Buzz313th

I have done a few tests with the new sharpening slider in game and it has no effect on dot size, but does increase global scene contrast on all the textures as you turn up the sharpening and it makes the dot easier to spot. My baseline setting for VR is a sharpening of 0.6 which is an added 60% from default values. This is obviously contributing to my opinion that the dot has too much contrast against the background.

Good point. I have been playing around with different settings to see what kind of changes occur and I'm not seeing any huge differences in VR. The dot relatively remains much larger and much more obvious in the Q3 than the flat screen at comparable resolutions. I thought adding AA in VR would help blend the dot into the background better, but it really doesn't make a huge difference. Dropping Q3 resolution doesn't change the relative dot size, just makes it fuzzy. Increasing Q3 resolution makes the dot sharper and still doesn't change the size. Haven't tried scaling yet. I'm going to guess here that ED is applying a multiplier to the dot size in VR to potentially help people who in 2.8 were having problems seeing the spotting dot in VR on different headsets. If the goal is to adopt a gold standard, I think it should be established first on a 2d screen and then once it gets close, then they can adapt that to VR. Trying to make it work for both situations at the same time this early in the effort to get it right will just muddy the waters at this point.

I'm not 100% sure TBH as I don't know enough about the rendering mechanics of VR. With that being said though, It looks to me that there is something going on with the rendering of VR that is making the spotting dot bigger in VR than one single pixel. But it is true, that when in VR, the players POV is physically much closer to the raster than when sitting feet away from a flat screen in 2d. This would make pixels look bigger. But like I said, it feels like the dot in VR is bigger than one pixel, at least on my quest 3 at ~4700x2528. And to add to this, in 2.8, the dot was much smaller in VR than it is now in 2.9, so it kinda backs up my assumption that in 2.9, the dot is bigger than a single pixel in VR.

I will continue to back up my opinion that the "Some" of the dissimilar views about this topic are 100% due to the rendering differences between a flat screen and a VR HMD. As I stated before, I use both methods. On my 1440 52" flatscreen the unlabeled spotting dot is one pixel. I still believe it is too dark and has too much contrast and is too easy to spot. But, it is miles better than what I see in my VR HMD which is a relatively very large black square that is hard too miss even if you are trying to ignore it. The fact that different users are seeing different things is the first issue that needs to be resolved before we can have an intelligent and productive conversation on the topic.

It might be that spot dots are there for any mission object. And I assume gates are just another object? I do know that the dots are there for all static and ground vehicles. I also noticed that the dots appear at different ranges for different objects.

Well I ask because I do not run any AA while in VR. I do this to get more clarity since I'm running a raster of 4k x 2256 and with AA, things in the distance feel a bit too fuzzy. Plus, with AA I would almost completely lose sight of aircraft that render in from the dot to the model as they get closer. Edit.. Just did a test in VR with the new DLSS AA. It looks good and I did not lose sight of an approaching aircraft in a head on aspect during the transition from dot to render. But, it takes a bit of performance away and the difference is minimal. Where I don't want to give up if I use AA is the clarity of the MFD without AA on. Cheers

Good post.. What happens if you just turn off all Anti Aliasing and super sampling/scaling and just go 1 to 1 render resolution to device. Does that uncomplicate things a little? Do you get a sharp pixel at max range?

I'm impressed you figured that all out... Kudos.. But at head on, the aircraft, your F16 example might be rendered at 1.5 pixels wide due to the wingspan, the height would be a fraction of a pixel at the fuselage and much smaller for the wing height. How do you represent that when all you can render is one pixel, or two pixels? If you use one pixel, then the aircraft is more spottable because the dimensions are square 1x1 pixel, versus 1.5 x 0.2 pixels. There is more surface area to the players POV. Its a complex problem to solve especially with so many user variables. The best solution IMHO is to er on the side of being "Fair" instead of ultra realistic. Use one pixel at max visible distance under perfect conditions. Then use color contrast to make the pixel scale in user visibility based on all the other variables discussed. Regarding color contrast, I wonder if scaling the spot dot transparency would work, or if it would look weird.

14 miles near the horizon, no way. Against a clear and crisp blue sky, no contrails, no engine smoke at least 40 degrees above the horizon, maybe. But once you stop staring at them, you will lose em. Above ~15 miles in perfect conditions it needs to be a large aircraft to be consistently spotted and then it's easy to lose sight. Against the ground, never. Looking horizontally anywhere below ~FL18 and your looking through lots of atmospheric haze, this causes a condition of low contrast. One last thing.. Optimal atmospheric conditions for maximum visibility doesn't happen often. In certain parts of the globe and during certain seasons, more often and in others it's rare. So for the most part, don't use maximum visibility distance in optimal conditions as the status quo for an example to follow.

The problem is this... IRL at rough maximum spotting distance in optimum atmospheric and lighting conditions, lets say a small fighter at ~8-10 miles. The size of the object you would see is relatively smaller than one pixel on a device running a native resolution of 1440 and maybe roughly the correct size of one pixel on a 4k screen. But then you have the variable distance that players sit from their monitors. VR poses another problem.. You may be using a per eye resolution of 2k x 2k, but you are also looking at a much smaller portion of the total raster so you are in essence much closer to the screen than a 2d player so your POV is to see larger pixels. The best ED can do with the size, is to draw one pixel at what they believe is their best maximum distance for a particular size object in particular atmospheric and lighting conditions. But, where I believe the most progress can be made to getting a realistic representation of distant object visibility is by putting more work in to the color contrast that these single pixels represent when seen by the player against a particular background, at a particular altitude, in particular atmospheric and lighting conditions. At greater distances color contrast would be less, then increase as distance decreases. This same method can also be used to represent greater visibility during more optimal atmospheric and or lighting conditions.

