. I cannot see the 24nm contact or any beyond it without zoom. With VR Zoom, the 1nm contact becomes a clearer model, and the 2nm contact becomes a flickery model/dot. The 24nm contact becomes a faint dot. With VR Spyglass Zoom, the 4nm contact becomes a flickery model/dot. The 32nm contact becomes a faint dot. With the mod without any zoom, the first 0.25 and 0.5nm contacts are clearly visible models. The 1nm contact is a very flickery model/dot. So far no change from without the mod out to 1nm. Contacts at 2 and 4nm are clearly visible dots, more clearly than without the mod. The contact at 8nm is a fainter dot. With VR Zoom, the 1nm contact becomes a clearer model, and the 2nm contact becomes a flickery model/dot. With VR Spyglass Zoom, the 4nm contact becomes a flickery model/dot. The 8nm contact remains a faint-ish dot at all zoom levels. Conclusion Overall, I like the mod. However, I would much prefer dynamic scaling to smooth the transition between dot (or scaled-up model) and model. DCS's dot to model transition point makes spotting very challenging as the model blinks in and out of existence, and this mod does nothing to address this existing DCS behavior. That said, this mod is a step in the right direction. spotting-test2.miz

Iskander SSM 1.1.1 released! Changelog Version 1.1.1 Fixed 9M723 collision model against projectiles Fixed 9M729 collision model against projectiles Bastion-P LBASM 1.2.1 released! Changelog Version 1.2.1 Fixed 3M55M collision model against projectiles Fixed K340P model disappearing in certain angles Fixed Monolit-B model disappearing in certain angles Fixed Monolit-B model missing rotating plate between radar and radar mount Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov Frigate 1.4.1 released! Changelog Version 1.4.1 Fixed 3M14T collision model against projectiles Fixed 3M54T collision model against projectiles Fixed 3M55M collision model against projectiles Project 22800 Karakurt Corvette 1.4.2 released! Changelog Version 1.4.2 Fixed 3M14T collision model against projectiles Fixed 3M54T collision model against projectiles Type 052D Destroyer 1.2.1 released! Changelog Version 1.2.1 Fixed YJ-18 collision model against projectiles Fixed CJ-10 collision model against projectiles Type 055 Destroyer 1.3.1 released! Changelog Version 1.3.1 Fixed YJ-21 collision model against projectiles Fixed YJ-18 collision model against projectiles Fixed CJ-10 collision model against projectiles Type 45 Destroyer 1.2.1 released! Changelog Version 1.2.1 Fixed NSM collision model against projectiles BTR-4 IFV 1.2.1 released! Changelog Version 1.2.1 Fixed RK-2 Barrier collision model against projectiles Arleigh Burke Flight III / Ticonderoga CMP 2.2.1 released! Changelog Version 2.2.1 Fixed SM-6 AShM collision model against projectiles M142 HIMARS 1.3.1 released! Changelog Version 1.3.1 Fixed ATACMS collision model against projectiles Fixed PrSM collision model against projectiles Fixed PrSM AShM collision model against projectiles NASAMS 3 SAM 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version And by the way, I updated the site. Removed everything unnecessary and put the release log right in the center.

I humbly ask that you really press this issue home with the team and make sure that they understand this is going to be another PR stick in the eye if you simply lock a change like this behind IC without doing something to address the underlying issue its trying to fix. Taking some time to examine this mod in detail and potentially including it as a temporary improvement over the current single pixel system would go a long way towards making the community feel heard when they bring up issues that are low cost to fix and implement but they go unacknowledged by the team at ED.

I don't think spotting is fine until we can get resolution parity. It cannot be intended that the optimal way to spot targets at a distance is to reduce your resolution below native. This mod has shown that we CAN get resolution parity, and I think it's worth acknowledging that maybe at least that aspect of this mod should be the default behavior. It seems like a clear improvement to spotting; even if the team says spotting isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.

It's pretty hilarious that this doesn't break IC... but I am also glad it doesn't so that the community can fix what ED has been seemingly ignoring.

This is just SCANDAL that for all those years our beloved dev team done...not enough in this most important matter for combat sim!!! In real life spotting is dependent on light, weather (humidity and clouds) and distance. In DCS on...dots :(. For WW2 spotting is EVERYTING. Come on ED... Please.