chihirobelmo

Hi klem Sorry, it seems I misread the meaning of your previous post. On my rig magnification at why485's DEMO worked until model phasing out to a faint dot. If you could upload the video and show me what is happening on your rig I may can able to know how the "gap" is happening. Or if you were referring to the Youtube video of the demo, it seems the video is showing older version of the demo which miss implemented my equation. It is calculating {1+F(Distant)}*F(Resolution)*F(FOV) instead of 1+F(Distant)*F(Resolution)*F(FOV) His latest demo(v1.2) fixed the issue and has corrected the code, so try downloading the latest demo again. Does each of your monitors have 1920*1080 resolution? If so set to 32 horizontal FOV for a single monitor, in my calculation that would be a FOV setting to represent realistic pixel size to Full-HD monitors without magnification. (And then set your head to about 103cm if you would like to have 1:1 view size) And yes even triple monitor setups could do with some magnification versus distance if users feel this "32hFOV for a single monitor" setting too narrow view and prefer to fly with "70hFOV for a single monitor". Then he needs magnification. BTW viewing 27" inch monitor from 70cm only has RL 46 hFOV according to http://www.projectimmersion.com/fov/ Width of 27" display would be 60cm and 2*atan(30/70)=46.

Thank you for this demonstration! Your work specifically shows how my theory works in an actual 3D world. Actually, 4k monitor users might not have enough FOV related magnification. This is because my equation goes this way. As F(Resolution) kills overall magnification factor at 4k res it also kills F(FOV). I still could not find out the way to give 4k users enough FOV related magnification. If I allow F(Resolution) curve more gentle to allow 4k users get enough magnification at 90-140 FOV, then WQHD users will have too large magnification, and 60-80 FOV at a 4k monitor would get the same problem. Perhaps I can include resolution factor to F(FOV) so that higher res monitor will get a more steep angle for F(FOV). At least 4k users will have realistic pixel size around 70-80 FOV with the current equation. HD/Full HD/WQHD user will have proper magnification adjustment in any FOV settings.

Sorry, I only wrote an idea. There is no mod to implement this magnification to DCS. Thanks for posting your interesting experience for military simulator and relation to the paper I referred:) I made my calculation because I thought "finding a target at first" is already the problem for DCS user who plays the sim with a single desktop monitor. Therefore suggesting to be aware that there is a target, then use "magnification toggle" doesn't help for such a people. I think the aircraft was to be seen 'too soon' because head-tracked view system you mentioned gives pilots 1:1 view against RL(In other words the world is about the 'correct size'). As Serfoss 2003 magnifies aircraft size to fit the plane fineness(pixel size) to RL, it also magnified plane size at the same time, so it became much larger than in RL in terms of angular mil. However, for most of the desktop simulators, we display 70FOV view to the monitor which fills only 35FOV(numbers are just for instance). Which Displays about 1/2 view against RL. I did some calculation/measurement and found when we see the monitor to be viewed 35/42/50 degree angle in our sight, setting in-game FOV to 60/70/80 helps to fit the plane mil size to RL. https://www.bmsforum.org/forum/showthread.php?28660-About-SmartScaling-and-future-high-res-monitors&p=400589&viewfull=1#post400589 So they will get both correct pixel size and mil size at the same time with Serfoss 2003 Magnification. Current VR headgear users who don't have enough resolution to much 20/20 vision, will need magnification to get enough fineness(pixel size) but at the same time, they face the same problem(plane becomes larger in terms of mil) because they see 1:1 view. Triple monitor users who setup with zoom to set the world is about the 'correct size', who sees 1:1 view, might also have enough resolution to get 20/20 vision in some cases. For instance, if you set each 1920*1080 monitor to 35FOV (105FOV in total) it will show you almost enough pixel size of F-15 compared to RL. Users with such a monitor setting already have a correct view size and correct pixel size at the same time so do not need any magnification factor.

