vicx

I don't use shipito that often ... but for the Vive release I'll probably use it again.

KT ... there are two aspects to this. ED initially added this sprite feature to stop popping. It is to stop aircraft falling into aspects that cause pixel rendering errors which make the object dissapear and reappear randomly. This is a pretty terrible rendering bug to have and can happen at even high resolutions. So that is the minimum sprite size for objects in realsitic visual range. This is a small value ... 3-5 pixels. The alphaexp is to fade out the effect so that you don't have blobs at long distances. On an average monitor you need conservatve values for minimum and agressive values for alphaexp. On a VR headset you need totally different values and probably an entirely new algorithm because of the fisheye distortion of the eye images. VR users will also need a tweaked alphaexp value different to desktop users. The other feature that ED is trialing with sprites is if you can fly without zoom. This use of the sprite system is for WW2 fliers but it also has applications for VR. VR has no zoom and won't have zoom because people will throwup if it isn't done with a lot of care. I say again VR HAS NO ZOOM. WW2 fliers just want to fly the plane with more authenticity. This means they don't want to zoom their eyes to follow their threats. This requires an application of the sprite system so that things appear when they SHOULD, without Zoom being required. This accounts for aspects of the sprite system that you find confusing. ED is testing two use cases at the same time. Both features could be made separate IMO. If you are confused ... think of 1.5 as a testbed for features that, might not be for you or might not be ultimately used by you or by your type of aircraft. DCS 2.0 will arrive with NTTR and you won't need the sprite system for flying A10-C missions and F15 missions in NTTR but after NTTR other theaters will be arriving and VR will be taking off and that is when the sprite system is going to be required. All the testing needs to be done now in DCS 1.5 ... it is a smart approach. I prefer that ED are testing this stuff in public instead of behind closed doors. I would hate for excessive negative feedback to cause them to reconsider this approach.

HG, I agree. This is an essential thing to focus on. My testing IN DCS 1.5.1 BETA WITHOUT SPRITES shows outrageous advantages to having a high resolution monitor. I am pushing sythentic testing into 5K and 8K resolutions just so it can be seen very easily in screenshots and can't be disputed. I know what you talking about but this type of suggestion will need an image for those people who are more visual thinkers. Yep this makes sense. I think it is back in and it is also applied more agressively to objects that aren't sprites. I'm sure this is to remove the ability for high resolution users to see infinite distances. Without sprites they still have a gross advantage because they don't experience popping. Popping on low resolutions occurs at ANY zoom levels and is completely arbitrary. Objects just dissapear even when they appeared on screen five zoom levels earlier. I want to see server gates for everything. Let people be server nazis if they want, it is the public ends up choosing the winners and losers. Would agree that this is the start of something good. Yes ... still a lot of unanswered questions regarding VR. There is no zoom in VR. The agressive sprite behaviour that people complain about in this thread is not even enough to bring VR users to parity with non-VR users. VR will need a unique and powerful solution. Even after being wowed by clarity and detail of the screenshots I took doing 5K testing ... when I put the VR headset on and spawned into a virtually real cockpit, it didn't matter as much that I was having trouble seeing objects 1 NM away - what I could see at arms length and within 1/2 NM was so awesome. I didn't want to go trade even Dk2 VR for a 5K monitor. No deal!

Been doing some tests with regards to resolution. Of course I expected some advantage to 4K but I was shocked to see how disadvantageous it is to have a 1080P monitor. Objects just disappear. Of course ED has to do something about this. Or not depending on your philosophy. :) When 5K monitors and 8K monitors start being used it is just going to become more obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution

Shadows are fine but most people turn them off because even with a BEAST of a video card shadows (even flat ones) can at moments cause the framerate to drop and you really notice that in VR. In VR you need ALWAYS greater than 75FPS for EACH eye. That is 150FPS combined and the framerate should never drop below that. So rendering greater than 150fps with as close to zero latency as possible is hard. VR is very demanding. I have a GTX780 and I run with VISIB RANGE: LOW and SHADOWS: OFF. I can still run 2xMSSA which in my experience is worth doing. Snapviews don't work and in many ways go against the whole idea of VR anyway. Still if anyone has got them working ... tell me how.

I absolutely see the aircraft more clearly in your screenshots than when I am running the game. There does seem like there is a large advantage to having a 4K monitor. Sharpe you should install DCS World 1.5.1 Openbeta and test it out. Maybe see if DCS World 1.5 looks different to DCS 1.2.

majapahit, what video card do you have? Sounds like a DX9/DX10 card trying to render a DX11 feature.

This clearly shows that Zooming and the Visibility feature are incompatible. You should be able to choose one or the other but not BOTH. Then you can join a server that has the style you want. In almost 100% of cases the WW2 and Korean fight guys will choose the Visibility Feature over Zooming. IF you don't like the Visibility Feature you get to choose Zoom and never have to see a Visibility Sprite ever again. You can also play on a server that doesn't have them. This way everyone gets what they want.

No matter what you say there is going to be a need for server switches to keep people happy. There will be problems if it isn't added. When I'm flying VR I want to fly on server with other people who flying in VR. IF someone connects with standard rig they coud very easily ruin the experience. The Warbird guys who prefer Visibility sprites for better SA probably won't want to fly up against people who are using Zooming and Sprites. Using both is replicating the same mechanism so looks a little like cheating. Some of those Warbird guys will just have LARGE Visibility sprites ans turn off zooming and ban zooming from their servers. Some of the BVR guys might use the Small setting for WVR action but will probably set server flags to keep Med and Large sprites out of the server. In all cases sever flags keep everyone in their comfy area and over time people drop the flags if they wanna bring more players in ... they see how it goes. In my experience the most sucessful servers are the ones that adapt. Plenty of those are very light with the rules but very heavy with the ban hammer. In the end it al woks out.

