Why485

If I remember right, I think IL-2 had something similar as well, where there was some kind of score bonus for landing back at base.

I just checked the latest patch. No changes to the imposter presets or system as a whole.

Very cool idea. Sounds like it would be fun to try.

What makes you think that this is how it's always going to look and that model visibility should be removed on this basis alone? It needs tweaking of course, and I would be surprised if in a future patch it's not toned down, but do you really believe that on this basis alone, on what happens to be the current settings, the entire feature should be removed forever? Keep in mind, this did not happen previously with the original, much more conservative settings. The original settings made use of the alphaExp setting, which made distant objects transparent, and particularly in the case of ground units, it prevented exactly what you're seeing in that picture. Currently, that setting is completely disabled because I guess ED wanted to see what the other extreme looked like. As I've said repeatedly, and even in the very post that you quoted, I don't think the current values are perfect. I think the system itself needs tweaking. However, I do not think that it warrants the complete removal of such an essential feature that will be improved with time, and whose end result will be more realistic than what we had before 1.5.

Honestly, I would be fine if ED were to bring back the alphaExp transparency (so you can't see ground targets 50km away), and then just remove the current large setting and make it exclusive to VR. This leaves the realistic looking small and medium settings for monitor users. However, and I know I sound like a broken record, but the resolution dependency really should be addressed so that small = small regardless of the resolution. The current small and medium settings are very realistic looking depending on your resolution. It's actually possible that since VR hardware and specs are completely known, that you have a specific model visibility setting override whatever is set in options whenever you have a VR headset active. Separating them is a good idea. Removing the feature completely is absurd, and frankly your crusade on this much needed feature, one which you have not even seen or tested yourself, is ridiculous. The current values for large aren't realistic. Most everybody agrees with that. I'd like to remind you that nobody was complaining about seeing dots of tanks 50km away with the first release of the feature. The current values needs tweaking and it will very likely be toned down or modified in upcoming patches to bring it more in line with reality. We've gone from one extreme to another, and in the future ED will probably settle on a middle ground between the two. However, to dismiss the feature as a whole just because the current values are strange is tremendously short-sighted. It benefits nobody but yourself as "I can see just fine" appears to you a valid excuse to remove a feature that has been highly requested since the Lock On days, and pretty much every combat flight simulator out there, including industry and military ones, uses in one form or another because it is more realistic to have than not.

FYI, zooming in on a sprite does not make the sprite bigger on your screen. It's actually the opposite and makes the apparent size of the sprite smaller. The only thing you gain by zooming into an imposter sprite is getting a more accurate idea of where it is. It won't let you find it any easier. In fact, it's actually harder to find things when zoomed in because the sprite will have a smaller apparent size. Remember that the imposters scale based purely on pixel sizes and nothing else. When you decrease your field of view to zoom into a model, that physical model can very easily still be so small that it's under the minsize (i.e. it still takes up less pixels than the smallest the impsoter is allowed to get) and as such will stay the same screen size even if you zoom in. This has the effect of the imposter going down in apparent size as you zoom into it, often to the point where if you zoom in all the way, it doesn't look enlarged at all. Zooming in won't help you ID it either, because it's still taking up the same pixels zoomed in as it does at the default FOV. This goes both ways. Conversely, if you raise your field of view above the default, you make the apparent size of the objects actually grow. This is because when you zoom out, objects take up less pixels, which means their imposters will more quickly run into their minsize value. I don't see that as a big issue, but some kind up upper limit where the imposters will scale down with a large FOV would be appreciated. It's kind of just the nature of such a system. This happens in other games which use pixel based scaling systems as well. On the contrary, DCS is very much in the minority when it comes to distant spotting. Until 1.5, it was pretty much the only combat flight sim out there without some kind of system to aid in spotting targets at a distance. I can only think of one combat flight sim (Strike Fighters 2) that doesn't do anything to address the issue of how unrealistically difficult it is to see distant objects on a computer screen, and it's not really designed to be ultra realistic and instead uses an advanced padlock system to counter the problem. Hell, I can even think of console flight sim (Energy Air Force/Over G Fighters) example that use some kind of aid to help in seeing distant targets.

