LowRider88

After searching broader DCS user forums, I have found that there are differing opinions about the ability to see aircraft in DCS. Some, who I agree with, state DCS objects both air and ground are too easy to spot. If I understand the history correctly, as a result there was some imposters.lua mechanism used to help reduce object visibility at a distance by replacing the 3D object with a small image which then fades out with distance. Sounds like a good workaround. But I read this is no longer being used? Others in the community have complained that they are not able to see other aircraft, making within visual range air combat impossible, and cited different variables like screen resolution and the use of VR, their age, etc. If I understand it correctly, as a result some are advocating for some scaling feature to make objects at a distance scaled larger, just so it can be visible for this group of users. But it presents a problem with calculating radar cross section. Please correct me if I am wrong. My perspective is the first group is right. You should not be able to see things easy in WVR combat, unless you are playing the WWII planes. In WWI, the average fighter plane length was roughly the length of a car, and only a few hundred km/h in max speed. In WWII the fighter was only about a third longer. Even though they were longer, wingspans were about the same, and going from bi-plane to monoplane, made these planes look the same size or smaller. But the speed doubled. During Vietnam, the planes were roughly double or triple the length of a WWI plane, but the speeds are now transonic, supersonic or Mach 2. How do people expect to be able to spot aircraft so easily in the jet age? There is a reason why WWII pilots were able to rack up kill victories in the hundreds, while in Vietnam, aces had around or under 10 kills. It is because with the great speeds and distances involved there was a greater chance of not spotting anything. It is because fighter aircraft size has not changed much, but speeds have increased dramatically in relation. Visual range has not changed, as that is the physics of the eye ball. But fighter engagement speeds and distances have. Most of Vietnam kills were because they got spotting help from FAC, or GCI. To force DCS to show planes at long distances just for more easy playability really kills it for people who want to relive history or fly a real simulation and not an arcade game. Where is the fear of flying out of AWACS or GCI range? Where is the benefit of flying a small, hard to see plane versus a big honking beast? What is the point of having long range radar with the ability to differentiate targets from ground clutter? All of this is lost because some people want superhuman eagle eyes that see things 4 times farther than they should so they can make jet combat similar to biplane combat. In the wiki article for Light Fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fighter In the Design Aims > Effectiveness section, Point #1, it says small fighters like the F-5E should only be visible broadside (platform exposed while banking) within 4 miles, while head on, or tail on, it is only visible within 2 miles. I tested and as soon as I see the speck which represents the F-5E ahead, head on, using the F-10 map ruler shows the F-5E is still 10 miles away. It is way too soon to be seeing it. Can the visible range for the small aircraft be reduced to what the article says? The citations in the article appear to be credible sources. I already play with no arcade like labels or icons, as it provides the most realistic experience, and I NEVER user zoom in. But it seems a lot of the advantages of some of the light fighters, like small size are not represented in the game. Please note I never play multiplayer, and am not somehow trying to sabotage that community. I am just hoping for more realism. It would also be great if the AI could also respect the same visual detection rules. If there is a need to cater to any loud voices about not being able to see in WVR, maybe there can be an option like the easy/real skill setting which lets them see things 4 times farther, while in realism mode it is as the article above states.

Totally agree with you. Another example is the Bf-109. If you read the history for the variant DCS selected, it was only used for about 2 months worth of combat in a few battles. They should have picked the F model instead, something that does not stick out as out of place in the wwii maps they selected. As a Digital Combat Simulator, why do our missions have a hodgepodge of mismatched planes that don’t simulate reality?

I don’t think anyone can blame DCS for targeting some 4th gen headliners. If you can manage a license for them, why not? But now that they got those bad boys, It would make sense to turn back to more simpler content, like wwii, 1st to 3rd gen jets. Personally I prefer to fly low cost, fun little carts (F-5, MiG-19), than an expensive Mercedes with more excessive bells and whistles that keep it in the shop and draining the wallet.

Cool video, So it is completely possible to do, and was already thought of by someone and implemented already in the flight sim community. Really hope DCS adds this. More simulation the better. 1 vs 0 = half hour :) That’s why they call it C. Because it takes only one character to screw up your program.

Maybe because we can’t hear the screaming amongst all the cluster bombs? :)

Yeah, That was what I was thing with respect to operating system limitations. Just wondering if there is a system level way around it.

Or perhaps even multiple mice for that mattter, one representing each of the left and right hands. E.g. don’t have to use right hand on mouse to click on left side of cockpit.

Just thinking out of the box. Not sure if this is technically possible, or even impossible with limitation in the operating system. I only have a single joystick, but noticed in the settings page for controls, multiple peripherals can be recognized if they are from different vendors. Maybe can have a flight stick from CH Pro, and another from Thrustmaster, all recognized. Is it possible to have multiple keyboards recognized as well? It would be an interesting idea if we could have multiple keyboards (most of which could be as cheap as $20), with one representing each side control panel and one for the front dash of the cockpit. This could eliminate the need to do key combos like with the Ctrl, Shift, Tab keys. It could also better simulate a cockpit. We could put a keyboard further in front and force the user to bend forward to touch a switch, while the side keyboards may require the head to look sideways.

IL-2 1946 had AAA gunners scrambling when the strafing runs begin, only to run back after each pass. Don’t think it was in the core game but in a mod from SAS1946, but it was pretty cool. So it does seem achievable.

Just an additional suggestion: For photo reconnaissance mission scoring, maybe there could be some calculation which takes into account the position of the plane with respect to the target to be photographed, including angle of plane, angle of camera on plane, distance to target, weather visibility level. And based on this calculation, the mission goals can be set to award a object completion if all the variables are met, and the picture is saved in the saved games folder.

