Callsign112

+1 . I love landmarks on maps, it's a huge part of what makes it worth exploring.

Yeah +1, I can see people posting in an inappropriate thread out of convenience as a potential problem, but I guess the Mod's will have to wait and see if they are having to move threads to and fro. On the flip side though, I really like how we now have all the WWII stuff in one place. I no longer have to scroll down to Ugra Media when I'm looking for something on Normandy, unless I want to.

I think the bold text is unfortunately very true and something that is missing from most other SIM's/Games... But at least DCS strives for realism.

I quite like the cleaner look too, but there is a point to be made for being able to see the sub forums within a forum. If your a new user for example and you would like to add a wish for a new map/feature. You would have to know its nested in DCS World 2.7/Customer Support/Wishlist/Map Wishlist. Even as a regular on the forum it took me several minutes to find it.

Well considering the previous post by SD Where he showed things planned for the Assets Pack, which included among other things stuff like the C-47, workable search lights, and Paratroopers. Paratroopers shouldn't be too far away considering most of the things on that list are already in-game.

Could this be another example of the effects of mods?

Yes I can see the bright point of light from the flare, so that seems to be working as I would expect. I can't tell where, or if there is a plane there, but then as already mentioned, I don't think there is anything unusual there. Can you at least tell us the distance between your plane and the flare?

No you didn't, and my reading comprehension is perfectly fine I can assure you of that. My feeling is you are misleading the conversation, and I'm not sure it isn't being done on purpose. In a discussion where there already seems to be a fair bit of confusion/uncertainty, I don't see it as being very helpful. For example, would the 1/2 meter long bamboo pole in your garden be visible at 2 km, or would you need to bind a bunch together so that the bound object has a 1/2 meter diameter as well? My apologies though if it wasn't intended. The point is @=475FG= Dawger, I haven't seen anything presented in any of these discussions that supports the notion the LOD of objects is not accurately portrayed over distance. The impression I get from my own in-game experience is that it appears to be accurate. And regarding whether or not DCS is correctly rendering light is a more complex issue, but its being stated as if it is a well proven fact. I know people have made suggestions on ways that can help/improve the players ability to spot/view their opponents, but that is not proof that the problem is with DCS. And I understand that you see objects disappear while using VR, but other VR users have also stated they aren't having a problem. So while there are obviously issues that seem to vary depending on the person reporting them, I am becoming more and more convinced that at least part of the problem might be a misunderstanding of the facts.

I'm really glad you shared this. Thanks. Like I said before, I am not trying to tell you or even suggest what your experience in DCS is. I would not argue, and understand that you feel there is a problem with being able to reliably spot aircraft. Clearly you are experiencing it, so it is real. My contribution here is meant more to try and help. And it seems to me that it is at least possible some of the problem might be resulting from a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the information. For example, lets say the silhouetted images you provided were meant to represent the various planes when viewed from 100 meters. A lot of the detail represented by the lines showing flaps and such would likely not be visible at just 300 meters. For certain we are not talking about distances in miles/km here, we are talking about distances measured in meters in terms of loosing that type of detail. And the other potential issue I see here are the frustrations that can easily build in this type of situation, especially in situations when our expectations don't match our experience. TBH, I can't say for sure whether there is a problem or not with the way DCS renders objects, but what I can say for sure is that there is nothing unusual for objects to disappear in their background, especially at distance. You are not alone here, and my advice would be to not underestimate the level of difficulty in developing/improving something like situational awareness. In other words, even if there is a problem with the way DCS renders objects, don't be too hard on yourself. Loosing sight of your enemy is probably one of the greatest fears a fighter pilot has to manage, but it happens all the time.

Well yes, shadows tend to be a little on the flat side.