I'm definitely agreed on the idea that this should be server enforceable. While I have reservations on what the ultimate outcome of the setting will be once that happens, it's still something optional that gives somebody an advantage they shouldn't have over somebody else. I think it's inevitable that this becomes a server option and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens next patch.

The problem here is that there is a very strong argument for the model visibility setting being more realistic on than off. The specific values for what is right now the largest possible setting might not be realistic, but the smaller ones work just fine and look very realistic. However, again, I raise the resolution dependency concern if any one specific setting was forced across all resolutions.

IL-2 BoS does use model scaling, but it's very well done in a way that makes it pretty transparent to the user unless you're specifically looking for it. You could always turn it off if you're so offended by it. You say you don't play multiplayer anyway, so why do you care what others are playing with? Either way, servers are going to enforce a setting as soon as they become able to, and that's what's really going to kill this feature at the end of the day. DCS's solution to this is actually very novel and has never been done before. It's not "lifted from 20 year old games" as you say. It's a really clever idea to generate imposter sprites and use those versus outright scaling the models themselves. However, I do still believe its implementation is too simplistic and results in the two fatal flaws that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

There's already an option that makes planes more transparent based on distance. It was enabled on the first release (at 0.5 or 0.25 on normal and enlarged respectively) of the model visibility presets, but disabled and set to 0 in the last patch. I don't doubt that it will return as right now spotting at extreme distances is too easy. Although I'm not sure what value they'll decide on, as setting it on full (1.0) makes it extremely difficult to see things that are off in the distance, to the point where seeing ground targets is practically as difficult as it is with the option off.

It doesn't work that way, and in fact it's the opposite. The higher resolution, the less effect the model visibility setting has. I've talked about this at length in other threads and other posts. The lower your resolution, the larger the apparent size of the imposter sprites. As I've said numerous times, that resolution dependency is actually my biggest problem with the way this works right now. The values can always be tweaked one way or the other, but no values will prevent lower resolutions from being able to see better than higher resolutions. If somebody with a 4k screen were to ever try to play the game with the model visibility setting on large, it wouldn't make that much of a difference for them. In fact, the current large setting at 4k is equivalent to running something between small and medium at 1080p in terms of apparent size, which should look pretty realistic. I'd love to test out what the current settings look like on a 4k screen, but I don't have access to one. This is also why it doesn't matter to me what the current settings are. They can't find a realistic setting for this as long as your resolution changes the apparent size of the sprites. What looks great at one resolution (e.g. ~7.5 at 1440p) would look too big/small at another. Also I think Sharpe you should try it and see for yourself before campaigning so hard one way or the other. I don't think it's fair for somebody to criticize the system so harshly when they have yet to see/use/experience it for themselves. You have an unusual setup, and that's exactly why it's important for somebody like you to test it. Honestly, I find it ridiculous that you have such strong opinions on something you haven't seen, used, don't plan on using, and don't even play MP where what other people are doing might impact you. Try it for yourself first, then you can hate on it all you want because then you'll have an informed opinion rather than second hand hearsay from everybody else.

Christ, relax man. I wouldn't be surprised if they settle on values that are some medium between what it used to be and it is now. Either way, this will be a server enforceable option, and servers are free to enforce the small or medium settings which are the more realistic options (depending on resolution) with the current values.

I couldn't disagree more. I think it's a great step in the right direction, especially considering DCS has had, for a very long time, unrealistically difficult to see air targets.

