Model Scaling and Visibilty

[Solty]

and that's why TGP (for ground) and radar (for air) was developed... because of the limitations of the MKI eyeball. let's not allow bad habits to get in the way of reasoning, eh?

Also too bad, you choose not offer up some numbers on distances, etc as I really was curious to know you thoughts there.

 

Airplane dopler radar was developed for night fighters, because at night spoting is next to impossible. Next usage of radar was tail warning radar. To save you if something is behind you and you forgott to check your6. Next was radar gunsight.

 

 

Next idea was to develop long range AtoA missles, so that pilot didnt have to even dogfight and could intercept bombers ffom great range.

 

In no way development of radar was made to help the pilot spot targets to easier engage in BFM

 

It was employed to use long range missiles and it impacted air combat so much during 'nam war pilots didn't even train for BFM. Its ultimate goal was to reach BVR capability.

 

Spotters are needed to identify targets and pinpoint them.

 

During WW2 there were no spotters and still USAAF destroyed lots of German tanks trucks andtrains. But because no JTAC they sometimes hit their own units.

 

They could see them. Just couldn't tell which is which.

 

Same with planes. You can IRL see a dot from 5km but it is still a 'bogey'. But you can still see it, just not in detail. For that u need to get closer.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Solty

[Wolf Rider]

 

Airplane dopler radar was developed for night fighters, because at night spoting is next to impossible. Next usage of radar was tail warning radar. To save you if something is behind you and you forgott to check your6. Next was radar gunsight.

 

 

Next idea was to develop long range AtoA missles, so that pilot didnt have to even dogfight and could intercept bombers ffom great range.

 

In no way development of radar was made to help the pilot spot targets to easier engage in BFM

 

It was employed to use long range missiles and it impacted air combat so much during 'nam war pilots didn't even train for BFM. Its ultimate goal was to reach BVR capability.

 

 

Thanks, you've just made my point...

 

 

 

Spotters are needed to identify targets and pinpoint them.

 

 

 

Point made again

 

 

 

During WW2 there were no spotters and still USAAF destroyed lots of German tanks trucks andtrains. But because no JTAC they sometimes hit their own units.

 

They could see them. Just couldn't tell which is which.

 

 

actually, they had the ability for a bloke up on the front line calling in co-ordinates, with a field radio, from a map... for both airstrike or artillery.

Yes, that's right... it was difficult to ID targets

 

 

Same with planes. You can IRL see a dot from 5km but it is still a 'bogey'. But you can still see it, just not in detail. For that u need to get closer.

 

 

 

yes, that's right... depending on if it is camouflaged or if the viewer is able to actually keep track or not

 

 

 

 

Unless I had a long range laser finder there is no way for me to give you accurate data, other than what you can already find here or elsewhere online.

 

As I am sure many here will agree, so called "bad habits" are not a question here. Nor is "reasoning" which you are trying to point out to.

 

TGP should still be used to ID the target and even spot at a very large / safe distance where you can not spot targets with a naked eye. As of now, we can spot targets that are very close with a normal FOV, while anything further away has to be done by using zoom with a very narrow FOV which prohibits peripheral view which we would have in real life. Best example is GAU8. Good luck hitting anything with it without using zoom.

 

Some kind of compromise should be made. And that is what the majority of people who voted here are asking for.

 

 

Yes, but those "compromises should be realistic... don't you agree? Cartoon Balloons/ over size objects aren't, in all honesty, realistic - are they?

 

"Bad Habits" are very much are part of that which should be looked at... I had one flyer (years ago now) who couldn't see an "attacker" flying level 100m off his six; due to his bad habits

 

okay, I can accept the no range finder thing... but what do you consider "normal FoV"?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

Yes, but those "compromises should be realistic... don't you agree? Cartoon Balloons/ over size objects aren't, in all honesty, realistic - are they?

