Jarlerus

+1

And yes, I've also seen multiple occasions where VR users spot airborne targets a lot sooner than I do, as you explain with the "see blurry dots in VR is easier than spitting pixels on HD-screens". Although, I can spot ground targets a lot easier than VR users.. This is where balancing comes in, even though this is a simulator.

Counterpoint: The Blitz trucks are from the newer WW2 asset pack. The comparably more easily spotted targets, with a "low" LoD model instead of a dot, are super old.

I guess you could make it through use of scripting AI behaviour.

Fair enough, as far as regarding spotting of units. Can I assume that the con-trail issue is as old and debated? (Has the suggestion to give it a long-range sprite-LoD been lifted? If not I claim I have a new idea for solution of this ;) ) //Jarl.

They will have to do an adjustment pass of all this at some point, but for now we'll have to keep to anticipate our needs when making missions, and sort the available factions to red/blue sides to get all we want where we want it. Unfortunately.

There's more ways of making spotting realistic than scaling of the actual target/unit. Using contrast and color to simulate/replicate a realistic behaviour is one way to go, without unrealistic scaling of models. (this would be dependent on lighting conditions though) In the example pictures I've added to the first post it can be seen that the lowest level of LoD is somewhat light gray in color, which makes it hard to see against the background. There's room for improvement here. One would have to make a study of how it is perceived IRL in similar circumstances to develop a better model for spotting.

Yeah, 5 minutes seems quite long. I just tested, and I'm in a mission and flying in 1,5 minutes.

*added pictures to First Post*

I will return later with pictures.

Maybe the map depicts a version where even civilian airfields are managed by the military? (btw, can't figure out what you mean by "DCA" as google is confused by a big airport with that name, but I guess you mean like approach radars etc?)

Hmm, Ok. I'm confused by the post at the link though. Is there, or is there not GPS-support in DCS for JDAM's? Either way, it will be interesting once it's working. //Jarl

AFAIK THEY (ED, not me) said that the areas in between module-maps would be very low-fidelity. Basically not populated as the maps we have. As for enhancing Caucasus: Why would they? It's a great, cheap, free map as it is. You want more fidelity? Buy a map module! :P (It's marketing). Adding a low-fidelity full earth would open up for long-range interdiction aircraft and bombers modules. It would make sense. --- And, OT: Yes. I'd like if they clear out all static An-2s, and Mi-8's from airfields, but it's not a big deal. Want to fly civvy planes? Take off from a civilian airport. No? Delete the statics you want with the delete-trigger (it works, and if it doesn't - it's probably a bug: Report it.)

I think it's up to the module maker to add it or not. As you say some have it, to a limited extent, like the Viggen (TV-switch?) and the Harrier (ARM-switch).

Hmm. Ok. Sounds reasonable. Though, from a DCS PoV, it uses those system upgrades as basically "quality of life" ones, as they don't alter it's weapon employment capabilities. (we don't have JDAM's, for example). I'll move it anyway, and mark it as I did with the F/A-18C. //Jarl.

Are you arguing that the visibility of units should be reduced because there is a mod out there that makes them too visible? :huh: Seems odd. Any scaling option that makes units render as sizes they are not is something I would like to be avoided. IMO units should always be rendered at their true size, never larger. The problem I suggest solving is when the render engine renders units smaller (as in one pixel or less) when it should actually be larger.

...for MAC. On order/agreement with ED. I would assume that ED has some strict control over the FC/MAC-level modules. IMO/AFAIK, they have been very strict with that segment - they obviously don't want it to be the main thing of DCS. (many other sims/games focus mainly on accessibility already).

I see the issue of spotting (air and ground targets) and the immersive impact of effects like smoke, contrails etc, as essentially the same problem: Render Distance. Right now, at a certain distance, units on the ground and in the air de-render and are instead (at best) rendered as a pixel. That pixel can be much smaller than the unit was just before it de-rendered, making it look as it pops in and out of existence. This problem is exaggerated on screens with small pixels/high resolution, making it difficult to spot targets. The problem of smoke effects, explosions and contrails not rendering at a certain distance and zoom can be easily understood as problematic for situation awareness and immersion. These issues are also a problem on high end systems, even if render settings are maxed out. I have good fps, but can't turn render distance up any more. ---- I wish for a better solution to these problems that is less dependent on screen resolution and is adjustable through settings, so that it works on lower end systems. My uninitiated proposal would be to use sprites when targets and effects are beyond the set maximum render distance. Units (air & ground) would be a scalable "dot" (independent from screen resolution, and corresponding scale to the size of the unit) and effects could be replaced by simple sprites, just to give us some visual indication of events beyond the current render distance. //Jarl P.S. I think the scaling that was tested/used earlier was not good, as it skewed the users situational awareness too much. Targets where easier to spot, but it gave an unrealistic and warped representation of the (game) world. EDIT: OK, so I did some tests/comparisons. Seems like some units have an "intermediate" level of LoD (level of detail) that actually does what I ask for in this post, and some don't. As you can see below, the trucks suddenly de-render into dots. I also did a illustration of the con-trail issue. (KC-135 as subject).

Dude... "1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed."

" full Earth Map coverage" This was clearly stated as a long term wish, and not as any kind of promise. Just to be clear.

Hmm, so the only difference between the DCS one and the older 1990 Harrier, is the actual screen itself? From a DCS perspective I'd say that's a minor upgrade that does not have any impact on it's operational effectiveness. If so, it is in essence still a 1990 aircraft. (I don't know what to do with the "AFC-456" info, unfortunately :P ) Thanks for your feedback though ^^ //Jarl.

Like others say, the settings are available. As for the truly extreme varieties of weather, like hurricanes or tsunamis (not even weather) I'd say they are not needed in a Combat Simulator. If you wouldn't fly in them IRL, you're not going to fly combat in them...

This is a problem on 2D screens as well. (I have to zoom in to render them at longer ranges). I voted "yes!" as in: Add another level of rendering of them so they are visible at long ranges. Like switch it out with some sprites or similar? Should be FPS-friendly, and add a lot to immersion and tactical game-play. //Jarl

*Updated with loads of small corrections and fixes* :) //Jarl

AFAIK, they are the same, only that the F is "navy compliant" NAVY version, as in it is certified to be stored and used on ships. G is the USAF version, but with the same, heavier penetrator warhead as the F. Apparently the G was produced in greater numbers.