Model Scaling and Visibilty

 

Yes, indeed clouds should also hide labels and forests for ground forces.

 

~

 

..as well as hiding behind (line of sight to target) a building/ object... presenting through the flight panel/ fuselage, etc

yes, Labels occlusion is something which definitely could be looked at

Personally I don't see a reason for using lables for anything else but for what they are used now. Maybe stop them from showing up behind canopy bars and behind clouds but other than that... Fix the spotting ability in EDGE so no other workaround solutions are needed.

Thanks for explaining what exactly this view system from old IL-2 is exactly.

Except he is forgetting the current DCS engine is of a similar age back from Lock On days. And it too looks blank and empty in certain areas while cities look alike, just like in old IL2.

Except he is forgetting the current DCS engine is of a similar age back from Lock On days. And it too looks blank and empty in certain areas while cities look alike, just like in old IL2.

Well the point is our displays have improved greatly since then and the detail in the maps is vastly greater too. Old IL-2 maps look like a green pool table. Of course it's easy to spot targets on that.

DCS is old and yet sometimes I'm really struck by how clear and sharp everything in DCS is. Since EDGE is an improvement then I think it will be really great.

People are claiming they can't see stuff that's only a mile away or even their wingman. There's something wrong with their settings setup or something. I can clearly see small aircraft at that range even at the wide FOV

Except he is forgetting the current DCS engine is of a similar age back from Lock On days. And it too looks blank and empty in certain areas while cities look alike, just like in old IL2.

Actually, we talk about a complete new map with Flaming Cliffs 2, that was succeeded by an introduction of some DirectX10 functions (shader improvements) in DCS World! So DCS World is pretty different to IL-2...

They also changed the object modeling and added specular maps etc.

So you should not compare apples to oranges here.

Once again... EDGE, a new graphics engine is coming... why would you see a solution in the old engine...

because we've been waiting for "soon" to arrive since 2011. I don't want the solution when EDGE comes out, I want the solution while i'm still young enough to grip a flight stick.

You can do what you say with icons/labels.

This is a solution I have used in the past, and it works very well if you're willing to spend some time fiddling with it.

Until you try to fly online, and realize all the fun (read: populated) servers have labels disabled.

People are claiming they can't see stuff that's only a mile away or even their wingman. There's something wrong with their settings setup or something. I can clearly see small aircraft at that range even at the wide FOV

If you'd just stop turning "can't see very well" into "can't" and "zoom works only so well" into "don't use zoom" maybe we'd see some actual understanding form here. Mis-characterizing the expressed perspectives of other people however seems to be the fatal flaw in this dialogue.

It honestly seems like where some say "its too hard" you read it like they're saying "I can't see anything" I'm honestly befuddled by this impasse. You seem to think everyone is speaking in absolutes when its clearly a question of degree.

And with respect to displays, no they really haven't improved that much. In many ways CRTs are still far superior than most affordable LCDs when it comes to contrast.

So you want them to stop their development on X to do Y

I have seen this phrase which is a Snowclone used a LOT here on forums. The only problem with invoking that old chestnut is that is in many cases it is a False Dilemma .

Opportunity cost comes into this and sometimes the cost is far cheaper during development than after development. A label modification (overlay graphics) that uses LOS and has a distance bias has all the appearance of being low hanging fruit compared to a fully blown geometrical or shader based solution.

It would be a compromise; not one I would completely happy with, but that is what makes it a compromise.

I would NOT offhandly discount the practicality of a label based option. Just my opinion.

 

~

 

 

And with respect to displays, no they really haven't improved that much. In many ways CRTs are still far superior than most affordable LCDs when it comes to contrast.