 

"Bad Habits" are very much are part of that which should be looked at... I had one flyer (years ago now) who couldn't see an "attacker" flying level 100m off his six; due to his bad habits

 

okay, I can accept the no range finder thing... but what do you consider "normal FoV"?

 

No one here is asking them not to be realistic. Normal FOV would be the default one. At which you can still see all cockpit instruments when looking forward.

 

IL21946 did a great job at this. Dot size remained more or less the same size no matter the field of view. Thus enabling situational awareness with maximum FOV, i.e. peripheral vision. Objects didn't disappear when changing FOV like they do in DCS.

 

 

They could see them. Just couldn't tell which is which.

 

Same with planes. You can IRL see a dot from 5km but it is still a 'bogey'. But you can still see it, just not in detail. For that u need to get closer.

 

That. :thumbup:

[Solty]

Thanks, you've just made my point...

 

Point made again

 

actually, they had the ability for a bloke up on the front line calling in co-ordinates, with a field radio, from a map... for both airstrike or artillery.

Yes, that's right... it was difficult to ID targets

 

yes, that's right... depending on if it is camouflaged or if the viewer is able to actually keep track or not

1.No I didn't make any of your points. You claim that people can't see planes at 5km. I say they can.

 

2.Dopler radar was never used primarly to help spoting within visual range. Night missions are different from normal day missions and thats not a wierd thing. Humans never liked to atack at night before NVG. It is not connected to spoting targets issue we have in game.

 

 

3. Visual range for a single planes is around 5km for a fighter aircraft. I am sure a group of planes is even easier to see.

 

I have not seen a single modern jet ace that using his superior RADAR, could shoot down 350 planes. Oh wait, Erich Hartman did that with no radar whatsover.

 

Nobody here says he could see the plane and be able to tell their BRA and airplane type from 5km. Just to SEE it. Which is how it should be. We should be able to see the bogey.

 

4. The camuflage was usualy used to prevent spoting planes when they were static on the ground. It is harder to something that blends in and DOESN'T move.

 

Human eye can detect movment way better than colour patterns, and mind you, airplanes are moving in flight. They also have different prespective to them when in flight.

 

5. Yes ground units in late 1944 started to use to radios to signal P-47s to attack the German lines. This was not accurate and sometimes if targets were in tree lines, the yellow smoke was deployed to show the target to the pilot.

 

Again, seeing a static Pak40 emplacement and 2 guys with MG42 is more dificult than finding an airplane in the air.

 

 

I can't see a single point you have gained in this discussion.The main problem with you is that you confuse spotting with identifying.

[Wolf Rider]

No one here is asking them not to be realistic. Normal FOV would be the default one. At which you can still see all cockpit instruments when looking forward.

 

IL21946 did a great job at this. Dot size remained more or less the same size no matter the field of view. Thus enabling situational awareness with maximum FOV, i.e. peripheral vision. Objects didn't disappear when changing FOV like they do in DCS.

 

 

 

 

That. :thumbup:

 

 

no... maximum FoV doesn't give "peripheral vision. there is no way anyone can get "peripheral vision" without a properly set up full wrap around screen. The sim also needs to be designed to account for that.

What happens on a 2D monitor, which they all are, when you make the FoV larger than the default (which by the way, you don't see all the cockpit instruments when looking forward.. if you mean without tilting the view down to take it all in) is create a distortion... this distortion has the effect (pincushion, I think it is) of pushing everything back. Its like taking a flat image and pressing it into the bottom of a bowl - your planes are made much much smaller.

If you are adjusting your field of view.... you're setting yourself up for problems

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Wolf Rider]

 

~

 

You claim that people can't see planes at 5km. I say they can.

 

~

 

 

 

Sorry, nooo... I never said that - you have

 

 

these accounts from Hartmann;

 

Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik, which was their main ground-attack aircraft, flew like B-17s in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire til the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time.[16]

 

His favourite method of attack was to hold fire until extremely close (20 m (66 ft) or less), then unleash a short burst at point-blank range—a technique he learned while flying as wingman of his former commander, Walter Krupinski, who favoured this approach. This technique, as opposed to long-range shooting, allowed him to:

 

Reveal his position only at the last possible moment
Compensate for the low muzzle velocity of the slower-firing 30 mm MK 108 equipping some of the later Bf 109 models (though most of his victories were claimed with Messerschmitts equipped with the high-velocity MG 151 cannon)
Place his shots accurately with minimum waste of ammunition
Prevent the adversary from taking evasive actions[9][17]

- wiki

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Solty]

no... maximum FoV doesn't give "peripheral vision. there is no way anyone can get "peripheral vision" without a properly set up full wrap around screen. The sim also needs to be designed to account for that.

What happens on a 2D monitor, which they all are, when you make the FoV larger than the default (which by the way, you don't see all the cockpit instruments when looking forward.. if you mean without tilting the view down to take it all in) is create a distortion... this distortion has the effect (pincushion, I think it is) of pushing everything back. Its like taking a flat image and pressing it into the bottom of a bowl - your planes are made much much smaller.

If you are adjusting your field of view.... you're setting yourself up for problems

 

Then I am positive you haven't played a single sim game before DCS and you have no idea how it works within world of simulation.

 

Also, even if you would like to, most won't agree with you due to one, single important factor.

 

 

People don't want to destroy their eyesight just to play a game.

 

We should be able spot fighter planes from 5km in normal camera position. The technolgy iss capable of doing so for 10 years now, so i'd say it is ready.

[[DBS]TH0R]

I can't see a single point you have gained in this discussion.The main problem with you is that you confuse spotting with identifying.

 

I came to the same conclusion.

 

 

If you are adjusting your field of view.... you're setting yourself up for problems

 

And yet we are forced to in order to see anything in DCS. SharpeXB went to great length to prove show us his technique works. So how about that?

[Wolf Rider]

Solty...

 

you're argument is shrill and tending towards exaggeration. I started off with CFS2 - SQN40 ;) way before the Zone Monster and zero weight laser kiddies struck

 

 

Thor...

 

"zooming in" has always worked. It means he hasn't adjusted his FoV wider to try adopt some false notion of "peripheral vision".

Now, you can't offer what distance you should be able to see a plane, nor offer up what the default FoV actually is... so, what are the developers to do?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Solty]

Solty...

 

you're argument is shrill and tending towards exaggeration. I started off with CFS2 - SQN40 ;) way before the Zone Monster and laser kiddies struck

 

 

Thor...

 

"zooming in" has always worked. It means he hasn't adjusted his FoV wider to try adopt some false notion of "peripheral vision".

Now, you can't offer what distance you should be able to see a plane, nor offer up what the default FoV actually is... so, what are the developers to do?

With smart scalling you are not changing FOV, just planes are getting additional pixels just to still be visible at range they should be visible IRL.

[Wolf Rider]

okay... if you're going to be reasonable, I'll ask you what you believe that distance to be

[airdoc]

okay... if you're going to be reasonable, I'll ask you what you believe that distance to be

 

If you 're looking for evidence-based RL spotting distances it's pretty hard to find detailed info. The best evidence I 've been able to find is this :

 

 

 

 

Explanation of the diagram in original thread here :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885

 

EDIT : for a wingspan of an F-16 (which comes close to many WW2 birds), at optimal conditions, the spotting threshold should be around 7-8 Kms

Edited April 1, 2015 by airdoc

[Wolf Rider]

"Their paper is entitled : "Predicting Visibility of Aircraft" and the link can be found here :

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0005594 (access is free).

 

In their work they describe a tool that they have developed, termed Spatial Standard Observer (which they have patented), which incorporates divergent parameters such as aircraft size, shape, lumination, colour, contrast, etc, and predicts various parameters, the most relevant of which -for flight sims- is the threshold range (or threshold distance). The latter is defined as "the largest distance at which an aircraft can be seen" (for the given parameters). Their model predictions are tested against human observer results, setting up an experiment with 3d aircraft images in a monitor. They also compare their results with older data from real-world experiments.

 

 

Their work highlights the fact that for given atmospheric conditions, threshold range depends largely on contrast (the difference in luminosity between aircraft and background), target size (i.e. wingspan, etc) and spatial frequency of the background (roughly a measure of its complexity)."

 

and the question immediately after that post was "Won't people with different monitors and different contrast settings have a completely different end result?" ... which largely seems to have been ignored.

 

To add in to that, is those who insist on running "peripheral vision" and what colour space are they running? also, there is colour perception itself

and the simmer's age

 

useful chart though - thank you... most indicate xxkm to xx km for a blip (dot); what do you believe it to be?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

Thor...

 

"zooming in" has always worked. It means he hasn't adjusted his FoV wider to try adopt some false notion of "peripheral vision".

 

Zooming in and out in-game changes how much you can and can not see on your monitor. That means it changes FOV. Perhaps peripheral vision isn't the best term here (Occulus rift could provide that, I presume). From IL2 to modern titles people use wide FOV just to have a better situational awareness. There are even mods for IL21946 focused on just that subject.

 

In other titles objects do not disappear from screen when you zoom out, you just can't make out what they are. As such, in dogfights people tend to use normal or wide FOV to get a better feeling of what is happening around them. Normally, for aiming you would want to be zoomed in, albeit slightly if not fully.

 

You are the only one seeing this as a "false notion". Judging by the poll, the majority here disagrees with you.

 

Constantly having to use zoom in to see anything remotely far away from you is a very poor excuse for game not being able to draw objects in a normal or wide FOV that you would normally be able to see.

 

 

Now, you can't offer what distance you should be able to see a plane, nor offer up what the default FoV actually is... so, what are the developers to do?

 

There are others who can and have, and in this very thread.

[airdoc]

I agree with you WolfRider that there are many other issues that come up when trying to simulate RL spotting in variable size and resolution 2D monitors.

 

I think that ED would have found the "sweet spot" if, for usual monitor size and resolution, the threshold spotting distance comes close to the chart values (and at the same time larger monitors-resolutions don't yield a very different result). This may be very hard to do in a sim, but, as you pointed out, having at least some hard evidence as a starting reference point, may be useful.

 

I think that right now in DCS the spotting threshold for 1080p and 24-27 inch monitors is at least 30%-40% less than predicted by these charts. Maybe this could be vastly improved by other measures (such as changing contrast, luminosity, etc) and scaling wouldn't be necessary, but we have to at least see some improvement.

[Wolf Rider]

I agree as well Airdoc... maybe EDGE will yield the results?

 

 

Thor...

 

I was asking you what you thought, what you believed

[Solty]

I agree with you WolfRider that there are many other issues that come up when trying to simulate RL spotting in variable size and resolution 2D monitors.

 

I think that ED would have found the "sweet spot" if, for usual monitor size and resolution, the threshold spotting distance comes close to the chart values (and at the same time larger monitors-resolutions don't yield a very different result). This may be very hard to do in a sim, but, as you pointed out, having at least some hard evidence as a starting reference point, may be useful.

 

I think that right now in DCS the spotting threshold for 1080p and 24-27 inch monitors is at least 30%-40% less than predicted by these charts. Maybe this could be vastly improved by other measures (such as changing contrast, luminosity, etc) and scaling wouldn't be necessary, but we have to at least see some improvement.

It is better when most people can see from 5km having 22' monitors and even if those that had "bad" 17' monitors would still see at around 2 or 3 km than how it is now. When I having 21,5' don't see a thing at more than 1km and guy with 17' can't see past 500m

 

Realy, it is that simple of a matter, I can't understand that there are people who even fight against such change.

 

Wolf, you are just afraid of changes and that is all. I can tell you right now that ACG server at least made LOD MOD that improves it. It is not much, but it still gives a lot better experience than any other DCS server. I can actually see something past 1km with zoom which is already a big improvment.

