Air target visibility

Hi everybody,

I'd like exposing to you my opinion about the target visibility in the air. I love to have high detailed aircrafts, FMs so close to reality and instruments and systems totally funcionals, but yesterday, during an online gameplay, I've noticed that the visibility of other aircrafts decreases too fast.

Particularly the other aircrafts start to disappear about 0.5nm of distance and reached 1nm the aircrafts become almost invisible.

This is wrong because in the reality you can see contacts from farther distances and in a flight sim this would be a very important thing.

My friend is a pilot of MB339 and he confirmed me this. However, I've done an internet research and I've found this document called "Visual Search in Air Combat":

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA241347

And here I put for you an interesting graph extract from this document.

For example, in the picture below taken from ROF you can see in the deep a third aircraft. Approximately the aircraft is situated about 7 km of distance and you can see it well yet.

Also, if we want to be more precise, in this example also the second aircraft situation about 200 meters should be sharper (but this is a problem of 777 studios :P ).

Unfortunatly in DCS world we can't have that yet. I hope my post is helpful for the devs!

Bye

Duke

 

Particularly the other aircrafts start to disappear about 0.5nm of distance and reached 1nm the aircrafts become almost invisible.

 

This is wrong because in the reality you can see contacts from farther distances and in a flight sim this would be a very important thing.

What settings are you using , which resolution AA settings?

This very important when talking about visibility ranges in a simulator.

I can't confirm your observation:

Here is a simple comparison of 1920x1080 and my setup.

 

And I think that there is nothing wrong with the view/drawing distance of airborne targets as long you don't have a greater FOV than 100.

 

 

(the mission file is attached - and simply press "ESC" at mission-start - because you start airborne 3feet over the ground)

 

 

Please excuse that I didn't switched off the 85% Jpg compression - so please keep in mind that it appears a little bit clearer when in the simulation as on these pictures.

So I have no problem to see airborne targets up to 12km against a clear sky and this is getting much better when the "dots" are moving.

 

And as a conclusion I want to underline that this is not a limitation of the software as some are suggesting - it is a limitation of the hardware we are using.

 

And I fully understand the wish to use labels when you have a 22" screen at 1920x1080 and don't want to fixate your FOV.

 

Attached Files DCS A-10 1.1.1.1 visibility.miz

What settings are you using , which resolution AA settings?

This very important when talking about visibility ranges in a simulator.

 

I can't confirm your observation:

I use Visibility Range High, MSAA x4 and FOV90 and I can't see the contacts like the pictures that you have posted.

I'm not the only who have observed that. We are four guys and everybody have noticed that mantaining the visual on an air contacts is hard to do and for farther distances the aircrafts became invisibles :huh:

 

I can't confirm your observation:

Run the test with P-51's at a res of 1920x1200 and see if the results accord with the A-10.

Why should I ? - I'm not having the "Tester tag" under my name.

You should, if you interested in the results.

And if the OP is talking really only of the P-51D : its still a beta and will be sure tweaked, and get correct load models. Or am I wrong?

Why should I ?

My oh my defensive are we :megalol: :P

Because your opinion is valued and if it accords with mine then I can investigate further. If I am correct then you will see why I ask and you might accordingly rethink your inability to confirm the OP's observation, keeping in mind that he was probably referring to P-51's as opposed to A-10's in the first instance.

I'm not having the "Tester tag" under my name.

What gives you the idea that us 'Testers' have not done so already? It was just an innocent request.

And if the OP is talking really only of the P-51D : its still a beta and will be sure tweaked, and get correct load models. Or am I wrong?

Yeah, is still in beta but I've opened my thread to contribute to the develop of DCS: world. It wasn't my intention to open a critic thread, but only constructive :)

When Duke would be so kind to give his resolution - or - even better - confirming his observation with some own screen-shoots I could consider to make some tests.

But - as we both know; we both participate - there are already some very controversial threads about this matter. And there is no definitive answer how to simulate this on todays common hardware.

And spotting a aerial target and keeping it in sight is a very hard task - even in real live.

My oh my defensive are we

:)

It was just an innocent request.

Yeah, is still in beta but I've opened my thread to contribute to the develop of DCS: world. It wasn't my intention to open a critic thread, but only constructive :)

You have done good, prompting me to investigate an issue previously deemed resolved. Had you not done so, it might have delayed dealing with the matter.