 

too bad the infamous NVidia 81.95 "Sony Killer" VGA driver release, killed off thousands of CRT's worldwide

now, coming back to a more realistic day... does anyone really think "demands" and "threats" (the direction of which, this thread seems to be taking), are really going to be welcomed and taken onboard with open arms????? and always, these type of threads pretty much nearly always become very "heated'

the other thing is, "online polls" these days don't really mean squat... not while avenues to access multiple voting abound. eg going to a mate's place and joining up/ voting from there, or from a Internet café, etc, etc there are so many different ways to "sock puppet a vote" these days

Usually, constructive criticism is encouraged, opinions can be voiced, ideas for improvements, etc. are welcome.

Whether ED actually does business plans and roadmaps according to forum polls, well, I personally doubt that.

Should we try to keep the discussion productive and mature? Certainly yes...

But even if people want to fake polls or manipulate votes, I guess there is no harm done, other than to some people's egos ;)

Hmm, I have this "idea" based on the current label system.

Say we get alpha values for the lables.lua and they are used to increase alpha between distance settings.

Now, in MultiPlayer the labels.lua is synchronized to all clients with the mission so nobody can get am advantage?

Labels hidden by cockpit etc. would require a major revamp of the label system for sure, as it uses a separate layer on top if the screen like in the Combined Arms "HUD" or the NVG, currently... So for a quick improvement it could work, and we may get a complete overhaul after DCS2.0...

What do you guys think?

Hmm, I have this "idea" based on the current label system.

Say we get alpha values for the lables.lua and they are used to increase alpha between distance settings.

Now, in MultiPlayer the labels.lua is synchronized to all clients with the mission so nobody can get am advantage?

Labels hidden by cockpit etc. would require a major revamp of the label system for sure, as it uses a separate layer on top if the screen like in the Combined Arms "HUD" or the NVG, currently... So for a quick improvement it could work, and we may get a complete overhaul after DCS2.0...

What do you guys think?

I think that the label system should have a complete overhaul and redesign. It should be made flexible. Mission designers should be able to have various options, like :

-Friend or Foe colors

-Showing only aircraft type, name or distance

-determining the details in the label depending on distance (ie. at max range labels are greyed, and change color when aircraft type should be discenrned)

-Using signs (like circles, squares, etc) instead of names

But even if people want to fake polls or manipulate votes, I guess there is no harm done, other than to some people's egos ;)

but that in itself is a manipulative statement in itself.. it usually presents as calling people out as Trolls (an old one), or Respect My Opinion (this, being a new one on the market), or Nazis... however, its all the same thing, that of shutting down opposition to what is deemed by the few, the very few, as a righteous cause. eg Your view doesn't correlate to mine, therefore - you are a troll.

Well, too bad (in general)... you want your view respected? best to learn to accept the views of others who might not agree with you

Yes... labels is a big one and in dire need of being looked at

but that in itself is a manipulative statement in itself.. it usually presents as calling people out as Trolls (an old one), or Respect My Opinion (this, being a new one on the market), or Nazis... however, its all the same thing, that of shutting down opposition to what is deemed by the few, the very few, as a righteous cause. eg Your view doesn't correlate to mine, therefore - you are a troll.

Well, too bad... you want your view respected? best to learn to accept the views of others who might not agree with you

 

 

Yes... labels is a big one and in dire need of being looked at

So what exactly is "my view" then?

Actually my point was, I don't care that much about other people's rants or provocative comments, as well as the usual "if you don't like my comments I accuse you of trolling"... On the opposite, I want to have a productive discussion.

Simply saying "I don't like what I have now! Improve that ASAP!" Does not work.

Taking into account, that a new rendering engine is currently integrated, major overhauls, won't likely happen after that is out of alpha state at least, etc.

Why not seek a compromise that does not require major recoding from scratch, yet could improve the current label system, may even work in the new engine?

@Airdoc - By the way, label colors can already be adjusted in the labels.lua including level of information in labels etc.

I don't think scaling is the solution.

Better lods , sunlight reflection would be better solutins imho.

And with respect to displays, no they really haven't improved that much. In many ways CRTs are still far superior than most affordable LCDs when it comes to contrast.