Hi, I finally set up an equation for distant plane magnification which will provide RL 20/20 vision while using 60 or more hFOV regardless of using any resolution of the monitor. Instead of thinking about the angular mil and monitor size, head position relativity like I did before in former discussions, this time I simply consider the pixel number of aircraft in DCS and much it to RL 20/20 vision. First, I have to think about Vision Test. When I look at 7.272mm of Landolt C from a 5m distance and if then determine which direction does ring have 1.454mm of the hole, It means I have 20/20 eyesight. 1.454mm against 5m means 1 minutes of degree = 1/60 degree. Calculating 3.0nm distance of line abreast F-15 its seen 19.43m(Length of F-15) / 5.56km(3.0nm) = 3.50mil(2π/6400 rad) 3.50mil * 3.375 = 11.8 minutes of degree (as 1 degree is π/180 rad) Let's assume that 1 minutes of degree for 20/20 vision as 1 pixel of a monitor display. Then I calculated How much pixel size would 3.0nm distance F-15 line abreast be seen in DCS with 60hFOV/FHD resolution. X = expected pixel size in DCS; 60(deg)*60=3600(minutes) 1920:X=3600:11.8 X=6.29(px) This way I can calculate expected pixel length of aircraft in each FOV/Resolution at DCS. The pink curve shows aircraft length size in pixels in DCS, dark blue curve shows expected RL aircraft size at each distance in minutes of the degree. I also took some screenshots and compared the calculation and the result. I started DCS1.5 FC3 instant action F-15C intercept, press F2 then backward the camera while seeing F-15 from its side. 1.0nm-17px 2.0nm-9px 3.0nm-6px It almost matches my calculation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now then, I want DCS to draw close to 12 pixels of line abreast F-15 3.0nm away regardless of any wider FOV/Resolution setting. So I will write here magnification equation which adjusts aircraft length size in pixel size related with Distance/FOV/Resolution. M=Magnification Factor; D=Distance(ft)/1000; R=Resolution Length(ex:FHD will have 1920); F=Horizontal FOV; M=1+(0.09226*D-0.00148*D^2)*{1.22e-7*R^2-1.17e-3*R+2.8}*(0.02*F-0.4) Original equation comes from Serforss 2003 http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA414893 M=1+0.09226*D-0.00148*D^2 I added Resolution/FOV factor here so that magnification factor matches any gaming environment nowadays, from Half-HD to 4k monitor users will see realistic pixel size aircraft when in 60 or more hFOV. The light blue curve shows magnification factor and Orange curve shows aircraft size in pixel after applying magnification. Between 2.5nm-8.0nm magnified plane seems larger than RL but it is only 1-2 pixels of difference. Now plane in the simulator can be seen almost as same Fineness as what can be seen in RL 20/20 vision. As I also added FOV/Resolution relative equation upper than 60FOV, between Half-HD to 5k resolution monitor users will have same visual aid! This is what even FalconBMS didn't achieve with their smart scaling! Here is result for 1920*1080 FOV140 I also adjusted the equation not to enlarge model while zooming out, there would be no graphical anomaly. I made magnification factor comes close to zero when zooming in and at FOV20 it will be almost zero magnification. Result for 1280*720 FOV60 WQHD users will have bit finer vision but it's still no bigger than 1-2 pixels compared to RL vision. I recommend using FOV70 or 80. 4K users will have small magnification. You guys don't need match scaling... 4K with FOV60 And 5K users will have almost zero magnification. Above than 5k factor will increase again so the magnification must be off at such a resolution setting. I will share my excel file so download it and try inputting any settings and you will see the result. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9l8t2itS4vkQWNpT0xqbGNzWkk/view?usp=sharing With this method 1.Plane size continues to decrease by distance so pilots will not lose their sense of closing/leaving of opponent aircraft and distance relation to visual plane size. 2.As an original 3D model is to be used, visibility will have relation to each plane wingspan/length/height so the increase/decrease visibility made by opponent orientation will be more realistic. 3.As an original 3D model is to be used, each planes coloring will affect its visibility. low vis coloring will work like in RL. 4.As it is effective in WVR range (1.0nm-3.0nm) BFM/Formation experience will be a much more realistic thing. 5.There will be no visual anomaly while model transiting to imposter/dot (becomes visible-unvisible-visible while zooming in/out) 6.Helps VR users who can't zoom in. I really hope ED to implement something effective and reliable visibility aid to DCS2.5 This is one of suggestion done by me who is only an amateur...I am waiting for future professional work done by ED.

