SharpeXB

There’s already dot labels which are exactly the same thing. And those are of course a mission option. So the spotting dots should just be eliminated all altogether.

According to the Navigraph survey 97.4% of flight sim players are male. So… Character customization is a very cool feature in games today though.

People seem to be able to document the problem here. If you can’t provide images and videos then there’s no point in trying to make a bug report out of this.

Yes that’s my chief takeaway from the video. Those dots are ugly and gigantic. The fact that they vanish is secondary. Honestly they should all be eliminated if they’re like that. I think that video was of the old 2.9 version though. I don’t play CW but I’ve had plenty of visual range combat on the modern severs and what I see (even with dots off ie v2.8) seems pretty realistic to me. You realize hunting for targets is most of what happens in real life air combat, right? If the real world had dots radar never would have been invented.

The feature keeps getting updates so old data wouldn’t be relevant anymore. Too many posts here have nothing to say except “I can’t see the planes” That’s not helpful. And too often people are just comparing games.

This topic definitely needs supporting data in the form of videos or screenshots. Without that there’s no way evaluate what the problem is. Again in the absence of that I’m left with the assumption that the “problem” is either unrealistic expectations from playing other games or eyesight issues.

I see people post screenshots and videos of VR all the time. Without any supporting evidence we’re just left to believe you have bad eyesight or something. Honestly that’s the impression I get from these posts that don’t have any documentation. That lots of player simply can’t see that well.

Indeed the zoom view is a better solution than smart scaling. Smart Scaling: Enlarges the target but leaves everything else at the same size. This look really awkward and over-enhances the target. Zoom View: Enlarges the whole scene equally. That’s a better solution. It doesn’t produce ugly results and it doesn’t make targets excessively visible. It’s also better at solving the resolution problem. You need to document comments like this with screenshots. Show us a shot of empty space with a label over it indicating an invisible aircraft. Aircraft at this range are easy to see in DCS. At this range the dots are hardly a factor.

Your link was just to another game forum which I gotta remind you is off topic. What other games do has nothing to do with DCS

You can’t separate the two of those. I’m sure most players want both i.e. realistic visuals. A game today isn’t going to put the work in on all the graphics and modeling only then to give you giant sized aircraft hanging over an undersized carrier deck. Just not going to happen. I’m not referring to just a varied FOV setting but doing this on the fly as in the zoom view. That’s the better solution all these sims use now. Just make everything you see bigger equally as needed instead of just the target. That eliminates the need for smart scaling altogether.

Again it might make sense on paper but when applied in an actual game it just becomes foolish. It also doesn’t take into account the player using a variable FOV which would just invalidate all the data and the very concept itself. It’s only using a single reference for screen size res and distance. That’s not the case for a game played on varying hardware. It’s a waste of time bringing this up over and over again because ED has said many times they have no interest in it. If that’s what you’re looking for then you’re in for disappointment here.

The Serfoss study was done for a Doctorate of Philosophy degree. I don’t think there’s any evidence it was ever used in any real way. And it might make sense on paper but in an actual game the results are farcical. That’s honestly a more reasonable solution than encouraging players to lower their resolution.

It just looks fantastically stupid. The funny thing is that screenshot was actually made by a smart scaling proponent Do a search on the topic, it’s been discussed a lot and ED just has no interest in it.

This is what you’d see using smart scaling in DCS. It would look really awful

All that data is made irrelevant by the fact that DCS and every other flight sim uses a variable FOV “zoom view” to give players the ability to see distant targets. Essentially making everything bigger equally instead of just the target which would look really awkward. The Serfoss values would only be “correct” for a single display resolution, size, distance and a set FOV. The values he ends up with are just egregious too. Like 2x at about 3 miles. It would look just laughable in DCS Do a search for this, it’s been discussed to death and ED just has no interest in it.

Zoom view isn’t there to replicate binoculars. It’s used to give the player both peripheral and foveal vision which otherwise couldn’t be simulated on a screen. You couldn’t give a player their real peripheral 220d on a screen nor would playing the game at a life sized 30-40d be practical at all. So it’s necessary to change these on the fly depending on the situation. Then there’s the question of acuity. The only way to simulate 20/20 vision on a comparably low res screen is to enlarge the image. Imagine if there was an eye chart in the game. How would you be able to read the bottom line in the game? The only way would be to zoom into it.

I think the other game where this “works” does a very subtle scaling at large distances so the effect isn’t so egregious. There’s another game that takes this to an extreme and applies a scaling factor of something like 2x at 3 miles. The former might work but the latter would look a bit ridiculous. The game with egregious scaling is probably why so many DCS players have trouble spotting as they’ve become accustomed to other aircraft being drawn so large.

Zoom view is actually there to replicate the reality of 20/20 eyesight. And a fighter pilot can actually turn to see their 6:00 IRL as well, not sure why you would think they can’t.

DCS doesn’t have a spotting problem. The problem is that other games draw aircraft 2-3 times the size they should be. And DCS gets compared to that. What other games do isn’t relevant here.

Dots have the same inherent problems when applied to either VR or 2D. In addition it seems VR has problems with how it renders things. That’s perhaps another issue entirely.

What makes the spotting dots issue so hard to resolve is that unlike every other aspect of the sim this feature isn’t based upon realism. It’s just trying to market the game to players based upon their impressions formed by other games. There’s not a logical solution going that route. That’s why this has been going in circles for 7-8 years with no solution. Simply turning to reality for an answer here will just yield a result some players aren't willing to accept.

The trouble is a dot can make something easily visible in the game that would be barely visible IRL. And DCS visibility without dots already equates quite well to the real world from what I see. Any dot solution will have this problem because at some range they will stop showing. Dots have this fundamental problem; if the dot is bigger than the aircraft/vehicle it will look unrealistic and be seen to vanish, if the dot is smaller there’s no purpose to using it. Spotting dots are a poor solution and should be abandoned IMO

A good solution should work for everyone, splitting up the community isn’t a great idea.

Yes there are already setting available for servers / missions but if you look at the reality there aren’t many options. Select any era etc and you’ll find maybe one server that’s actually attended. And that is most likely going to run the popular array of setting you typically see in CFS multiplayer. Icons off, “full real” style. So that’s your choice. I don’t think you’d find many of the admins willing to run two servers just to cater to VR or 2D. And since VR is probably the minority you’d find such a server underpopulated. That’s my guess. An already thinly populated game doesn’t need even more settings to divide it up. Who said it’s an advantage?