I'll attempt to keep you informed.

When Duke would be so kind to give his resolution

You're right, sorry! I've forgotten to tell my resolution: 1920 x 1080

Yeah, is still in beta but I've opened my thread to contribute to the develop of DCS: world. It wasn't my intention to open a critic thread, but only constructive :)

I know Duke,

- my post also wasn't meant as critic towards you.

My post was intended to make you more sensible for the fact that it can look very different at different settings and output hardware.

So a system that includes to make aerial targets artificial look greater - e.g. so you have at least 4pixels at given distance - can look very unrealistic at hardware that is capable to show the targets at a realistic size.

the plane's lowest lod models are rendered to at least 100k by default. if you cannot see them, it's simply because they're too small to see.

Edited a mission to make testing easier.

You should start this mission with pause on, and you should first pitch down client #1 a little to get a good look at the other units from the in-cockpit view.

All units are P-51D

P-51D 1.1.2.1 visibility test.miz

That'll help - Ta :)

Edited a mission to make testing easier.

You should start this mission with pause on, and you should first pitch down client #1 a little to get a good look at the other units from the in-cockpit view.

 

All units are P-51D

Thank you Peter! I'll try it tomorrow!

Peter P,

I tried your mission, but still no joy. I have a low resolution monitor, which gives 1368X768.

I changed the MSAA to 4x and it helped a lot to see ground targets and to identify where the wingman is. However, to identify other planes over 2 nm, it is not working. Testes it on P-51D and on the A-10C.

Maybe I'll need a bigger screen.

OK - ran a quick test with views from the ground and view from an aircraft, results as follows:

As seen from ground with default view (no zoom), units visible as far out as 9km:

Same positional viewpoint, but this time from In-cockpit. Note slight visibility degradation at default view:

And this time same positional viewpoint, but aided by the default zoom available in-cockpit:

The above screenshots taken at a resolution of 1920x1200.

Now i would submit that the Law of Averages dictate that the average gaming monitor in this day and age is about at a resolution of 1920x1200 or thereabouts. If one takes that as an average, with the average viewing distances attained in-SIM as above, as well as having further regard to the use of zoom to alleviate the inevitable disadvantage we as players have in sitting before a monitor vs being outside, the question then is:

Are the above viewing distances reasonable?

Having regard to the utilization of zoom, then yes, most definitely. Can even be spotted to 15km.

Having regard to default view in-cockpit, can an argument be made for increased visibility in the 5-9km range? If so, how and why?

 

Now i would submit that the Law of Averages dictate that the average gaming monitor in this day and age is about at a resolution of 1920x1200 or thereabouts. If one takes that as an average, with the average viewing distances attained in-SIM as above, as well as having further regard to the use of zoom to alleviate the inevitable disadvantage we as players have in sitting before a monitor vs being outside, the question then is:

 

Are the above viewing distances reasonable?

Assuming that what you said to be true as an average, yes the distances are reasonable. In real life, seeing many pilots telling their histories, they could see an aicraft 5 miles out (about ten 10 km). Of course, many of them saw their enemies at a much lower distances ( sometimes, right on top of them) in bad weather.

Having regard to the utilization of zoom, then yes, most definitely. Can even be spotted to 15km.

No problem using the zoom. It is a feature that helps compesante for the lack of resolution we don't have by sitting behind a monitor. The problem is not being able to see not even a black spot against the blue sky or the ground.

Having regard to default view in-cockpit, can an argument be made for increased visibility in the 5-9km range? If so, how and why?

I say sun glare would help. As many encounters that happened in real life, the pilots could see their enemies by the reflecting sun on the enemy planes. That's for a first time contact.

Other way around it is to make the contrast between the airplanes at distance and the sky a little bit higher. In DCS as general, the aircrafts get mixed with the mist that happens at long distances and then you can't see nothing.

All in all, what I want to say is that with good weather, blue sky one should be able to see an aircfat against the backdrop. Take the interception mission for the P-51D for example. Very difficult to tell where the transport plane is because it gets confused with the mist in the background. Ther's no sun glare reflecting from the wings. And it is a clear sky with good weather.

Of course, in a cloudy day or bad weather, degradation happens and should be expected.