Not sure if this has been suggested before. Some jets have a gun camera, which can take single pictures, a succession of pictures or a short video. Would it be possible to save these pics and videos in the users Saved Games folder, and have them assessable and reviewable from the main menu, and post mission briefing screen? They could be stored by date and time as part of file name. Would be great if they were not just user view screenshots and videos, but pics and videos from the perspective of the actual planes camera position. Not sure how technically possible this would be. This would really enhance the immersion of the camera operation in missions. It could also pave the way for combat, non-fighter modules, like dedicated reconnaissance planes like the RF-101, RB-57, U-2, etc.

Thanks for your feedback Bignewy. It was worth a try.

I just checked the article I linked above and the end of it says the problem is resolved in 2.5, or u fixable now because imposters are gone. I see the distance plane fading into view, it is just happening way to soon. I don’t see how fixing this would require the 3D Object to be adjusted. Is it not a matter of scaling rate by distance? Based on perspective? Can they not delay the fade in to close ranges?

Okay, I see. Maybe the sim I saw the effect was DCS :p I didn’t see the ring in your video until your second recovery. For me, I don’t recall the ring when flying the F-5E. The transition wasn’t apparent for me. Maybe just need to ramp up and down with Gs more gradually. Or maybe in F-5 the transition is too brief.

I agree with you. I don’t use zoom, and didn’t even map that key. I found this article. Is this what you are referring to? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160634 I plan to play around with this today, because seeing an F-5E head on at 9 nm doesn’t seem real at all. I don’t see how the visibility cannot mimick real life. If there is a set distance to shrink the 3D model to a pixel, and then a further one to dim it out of view, why can’t these two values be reduced?

In the wiki article for Light Fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fighter In the Design Aims > Effectiveness section, Point #1, it says small fighters like the F-5E should only be visible broadside (platform exposed while banking) within 4 miles, while head on, or tail on, it is only visible within 2 miles. I tested and as soon as I see the speck which represents the F-5E ahead, head on, using the F-10 map ruler shows the F-5E is still 9 miles away. It is way too soon to be seeing it. Can the visible range for the F-5E be reduced to what the article says? The citations in the article appear to be credible sources. I already play with no arcade like labels or icons, as it provides the most realistic experience, but it seems a lot of the advantages of some of the light fighters, like small size are not represented in the game.

I haven’t seen it yet. Got a video of it?

Think you could post that file in User Files? That could come in handy in so many ways.

Please excuse me if this has been suggested before. Please also excuse me for having a black heart. In other sims like IL-2, and Janes USNF, it was possible to shoot down the pilot after they ejected. Not saying I want to do it, but it is much more realistic than flying into the pilot and his parachute and have absolutely nothing happen to the players plane.

When pulling high G loads pilots first start losing peripheral vision before fully blacking out. I don’t believe I encountered this yet in DCS, but seem to remember it from other sims. If it is not in DCS, would it be possible to add layered images which show a black outer ring around the players front view, which progressively gets larger and creeps inward until full black out? Sudden up loads of Gs could skip layering steps and go faster to full black out. Also some older sims had red out for negative Gs simulating blood rushing to the head. Maybe this may also be a realistic feature?

From that comment, I can tell you are an air com at student rather than a sports car sampler :thumbup: I hope they can add the E-1 to the core mod. If they ever do an expansion set with say the F-5E recce version, the F-5A/C, or even a Talon, I would buy it all.

I am starting to agree with the others. Kill this thread now. 80% of the masses have spoken. If the rest want subscriptions, please go ahead and make regular monthly donations to DCS. Why put so much effort into arguing and trying to trick us to your bidding? I hope your 20% subscriptions cover the walkout of the 80%.

This is a long thread and I am still reading through it but wanted to chime in anyway. A big NO for subscriptions. I work in software. When I went from working 20 hrs a day in industry to relaxed hrs at a financial institution it was a big shock. At one point the whole team decided to go to the bar across the street during the work day to watch the World Cup for 2 hours. Say what?! Then the economic crisis of 2008 hit. That entire team got laid off. I respect the DCS developers for having a passion for airplanes and simulating reality. I think a subscription model though would hurt both end users and the developers. In the end, users need to be patient for fixes, but developers could better target what the masses want. E.g. I will most likely never buy the Viggen. Why? Because no one from my background has ever flown it. It has taken part in no wars. Only one country flew it. I prefer more personally relevant history over what if scenarios. I like the two extremes of air frames. Small long slim sexy planes like the F-5, and short fat ones like the A-4, Su-25, and yes, the Viggen. But for me the historical appeal is missing. Maybe the developers really wanted to make that plane. However I don’t imagine it would get a lot of attention around the world. And if it doesn’t, there won’t be too many sales. I could be completely wrong. But if I am not, I would like to suggest to developers that they poll us more for what we all want, before they fully commit. The MiG-19 is not ready yet, but it is playable. I like how it came out. I have a lot of fun with it so far. There is so much more I am waiting for. But looking on the bright side, I have been waiting since 1994 to fly it in the level it is available at today. They say they even will add an earlier version. I can wait patiently for it, and in the meantime play the other modules. Some users say they wait years for a fix they want. So the solution is to trick me into paying for something you want that I don’t want? With a brand new monthly tax? Free health care in Canada is great, and I would be gladly willing to pay more taxes to cover your health care, but not your air plane.

That doesn’t sound like a solution to me. What if I want to create broad mission scenario? The whole point of the generator is to save time doing it. But why should I be penalized with lame arcade morale boosters? The generator exists to be used. There should be a way to turn this nuisance commentary start off. If anyone knows please let me know.

Since they already have the 3D model for the base F-5E-1, maybe they can release it first and the probe, ILS as phase 2? I would be willing to pay non sale price for both upgrades if they were available for a reasonable price. Would of course been cooler if it was part of the original module.