It was possible to visual 10nm-20nm F-5 in previous imposter system and it was another unrealistic part of the system. But do you mean you still can see F-5 over 20nm? Are you sure you updated DCS to 1.5.5?

Plane size by numbers of the pixel is determined by Resolution and FOV. How large you see the plane is determined by your Monitor Size and Distance where your head positions from the monitor.

Flying for a few weeks with new visibility system, I came to guess current system is still an "imposter" method but this time ED replaced an imposter to a dot. As Each plane's paint also affects its visibility (one of the examples are known as "Low Vis" paint), Aircraft model's true color should be applied to a "dot" to represent realistic visibility. Also when aircraft flies in the backlight of the sun or showing his self-drop shadow a lot, he would be much easier to visual than in the order light of the sun, showing his upper side of the body. I just have been to Hyakuri AFB Airshow last week and 302nd Tactical Fighter Squadron F-4's demo was just like that. However, as wide FOV represents 1/2 to 1/3 sized visibility in the sim due to current common monitor size, dot with true aircraft color would be an unrealistically invisible thing. If ED chooses to improve dot system instead of Serfoss 2003, I wish they could apply each model's true color/shadow and shading status/size/orientation to the dot contrast, then enhance its contrast to overcome 1/2 to 1/3 size drawn visibility on the monitor. They also will need to enhance the contrast of the model too just before they become a dot so that they can transit to a dot smoothly.

Sorry, okay let's only talk about methods. Not sim comparison. In that case, your each 1920x1080 monitor has 1/3 FOV to current FOV setting. For example:If you set current FOV to 70, you should think this way - Each 1920*1080 monitor is displaying 23.3 hFOV view. or equal to single 5760*1080 monitor is displaying 70hFOV. In my case, I was talking about when single 1920*1080 monitor displays 70hFOV view, 2nm F-15 from its side will be "a dot". Actually I just launched DCS2.0 and found "2nm F-15 will be a dot" was overstatement, sorry again, at least even 2.1nm abreast F-15 drawn in few pixels on a single 1920*1080 monitor 70hFOV. If you have "World is about the Correct size" FOV, you should see correct size F-15. Have you moved FOV axis slightly after you start the mission? DCS sets fov slightly larger than default setting when mission starts.

DCS already uses similar Visibility system to CloD/BoS in current version(1.5.5), But somewhere distance planes transit from dots to model, it become really hard to detect. In addition, even drawing dots are too small to represent 1.5-3nm plane visibility as I described above. CloD has sharper dots then BoS and easier to spot distant planes. (When I say CloD I meen TF4.3) But it was also same for previous DCS with imposter system. Perhaps make dots more sharp image so that we can tally in realistic probability is one way. However adjusting "Tally Probability" by tuning Contrast/color of dots, and make it also relative to target aircraft size/orientation(is needed for RL combat as it changes relate to them) would be much much harder job. Well, I would like to suggest that there is already one another simple, reliable method which ensures visibility adjustment without tuning color fadeout for each aircraft/orientation.

Like F-15 has a length of 19m, when seen from its side its angular mil would be 19[m]/3.704[km]=6.18[mil] Try draw 6 millimeter silhouette of F-15 side orientation on a paper, and look at the paper from 1 meter distance. or try 1.8 millimeter silhouette from 30 centimeter distance. This silhouette would be as same size as to RL F-15 seen from its side 2nm distance(6mil). F-16 and F-5E has length of 15m/14m so they might be seen 3/4 size to F-15. In DCS, Abreast formation F-15 seen from 2nm Distance will become a dot when FOV is set to around 70 if you use FullHD resolution monitor. A middle place of Zoom Axis is 70hFOV if you never edited view.lua. 1dots on 72dpi monitor would be 0.35 millimeter, 1920*1080 monitor with 30 inches diagonal will have 72dpi. To look a dot in 6mil you have to close your head to the monitor to 6[mil]/0.000035[m]=5.83E-6[km] which is 5.83 millimeter. This is difference between simulator and RealLife. Updating GPU, buy higher resolution display, and you may see F-15 as a silhouette this time, but its still smaller than the dot which was seen in FullHD monitor. Only solution to tally bandits in current DCS with Realistic probability is still simply ZOOMING FOV. As it is said that current dot system is just WIP thing, I am just waiting to see what will be implemented to 2.5

I really glad to hear ED starts to improve there Visibility system:) Sounds like its similar to IL-2 method(no configurable, small dots)but I have to wait and see what will happen in future updates...

