nighthawk2174

Binding idea: In the hornet the radar elevation is effectlvly a spring loaded button up or down and this can be replicated as an 'absolute axis' (if that's the proper term) where if you something like a paddle on the T16000 throttle - which I have - pushing it one way will move the radar up or down. Then when you let go it will stop moving. I was wondering if it's possible to make this an option for the radar elevation binding in the axis options? Being able to use this as an elevation axis would free up my scroll wheel for something else like zoom.

DCS level bug as seen on both the 120 and 54 so I doubt deka can much

SSAA negatively impacts your ability to see stuff, yes it looks nice but using MSAA 4x (if you system can handle it is much better). And if you are looking to upgrade I'd recommend the 27" 1440 option. If you run MSAA with it spotting is usable not great but usable. You could get a 55" tv if you want but if you play any other games the input lag doesn't make it worth it. And ones with good input lag are VERY expensive as well.

Well as said before it wouldn't be the first time ED has changed their minds and I sure hope they do here.

Well first the scaling is based on hundreds of A/A engagements and pilot input so I'd take their word that it's accurate over yours. And even from my own limited experience sefross is far more realistic looking. Targets in DCS just fade into dots far quicker than they do irl. If anything it makes it better Right, and has that display technology arrived yet? Because it really hasn't... And this is an excuse to not have proper spotting via scaling how? ? It changes the size just like the rest of them do to a realistic size for the current zoom level and distance.

A) Serfoss isn't awfull, its just not as optimal as other options when dealing with zoom as again piolts don't have that irl so it wasn't factored in. Not that just using raw Sefross is awfull it works just fine but when you can make it better why not do so? B) It doesn't look bad and at this point, I think you're just saying that to keep face. Next, it still helps a bit with target orientation and it matches the data collected by sefross just adjusted for FOV and screen res + size. C) No it doesn't

A) 1 Nmi so 6076ft B) Not really C) To make the transition smooth and to match the statistical data. D) No not really E) Check the spoiler at the top F) Yes, the third aircraft on the right is scalled up the first two are not. Also... good to see you can't tell its scalled XD progress has been made! As we've been saying the scaling at closer ranges is not extreme and quite hard to notice where it really kicks in is at 2-3 Nmi where it is sorley needed to improve the ability to tell a targets orientation.

According to the scaling demo its 1.23 at .46 Nmi.

Ok lets work this. * Zoomed out is 90° FOV * zoomed in is 40.8° FOV Default: Using raw Sefross: ---------------------- Zoomed out - factor: 1.505 Zoomed in - factor: 1.505 Using Chihirobelmo: -------------------- Zoomed out - factor: 1.428 Zoomed in - factor: 1.126 Using Snapat V2: -------------------- Zoomed out - factor: 1.591 Zoomed in - factor: 1.000 - Would look like the default pic

I disagree, again I think your overestimating the amount bigger stuff looks right at gun range.

Yes, better and fixed labels would be a good interim solution but ultimately it has some serious flaws. The whole point of smart scaling is to allow you to perceive the apparent orientation of an aircraft at realistic ranges. This is the problem sefross set out to solve. Such things as glint and/or contrasts adjustments to account for pixel color bleed and LOD loading ranges more deal with the ranges you can see targets at and the ability to track them at realistic ranges. Labels though doesn't help with any of this really, not only does it sit over the target hiding its orientation but it would more than likely interfere with any glint, color, and contrast changes you make to try and improve long-range spotting. I really don't see how? Have you tried out the scaling demo? From my own observations made over the course of a few days, I've only become more and more impressed with the scaling demo and how realistic it makes stuff look compared to what we have now. I disagree strongly I consider DCS to be the worst in this regard and not just for a few people the amount of people who have trouble seeing in this game is quite extensive. There are several solutions to this: A) Don't scale ground units B) Have it so the scaling factor takes into account your current FOV aka zoom level and adjust the sizing down. Also, make it so when viewed through TGP's don't scale the unit. C) Remove the unrealistic level of zoom we have right now. And by the time your close enough to easily see the target, the scaling factor will be low enough it won't be noticeable. Easy solutions making this a non-issue. What ED did was a straight upscale such as X2 across all ranges and well obviously it was sub-optimal even Sefross points this out in his paper. To small at some ranges and far to large at others. well then I guess we'll just have to keep trying till they change their minds Yes scaling is one of them, sefross did the scientific research for us and scaling is a way to improve not necessarily how easy you can see something (although it helps a lot at the 2-4nmi range)

There is plenty of literature on max spotting ranges, excerpts of which I will post below and as was identified by Sefross its not just max spotting ranges (which are lacking in DCS for high-resolution people (1080 at 4x MSAA is ok) but the ability to pick out features such as the direction the target is going and basic plane-form shapes. Well these are all of board aids and would certainly be nice to have but DCS is still fundamentally flawed with both the ranges you can spot at and the ability to discern the orientation of a target. Being able to tell the orientation is a critical ability of normal human vision and in DCS this is very lacking. And it is the big point of scalling to allow this to happen.

Labels have been quite buggy, and the opactity change over distance has been broken for over a year now. Additionally you can see them through clouds and through the cockpit. Finally they don't provide the information scaling does of target orientation. In fact they make being able to tell a targets orientation impossible till the plane is much bigger than the label which is only at very close ranges sub 2 miles. Finally this isn't really an issue for heli's they can have the same scaling all the same. (also is it really that hard to have a off or on "switch" for scaling in the code?)

I'd consider the ability to actually see the target and be able to tell its orientation vital especially to older jets and props. And even in modern jets, it negatively impacts tactics, a guy I fly with is an absolute monster in BFM/ACM yet he hates doing this in DCS due to such poor visibility. He can't properly fight as he can in other games due to this. So yes you can play it just you have to fly it differently that you should be able to and that you can irl.

He has a phd in "Industrial Engineering-Human Systems" not philosophy.... Like I have no words for the level of purposeful ignorance displayed. And it wasn't about video games it was about high tech (and often quite expensive) training tools for pilots and how to make it better... +1

This has been explained to you on other forums so please...

And we can't adapt scaling for new tech why? And you would know how, considering you refuse to even A) read the paper, B) use the smart scaling demo, or C) play a game that uses some kind of scaling. ok boomer

And its age makes it less relevant how? Techniques such as MSAA are just as old if not older... should we stop using these because of how 'old' they are. ? ????

Strawmaning the argument again. VR users and even people with bigger monitors at higher resolutions have trouble i'm at 24" and I have trouble. And I know people who run at 27" - 32" and they have trouble as well. And why shouldn't there be some mechanism to help out people with smaller monitors? Why can't we have constant spotting across the board? A) it could be a user imputed setting B) Just make an educated guess, if they sit in a spot that negatively impacts their ability to see... well that's their choice.

Ok good false alarm then?

I hope this ins't true as if it is that is just stupid, fix your own missiles don't nerf ones that are more accurate...

Yeah in the end Deka has 0 control over the missile API all they can do is plug in some numbers in a lua file.

sweet

And yet you have yet to explain why its a) stupid or b) any less relevant

No evidence you say? It sounds like your talking about yourself. As I've said before it wouldn't be the first time ED changed its mind and did the opposite of what they said they'd do.