airdoc

today, about 20 mins ago in the DOW server, while dogfighting with a P51, i somehow got both by wings ripped apart (approximately at 1/3 distance from the fuselage, so ailerons were gone) when pulling up after a dive. However, the dora after that kept flying almost normally, but it was faster. It was responsive as if it had ailerons, and i could achieve about 600kmh speed at level flight with 1.3 ata. I continued flying for about 4 mins without both wings trying to RTB but unfortunately my PC crashed and i couldnt save the track. Maybe one of the guys who flew at the server at that time could upload the track? It was the mission with 3 small towns as ground targets in the middle of the map and the red side took off from Kozdov iirc. This happened about 10 mins before mission end. thanks

Regarding the question in your previous post, i think that you misunderstood what i wrote. i said that : "Even if i adjust my seat to move closer to the monitor, at 50 centimeters, then I still get about half the image size I should be seeing compared to reality", meaning that at 1 meter distance from the monitor i get an apparent size of 9mm with the standard zoom; respectively, if i move my seat to 50cm from the screen i would get 9x2=18mm apparent size (note that although the actual size in the monitor doesn't change, the degrees of apparent size would double at 50cm, so for practical reasons i 'm sticking with length measurements) which is roughly half of the 3.2cm which should be in reality. I should have expressed it more directly though, it's a bit vague the way it is written, sorry for the confusion. Actually, that's similar to what is going on. The realistic apparent size was estimated for 1m distance and then the FOV was progressively increased from standard zoom, that yielded 9mm apparent size, to 1.6cm of apparent size at the 2nd pic and finally to what should be realistic at 3.2cms. As a matter of fact, if I look at full screen at the 3rd pic at my monitor, the cockpit structures drawn size seem to be close to the actual real life dimensions, that's why I get such a narrow field of view. I don't know the actual gunsight dimensions, but if you do know them and have a monitor of 24 inches (or similar), you can test them yourself to see if they are close. It would be a verification that the estimates are correct. If you find them largely dissimilar, please correct me. You are right in your conclusion, that it is expected that in order to get the same apparent size, the FOV would be very narrow. The pictures shown are just an attempt at quantifying how smaller we see things in our desktop compared to RL, which for a 24 inch monitor is about 3 times smaller using standard zoom, and provides a rough estimate of how much better a bigger monitor would be and very crudely how scaled up targets should be : i 'm not suggesting that 3 times is the way to go, because this would introduce a very large bias in bigger monitors plus players can always lean forward half a meter to view better, which roughly doubles apparent size. I guess the moderators merged the topics :) cheers

that would be my guess as well

I 'm not sure what you mean with your first question. The quote has 3.2 and 1.6 cm. Yes, as you say, this is exactly what I 'm talking about. I 'm saying that the apparent size in standard view is about 1/3 of the real one (at a 24 inch monitor). It comes close to the real one in ~40 inch monitors though. It's essentially an approach to the notion of smart scaling. Distortion of apparent size of aircraft, while retaining an acceptably wide FOV and not having to zoom in to get a similarly big target. Sure there are other important factors that kick in, but the apparent size is pretty much the most crucial one. Luminance, contrast, resolution, reflections, etc, are essential, but not as much contributory. EDIT : apparent size is determined as well by monitor dimensions (not resolution though, unless higher resolution comes with a different FOV)

that's very helpful, thanks!

i don't know details about the A-10C, since my country did not have it, but i presume that the military A-10C sim used for pilot training included the software with a replica of the cockpit and muliple monitor setup. i 'd say anything over 32 inches is very large :) would be interesting to see a poll about monitor sizes in sim users though.