That is worth looking into.

xXNightEagleXx, start up another thread and we people WHO HAVE ACTUALLY TRIED IT can provide feedback from testing they have done. I have a DK2 VR HMD so I can give feedback and screenshots from a VR perspective. As for Server Settings I agree that there could easily be more flags setup for filtering users for competitive gameplay purposes. You could have monitor resolution as a flag. So you could have a a 1080P server where 4K users have to run at 1080 fullscreen if they want to connect. You could have a sever where Visibility is ON but Zooming is disabled ... I can see this will be required for competitive servers where VR users are playing. This can be setup in a way where everyone is happy.

Well there does seem to be a clear advantage for people with 4K monitors and they are the ones who are saying that everything is easy to see. This feature is clearly not for them.

There needs to be more options for CA control of Aircraft. Orbit is an obvious one. This might be able to modded into the game right now using LUA. Orbit is a just a task so you might be able to add a button to the current dialog panel. An intermediate hack would be to add a command menu entry.

So you haven't been to the Greek Islands before :) I would call Arma maps fictional "based on a true stories". It's set in the future so they can make things more interesting. You have a NATO but not as we know it. You have something that looks like the military arm of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which doesn't yet exist but probably will sometime in the future. And you have Russia acting as a peace keeping force which is role they may be destined to play in that area of the world (where you have a Orthodox Christians and Muslims living together). Yeah for sure but I wish ED would just make a simple and easy BLUFOR and REDFOR ... each with ALL the units. People say but this isn't realistic but what has ED done to make the "USAF Aggressors". The "USAF Aggressors" have EVERY UNIT from every country. Well aint that just dandy ... why can't I have that in RED and BLUE? So why is it not OK to have a REDFOR or BLUEFOR with all the units? What was the reason again?

Sorry, I mean to say that where there is buggy behaviour it is not always clear where the problem lies. You might need to split up the report and that is what Grimes has done.

I don't see how you be completely unhappy with Allow Abort outcome ... it seems like that setting is in there to encourage SEAD flights to be effective. If a player is flying SEAD and doesn't do the job then down stream effectiveness of mission elements fails. This is kind of what you want. Of the choppers only the KA-50 should be partially effective in this instance and it looks like they are. Again not perfect simulation but in general not a bad result. As for individual AI unit performance in DCS. :noexpression: No comment.

How can you not vote for the CH-47 ... it's so petite and cute

I don't think people "lacked" an understanding as much as they questioned why zooming must be the only way to spot things. Zooming is your favourite thing in DCS ... that is fine you can keep it. You certainly can't argue that zooming is realistic; all you can say is that it works. Some people made an argument that an alternative to ZOOMING could work just as well and they would actually prefer it. They made a good argument and a BETA version of this feature is now in DCS. Good for them. I think you are assuming that people won't want to play online with the new feature. When this feature gets improved over the next few years I think people will not want to play without it. There are also other possibilities as far as online severs are concerned. Maybe I will only want to fly on servers with other VR pilots. Initially not a lot of players but we will know each other pretty well. You only what the right type of person on a server. Maybe I don't want to fly on a PVP sever against someone with a 4K monitor ... just not the right type of person. :lol: Sharpe, I think you might be a super poster ... based on quantity.

Well Arma doesn't have zooming and it is a combat sim. You have to use binoculars or a telescopic scope. Ok it has zoom but it is way less cheaty than the one in DCS.

OK as long as you realise that it is impossible to go straight to the iphone. If you let us early adopters of VR (with Oculus Brick and Vive Brick on face) improve the experience in DCS then late adopters like yourself who will wait for iphone_on_face will benefit from our effort. BUT this isn't just about VR ... there are people with monitor_on_table who don't want to use ZOOM. A lot of people want an alternative scheme to zooming that works better for WW2 dogfighting - this is what started the push for a Visibility Feature. As a VR user I am benefiting from the noise the WW2 fliers made over the last year to improve visibility of aircraft when not zoomed in. I thank for them that. Maybe you will thank them too when you use your 4K_iphone_on_face. By then there might be 8K or higher monitors_on_table available ... so you will still have a choice to make based on your personal preferences. Having a choice is what this is about.

This is a genuine concern BUT you shouldn't use it to try and kill a feature that has utility for people who either can't ZOOM (VR users) or people who would prefer to use the Visbility feature instead of ZOOMING. I know a lot of WW2 fliers would choose Visbility feature instead of ZOOMING. SA in dogfighting is where Visbility feature instead of ZOOMING makes a lot of sense. If you learned DCS with zooming you probably think I don't like these new things. It's OK old timer you can keep your Zoom.

That is a false assumption and I think you probably know that. Zooming is not realistic but it is in DCS as usability tool. Usability. A Visibility setting is simply a usability tool just the same as Zooming is. If you accept Zooming as a practical compromise of realism then why not accept visibility settings for the same reason. The only reason you don't like it is because you got your perfect setup and ... I don't know why you are against helping other people to get theirs.

This is a significant reason but it is not even the main reason. The reason that it is so hard to see stuff at a distance in VR is the FOV that VR has to use to work properly is locked to high setting. Approximately 105-106 degrees vertical and 94-95 degrees horizontal. the fact that there is NO ZOOM. In VR mode you can't ZOOM because the FOV is locked. Try playing DCS with a FOV of 93-94 and then add a little bit of fish-eye distortion and no ability to zoom and tell me what you can see 2km away. I actually agree. ED should make a totally new engine which is exclusively VR. I would switch and never look back.

It seems like we are in agreement, but you just don't know it.

:rolleyes: