Model Scaling and Visibilty

[shagrat]

And as far as I remember especially SithSpawn HAS acknowledged, that it needs some attention.

So why is it so difficult to be a bit patient and wait how DCS 2.0 handles visibility with EDGE?

The label adjustment may be something that have a benefit in both engines and can work as an intermediate fix, even in DCS 2.0... yet, we don't know until we see it all in reality on our PCs.

[shagrat]

. 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.

Hmm, that is why we have ATC and separating flights in flight levels and flight lanes. Even if they happen to be laaaarge airliners, actually. They are hard to spot at speed and the sky is pretty large.

Would they fly at just 100ft separation in any direction "as they wish", we would invite disaster...

[Ultra]

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.

 

Yes, it was quite annoying. I think a variation of it could be helpful in DCS if another solution isn't found first.

[audax]

Hmm, that is why we have ATC and separating flights in flight levels and flight lanes. Even if they happen to be laaaarge airliners, actually. They are hard to spot at speed and the sky is pretty large.

Would they fly at just 100ft separation in any direction "as they wish", we would invite disaster...

VFR flying does not use ATC usually. It really is: Don't fly to high, don't fly into controlled air space without calling ATC and you are good.

 

The pilot has to manage everything on his own. He doesn't even need to use his radio unless he lands at controlled airports or enters controlled air space. Until 2006 (in germany) motorized planes didn't even need a transponder, it was optional. It still is in many countries.

 

…patient … wait … EDGE?

NEVER! I WANT IT NOW! :D

[shagrat]

Yep, sorry you are right, missed that VFR part... My bad!

[ShuRugal]

Yes they have more than one programmer, but I have a feeling fixing graphics options in the original engine and working on the new engine might fall on the same guy(s), don't you think? And I am sorry, but I highly doubt they are going to focus much efforts to improving anything with the old engine right now. Not a hard concept to understand I don't think.

 

Well, it would seem that something was done in this last update: twice yesterday, I noticed that when another aircraft is at the range where it would be rendered as only a pixel or two, a blurry grey blob is superimposed on it. I'll try and get a screencap of this effect if i can, make sure i'm not just going nuts.

[Wolf Rider]

 

 

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 how does that affect a large monitor deliberately run in a low resolution?

[shagrat]

It should calculate based on the chosen resolution. Showing a dot of 4px at half the native resolution, at least in theory...

[PFunk1606688187]

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

Thats not the point. The point is that CRTs are still arguably better or at the very least competitive in some respects despite being deprecated technology ergo the monitors have radically improved argument falls flat for me. Whats definitely improved on the medium to low end level is the cost and ergonomics. CRTs are inconvenient, but arguably not nearly as bad in terms of actual visual quality.

 

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.

Who said that? My personal example of a tactical formation was saying that it was possible but far more work than it would be for a real pilot. An A-10 is about 4x3 pixels on a 1680x1050 monitor at 1.5nm at default FOV. Thats a very large single seat fighter.

[NineLine]

Well, it would seem that something was done in this last update: twice yesterday, I noticed that when another aircraft is at the range where it would be rendered as only a pixel or two, a blurry grey blob is superimposed on it. I'll try and get a screencap of this effect if i can, make sure i'm not just going nuts.

 

Its possible they are messing with the blending of distant LODs, as I said, they are aware that people want it to be better, I just dont see it being scaling that they implement... but we will see what they come up with.

[Wolf Rider]

It should calculate based on the chosen resolution. Showing a dot of 4px at half the native resolution, at least in theory...

 

 

That's not what I asked....

[SharpeXB]

An A-10 is about 4x3 pixels on a 1680x1050 monitor at 1.5nm at default FOV. Thats a very large single seat fighter.

That monitor is your problem. An A-10 at that range should be easy to see without much effort. Get at least 1080x1920 or use labels. If that's your monitor resolution no wonder you have trouble spotting.

And I don't understand your proposed solution. Make the aircraft more pixels? It's always going to be that size regardless of how good the graphics might be.