True, but different developers might have different opinions on the projected profit of a particular project. Example.. I believe a High Fidelity 15C would sell like hotcakes. Others may disagree with me. If one developer decides not to take it on, then another may take the opportunity. Lets face it.. The F15C is a classic jet. It's also nearing the end of it's life as a frontline asset. This "should" make it easier to get legitimate documentation on it. The F4 is a classic jet, in the top 5 IMHO of classic jets. The 15C will arguably be right next to the F4 in that classic jet category at some point. The plane and it's fans deserve a timeless rendition of it's soul and character. I'm a buyer.

Not at all. I mean, the spotting dot's should be at a focal distance of infinity with the rest of the background in VR and it feels that way. Best example you could use to check this would be to have a friend take off from an airport at "Spotting dot distance" and if the airport and spotting dot feel like they are at the same distance and at infinity, then we are good. BTW, I'm on a Quest 3 for hardware comparison and a Sony 52" TV for flat screen.

Seems to me that this is simply a VR vs Flat screen issue. I run the sim both in VR and on a 1440 flat screen. IMHO, In VR, the spotting dots are too large, have too much contrast with the background and when the object gets close enough that the model renders, object visibility drops significantly as relative size drops and contrast drops. On a 1440 flat screen, I have too search for the spotting dots, will sometimes lose sight and have to visibly search again. I do believe the contrast is too high. When I get close enough to the object, the transition between the spot dot and model/textures is less apparent. My humble opinion on realistic aircraft recognition.. Highly dependent on environmental and lighting conditions. I have spotted small GA planes from a traffic advisory out to ~ 5-7 miles with 20 miles vis, and sometimes couldn't see them within 1 mile in the same visibility but different lighting conditions. Large aircraft on a crisp clear day, ~20 miles without a reflection hit, 30-50 with a reflection hit. With Trails, whatever current visibility is. Looking for a small aircraft below and against a city, good luck. Looking high against a blue sky, you can see everything. Spotting aircraft at night with Pos and AntiCol lights on, forever, just form lights, within a mile. For DCS to nail this variability and then make it right for flat screen AND VR users would be pretty impressive. I would expect a FF F15C before we get 90% realistic and accurate visibility model for spotting distant objects. Spotting a small GA aircraft beyond 3-4 miles close to the relative horizon (Where it gets neutral) is not easy and if you take your eyes off of them, then it's just as hard to find them again. Spotting a medium size fighter in average lighting and contrast conditions with appropriate camo on an average skyscape is just as hard if not harder as finding that small GA aircraft at 3-4 miles. There is a reason why the airforces require flight candidates to have perfect vision.... and if you want realistic spotting, be prepared for lots of squinting at your monitors.

Well that's good. Which "Kinda" Leaves the door open for ED to revisit a FF F15C, but not sure if their profit projection on such a project would be worth it for them, which is why it might be a project for a different developer. The current FC3 15C is just missing so much soul and character that it's existence as a Low Fidelity Sim does it so much injustice. The F4 looks like it's just bursting at the seams with character. Really looking forward to this module. Cheers.

I think I read somewhere that ED will not be making anymore Gen4 modules.. So I think that could be it on hoping ED makes a FF 15C. So hoping another Dev takes up the task of it. My comment could have been confusing since I did not mention "Full Fidelity".

Just saw the trailer for your Phantom... Wow! I'm a buyer... If any developer was too attempt a 15C, I would want it to be you guys. Cheers.

Holy Sh*t...This looks phenomenal...

So yeah, I just left a guns only arena in a MP server where I was teamed up with a player in an 86. He was mixing it up pretty good with all the Gen 4 fighters, I was pretty impressed. Leaning towards the 86 at this point, although I am not going to start my trial until I at least learn the systems of one of the two last modules that I recently purchased which was the 16 and 18. Still open to hearing others comments or opinions on their favorite Gen one or two DCS jets. Cheers By the way.. That's good advice.. Cheers

By "Modern Standards", are you referring to the development methods of the module, or the representation of the tech of the jets avionics? IRL the 86 is quoted as being underpowered. My choices are now between the 86 and the 19. Indeed... The A10C2 is well done. I am enjoying it. Cheers.

Thanks for the reply. Is the 86 the only Gen 1 or 2 DCS Jet you have? If not, why the 86 over the others?

As the title states... I own FC3, A10C, A10C2, F18 and F16... Right now, my favorite module to fly in the sim is the F15C, with the A10C2 being my favorite to "Operate". I just got the 16 and the 18 and have not fully learned the avionics or systems, but I have put hours into them stick and rudder. The 16 is fun to fly, but too easy as it's just "Point And Shoot" flying.. Feels too much "On the rails" for me really to get a "Flying feel". The 18 is nice, but feels like I am dragging something all the time, not slippery enough. So I am looking to trial a Gen 1 or Gen 2 DCS Fighter Module that from a stick and rudder point of view is a blast to fly. Something where I can throw on some music and jam. I thought about picking up the Christian Eagle, but I think it might be a bad idea considering I have a ton of real time in S2B's and I'm afraid I might be too critical on the Flight model.. So looking for something "New" to "Sim" in VR that is "Vintage". By the way, is departed flight modeled in any of the DCS modules? Cheers and thanks Beezee