Okay I have solved the problem with myself...

hi, I wrote a script for Warthog and I wanted Coolie Hat Switch to handle axis. However, this code assigns CoolieHat DX22-25 even though I never wrote to do so. Could anyone correct my script? include "target.tmh" //program startup int main() { //RotateDXAxis(DX_X_AXIS, DX_Y_AXIS, -12); if(Init(&EventHandle)) return 1; // declare the event handler, return on error //add initialization code here MapAxis(&Joystick, JOYX, DX_X_AXIS); MapAxis(&Joystick, JOYY, DX_Y_AXIS); MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_LEFT, DX_ZROT_AXIS); MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_RIGHT, DX_Z_AXIS); MapAxis(&Throttle, SCX, DX_XROT_AXIS); MapAxis(&Throttle, SCY, DX_YROT_AXIS, AXIS_REVERSED); //MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_FC, DX_SLIDER_AXIS, AXIS_REVERSED); //MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_FC, DX_THROTTLE_AXIS); //MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_FC, MOUSE_X_AXIS); //MapAxis(&Throttle, THR_FC, MOUSE_Y_AXIS); MapKey(&Joystick, TG1, DX1); MapKey(&Joystick, S2, DX2); MapKey(&Joystick, S3, DX3); MapKey(&Joystick, S4, DX4); MapKey(&Joystick, S1, DX5); MapKey(&Joystick, TG2, DX6); MapKey(&Joystick, H1U, DXHATUP); MapKey(&Joystick, H1R, DXHATRIGHT); MapKey(&Joystick, H1D, DXHATDOWN); MapKey(&Joystick, H1L, DXHATLEFT); //MapKey(&Joystick, H1L, REXEC(0, 100, "TrimDXAxis(DX_X_AXIS, -5);")); //MapKey(&Joystick, H1R, REXEC(0, 100, "TrimDXAxis(DX_X_AXIS, 5);")); //MapKey(&Joystick, H1U, REXEC(1, 100, "TrimDXAxis(DX_Y_AXIS, -5);")); //MapKey(&Joystick, H1D, REXEC(1, 100, "TrimDXAxis(DX_Y_AXIS, 5);")); MapKey(&Joystick, H2U, DX7); MapKey(&Joystick, H2R, DX8); MapKey(&Joystick, H2D, DX9); MapKey(&Joystick, H2L, DX10); MapKey(&Joystick, H3U, DX11); MapKey(&Joystick, H3R, DX12); MapKey(&Joystick, H3D, DX13); MapKey(&Joystick, H3L, DX14); MapKey(&Joystick, H4U, DX15); MapKey(&Joystick, H4R, DX16); MapKey(&Joystick, H4D, DX17); MapKey(&Joystick, H4L, DX18); MapKey(&Joystick, H4P, 0); //MapKey(&Joystick, H4P, DX31); MapKey(&Throttle, SC, DX19); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSU, 0); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSR, 0); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSD, 0); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSL, 0); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSU, DX29); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSD, DX30); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSL, DX31); //MapKey(&Throttle, CSR, DX32); MapKey(&Joystick, CSD, AXIS(DX_SLIDER_AXIS, -80, 20)); MapKey(&Joystick, CSU, AXIS(DX_SLIDER_AXIS, 80, 20)); MapKey(&Joystick, CSL, AXIS(DX_THROTTLE_AXIS, -80, 20)); MapKey(&Joystick, CSR, AXIS(DX_THROTTLE_AXIS, 80, 20)); MapKey(&Throttle, MSR, DX20); MapKey(&Throttle, MSD, DX21); MapKey(&Throttle, MSU, DX22); MapKey(&Throttle, MSL, DX23); MapKey(&Throttle, MSP, 0); //MapKey(&Throttle, MSP, DX32); MapKey(&Throttle, LTB, DX24); MapKey(&Throttle, BSB, DX25); MapKey(&Throttle, BSM, 0); MapKey(&Throttle, BSF, DX26); MapKey(&Throttle, SPDB, DX27); MapKey(&Throttle, SPDM, 0); MapKey(&Throttle, SPDF, DX28); MapKey(&Throttle, CHB, 0); MapKey(&Throttle, CHF, 0); MapKey(&Throttle, PSB, 0); MapKey(&Throttle, PSF, 0); } //event handler int EventHandle(int type, alias o, int x) { DefaultMapping(&o, x); //add event handling code here }