Of all the topics in DCS, target visibility is probably the one I am most passionate about and interested in. Here are my thoughts on the visibility system and what I think could be improved. For reference, I play on 27" 1440p display for DCS. I was very surprised, given ED's apparent disdain for seeing anything out the window, that they dramatically increased the values in the visibility options. Regardless of any perceived realism, I love what this has done for combat, as it is a great equalizer when you can actually see the planes are threatening you and can plan your moves accordingly. Being able to observe the battle from a distance and plan is something that you could never do before. Not like this. That being said, and I'm saying this as somebody who is very happy with the current values and would rather everything be as visible as possible, in terms of realism I think the new large setting is a bit too big. Back when I experimenting with the values, on a 1440p display, I found a minsize of anything more than ~8 (keep in mind this is at 1440p) starts to look strange, but mostly because it starts to expose the weaknesses in the current rendering method ED is using. At medium distances, the imposter system works incredibly well, and is everything I could have hoped for. However, at longer range distances, it starts to fall apart as the imposter is required to maintain a constant size. There are two changes I would like to see to the system if possible. 1. Scale the imposter minsize with resolution. This is the biggest problem with the system. Because the size of the imposter is based purely on the number of pixels the object takes up, this causes variable results at different resolutions. The lower the resolution, the larger the apparent size of the imposters on an equal size screen. While you can never account for the size of a monitor, you can at least account for the changes in resolution. Choose a baseline for your values, then scale from there. For example, if 6.0 becomes the agreed upon standard minsize for 1080p, then when running at 1440p, the minsize should automatically be adjusted to 8.0. 2. Distance must be taken into account when drawing the imposter. With the current settings, once an object reaches minsize, it has the same level of visibility no matter how far it is. This is why you can see F-15s taking off from an airfield 50km away, or a SAM site from an equally huge distance. This is also why it can be hard to judge the distance of something once it gets sufficiently far away. Again, while I love having this level of information while flying, it's not exactly realistic. The imposters need to either scale down past a certain distance, below their minsize, or something else has to be done. Either way, distance needs to be taken into account for the visibility of the model in some way. Currently there is already a setting for this, the alphaExp value. Interestingly enough, ED set this to 0 in the latest patch, which means that imposters have the same level of transparency regardless of distance. This is why you see dark dots at a distance for ground targets. Conversely, a value of 1.0 means that imposters fade to completely transparent with distance. Although, I'm not sure at what distance the imposter becomes fully transparent. This is one way to make sure that stuff at distances further than is realistic are not easy to see. Ground objects, as they are always against the irregular background of the terrain, are especially susceptible to this value. It's the difference between seeing clusters of black dots 50km away, and seeing nothing at all. That planes get realistically difficult to see at a distance with a high alphaExp value, but ground objects seemingly turn invisible at practically all distances is an argument for creating separate imposter values for ground versus air targets. I'm not super fond of the idea of just setting alphaExp to 1.0 and calling it day, because some things can become very difficult to see, to the point where you may as well turn the imposter system off, but it is one approach. Personally, I would prefer if the imposters themselves started to scale down past a certain distance.

That F-16 in the MiG-21 mission is a good example. There's 2 reasons why this might happen. One is aspect, the other is crossing the threshold between drawing the imposter and drawing the physical model. The aspect which a target is facing determines the image that gets used for the imposter. The changing aspect can sometimes cause small changes is apparent size, and oftentimes very large changes in visibility. This is kind of realistic, so I'm okay with it. Although the times when an aspect change causes the apparent size to change looks a bit strange. The second is likely what you're seeing in the MiG-21 mission. For a variety of reasons (lighting, coloration, fog, etc.) the visibility of the imposter can sometimes be more visible than the physical model. When you cross the threshold between when the model switches from its sprite imposter to the physical model, you sometimes get a jarring change in visibility. The reason that moving your head can cause it to change back and forth is because doing that can change how many pixels the plane takes up on the screen, which is why you can get it pop back and forth. Changing your FOV is another easy way to trigger this. This actually used to happen before with some planes and their LOD models. The Tu-95 was one of the worst, where its far LOD model was highly visible, but its high detail model was extremely difficult to see. Once you got close enough that it switches to the high detail LOD, it suddenly became significantly harder to see.