The simplest solution I can think of is to make the options surrounding labels more configurable in the following ways:

Icon shape, size, transparency, which can vary by the kind of contact

Kinds of contacts that will have or not have an icon (e.g. air only or no infantry)

Information displayed with icon (including color, shape, size of icon as information!)

Ranges and even elevation at which icon is displayed and target information (if any)

Weather degradation of contacts

This would allow someone to create icons which are essentially just semi-transparent dots or marks in the sky to represent very distant aircraft. As you get closer the icon might change to represent the kind of aircraft it is, and then as you get very close actually disappear entirely. It could be limited to fixed-wing air contacts above 1500 feet AGL, while other people might prefer to have range information at closer distances (to replace the loss of depth perception) as well as dark dots over ground vehicles that are within 2 nm.

The other option would be some kind of LOD object which does not lose visibility at long distance. This would be less configurable, but I do not know if this would be easier to implement. It would seem LOD objects takes work on rendering code and asset creation while the icon bits would add more and require only some thoughtful changes to less complicated code.

At http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ u can see statistics of steam users hardware. Not many people use resolution greater then 1920x1080. And zoom is preaty usefull at A-G tasks but useless in A-A. I fly FC2 BS A10C on daily basis and i have extreme dificulty to spot enemy or friendly plane at distances grater then 0.5km. My res is 1440x900 19' wide asus.

My friend Vecko and me tried dogfight in DCS:A10C but we both failed because we couldn't see eachother. Then we exited and turn labels on, but it was still dificult to see enemy (not label). When we enter dogfight and lost sight on enemy its gameover because we cant find him again without usein F2 F5 F10 or labels. In FC2 u atleast have vertical scan, so u turn in circles and hope for best. I think that adding sun reflection will improve things.

At

My friend Vecko and me tried dogfight in DCS:A10C but we both failed because we couldn't see eachother.

Yesterday with my friends we have failed the dogfight for the same cause.

I've tried the mission with my 24'' monitor and the contacts are visible well, but we can see them for far distances because:

1. we know the position of contacts

2. the contacts are stationary

Infact, if you have mobile aircrafts, you lose the visual easly. This because the contacts are few contrasted with the rest of scene. Do you agree?

Today afternoon also I will try the mission with a low resolution monitor to compare the results.

Low contrast, finite pixel size, loss of details during rendering process, no real glare. These are all hw limitations that exists and make it impossible for an object to be spotable the same it is IRL.

The fact that our eyes are much much more sensitive to moving object and we run our sims around 30fps, more times less (not smooth for a non-blurry image) doesn't help either.

Washing the image even more with HDR doens't help either. :)

The only thing developer can do is artificaly increase the rendered aircraft size (so it will be larger, then it should be at the given distance) to help player spot it.

Low contrast, finite pixel size, loss of details during rendering process, no real glare. These are all hw limitations that exists and make it impossible for an object to be spotable the same it is IRL.

The fact that our eyes are much much more sensitive to moving object and we run our sims around 30fps, more times less (not smooth for a non-blurry image) doesn't help either.

Washing the image even more with HDR doens't help either. :)

 

The only thing developer can do is artificaly increase the rendered aircraft size (so it will be larger, then it should be at the given distance) to help player spot it.

yes, this is obvious, but the visibility could be improved adding the dots. For example in ROF, the visibility of farther contacts is simulated with light grey dots and for contacts at medium distances the dots become black until to see the shape of the aircraft for low distances.

This could be a simple solution (not much simulative, but efficient)... :)

I'd rather we stayed away from either a label solution or scaling them up artificially without options to remove that. The post that hit me was the sun glint one. I'm also partial to vapour trails and smoke as a semi solution. Also, something to describe the negative energy in the sky from an object is practically un describable here.

I know passenger jets aren't comparable but I've lived at the end of the 8 mile marker for Edinburgh airport and seeing aircraft out to that mark and further is easy as long as there is no fog/mist

I feel this is a real issue but the solution requires something slightly artificial because of what is described above me. I'm looking right at the window now and nothing can describe the intensity of light in the sky even though it is fully cloud covered. An aircraft would be passing quite black as if there is a 'hole' in the light. Its relative motion is perhaps the biggest giveaway as already described.

I dunno....not an easy one.