Tippis

No. They're doing a very different thing, specifically because they are intended to solve the issue the old minimal sizes created. It's not gigantic, nor is that the smallest they can be. Rather, a standard 1080p size is a reasonable benchmark that the other resolutions should probably converge towards. At the moment, they aren't there, so in VR, they're too big. In high-res pancake, they're reasonable, but still has some range issues. At 1080p, funnily enough, they're also too big. But unlike in the previous case, the different scenarios can now be tweaked to meet the same goal. Hence the initial statement that this is far more realistic and a vast improvement. And it is so because it's not the old simple geometrical solution. And tbh, no matter how it's solved, it is still better, even if — especially if — some people complain that they no longer have their old advantage or if they have suddenly gained a new one. Because that's how you know it's working.

Mainly because you seem to be confused what it is we're discussing. And in a thread where we're supposed to give pros and cons of the new system, it is rather important that you know what it is and how it differs from what came before it.

You are still confusing spotting dots — what we have now — with the smallest drawable airplane splodge (contact dots), which is what we had before and what the mod (i.e. not something the game actually had in and of itself) fiddles with. I can't believe I have to go down this road with you once again, but READ WHAT YOU ARE RESPONDING TO No. The spotting dots are new. They are a headline feature of 2.9. …at certain ranges. At other ranges, you were given an advantage because of how culling worked. The “woe is me” victim card won't work here because you also had an advantage. You even (accidentally) crowed about it in previous discussions by showing how far you could see things, and therefore, spotting was working as intended. Funny thing: that's not always going to be possible because DCS can decide to stop modelling beyond visual range. It's an option this whole rigmarole opens up for. It's why this is a huge step forward for realism. Neat, huh?

Nope. Lower resolutions created bigger splotches out to the edge of VWR, because there was a limit to how small they could be. Higher resolutions, by virtue of the same problem, got smaller splotches at the same range, which got lost in the background noise, but on the other hand had pixel planes show up at insane distances because, at that higher resolution, they had not yet hit the limit for how small they could be. You demonstrated this yourself in old posts arguing that there was no problem. The fact that you could see them that far was the problem. The fact that you could and others couldn't was why you thought it wasn't one. Not the type we have now, no. It is quite literally a 2.9 headline feature. Again, you're confusing the “smallest drawable airplane splodge” with the massive improvement the spotting dots (re)introduce.

Trust me. It's vastly more realistic. Why? Because it's adjustable and capable of compensating for hardware and setting differences. This means it is an actual simulation of spotting rather than the backwards nonsense DCS was saddled with before. It's really that simple: we now have simulation where we previously had none. This benefits everyone (well… except for the ones who want to keep their old advantages, but no-one cares about those people). The problem was that, in 4K it was possible out to ten times that distance. You even showed this yourself in some of the past threads on the topic. It is almost functionally impossible for any spotting change in DCS to not be an improvement in terms of realism because of how poorly the old system worked. Not really, no, since the dots didn't exist back then. People kept suggesting that this kind of solution wasn't needed. What you're talking about is how there was no good way to deal with sub-pixel model rendering, and especially not in a way that scaled equally across all kinds of display setups. With this new functionality, that is suddenly possible, and for the most part, it should mean that higher-resolution displays will end up showing the same sized blobs as the lower-resolution ones, and low-resolution displays will not see planes very far… nor will high-resolution displays. That was what even more certainly was wrong in earlier versions. e: In a sense, it's a bit like how we now have a multi-layered system of shadows to deal with different edge cases, which when combined, create a reasonably smooth and sensible (and continuous) experience. Where a purely mathematical modelling breaks down, another layer based on different principles take over and continue to offer a sufficient substitute. What we had in terms of spotting in DCS was a very naïve and simplistic geometrical model of how to render 3D meshes to scale (and to lower detail over range to help performance). That is something very different from an actual simulation of perception, and to do that, we need a transitional mode that handles and covers up the ranges where spotting moves from difficult to actually impossible. That's where the new dots come in and offers a method to smoothly (and equitably) deal with the transition.

This change makes DCS vastly more realistic. And more balanced. And more fun. So triple-win. It will obviously remove a ton of advantages that people have been used to and argued to keep, but that's just how it goes.

I'll add my standard copypasta Fundamentally, the problem is that the damage application for anything that doesn't have complex system simulations (so, all ground and sea units) is completely backwards. Even a simple hit point system can be made to work while they chip away at more intricate systems modelling in all vehicles, but only if that hitpoint pile is treated properly. Right now, it isn't. At the moment, ground vehicle damage application basically consists of three different components: • A hitpoint pile — the bigger the vehicle, the more hitpoints it has, and the tougher it is. • A damage mitigation stat — an abstraction of armour to simply deflect some smaller amounts of damage application, including an aspect calculation whereby, depending on the vehicle and the angle of attack, the damage mitigation is scaled up or down. • A four-(and-a-half)-tiered damage state: fine(ish), system-crippled, movement-crippled, (burning, soon to be) dead. It's that last one that is set up horribly. In particular, the thresholds are nonsensical in relation to the full hitpoint pile, although the order is also questionable. Essentially, it's a case of, at 50% HP, the unit stops working; at 25% (or thereabouts), it starts moving slowly; at 10% it starts burning and will slowly lose its remaining hitpoints; and at 0% it dies and explodes. Not a single one of those are where they should be. By all means, units should probably explode at 0% HP, but they should start burning a lot sooner (and and stay burning a long time after), and in particular they should be dead long before that. The reason this matters is that the only event you can reliably automate without scripting up every single unit in a mission (say goodbye to your CPU) is death. It's what scores point in the kill screen; it's what most mass triggers (“group dead”, “group alive” and the “…less than” versions of the same triggers) use to do their thing. To make that happen, and to make the attack actually count from a game-mechanical perspective, you end up having to hit individual trucks with 500lbs bombs, where a 0.5lbs bomblet should really be able do the same job: in this case, to reduce the hitpoint pile to 0 to trigger the “death” state. Similarly, somewhat depending on exactly what kind of unit we're talking about, movement should probably be lost long before the system as a whole is gone, unless we're talking about something flimsy (eg. radar antennas and the like on anti-air), in which case the systems should be gone the moment something sneezes in their general direction. Ideally, the whole thing would be set up something like: • The hitpoint pile is still there because it's too much effort to get rid of it. • The damage states are set by unit type, and all happen a lot sooner. Eg. for a tank, it's mobility loss at 80%, system loss at 70%, death at 50%; for a mobile SAM, it might instead be system loss at 95%, mobility loss at 80%, death at 50%. The only unit where death should happen at 0% HP is infantry, and they should still lose their ability to fight long before that. • For added bonus funtime: have system loss also affect mobility so that units that lose their offensive capabilities run away really fast, until mobility damage sets in and they instead have to run away really slow… (or just have two stages of reduced mobility if you're boring). • Tie triggers into not just the revised death limit, but also to the “non-operational” and “immobile” thresholds so those can be used as mass triggers to score points and achieve objectives with ease.

Pretty much, yeah. The problem has always been that DCS spotting has been broken in every conceivable way at once, often in the most unintuitive way possible, and this is a huge step towards fixing that. Before this, high-resolution players could see planes out to impossible distances — dozens (plural) of nautical miles — but details got lost in the noise at the upper edge of WVR. There, it was the exact opposite: low-resolution players could see planes far larger and thus far easier than those with higher resolutions. Of the two, the latter was a really odd one because, where it probably mattered the most, you benefitted greatly from having worse visual quality and hardware. Only within a rather narrow band, maybe out to gun range or so, was there any parity and beyond that, it was all broken with different sides arguing that it was “good” based on what objectively unfair advantage their particular hardware setup gave them. Many of them were (and still are) arguing adamantly that their particular advantage must under no circumstances be touched, whereas the “other side's” advantage must be nerfed. So of course, this important step towards nerfing both sides and brining them into parity across the entire range of visual spotting will be heavily criticized and fought against. Ultimately, this change finally opens up the option for having more realistic spotting (something that DCS has never had before) for everyone, equally. This is inherently and unquestionably good.

If anything, if you're only seeing it twice, you should consider yourself lucky It's a set of ancient issues that seem to depend on how your router resolves local IPs, on what DCS expects to see as a client, and how it populates server info depending on what's available to it at any time. So based on that old experience, are you sure you're seeing your server twice, or do you have the issue I had where a different server gets covered up with your local server info? This can be identified by either checking the displayed IP and seeing if they're different (and not LAN IPs), and by the fact that you can join them and end up on different servers. Also can you check what happens if you set the server to use a non-default port? Eg. set it to 10408 rather than 10308, thereby forcing DCS to actually treat the server differently from what's used almost everywhere else in the server list.

Year-and-a-half:ly bump…

Nah. It shows exactly why his tactic doesn't work: because it reduces everything to hype rather than actual communication and updates on development. Hype doesn't work. Communication does. The two are not the same, and ED is only “damned” if they stick to the former rather than the latter.

Thank you for the update on the discussion on the updates (on the… etc ). In particular… …that is absolutely the right approach. Few things bind two parties together like actually showing off the silliness that sometimes happen, thereby building an understanding of the process and why (and how) the end result ends up the way it does. It certainly takes a bit of… idk… bravery, for the lack of a better term, but it pretty much universally pays off in the end. Blooper reals exist for a reason, and they are delivered on the “collector's edition” releases of [whatever] specifically because it's the more in-depth fans that want them and enjoy them. Those who don't most likely won't even seek them out to begin with. That's what the “oh shush” button is for. I'm wondering, though, and I somewhat suspect that this answer would be kept more under wraps than many others, but more towards the licensing end of the business, is there a problem with the manufacturers that you and the third-party devs rely on to get the info on planes in regards to this? There are a fair few stories out there about how sim companies can't show (or even implement) crashes because the companies don't want any kind of footage where their car/plane/trivection oven falls to pieces because the game physics decided to have a wobble that day.

Not really no. By the very nature of things, it's only the “don't” part that leads there. Really, the only reason not to do proper, systematic, and regular communication and information efforts that there's no culture for it, and that's a culture that almost universally needs to be remedied because nothing good ever comes out of it.

…so that still doesn't say anything about your silly claim. So still [citation needed], twice over. I understand that you don't actually want to try to defend it or prove it any way, since even the most basic napkin maths proves you wrong instantly. But still, again, at least try to make it seem like your attempts at an argument hold any kind of water. Not really, no. That's one of the main reasons why they're being lambasted.

So nothing to support that silly notion then, I take it? Unsurprising. Good thing that no-one is, then. One thing that could make it do even better was if ED became a more communicative and information-happy company that engaged with the community and kept up a good stream of information about how things are going, what with, and why. It's pretty basic and well-known stuff, really. It's kind of funny how you always default back to this supposed “not worth their time” argument (with absolutely nothing to back it up) and then immediately, inevitably, pivot to a position where they should waste as much of their time as possible rather than actually be efficient with their resources. Every time, without fail, you are adamant that ED must at all cost remain inefficient, small, niche, and not improve their processes in any way. Nothing must ever become better in your contrarian world, for no conceivable or articulated reason other than… well… because it's contrary to what someone else has suggested.

Yes, ED's reluctance to improve the content generation side of the equation has long been a problem. You've been arguing very adamantly against any such improvements though, so you really only have yourself to blame. [citation needed] [twice over] Look, I know that doing research and using facts rather than just pulling some random nonsense out of your lower backside makes you break out in hives and asthma attacks, but come on man, at least try to make it seem like your fantasies have a chance of existing in this particular reality. Congratulations. You just joined the OP's side. The whole point is that ED should stop being unwilling — they've never been unable — because that will greatly benefit everyone involved and solve a ton of the issues they're having. It would be a very cheap and effective effort to forestall a large number of the bad habits you're describing. They already make elaborate videos. They're just not nearly as good a use of their time.

Again, 250 people, and split over multiple games. So not a lot, no.

You're confusing who does what again. So no, that's not a fair assessment by any stretch of the imagination. And that's saying something, given how far your imagination has proven it can stretch.

Not the one you're imagining. Also, this is rich coming from someone who tried to use some imaginary company with infinite resources as a counter-argument not that many posts back. I really don't. Quite the opposite. What gets them into trouble isn't that they're being specific — it's that they're skimping on details and not explaining themselves. Or when they first say one thing, then maintain radio silence until suddenly they say something else. I wonder what could possibly solve that problem…? They have made their customers “rabid” and “insatiable” by drip-feeding them, so any bit of information gets devoured and blown out of proportion. There's a solution to that too…

No it wouldn't. Because that's not the question being asked. Quite simple, really. Nope. That's not how development actually works. Or making videos. And if it does, then ED needs to fix whatever organisational pathologies they're suffering from anyway — their reticence towards communication being forcibly solved is just a bonus. Above all, it would let them get a grip on the hype-disappointment cycle that has historically and consistency created the most rabid reactions form the fans. You must be absolutely miserable with DCS if that's your approach, then, given how worried you are about anything suggested about the future.

And the only one who has even remotely suggesting anything that nonsensical is you. I've been around here long enough to know that this particular kind of laughably silly strawman argument is your default fallback when you don't even have the slightest shred of an a actual, coherent, cohesive, and sensible argument and instead just must be contrarian at all cost whenever anyone suggests an improvement. But… and see if you can follow along with this very complicated logic here… you would get an answer. Which is actually what the OP is asking for. Not only could you get an answer, but one better: you could get an explanation, which would be help immensely with reducing the workload and the repeated questions and giving ED more time to actually move the ball forward. Information and communication is incredibly cheap and massively efficient. Your position is essentially that ED should be wasteful, and you're trying to make the mindbogglingly incoherent argument that this would be a good use of everyone's time and resources. What you think and what is actually the case is a venn diagram consisting of two circles situated at the opposing ends of the universe. But more to the point, no-one would ask for that detail other than the ones who don't need it… and they wouldn't ask for it for that very reason. Everyone else would simply be engaged — a very valuable trait that is very easy to acquire and maintain.

But nothing. You have to spend money to make money, and ED's being a bit smaller than a company that juggles the continued maintenance of one game while having 2–3 others in active development at the same doesn't mean they're somehow automatically incapable of keeping the information hungry customer base involved and engaged. Game companies an order of magnitude smaller still manage to create splashy development update because 1) it's not actually that hard, and 2) it's worth it. Not really, no. Heading off by far the largest source of complaints against the company and their product would be among the most productive and efficient things they could do. It might not be for that imaginary “infinite resource” company you dreamed up, but that hypothetical construct is hardly relevant here, now is it?

You need to look up who the developer of MSFS actually is. 250 people doesn't qualify as “giant” either.

250 people is not “almost unlimited resources”.

You realise that this works the exact opposite to your previous argument, right?