The issue here as I understand it is not whether you can show what's inside your VR HMD, or the differences in visual perception between 1 and 2 minutes of arc! The issue is whether or not DCS is causing the player to loose sight of his opponent because it is rendering surface light incorrectly. I'm not saying that it does, or it doesn't, but you claiming that a pilot could see a dot from 18 km away and say... it's a Cessna 172 is a fairly hefty load of the stuff coming out the South end of a bull facing North. But I think if you want to add anything meaningful to your argument that DCS is preventing WWII players from seeing their opponents, upload the image/s here that demonstrate the level of detail/surface light you are expecting at known distances of course so that we can compare that to what we are actually seeing in game. Because so far, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of this happening. I am not saying that it isn't happening, I just haven't seen it yet.

Yes I agree, the problem certainly does appear to be self-reinforcing. So are you suggesting that a real life F15 pilot would be able to pick out the MiG-29 dot from a group of civilian passenger jets at 55nm to shoot his really fast torpedo at if he had nothing else but his own vision to assist him? The next question would be, is he wearing a red cape and at what distance do you classify as a BVR engagement? The argument here seems to be that DCS is rendering the surface light being emitted by WWII planes incorrectly, and that causes them to disappear into the terrain detail. So this raises at least a few questions for me. The first would be is it even possible for a pilot to loose sight of something while flying an airplane? In other words, has this ever been recorded as having happened before to Navy/Air Force pilots? The second would be how does the surface of an assortment of WWII planes in terms of the amount of light they emit compare against the background light being emitted by the earth at various times throughout the day? The follow on question to that of course would be how this compares to what is being rendered in DCS? But going back to the WWII jet jocks, most of them I am assuming realize that they don't have to worry about the 55nm dots until they get within 300 meters.

Yes well I can't say I'm having your issue, and the question I am asking is can you demonstrate, or show the lighting errors? Can you show that DCS is rendering object lighting incorrectly? I don't know that it does, or it doesn't, but saying that the amount of light being emitted by an object is similar or less than its surrounding hardly suggests a problem because it could in fact be the case in real life. Like I said, I have a low end system so you can expect the images I created with it are not the best, but still capable of spotting WWII fighter aircraft at 5 km. The point of this thread is suggesting that DCS is making it hard to spot planes, and that the LOD is inaccurate. I haven't seen much proof of that yet.

That would make such an awesome addition to DCS WWII. This is completely out of my realm, but I wonder what the possibility would be to partner on something like that with ED? Imagine if you would/could apply the type of technology used in the Apache in terms of Ai control opposite to human player control,... I don't think there would be any question of a home run hit for sure. Great looking model though, hope your able to keep up with all the hard work.

No one is making a leap to anywhere. You made a blank statement about the real world detail that was visible at 1 km, I just filled in the blank for you! But the question was, are you saying that the LOD in the images I posted above do not represent what we should expect to see in real life? In the image taken from about 4 km, you can clearly see all six planes. The actual distance separating them in the ME is 100 meters. If you have a picture of multiple WWII fighters taken from about 4 km, why don't you put it here so we can all see the LOD of real life?

That is a very interesting point because it turns out the amount of light being emitted by an object plays a role in the distance it will remain visible. If the amount of light being emitted by an object is similar, or less than its background surrounding, it will certainly retain an ability to blend in especially as distance increases. Ever wonder why flat colors are used a lot in the camouflage industry? Now if you can actually show that DCS is rendering object brightness incorrectly, then I think you might be on to something. Otherwise your simply pointing to the fact that light is implicated in how well an object can be seen at any given distance. I am not saying that you are wrong, or that you can't show it, just pointing to the relevance here. But I think the main point here for me at least is that @KoN , yourself, and others are voicing concerns about something that would understandably be a concern for DCS users. I completely get it. If there is an actual problem with the way DCS renders object light and that is affecting game play, then your point is not only understandable, its valid and should be looked into. But my point is directed more at the general premise being used to frame the argument. In terms of the level of detail in relation to distance, it appears accurate IMO. And in terms of loosing sight of your enemy during close combat, this is also very much a part of what happens in real life. When viewing something even from just 300 meters away, which is close to normal gun convergence, the object is a fraction of its actual size. This fact greatly contributes to its ability to blend in to the back ground especially if it is designed to not emit a lot of light, and that is before we consider things like speed. Consider this, you loose sight of the Mustang your chasing as he drops onto the deck. He is now traveling perpendicular to your heading at top speed. He is creating approximately 1 km of distance between the two of you every 5 seconds. The point to focus on here is not so much the distance, but his change in position. He is getting harder to spot with each passing second, and his position is constantly changing. So it shouldn't be a big surprise that once you loose sight of him, it gets really hard to find him again because his position is changing in an unknown direction while the actual visibility of his plane is also decreasing. Hitting the deck to make a run for it was an actual strategy that sometimes worked, and was sometimes the pilots only chance in real life. Other than being able to show that DCS is rendering object light incorrectly, my suggestion would be to use the SIM to practice the extremely difficult skill of situational awareness. I often use the pause/F10 map buttons to help with this. I understand that everyone would like to get better in the MP setting. I think the best arena for that is to practice in the SP setting first.

