PeaceSells

Your thought is similar to mine. However, the way I see this: What is taken in consideration is the size the aircraft takes up on the screen: when it's far enough (or zoomed out enough) to be the size of a pixel, it's drawn as a pixel. Both distance and zoom change size, but in the end it's not looking at distance or zoom, it's looking at the end result: the size the aircraft will occupy on the screen, and this will define how many pixels will be drawn. If it's just one pixel, draw just one pixel. If it's smaller than one pixel, blend it with the background to make it less visible, blend more and more as it becomes smaller. So I don't think you sould be worried with FOV as you mentioned. BUT I have to say that a simpler and more effective solution would be to just not draw this damn pixel if aircraft is smaller than one pixel. Why go through all the trouble of micro calculating the blending of one freaking pixel that's at a distance that's not supposed to be seen anyway, when there's much worse visibility problems with aircraft that's close to you? Priorities. This whole 'pixel imposer' thing that DCS is using apparently was designed with 4k or 2k screens in mind, where a person apparently can't see a single pixel (I don't have 4k or 2k screens, so please correct me if I'm wrong). If you can't see the pixel, then don't render it and it will at the same prevent players at 1080p like me from seeing it. Because those pixels stand-out here like a black whale lying on a white sand background.

I accidentally switched the cockpit back to russian and button lights were working. So yeah, we just have to wait ED get in the mood to fix this incredibly complex issue that's at the edge of the limits of today's computer simulation technology.

The most worrying thing I've seen there is the fact that you want to make planes visible from 56 km away in 1440p too, instead of making them invisible at 1080p. You guys have any idea of what 56 km is?

Zhukov, This is not de-rendering, at least I've never seen anything de-rendering in A2A combat. This is simply the 3d model being less visible than the dark dot that replaces it beyond a certain distance. This is nothing new, it's also described on other posts on the forum, but I don't remember exactly where. You guys are over-complicating it. For sanity's sake... spend some time on the BVR default missions/instant actions included with FC3 (Constant Peg, etc.), you will see what I'm referring to. Pay attention to the enemy aicraft as they get nearer, from BVR until WVR. Zoom in and out at all different distances.

Shagrat, The dots are very easy to see against the sky, I do it all the time, and so all the A2A pilots in multiplayer, without ever pausing the sim. In your pic there's 1 dot (the right-most) that's very flashy and quick to spot, the other 4 dots (to the left of the first) are harder and require more slow scanning. These are against the sky, I don't know if there are any against the ground, as they're much harder to spot. Also, you are zooming in, which makes it harder to spot. Correct techinque in DCS is to zoom out, makes the dots much more visible (reduces the size of everything except the dot, you can't reduce the size of a pixel). At lower Gamma values (most people play with lower Gamma than the default 2.2) it gets even easier. I play at 1080 and I've heard 4k makes it harder to spot the dot because the pixel is smaller at 4k. Also, I don't know if you tested 1080p on a native 1080p monitor or on a 4k monitor, but testing resolutions lower than the monitor's max (native) resolution yelds poor results. I have a 1080p monitor and dots are VERY visible here at 1080p. That's were we agree. It's VERY easy to spot a plane at 30nm. You do it in a quick glance without ever zooming in, much more efficient than using the radars.

It's not a large blob, it's a small dot. You might not see it depending on your graphics settings (Gamma value, FXAA) or because you're not paying enough attention to it. But it's always there.

It does happen to the A-10C and all other aircraft, it's the current visibility system since the 'model enlargement' system was discontinued, way back in 1.5. And yes, I'm in the current version (2.5.2 Open Beta) and no, not using mixed resolution. With all the respect, if you guys aren't even aware of the current 'dots visibility system', why are you even posting in the visibility model thread? BTW, the lower you set your Gamma, the easier it is to spot the dots against the sky. If you use extermal FXAA it gets much harder.

Zhukov, you don't play much air to air, do you? An F-15 is visible at 60 km with naked eye without zoom. When it gets closer, zooming in will make it disappear, zooming out will make it appear again. This scheme happens to all aircraft, it's not specific to F-15, MiGs or F-5. Where on earth are you guy's "proper scanning techniques"??

That's exactly what's wrong with the view system. I'm amused by the fact that the advocates that say the system is fine never noted this. Sometimes I wonder if many people here even play A2A. For sure this thread wouldn't have gotten this long if they did.

well... that's a whole new level in 'wasted webspace', I give you that... On the other hand, that's pretty impressive that you went through all the process of building that post, with images and all... props to you!!

Smart scaling has nothing to do with specific games, it's a solution for rendering objects at real-life size at normal sized monitors, otherwise those monitors will draw them at reduced sizes. It's a simple solution, that has nothing to do with "what year we are in" and "specific games". You can decide that you don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that your monitor is drawing objects smaller than they are in real life.

The fact that ED doesn't have the skill to do it doesn't mean it's not how you display objects at real-life sizes in conventional monitors.

Smart scale has nothing to do with CRT monitors, it's about the size of objects. As long as you have objects displayed smaller than real-life size, you need a fix for getting it back to it's actual real-life size.

Unless zooming in makes aircraft disapear, right?

Maybe F-18 on one side and M2000 plus A-10C on the other?

I wasn't talking about rotor slant forward, I was talking about pitch foward moment, not the same thing, despite one might contribute to the other. Plus, whatever is causing a pitch foward moment without the need to pull the stick (or trim) is already naturally compensating for pitch up moment.

I suspect the reason to be designed like this is that the increase in speed results in a increase in pitch up tendency. I guess the rotor being centered in a slight pitch down position is to partially compensate that. If you take off without trimming (or hit trim reset), you'll see that after you gain a certain amount of speed you don't need to hold cyclic forward anymore and can leave it at rest in the center, and the helicopter will fly level. If you continue increasing speed, you'll have to push the stick forward instead of pull back, to keep flying level. Maybe if the rotor wasn't a bit forward when centered, you'd run out of cyclic travel forward in order to keep level flight at high speeds...

+1 (for SRS, because 2.5 not so much so far...)

Lol, so unfair!! If I was one of these I wouldn't take you back in the future when you want to take a break from your new Hornet!

Dude. You need to calm down...

Lol

Hornet will be the chief DCS product, yes, but flying only that one aircraft means missing out on a lot of good stuff.

Exactly.

I did understand that. What I meant was: they aren't capable of working on the visible model without messing the RCS, and you hope they're capable of working with 2 different visible models for the same aircraft... WWII planes are allowed to fly together with modern fighters, so yes, it would matter for all aircraft, including WWII ones.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that doesn't make any more sense to me either...