Still not sure if his math is correct, if RL pilots need to identify nation mark from a distance where resolution has to be taken in consideration in sims, but I am sure that Original idea of Smart Scaling is to consider enough magnification to get enough target outline. So might be not enough where visual identification of nation mark or coloring is needed due to screen ppi. Same can be said for zooming hFOV until it matches screen. Those methods only matches aircraft drawn size in angular mil to RL, and make outline visible if the monitor has UXGA pixel size or more.

Thanks, I didn't have such a point of view. It might be a disadvantage of the sim against RL. Like in situation where pilots has been required visual identification(even the modern jet fighter pilots also have an opportunity to do so). Especially if opponent force uses same fighter plane(ex:Israeli F-16 vs Egyptian F-16), or if one of allied force has same fighter plane opponent uses(ex:Kosovo war). We need to see there coloring and nation mark to identify them. In BMS, I may can use FOV slider or "Look Closer" callback(Decrease 20 FOV, backs to default fov when pressed again) for VID especially in Israel theater. I will use it only for a moment and back to default fov(while I enable Smart Scaling) as it will increase possibility of my tracking ability than in RL. In DCS, I may can set middle point of Warthog Slider(has a notch) as an ideal 1:1 view FOV, far most afterwards position to realistic wide FOV(until there will be a smart scaling in 2.5 I wish), and far most forward position to max FOV for a momentary VID.

No, I was never talking about advantage vs another player. I was talking about advantage against RL. Zooming view can make things see much larger than what will be expected in RL if you never consider your monitor FOV.

I guess SmartScaling can be easily tweaked its magnification factor depends on in-game resolution settings. Count Number of pixels against original research done by 1600x1200 projector, and limit its maximum magnification factor. EDIT: I wrote further description at bmsforum

Thats also true for color/contrasts improvements. I saw IL-2BOS players who reduces there gamma to gain more visibility at there forum. Correct monitor calibration is also needed if we want to see RL color/contrast view even sim achieved it with the new graphics engine. IL-2 have forced visual effects to keep display distant aircraft as a dot, and hardcore players have tweaked there hardware/in-game settings -how much AA do we need? whether HDR on or off?- to gain additional visibility. FOV slider is also player adjustable. Without calculating what will be the 1:1 view in-game FOV with your monitor size and head position, we can easily zoom and see the aircraft larger than what was expected in RL same situation. http://carsfov.moritzlawitschka.de/ Of course SmartScaling will also be "easier to see than RL" thing when we close our head to the monitor than what was expected, or by narrowing FOV to look for other aircraft with the option enabled.

I have already understand we need FOV slider in order to get RL visibility. I even discribed why current - or even future high res monitor will still needs fOV slider again and again. There is no difference of opinion between us here. What I up for is that I need the sim to get RL visibility even in realistic wide FOV. Your opinion is that abusing FOV slider is enough. Here is the opinion difference. Well its OK cos its already a value jujdgement points. I only able to say I want to, You can say you don't. But I needed to correct mistakes while there were so many misunderstanding about SmartScaling in terms of what is true.

Never seen SmartScaling ugly except looking at the aircrafts lining up opposite side of the runway. In sky it looks totally natural. Even in ground you never see ugly wingman just next to you, or a few hundreds meter in front of you. This video is captured in FullHD and in-game FOV 60(which is still bit narrow) but even in modern resolution aircraft beyond 1.5nm without smartscaling would hardly allows you to discriminate its orientation. SmartScaling allows you to discriminate the aircraft orientation even in 3.0nm. The paper is still effective even in current monitor resolution. According to the paper there test was made by BARCO 808 which is 1600x1200 resolution projector. https://www.barco.com/en/Products/Projectors/Simulation-projectors/High-Performance-Graphics-Projector.aspx#!specs (1600x1200 is called UXGA and has 1,920,000 number of pixels, Current standard 1920x1080 FHD has 2,073,600 pixels) Besides 2003 was already an era where 1024x768 or 1280x1024 LCD monitors had come to.

