SharpeXB

Well VR needs a zoom view too for the same reasons. I’m honestly not sure how people use that without getting sick or what that would even look like.

Get in the habit of using a scan pattern at different zoom levels, that’s easy enough. Distant objects have to vanish otherwise you get this inverse zoom effect. A certain amount of that is ok but too much over-enhances distant objects effectively making them gigantic. Not at all. Look how easily seen these aircraft are. A lot of these views are at a “real world-ish” FOV

I don’t think that figure is relevant. I’m looking at that right now on a large 4K screen (50d FOVx60= 3,0000) and I’m still perceiving pixels with 3840. Even a monitor like this is far short of real life acuity. I think that 60ppd is the threshold for 20/20 vision, not the limit of what the human eye can see.

That’s why there’s a zoom view. That way you scale up everything equally instead of just the targets. It’s less awkward looking. That was already tried and failed. I think you know that…

Exactly what this thread is all about. Have you gone to Gameplay Settings and turned on Improved Spotting Dots?

I dunno, the thread says “fixed” and it’s closed.

Exactly

I wonder how long it will take ED to figure out that this simply won’t work because: - If the dot is bigger than the 3D model it will look too big and hide it. - If the dot is smaller than the 3D model there’s no point in having it. No size for the dot will ever work, the only way to win is not to play.

Everything in this game is a priority. Some things more than others… PS it looks like those 32-bit maps were fixed a year ago.

Well then don’t buy a 4070 if you can’t afford it. There are plenty of things I don’t buy that I can’t afford. But they price those things on what they feel market at large will bear. That doesn’t mean ‘Gaming is broken” arguably Nvidia is giving gaming what it wants. Yeah honestly those requirements don’t seem right at all. Like they list the same thing for VR which is about 3x as demanding as 2D. But this is far from the most difficult game to run. Unless you’re trying to in VR because the high settings were intended for 2D. So get more RAM. That’s an easy upgrade. And honestly most players don’t go online so it probably isn’t an issue for them.

Well that’s just a matter of opinion. I for one think it does, it’s quite dated looking in many ways. And if someone doesn’t want all the eye candy they can just turn down the settings. When you follow the discussions here you realize DCS needs everything. That’s the trouble with customers, they tend to want it all. To the extent that true it’s because again customers see a value in that. If they didn’t they wouldn’t buy it and the market would correct itself. There are options for every budget. Nobody is forced to buy a BMW if all they need is a Honda. Well nobody needs an enthusiast system. Saying prices are skyrocketing for hardware is like saying car prices are skyrocketing because an Aston Martin is $300k. Just because it’s possible to spend lots of money on something doesn’t mean everyone needs to. The hardware requirements for this game are actually rather tame.

I think they have mentioned that 25% of the players there are “simmers” and 75% casual gamers. But that game has a player base that completely dwarfs DCS. Myself I won’t be able to help taking an extended DCS vacation for quite a while to just gawk at the graphics

But as far as graphics are concerned that’s a lot closer to the “reality limit” than DCS. And neither would actually be mistaken for the real world. It’s really not possible to say what a “typical computer” costs. That range could be anything. But don’t be under the illusion that in the old days computers were cheap https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/technology-has-advanced-so-rapidly-that-a-laptop-computer-today-is-96-cheaper-than-a-1994-model-and-1000x-better/

It was definitely possible to spend the same money on a console or PC 20 years ago which had the computing power of a smart phone today. The simple truth is customers are willing to pay these prices because they see a value in these components and consoles. Perhaps it’s possible to justify a higher price point simply because today’s games are so much more appealing. It’s one thing to spend $3,000 on a PC to look at 2004 graphics vs 2024. If people didn’t buy these you wouldn’t see them priced that way. Indeed they do buy them, those $2,000 4090s were sold out upon launch. The reason these graphics cards are on a long waitlist at launch is that they are actually priced too low if you can believe that! And DCS is nowhere close to this theoretical equilibrium. In three weeks we will see a game that shows what players will expect a flight sim to look like in 2024. So the race continues, DCS needs to catch up ^ this

The thing to realize as well is that hardware prices don’t really escalate. They continue to seek essentially the same price point as customers are only willing to pay so much for a game or console. Accounting for inflation the PC I owned 15 or 20 years ago is the same price as the one I have now except it had a 40GB hard drive and 512MB of RAM. A 1985 Nintendo NES was the equivalent of $510 in today’s money. The same price as an Xbox today. Gaming PCs are rather a luxury good and just aren’t as mass market price conscious as consoles. Like a Bentley is to a Honda. It’s always possible to spend excessive amounts of money on one irregardless of value. Certain components like graphics cards see this outlandish demand driven by crypto mining, not games. And yet the whole system mentioned above even considers a machine equipped with the most expensive graphics card today. So yeah there’s this far away state of equilibrium that’s conceivable as the cost to make games balances out with the fact that they start to be come indistinguishable from reality and further improvement isn’t possible or economical. But games and especially DCS are nowhere near that now.

DCS is very far from the point that it could stop improving graphically. Yes it’s conceivable that in the distant future games will stop evolving when they become indistinguishable from really. We are nowhere near that yet. And hardware always falls in price as it improves in capability.

I can’t begrudge anyone doing everything within the rules to win, technically that’s not cheating. But the spotting system shouldn’t be open to easy exploits like lowering resolution and such. Players don’t want to be forced to look at an ugly game in order to not be at a disadvantage. The previous v2.8 version was definitely open to such exploits, so much so that radar wasn’t even needed in the game. I think we would all like that exploit to be removed.

It’s a different topic but they should make it possible to bind the Radio Menu and VOIP to the same button. Long and short presses would be a good idea. That’s a big obstacle to using the in-game feature and SRS lets you do that. Already a wish

Declaring an emergency would be a great and necessary function. It’s my favorite thing to do! Although I guess you don’t need ATC to dead stick land on a road Bonus points there!

I’m sure it is That being said I’m sure there are many players who just enjoy easy exploits in the game

Yep, solved in the other thread, thanks. Post deleted.

That’s the solution I was looking for, thanks PS this is confusing because other aircraft like the Hornet don’t need this workaround. But it looks like an SRS issue not a DCS one.

That’s what I thought they were at first too but that appears to use a separate menu altogether. I haven’t ever used it though. The other modules have a single command that brings up the radio and works with SRS, they don’t have this VOIP command.

The A-10CII has two separate commands for each radio. The trouble is the VOIP command (which I suppose is intended for SRS) doesn't bring up the radio menu and the radio menu commands don't work with SRS. Other modules like the Hornet combine these commands or like the M-2000 have a PTT which calls the radio menu and also works with SRS. Not sure why the A-10 has these redundant commands, but they don't function very well. They should just be combined.