Edited April 17, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

Its possible they are messing with the blending of distant LODs, as I said, they are aware that people want it to be better, I just dont see it being scaling that they implement... but we will see what they come up with.

Maybe something has changed? I was just doing a night mission with the NVGs in the A-10C and could still make out the ground targets and ID them without much trouble

[shagrat]

That's not what I asked....

Can you clarify what you asked then,please?

Resolution 1920x1080, 1px = 1m @ distance A / 5m @ distance B / 10m @ distance C. If the calculated size of the fuselage/wings at distance C is below 10m, then no pixel is rendered.

Now, with a resolution of 800x600 at the same distance, C, a pixel covers roughly 40m so your monitor only shows a plane which size exceeds 40m...

On your 1920x1080 display though the lower resolution will use about 4 native pixels to represent the "forced" lower resolution pixel, but only if the plane is much closer!

Now if the engine would scale to at least one pixel, it would show one pixel, as long as the plane is in the "visibility threshold range" and when the calculation shows the plane would be larger than the one pixel it starts the normal LOD...

Or something like that. ;)

[OneFatBird]

...

I can tell you from experience that you can see aircraft very easily from further away in real life than you can in the game, especially so if they catch the sun's light and glint. Meanwhile, I can't tell you how many time's I've been following a plane that can't be more than a kilometer away, right in front of my nose, and have them completely disappear from sight because the pixels didn't line up right.

 

Don't get me wrong, spotting aircraft shouldn't exactly be easy, but in no way should it be as difficult as it is now. This wasn't as big of a deal before because with the FC3 jets you just find things with your radar, but now that DCS is pushing WWII, Korean, and early Cold War era planes spotting visually is becoming more and more important. The artificial difficulty in spotting will seriously hamper the experience in flying these planes in ways that are ultimately unrealistic.

 

Exactly.

 

My reasons for voting this an important matter are already stated here. I am sure that the mathematical model for distance scaling in DCS is probably the most perfect there has been in a sim, but it is too perfect for a monitor and defeats some of the focus features of the natural eye in a real three dimensional environment. I hope a believable compromise that improves visibility can be implemented.

[SharpeXB]

I can't tell you how many time's I've been following a plane that can't be more than a kilometer away, right in front of my nose, and have them completely disappear from sight because the pixels didn't line up right.

Something is really wrong with your setup, hardware, graphics settings etc if an aircraft that close to you "disappears". Within a mile or so other objects should be very easy to see.

[Wolf Rider]

@ Shagrat...

 

 

as well all know, one of the favourites (of the airquaker) is running a low res on a large monitor(terms used generically) to game the screen, so to speak... we know this has the effect of making image pixels larger (blockier). It helps, those who would, find their far off distant target better.

 

 

How would your proposal not be affected by this??

 

 

 

 

 

~

 

and defeats some of the focus features of the natural eye in a real three dimensional environment.

 

~

 

 

 

3D would be of immense benefit... trick is to get the sim/ monitor/ etc to replay at an effective frame rate, as well as a viewing system which didn't cause the user problems with over continuous use

 

so would a bit of sun glint here and there

 

Scaling is just a gimmick

Edited April 21, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[audax]

Wolf Rider, are you scared of "cheating" in a simulator? I don't think it is a problem in the Falcon community. Falcon has smart scaling and a (small) competitive scene.

[shagrat]

@ Shagrat...

 

 

as well all know, one of the favourites (of the airquaker) is running a low res on a large monitor(terms used generically) to game the screen, so to speak... we know this has the effect of making image pixels larger (blockier). It helps, those who would, find their far off distant target better.

 

 

How would your proposal not be affected by this??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3D would be of immense benefit... trick is to get the sim/ monitor/ etc to replay at an effective frame rate, as well as a viewing system which didn't cause the user problems with over continuous use

 

so would a bit of sun glint here and there

 

Scaling is just a gimmick

Oh, it would, yet, I doubt it will be much of an issue, as I never had issues even with labels forced on in a mission, when I was using a modified labels.lua with just the dots in dark gray. Others seemingly had the full labels.