We can do another poll. Who owns a CRT? :-D

Yes, LCDs are not as good when it comes to contrast that's why your setup means as much as the game engine. Many monitors including the one I've got listed below have rather poor default settings. You can tune them up to look very good but right out of the box sometimes not so much. When some say they can't even see another aircraft in formation with them. That's not maybe the engine that's something else. DCS needs improvement for sure but it's not that bad.

For a suggestion get one of these home theater calibration discs with test patterns on it for black level especially. That's most of your picture right there.

I don't think scaling is the solution.

 

Better lods , sunlight reflection would be better solutins imho.

I more agree with this.

This is kind of a weird comparison, but I'll use it anyways:

I've played a lot of Call of Duty in the past, and in every one of those games, no matter what the background scenery was like, you could always tell a player apart from the scenery. No matter if he was hiding in the deepest, darkest bush in the map you could still distinguish his body easily. It was annoying in that game since it made camouflaged hiding useless, but it would work very well in DCS for the planes.

It's hard to describe. It's almost like a "shiny-ness". The textures used for players seemed very different from scenery textures. CoD players should know what I'm talking about.

So you want them to stop their development on EDGE/2.0, and work on a solution that may not work or be worth anything they can use for 2.0 and EDGE?

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. As you, among many others, are so keen to point out every time a thread about "why is DCS making XYZ module instead of finishing EDGE" crops up: they have more than one programmer on staff, and they are (theoretically) quite capable of multitasking.

Well.. glad you aren't running things.

I've played a lot of Call of Duty in the past, and in every one of those games, no matter what the background scenery was like, you could always tell a player apart from the scenery. No matter if he was hiding in the deepest, darkest bush in the map you could still distinguish his body easily. It was annoying in that game since it made camouflaged hiding useless, but it would work very well in DCS for the planes.

 

It's hard to describe. It's almost like a "shiny-ness". The textures used for players seemed very different from scenery textures. CoD players should know what I'm talking about.

After the shooters got a lot of console porting back to PC instead of the other way around, that single thing turned me off from playing those particular titles... It was a sort of low poly covered in a reflection shader to help the average console user not to fall asleep. It might work in flightsims if made OK and tuned to avoid unfair advantages for the attacker.

I think scaling can ruin ones jugdement of the distance to the object. Lets say the object is with no scaling at 500m, now at a further distance the object would look just as big becouse of the scaling and you have now misjugded the objects distance becouse of scaling.

I am against scaling and I know how hard it is to see objects in this game at a distance. But with that said I think we should only wait for 4K (or higher) to revolutionize our homes.

Actually, scaling does not necessarily mean it shows "bigger" aircraft.

The idea of scaling is, to set a certain distance as minimum visibility for an aircraft and whatever the monitor's resolution it always shows a pixel as long as the minimum visibility distance is reached...

So if you have keen eyes you could see that one pixel, that currently wouldn't get rendered at all.

People who have problems spotting planes near them against the ground etc., like I have often, need to train their eyes to recognize the movement and anticipate flight path to get better at spotting.

But scaling up to at least that one ominous pixel, actually is a pretty good idea.

So you want them to stop their development on EDGE/2.0, and work on a solution that may not work or be worth anything they can use for 2.0 and EDGE? Well.. glad you aren't running things.

What makes you think it won't be an issue in 2.0? If they didn't see fit to implement scaling in the old engine and there's been no word about scaling in the new engine, I don't see any reason to think we won't get in 2.0 to find things look pretty cool but we still can't see them until they're right under our nose. To start with it would be productive to acknowledge that it is a problem and should be addressed. Distorting what any of us concerned people say and making the whole issue in to a joke on that basis isn't helpful, much less antagonizing anyone over it.

I'm looking forward to 2.0 very much, but much more important to me than some shadows or shiny aircraft from the 50's is that the graphics reflect reality as much as possible. If "within visual range" maxes out somewhere from 10-20 miles, we shouldn't be getting half that viewing distance in the game. I mean, if it were this hard to see another aircraft in real life, VFR flying would make the risk of collision so high the only pilots doing it would have to be those with a death wish.