The system hasn't changed at all. All that's changed is the values that are used for each setting. If you liked how it used to look, the new Small setting is very close to what Enlarged used to look like. It's still drawing a billboard, but the transition point (maxsize) was moved further away so it wouldn't be as noticeable as it used to be. Here's what's changed. I posted this in another thread, but it's now closed.

I was hoping this would be fixed with the model visibility settings but nav lights are just as difficult to see now as they were before. Nav lights are supposed to be easily visible for miles, so I hope ED addresses this at some point.

Remember that how big the imposters appear depends heavily on your resolution because their size is based solely on pixel size. The link uses tests from the old visibility settings, but the results only become more exaggerated as the imposters get bigger. What might look right for one person, might look very wrong to another depending on resolution.

The values were raised across the board, and then a large setting was added on top of it. Small is now slightly bigger than what Enlarged used to be. Medium is even bigger than that, and large is twice as big as medium used to be. To put numbers to it, here's how the settings changed from 1.5. This number represents how small the imposter is allowed to get and is measured in pixels. The larger the number, the larger the imposter. The first value is 1.5, the second value is 1.5.1. Small: 3.0 -> 6.0 Medium: 5.0 -> 8.0 Large: 10.0 They also set the alphaExp values to 0 for all the settings, which makes the imposters darker than they used to be. Aside from these new preset values, no changes have been made to the rendering as far as I can tell. A value of 10.0 now acts exactly like it did in 1.5.

This is just something I'm curious about. How much of the MiG-21 radar code is custom? Is it the same as the FC3 fighters, just with limits and some fluff thrown on top of it? Or, does LNS use use raw data from the sim (object positions, terrain, etc.) to create their own radar model?

I have the same problem. Until I hear more on this I've just been denying the activation requests.

Thank you.

An explanation would have been nice before closing of the last thread, and I do agree that this is a topic worth discussing. The new imposter system is leagues better than what we had before, but it's a very flawed system because of how simplistic it is. Does think there is no issue? Do they think there is an issue and it's going to be addressed? Are there any changes planned for the imposter system? We just don't know. All we got was a closed thread with an edited title.

Sort of? Unlike air targets, it's not something I've tested extensively. In theory ground targets would be easiest to see when they're extremely far away because they would contrast against blurry textures and a lack of objects drawn out that far. Once you got closer, more clutter would be drawn and textures would sharpen, making them stand out less. Somebody else who does more A2G could probably give a better answer to that. I'm mostly guessing. If you haven't actually played the beta yet, all of these problems are not as bad as you might think they are. I am admittedly engineering extreme situations to point out the system's drawbacks. I think its biggest flaw though, and the one that actually matters, is its resolution dependency which is inherent in the fact that it's tied only to raw pixel counts.

In theory, you can't. Not from a screenshot, anyway. In practice, you can usually get some estimation of what's closer and what's further away just from how quickly the dot is moving across your screen and how it reacts to your movements. As far as I know, the dot will stop rendering at ~50-60km or whatever distance it is that a plane would stop being rendered normally. However, you'd be hard pressed to even see the dot at that distance because of its minimal movement and low opacity. The only reason I even know about the ~50km limit is from extensive screwing around with the imposter system to break it and see how it works. In actual gameplay I don't think I've seen dots on planes much further than 20km, and even then, only in ideal conditions where I know exactly where I need to be looking, the plane is a dark color, and it's at an angle where it's exposing a large surface area. As soon as they turn to face another direction they can become near impossible to spot. The color of plane can make it hard to see as well. Flankers because of their blue color are much harder to see than an F-15's dark grey. Meanwhile, for such a large target, the white Tu-95s can be depressingly difficult to see at a distance because their white, low opacity, sprite fades so well into the sky.