I 'm using standard FOV in the 1st pic, and zoomed in at the next 2 until i got the mentioned dimensions. Sorry don't know how to estimate the FOV in each one. The monitor position is a bit confusing in the pic. At 1m i drew the small triangle just to measure the apparent size (BD) for this distance, and then compare it to the dimensions of the target at a monitor placed at the hypothetical 1m (and 50 cm). The real FOV (outer base) is not in direct linear continuum with the monitor's FOV, but this does not affect the estimation of the apparent size and the point made in the post. What it's essentially saying, is that, if one sees a P51 at 300 meters in reality, then it's apparent size at 1m distance from the eye should be 3.2 cm. If one sits behind a monitor at 1m and that monitor draws a P51, then it should be 3.2 cm length if it is to match the real one. If in your set up you measure it it be i.e. 1.6 cm, then you get the apparent size of a real P51 at 600m, etc..

i realise that getting somewhat technical may make some people a bit weary. As Bucic already said, a lot of stuff posted is just speculation, and i tried to provide some facts about apparent size in DCS. Unless there is some mistake in the math, then, DCS draws the aircraft at a size close to the real one only for monitors above 32 inches (with standard zoom). I agree with you that there are other parameters involved but some, like the one i mentioned can actually be measured and are very important. My 2 cents having served as an airforce academy physician : most modern military sims take the notion of apparent size into account. To do this, the projectors (or monitors) are of a standard size, with a standard FOV, and a standard location for the pilot's seat. In sim tests, even though pilots are looking at a simulated 3d world through 2d screens, the size of the targets is roughly the same as it would be in reality. Other factors such as motion blur, resolution, luminance, etc are also very important - but the apparent size should be standardised. I 'm not arguing that DCS can go to the level of a military sim, i m just saying that it is optimised for very large monitors as far as apparent size is concerned. P.S. : i m using sweet fx, which darkens a bit the pit in the P51. cheers

Alright, here are the results of a quick test I did, comparing the apparent target size of a real life object to an object we see in DCS through our monitors. The test evaluates only the "apparent size" of an aircraft, which essentially means the degrees of visual field it occupies (and reflects the size of the retina that processes it). I used the P51 as a reference aircraft, which has a length of 9.83 meters. Let's assume that in reality one sees a P51 from the side, at a distance of 300meters (this distance is chosen for easier calculation purposes). Have a look at this graph (sorry for poor drawing, it was done in a hurry in paint). At point A is the location of the human eye. The triangle base E-G marks the location of the P51. Theta is the angle at the top of the triangle that reflects the apparent size of the target. At 1 meter from point A, i have hypothesized the location of the monitor (i think it is a fair compromise). If an object in real life at 300 meters distance evokes theta angle for its apparent size, then, if a simulator is to recreate the apparent size precisely, it should draw it at such dimensions that the same theta angle is formed at point A, i.e. E-G (9.83 meters) should be transformed to B-D. Doing some quick math : - tan (theta/2) = 9.83/(2*300)=0.01638. Using a tan calculator theta is found to be 1.876 degrees of apparent size. -Now for BD : tan(theta/2)= BD/(2*1)=0.01638=> BD=0.032m(3.2cm) So, in essence, someone who sees a P51 in reality at 300 meters, should see it appear approximately 3.2 centimeters long at 1 meter distance (and about 1.6 centimeters at 50 centimeters distance). I went back to DCS and set 2 P51s at 300 meters distance, flying vertically to each other and measured the size at my monitor at different FOVs: 1. At the Standard Zoom : the P51 appears to be about 9 milimeters long. 2. Increasing the zoom to get a P51 size of 1.6 cm : 3. Increasing further the zoom to get the actual size of 3.2 cm : here is a pic of the map showing the distance of the 2 airplanes at 0.19 nm (300m) : In essence, what I get at my settings (1080p, 24 inch monitor) is roughly 3 times smaller targets than I would see in reality, using the standard zoom. I have to use a higher zoom to get results that resemble RL, but then the FOV, becomes pretty narrow and impacts situational awareness. Even if i adjust my seat to move closer to the monitor, at 50 centimeters, then I still get about half the image size I should be seeing compared to reality. You can test the pictures yourselves in your own monitor to see how you do on your rig. My guess is that one would need about a 40 inch monitor to get close to real life. It would also be interesting to hear real pilot's opinion on these 3 pictures. I think that it seems more reasonable to assume that at 300 meters, one would look at a P51 and make out the details I see at the 2nd and maybe (for 20/20 vision or higher) 3rd picture. I realise that it is hard for the developers to find a solution that fits everyone, but currently the way the engine works seems to make it excessively hard for people with 22-27 inch monitors to spot targets; hence the need for some kind of scaling. And this test focused just on object size and not contrast which many members of the community have pinpointed as an area that needs to be worked for better spotting. PS : this was done pretty quick, so if you find a problem with the math, please let me know. :)