What?? At least what Current BMS 4.33 implements as a name of "SmartScaling" is from the paper in 2003. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA414893 Maybe there was a same name technology in old Falcon but its not the same method they use. Original Falcon4.0 has magnified models regardless of its distance and magnification factor has been set by users freely, which can't be done in BMS4.33 and now the factor against distance is calculated via research in 2003. Yes it was (BTW the magnification effect has not called SmartScaling in original falcon4.0, it was "Vehicle Magnification") and now in BMS with SmartScaling disabled its hard to see aircraft beyond 1.0nm as same as current DCS. Perhaps slightly easier due to contrast reduction difference.

The original paper was written in 2003 and was mainly to Improving Target Orientation Discrimination with popular monitor resolution at the time. However it is still effective until so Large monitor or VR headsets that represents 1:1 FOV against RL becomes popular device. Because even with FullHD monitor or 4K monitor nowadays, without enough monitor size we are to see 1/2 to 1/3 size view against RL same situation. I guess such a size monitors are still our average device to have. Resolution is Resolution it never changes size of the view directly. Perhaps might increase popular monitor size in the market, but only affects that way. Without 60-90FOV size monitor we still need "FOV slider abuse", we will be a pilot who look at the sky through the finder of APS-C DSLR always abusing focal length between 14-50mm. Pilot who never see the sky through Mk.I eyeball. Color, gamma, contrast improvements are needed to represent RL visibility, of course, but not enough. So is resolution. If in Realistic FOV, they only makes few dots(or tiny aircraft if enough resolution) easier to spot which still hardly allows you to discriminate its orientation, also its still never be as easy(hard) to spot as in RL. All because it still looks 1/2-1/3 size against how we can expect to see in RL. How much you improve the color, rendering quality, simulation of atmospheric contrasts, you still have to see the sky through the small finder of the APS-C DSLR with 50mm lens in order to get RL visibility. At least even in nowadays SmartScaling is allowing us to see the 1.0-5.0nm distant aircraft close size to what will be expected to see in RL while we are in realistic FOV. Not only is a solution from back in the day.

True its ugly for distant groundops eyecandy but I take Realistic A-A combat experience than enjoying beautiful looking groundops at the opposite side of the airbase. Effective in A-A combat, especially in tactical formation where you take 1.0nm-2.0nm spacing from lead called "WEZ in depth" formation, commit tactical turn and 2v2/2v1 ACM/BFM, keeping eye on both offensive lead aircraft and tally as a supportive fighter. No need to set narrow FOV and shake your head like radar antenna rotation, or abusing FOV slider which both makes onboard-video ugly. RL pilots don't see skies through 85mm focal length lens during there Dogfight. They see skies with much wider FOV, but also be able to tally bandits and discriminate its orientation from its outline same time while we are able to do so only in narrow FOV(unless we enable something like smart scaling stuff).

Smart Scaling also never affects collision model. In FalconBMS I can see a ground placed aircraft sinks his gear slightly when I see him from 1.0-1.5nm distance due to the SmartScaling maginification. However, if another guy lines up just next to the same aircraft same time, he see the aircraft with no magnification and the gear is not sinking to the ground anymore. Here I see them from opposite side of the runway and see both aircraft's wingtips are touching to each other, but seen from them there wingtips are not touching to each other. Instead they see my aircraft is slightly sinking the gear to the ground, but the guy who will line up just next to me will never see my gears sink. As I said it only magnifies how GPU draws the model, not actual model itself.

Does RCS in DCS calculated from the model drawn size on the screen? That's weird. If so, Model Enlargement already implemented in DCS also affects RCS. And even FOV affects RCS. RCS must be calculated from the original 3D model size (or parameter value). "Model Enlargement" sprites or "Smart Scaling" magnified drawn aircraft can be calculated from the same original 3D model too, but RCS does not have to be calculated from already magnified (drawn) model nor imposters. Both Model Enlargement and Smart Scaling are the matter of Rendering Methods. RCS must be calculated before rendering.