 

Now we are waiting for EDGE and hope that ED will do something about their rendering issues.

 

If what we have was IRL, nobody would change from turnfighters to energy fighters and T&B wouldn't be surpassed by B&Z IRL. But it was.Most German kills on the Eastern front performed by great aces was in B&Z approach. They were flying 1-2km above soviet formations, using clouds and sun to stay "hidden" and chose their pray. Dove on the Soviet planes and shoot from close distance and zoom up.

 

It was also the best tactic used by both USAAF and USN. P-47s were boucing better turning German planes and coming out victorious. Same with F6F hellcat that was NEVER trying even to turn against Zero and was wining in very high numbers. Some pilots reported seeing enemy planes 15.000ft below which is 4,5km below, and they were in camo. (German planes during 1944-45 period usualy had camo to stay hidden on the ground, not to get bombed by allied planes)

 

With what we have now in DCS, they wouldn't even seen each other over never ending Pacific ocean.

 

Just read some of the reports and stop fighting against this righteous cause to make the game more realistic, more enjoyable and most importantly, more HEALTHY for our eyes.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Apologies if I sounded too harsh.

 

I believe we should be able to spot a single engine plane at distances between 5-8km, in ideal conditions.

 

As for how to best simulate that on our monitors I would probably want a combination of what airdoc wrote - changes in contrast and color, combined with previously proven olutions from titles such as Falcon and IL21946. I haven't looked into it, but BOS does a relatively nice job in this aspect, in the beginning it was suffering from even worse spotting ability than what we have now in DCS.

 

 

I think that right now in DCS the spotting threshold for 1080p and 24-27 inch monitors is at least 30%-40% less than predicted by these charts.

 

I would say it is closer to 70-80% less...

 

It is better when most people can see from 5km having 22' monitors and even if those that had "bad" 17' monitors would still see at around 2 or 3 km than how it is now. When I having 21,5' don't see a thing at more than 1km and guy with 17' can't see past 500m

 

Agreed.

Edited April 1, 2015 by T}{OR

[Wolf Rider]

It is better when most people can see from 5km having 22' monitors and even if those that had "bad" 17' monitors would still see at around 2 or 3 km than how it is now. When I having 21,5' don't see a thing at more than 1km and guy with 17' can't see past 500m

 

therein. lay the problem...

 

 

Realy, it is that simple of a matter, I can't understand that there are people who even fight against such change.

 

Wolf, you are just afraid of changes and that is all. I can tell you right now that ACG server at least made LOD MOD that improves it. It is not much, but it still gives a lot better experience than any other DCS server. I can actually see something past 1km with zoom which is already a big improvment.

 

 

no- one is complaining about change... you're becoming shrill again. I can see just fine @ the 1km you quote, with no "mod" and default settings

 

Now we are waiting for EDGE and hope that ED will do something about their rendering issues.

 

don't know about "rendering issues" as such, but yes, lets see what is what there

 

If what we have was IRL, nobody would change from turnfighters to energy fighters and T&B wouldn't be surpassed by B&Z IRL. But it was.Most German kills on the Eastern front performed by great aces was in B&Z approach. They were flying 1-2km above soviet formations, using clouds and sun to stay "hidden" and chose their pray. Dove on the Soviet planes and shoot from close distance and zoom up.

 

there was a lot of both B'nZ and turn fight

 

 

It was also the best tactic used by both USAAF and USN. P-47s were boucing better turning German planes and coming out victorious. Same with F6F hellcat that was NEVER trying even to turn against Zero and was wining in very high numbers. Some pilots reported seeing enemy planes 15.000ft below which is 4,5km below, and they were in camo. (German planes during 1944-45 period usualy had camo to stay hidden on the ground, not to get bombed by allied planes)

 

The AVG used B'n'Z to great effect also

 

With what we have now in DCS, they wouldn't even seen each other over never ending Pacific ocean.