Yes, stutter happens in SP too...it is a known issue as well..there has been a formal post for this by Wags (don't have a link handy) who said that this is a limitation of the current engine and it will be addressed after EDGE is released.

hi i don't know if this has been mentioned before; i 'd like to see a simple interface menu option in multiplayer by which someone can sort the available servers by specified criteria : i.e alphabetically, password protected/public, or ping. If i 'm not mistaken, up to know servers are only sorted by ping automatically. With the number of available servers on the rise, it can be frustrating to skim through 50 or so servers every time to find the right one. thanks

So, are you advocating that there is no issue in spotting for you? (presuming that we are talking about ww2 planes and pvp encounters)

there have been many threads about this subject, and as far as my understanding of it goes, it is a real and major issue, particularly for WW2 planes. If people with larger monitors and resolution don't have a problem with it (which i highly doubt, most probably just have a better time coping but still face a problem) then this doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done for the majority of players who use 1080p and smaller than 27 inch monitors. The FOV that was mentioned above simply doesn't work for my settings. I need to have a wider FOV so that i can check my instruments while flying and also be able to see parts of the fuselage and the terrain at the same time so that i retain situational awareness. And please, let's stop reciting the "it's hard to spot targets IRL as well" argument all the time. Unless someone comes up with convincing quantifiable data about target spotting in real life vs DCS, then it's just a guess. Only experienced RL pilots who play DCS could possibly answer this question with some credibility, and even then, there is still a subjective factor involved. Hard data for this issue are generally hard to find, and the best that I 've been able to come up with is this : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885&highlight=research+visibility Hopefully we 'll see some kind of fix to it soon enough in DCS.

This sounds like a great idea. Reminds me of SEOW-like coop campaigns in IL2. I wouldn't vote for very long distances to target though; mainly because of the poor aircraft visibility issue. I 'd think that people on the same team should be able to pinpoint enemy location with precision when they spot one and call in support. If the distances are too long, then support may take quite some time to arrive, and due to the poor visibility, aircraft at disadvantage will probably always try to hide by flying low over the terrain = almost null chance of being tracked or getting spotted. 70-100 kms of distance from airfield to target (about 15mins flying time) worked well for SEOW and missions in IL2. Good luck with the campaign. keep it up!

In the P51, if i 'm not mistaken (some more knowledgeable guys please correct me here), the force required to pull the stick actually becomes less after a certain speed. As for stick distance travel, DCS is pretty accurate. It's just that all the other sims did not model it correctly. :) EDIT : also bear in mind that the real stick is quite more elongated than the joystick most of us have, and thus makes it easier to apply force and is more accurate.

Yo-Yo sniped it. This can easily happen at very high speeds (i.e. over 400mph) with a sudden elevator deflection, before GLOC sets in. The wing break serves to move the aircraft from very high g's instantly to almost 1g, thus the pilot never has the time to achieve GLOC. I would also like to add that one can lose a wing even without many g's when the aircraft's speed is very high. Go with the mustang over 505 mph and even if you fly straight you can lose a wing.

once the normandy map with WW2 period ground units is out, i 'm sure we will see a lot of similar campaigns. We 'll just have to wait another year...fingers crossed