+1. We need more control for naval units in general.

Wrong? Maybe, but are you trying to tell me if we both were sitting 1+ km from a group of parked cars, you would be able to tell me the make and model of the cars without knowing what they were beforehand? At 1 km... which details are visible? A single engine Cessna can be identified and picked out of a group of other types of single engine planes of similar size at 2 km? So are you saying that the LOD in the images I posted above does not match with what you would see at those distances IRL? Because I thought that was the point behind the person I was quoting, and the reason I quoted him.

Yes I know I am spotting over open water. The point was to see if you knew! I asked you questions regarding this same issue you raised in another thread, but you never responded. The questions were meant to try and get at what exactly is the issue you are having so that I can give more appropriate input. The post you are quoting here is answering to comments regarding the level of visible detail when viewing planes at distance. So I would argue that my efforts were well spent! Like I said, obviously I don't fully understand the problem you are facing because if the complaint is that a plane looks like a dot when viewed from more than 1 km, then I'm not sure the issue your raising can be fixed because it is part of the physical world we live in. The fact that it is normal to loose color saturation/detail definition as distance increases means that objects will blend into the background more easily. But I am wondering if you aren't mixing two separate issues. One issue seems to be related to the way an object's ability to blend into its background improves after its been colored/covered in some type of camouflage. The second issue is you may be placing unrealistic expectations on the LOD of planes you are viewing at distance. So to better understand, what distance are you having problems at, and what LOD are you expecting to see at those distances?

This is what I am seeing on the Normandy map, stable version, no mods. I took shots from 3 different times of day (approx 0800, 1300, and 1600). Can't duplicate what you are seeing. con't... Con't...

Yeah obviously I don't understand the problem your facing exactly, and can't say that spotting other aircraft gets easier for me when I zoom out. I have a very low end system (RX580 8GB), so I doubt there is any sort of advantage there. I run the stable version without any mods. I have TrackIR but am not using it at the moment, and don't have VR. The LOD I am seeing in game seems to be normal for me, or at least what I would expect when viewing an object the size of an airplane at the distances I am viewing from. I made a simple mission to save anyone interested the time it would take to do the same. The mission has the player in a TF-51D so you don't even have to own a flyable module to try spotting for yourself on the Mariana Is. map. There are six different planes to spot. You can fly around changing the angle and distance while pausing the SIM intermittently to better appreciate the LOD in the plane being spotted. I'm not sure what LOD should be expected when viewing a WWII fighter from 5km away, but I am not expected to see anything more than a dot really. The following 5 sets of pictures show me spotting the group of 6 planes from approximately 5, 4, 3, 1, and .300 km. Bird Watching.miz Cont'n... Cont'n...

It looks like the shadow is incomplete. These images show it much better than your first set. Thanks.

Yeah agree, it gives it a real weird look. I will try to duplicate later on and post any comments back here. Thanks.

Thank you, this will come in handy as I prepare to try out your Spitfire campaigns. I know it has been said in so many ways so many times before, but I would just like to reiterate how much I appreciate all the attention to detail you put into your work. Whether it is a multi-mission campaign, or a tutorial video like this one, your work greatly benefits my experience in DCS.

It would be a real immersion booster if we could populate airfields with ground crew and other objects similar to the Super Carrier.