 

not so.. the problem is in your monitor

 

Just read some of the reports and stop fighting against this righteous cause to make the game more realistic, more enjoyable and most importantly, more HEALTHY for our eyes.

 

in the name of god? crikey

[Hummingbird]

Fact is we should be able to spot aircraft a lot further away than what we can ingame now, and that this needs to be corrected by what'ever means necessary so that we can get the realistic spotting ranges already present in other titles such as IL2, which in turn will GREATLY improve gameplay.

[PFunk1606688187]

I can watch airplanes flying over the Burrard inlet and Vancouver harbour from ~3nm and further from my window. Its damned easy to see airplanes at that range. They're the size of Cessnas and float planes. Depending on conditions it varies how easy it is to see but when conditions are right its easy to look out the window, see an airplane at 3nm or greater, look away, look back and reacquire easily. Part of what makes this easy is wider FOV that makes it easy to associate the picture with where the dot is and rediscover where it is generally before the blatantly visible dot is homed in on. Its even pretty easy to determine aspect since blobs look ovoid depending on the aspect.

 

Aspect and light and contrast and all that jazz are relevant but under ideal conditions its bloody impossible to easily see anything in DCS. Case in point, a typical wedge formation from the wingman perspective in my DCS. That's 1.5nm spacing give or take. I know where I'm looking. I still have a hard time seeing him at default FOV. Whats default FOV? The FOV that the devs say "here, play at this FOV". Its also the one that allows us to use our cockpit easily and have spatial awareness of where we are looking. Spatial awareness is part of what makes it easier to keep track of hard to see dots. If you have to zoom in you lose that spatial awareness and so you have no way to easily reacquire if you look away.

 

Its one thing to know what part of the sky my buddy is in and then use the zoom to try and get a feel for his aspect etc, its quite another to not know he's there and try to find him. He's broadside to me in one of the largest single seat tactical aircraft you'll ever encounter. When you can barely see your wingman in standard formation how are you supposed to cast eyes out of the formation to see beyond it?

[NineLine]

I can watch airplanes flying over the Burrard inlet and Vancouver harbour from ~3nm and further from my window. Its damned easy to see airplanes at that range. They're the size of Cessnas and float planes. Depending on conditions it varies how easy it is to see but when conditions are right its easy to look out the window, see an airplane at 3nm or greater, look away, look back and reacquire easily. Part of what makes this easy is wider FOV that makes it easy to associate the picture with where the dot is and rediscover where it is generally before the blatantly visible dot is homed in on. Its even pretty easy to determine aspect since blobs look ovoid depending on the aspect.

 

No offence, but you are talking about slow moving aircraft that are flying a normal, expected flight path. I think you would have more trouble if you turned away and that aircraft made an unexpected manoeuvre off its normal route.

 

No doubt there are some issues with the LODs in DCS, and some need fixing worse than others. But dont expect to pick up a fighter at 5nm or greater with ease when you dont know its there to begin with, I think you need to tune your expectations.

 

Once again, ED is certainly looking into this aspect of the sim, but expect something better than a 10-20 year old solution that may sort of work... least I would hope.

[SharpeXB]

It's puzzling to me why so many people seem to have trouble with the idea of using the "zoom" view. It's an essential feature and if you're not using it, no wonder you're having trouble seeing anything in the game. It's not cheating and it's not "binoculars". It's how we deal with playing a flight sim on a 2D screen. There's no "default" or "normal" FOV. It's a process of constant adjustment in order to stay aware. The best setting for this is to have it on an axis where it can be used fast and easy. Then you're not compromising awareness for detail and vice versa.

 

And not to use the term "realistic" but your real vision only has high acuity in a narrow FOV. Your peripheral vision isn't going to spot and ID small objects at the edge of your visual field. In the real world you "zoom view" as well.

[PFunk1606688187]

No offence, but you are talking about slow moving aircraft that are flying a normal, expected flight path. I think you would have more trouble if you turned away and that aircraft made an unexpected manoeuvre off its normal route.