+1 It seems that the 2 most important parameters in aircraft detection are target size and level of contrast. For a given size, the influence of contrast is so profound, that it can alter the detection range by a factor of X2-X3. If smart scaling is difficult to implement due to coding restrictions, then i think that similar results could be achieved by manipulating the aircraft colours in a way that optimal contrast is achieved. In published research in simulators, the pilot's ability to spot contacts was mostly related to their inherent contrast sensitivity, so maybe with EDGE and some additional tweaks the issue could be addressed : Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots' performance in aircraft simulators. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982 Jan;59(1):105-9. Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekule R, Harp SA. Abstract Contrast sensitivity was found to be better than visual acuity for predicting a pilot's ability to detect a small, semi-isolated, air-to-ground target. Eleven instructor pilots had their acuity measured by both conventional and contrast sensitivity methods. Scotopic contract sensitivity showed the highest correlation with slant detection range (0.83). Conventionally determined visual acuity proved to be a poor predictor of a pilot's ability to detect a small low contrast target. link : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title%20Word&term=Contrast%20sensitivity%20predicts%20pilots%27%20performance%20in%20aircraft%20simulators

iirc, Wags mentioned in a post about a year ago that a dedicated server would be a feature of EDGE (sorry, can't find the link). In latest updates about EDGE however, this wasn't any longer there. I 'm not sure what this means, but I do hope that it is in their plans to implement it. edit : found the link, it's a sticky by SithSpawn http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122230&highlight=EDGE

+1 I 've been playing IL2 1946, CLOD, BOS, ROF and DCS. When playing online I am mostly worried about finding contacts. Even at servers that allow the F10 tactical view, although i can see the enemy closing in the map, if the enemy aircraft is below me, it's almost impossible to spot it against the ground. No matter what the distance. I recall an instance where one of my team-mates was in a turning fight in a P51vs another P51 at the deck and was calling for support. I was right above them at 3000ft, and could not spot either one of the aircraft below, even though i knew where they were. I had to hit the deck to see them, so that the background was the sky and not terrain. I don't think that it's my PC or monitor, because i have no trouble with other sims. And most people that i know of, seem to share this concern about DCS.

For me the problem with visibility in DCS is not just at max range. It 's about close range too. For some reason, other aircraft are very hard to spot and very easy to lose. Using zoom for this function seems not only unrealistic but hard to implement (for the player) as well. With high zoom situational awareness is lost. Team Fusion implemented aircraft reflections in CLOD and it helped a lot. EDIT : i should add that DCS has up to now been focusing on modern jets, with radar capabilities and missile fights. Now that DCS WW2 is coming, the visibility issue will probably come in the highlight once again, since the type of engagement and dogfight is based much more on the player's ability to spot targets.

If you are looking for research and RL data instead of just speculation, then have a look at my first post in this thread, and try to download and go through the whole paper. It's generally not easy to find hard data on this matter, and by going through the various charts one can appreciate how complicated the issue of aircraft detection is IRL. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885 btw, i hope that the visibility issues are improved after EDGE regardless of the method adopted. Right now DCS is the only sim where i find it extremely hard to spot contacts, even at distances of 1-2 miles.

thanks for replying JulienBlanc, is it possible though to adjust the LUA files so that when you use the snapview key only the FOV will change and not the direction?

Hi all Currently, DCS lets you assign a single button to a standard FOV and use 2 additional buttons to increase/decrease FOV. Going through a thread about snapviews, i wondered if there is a way to assign 3 buttons for 3 different FOVs, so that the switch between normal-zoomed in-zoomed out would be instant (i.e. 30 degrees - 80 degrees - 100 degrees). Any help is appreciated thanks

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but are you saying that it is possible to assign additional FOVs to different keys (keyboard or joystick) besides the one that is standard zoom? I have been trying to figure out how to do it but never really found the way. Is it possible to set ie 30deg-60-90 deg of FOV to 3 different keys? I too dislike how the zoom function works, and had to manipulate a bit the zoom speed in order to get it functional for my way of flying, but still i would prefer an instant switch between different FOVs with buttons. thanks