Now compared to the AI that can currently spot you through clouds, woods and fog, can still fly like on rails and isn't affected by most of the damage, I'll take my chances of running into an Airquaker with a ruined resolution... Just a bit more challenging and he must be soooo p...sad off, when he got shot down while he used all his "scaling" and dirty tricks, yet energy management and good BFM prevailed.

And most Airquakers would prefer FC3 jets anyway so missiles and radar over close quarters.

 

And yet I have to meet someone in this community who wouldn't crave for more resolution, sharper visuals and realism... So how many Airquakers might be out there? One, two, or more?

My guess, they go play ArmA or CoD aircraft quickly after getting bored with DCS.

[Wolf Rider]

So, I take it then (from your non answer) that your proposal wouldn't hinder that ability... perhaps, only strengthen it

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

Oh, it would, yet, I doubt it will be much of an issue, as I never had issues even with labels forced on in a mission, when I was using a modified labels.lua with just the dots in dark gray. Others seemingly had the full labels.

Now compared to the AI that can currently spot you through clouds, woods and fog, can still fly like on rails and isn't affected by most of the damage, I'll take my chances of running into an Airquaker with a ruined resolution... Just a bit more challenging and he must be soooo p...sad off, when he got shot down while he used all his "scaling" and dirty tricks, yet energy management and good BFM prevailed.

And most Airquakers would prefer FC3 jets anyway so missiles and radar over close quarters.

 

And yet I have to meet someone in this community who wouldn't crave for more resolution, sharper visuals and realism... So how many Airquakers might be out there? One, two, or more?

My guess, they go play ArmA or CoD aircraft quickly after getting bored with DCS.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Something is really wrong with your setup, hardware, graphics settings etc if an aircraft that close to you "disappears". Within a mile or so other objects should be very easy to see.

 

Any yet, one of the arguments Wolf Rider made earlier is camouflage. It is entirely possible to lose a target right in front of you if he is diving to avoid getting shot at.

 

 

So, I take it then (from your non answer) that your proposal wouldn't hinder that ability... perhaps, only strengthen it

 

 

Thanks!

 

Clutching at straws now? You can not have a perfect solution with hardware today. As it has been said, I am happy to live with a very small possibility of certain individuals who would lower the resolution so much to help them spot you easier. Also, last I checked, lowering ground detail to a minimum coupled with disabling AA also helps greatly. :music_whistling:

 

 

Now compared to the AI that can currently spot you through clouds, woods and fog, can still fly like on rails and isn't affected by most of the damage, I'll take my chances of running into an Airquaker with a ruined resolution... Just a bit more challenging and he must be soooo p...sad off, when he got shot down while he used all his "scaling" and dirty tricks, yet energy management and good BFM prevailed.

 

:thumbup:

[Wolf Rider]

 

~

 

It is entirely possible to lose a target right in front of you if he is diving to avoid getting shot at.

 

~

 

 

That's called "a break" and with a bit of left or right stick... pray your wingman is on the ball

 

 

 

and yes... the labels situation has been mentioned many many times before... even by me ;) even the lackings of current technology and no one perfect solution, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[shagrat]

So, I take it then (from your non answer) that your proposal wouldn't hinder that ability... perhaps, only strengthen it

 

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, but to be honest, my 4k resolution currently gives me an advantage over anybody flying at FullHD or lower.

With scaling the Airquakers would simply double the dot size for a far away plane! Remember as soon as any dimension of the plane exceeds the calculated size of a pixel it should change to normal LOD! It does NOT mean that planes get rendered double size! So maybe at 5-8miles out the scaled dot shows, but after that it is the normal LOD.

So the difference is only at range.

[shagrat]

So, I take it then (from your non answer)

:huh:

 

I said: "Oh, it would" (...)

First sentence! How is that not an answer....?

 

OK, again in just in a few words: Yes, advantage at very long range. Well before the merge.

[Wolf Rider]

how is "normal LoD" obtained out of two pixels?

 

Perhaps, it might help if you would define your "normal LoD"?

 

and thank you, finally, for your answer... what really is wanted though, is solutions which don't give advantage to those who game the game?

Edited April 21, 2015 by Wolf Rider