Oh nonsense. At extreme range its not going to make that much difference glancing away at most 2 to 3 seconds at several miles, especially if you're turning to intercept or vice versa. This is why high FOV matters, because you have a picture and a whole sector that you can associate with part of your canopy or a heading or bearing or whatever. It means that in a few crucial seconds you may look away you can reacquire because you know the ballpark to look in. Even at high speed the change in position isn't going to be terribly great at longer range. Obviously the rate increases the nearer you get but as things get bigger that should help.

 

No doubt there are some issues with the LODs in DCS, and some need fixing worse than others. But dont expect to pick up a fighter at 5nm or greater with ease when you dont know its there to begin with, I think you need to tune your expectations.

Its like talking to a wall. Its not about making it easy, its about making it possible. Its about making it possible to continue seeing it since using zoom makes re-acquiring a very difficult to spot object basically impossible.

 

but expect something better than a 10-20 year old solution that may sort of work... least I would hope.

Whats wrong with 10 year old solutions? Most of what works gets iterated into better versions. If there's a new way to overcome the basic limitations of monitor resolution (which is a problem that has itself not much changed since the 90s) you'd think someone woulda thought of it.

 

It's puzzling to me why so many people seem to have trouble with the idea of using the "zoom" view. It's an essential feature and if you're not using it, no wonder you're having trouble seeing anything in the game. It's not cheating and it's not "binoculars". It's how we deal with playing a flight sim on a 2D screen. There's no "default" or "normal" FOV. It's a process of constant adjustment in order to stay aware. The best setting for this is to have it on an axis where it can be used fast and easy. Then you're not compromising awareness for detail and vice versa.

 

And not to use the term "realistic" but your real vision only has high acuity in a narrow FOV. Your peripheral vision isn't going to spot and ID small objects at the edge of your visual field. In the real world you "zoom view" as well.

 

Again, talking to a wall. Who said don't use zoom view? I can't help but use zoom view. The problem that you don't seem to understand is that its a compromise that creates its own problems. Human vision only has a very narrow part at the middle of our focus that can give us that high level of detail, everything else is basically blurry. However the composite image of the central focus and the blurry bits that fill your peripheral vision allow you to more readily associate what you're seeing. Take the basic concept in dive bombing. You use canopy references to line up with the thing you're trying to bomb in order to arrive at a point in space that allows you to roll and pull into a correct dive angle. In DCS this is impossible without being able to see both the target on the ground and the canopy references. It must be done basically at default FOV.

 

Maintaining visual with a target in the sky is essentially relying on the same thing. You need to use elements of your canopy to track where stuff is. I know that I'm in correct wedge formation when my lead is within a certain area aft of the canopy bow. Being able to see that at a glance is useful, having to zoom way the hell in is not because I lose that reference. Its the same with tracking a target you see in the air, you associate a part of your aircraft with where it is, at the very least a quarter of it, and so its easier to find it again 1 second later when you go back to look after glancing at an instrument or whatever you do when you're not padlocked. At high zoom anything you can reference is gone, the field of view is so narrow that if I'm looking near the target but a little high or low I'm never going to see it. At high zoom I also have a very jittery view with TrackIR, its very hard to scan smoothly.

 

Zoom is not a panacea, its a compromise solution that offers its own downsides. I use it, I will always use it, but its got its own baggage.

[skendzie]

Sharpe, really? So you're telling me that it's perfectly fine to be forced to zoom in on everything? How is that realistic at all? Games like IL-2 and BMS make spotting actually possible. This is without zooming.

 

Even dropping the discussion about realism, it's just not fun too zoom in to the max to try spot a pixel. Good luck have any dog fights in WWII or Korean War aircraft. Combat just becomes a tedious game of spot the pixel. At the end of the day, it's still a game. Games should be fun. Zooming in to the max to spot anything past 3km is not fun (or realistic!).