Model Scaling and Visibilty

[Wolf Rider]

Thank you for proving my point. Just because you don't see it in a low resolution image of a grainy photograph doesn't mean you won't see something with the naked eye (even if it's just picking out movement or something "different" from the surroundings).

 

 

no. no, thank you Home Fries... you seem to be saying "low resolution" makes it more difficult.

Oh! and btw, those shots are a 1/4 ~ 1/2 the distance out to which you quoted ;)

[PFunk1606688187]

You are talking about aircraft that want to be seen by other aircraft, that are flying straight and steady... its gonna be a lot different for a fighter pilot. There is tracking and IDing targets, read up on both... from the early days till now... losing an aircraft is possible. AND AGAIN, DCS has some issues that make this even more of a problem, and things need fixed and tweaked, no one is arguing that. But being so set on one solution isnt the answer. The heat of a fight would be a little different than sitting on a bench in Stanley Park I would imagine.

Its not about all encompassing single solution that will fix everything. This is why I get frustrated. This is about a concept that should ameliorate the issue and afford virtual pilots the chance to fly with a bit more grace, ie. not slamming the FOV slider up and down between spotting a dot and managing to cross check instruments or make necessary changes to systems ahead of an intercept.

 

I'm not talking about IDing or spotting being one and the same, but the issues of why they're both harder in DCS are basically interrelated. Its all down to pixel resolution. No matter how much we change the quality of the engine such as with EDGE giving us better constrast and the like you're still looking at pixels being too small to be noticed to a believable extent. If you look at the picture I posted of me in Wedge formation you can see that at default FOV the other aircraft, at broadside, is something like 4 pixels wide and 3 pixels high. Thats at 1.5nm. Contrast or not thats hard to see and thats well within a comfy easy to spot range.

 

When it comes to aircraft doing things to make it harder to spot well you are forgetting that lateral movement does more to advertize position than moving slowly. If anything its aspect that'll hide a small fighter craft at extreme range. If you're broadside you're broadside which means you're showing off more of yourself. Light conditions, contrast, glare, etc, that will all influence how easy the pixels are to spot against the background but they're still minuscule and so you end up with a lack of granular resolution to that fine modern and surely improved EDGE rendering.

 

Scaling offers a compromise to that shortcoming. Its a compromise with absolutely no set in stone requirements. How much scaling, to what degree, in what conditions, is all up for grabs. Its merely a question of whether its an approach to take or not. Its an open concept, its not fixed and close. This whole "10 year old solution" thing is really closed minded in my opinion. No doubt DCS uses plenty of 10 year old concepts. You're not going to tell me that what DCS does well that had its naissance in LOMAC is an inferior solution.

 

Compromises to the all to fuzzy concept of realism are not one stop shops. They pile on. Zoom, improved contrast through engine rendering, and yes perhaps scaling, can all combine to offer a better package compromise for achieving usable and convenient realistic performance for players.

 

Take sim racing. Narrow field of view is a hassle because you lose lots of side situational awareness. You can't see your mirrors even if the narrow field of view offers a more realistic and accurate representation of the track. One solution is of course virtual mirrors. Its not very realistic (ie. floating mirror overlays aren't in real cars), but it represents a compromise to give you some of what you lose by shuttering yourself into a narrower window. One solution working with another to achieve a better overall result.

 

Thats what its about. Not perfection, just chipping away at the mountain of things that a virtual pilot has to overcome that real pilots don't. Its not about underestimating how hard it is to do the job of fighter jock.

 

Last thought I forgot to stuff in the above, I would be content to leave scaling inapplicable to ground units. I would however prefer if ED gave us gyrostabilized binos. We used to be able to increase the minimum FOV but that got patched out, probably inadvertently, and so spotting and analyzing ground units is harder than ever. I don't think scaling is as badly needed as it is in the A2A environment. In fact the improvements in ground textures in newer generation maps should be greatly improve the ability to spot ground targets and then associate nearby landmarks to keep that area easily understood until you go in for the attack itself. This kind of thing is obviously unavailable in the sky where the big blue is a big wide nothing.

 

 

I've said my peace here, I think you are just arguing to argue now. I know ED is looking at it, they, thankfully, are open to new ideas and trying to come up with new solutions instead of replacing one fix with another.

No, I'm not arguing to argue, its about breaking through what is apparently basic misunderstandings. Its this kind of characterization that frustrates me so, accused of not being open to new ideas. I'm very open to new ideas. I could however very easily argue you're very closed to old ones. When in the end the CON team for this discussion are apparently suggesting the PRO team are saying things they're not (scaling will fix everything, those who want scaling refuse to use zoom or say it doesn't work, we don't want anything but scaling) it seems to me like you're just skimming what we're saying and inserting your own biases. Seems, the impression, not necessarily your intent, but thats how miscommunication goes.

 

Flight simming community is pretty diverse when it comes to the systems they use, we have everything from the guys that can afford cutting edge gear and the guys that are using the box held together with duct tape...

In this we are very much in agreement. I'm on a 7+ year old rig right now. I'm going to be upgrading for EDGE but my monitor is the last thing I'm looking to dump my monies into.

Edited April 3, 2015 by P*Funk

[Home Fries]

no. no, thank you Home Fries... you seem to be saying "low resolution" makes it more difficult.

Oh! and btw, those shots are a 1/4 ~ 1/2 the distance out to which you quoted ;)

They're photographs, so of course they're low resolution. Lower than the eye, anyway. That's been the whole point of my argument: that the eye can see more than the monitor can display and we need some kind of gameplay compensation for that limitation.

 

So you're displaying some photos where you don't have the resolution to make out details and use that to "disprove" my own operational experience? :doh:

[Wolf Rider]

 

They're photographs, so of course they're low resolution. Lower than the eye, anyway. That's been the whole point of my argument: that the eye can see more than the monitor can display and we need some kind of gameplay compensation for that limitation.

 

So you're displaying some photos where you don't have the resolution to make out details and use that to "disprove" my own operational experience?

 

:doh:

 

-------------------------------

 

 

~

 

I mentioned before seeing a GA aircraft at 10 miles, and being able to determine its type and aspect. While we were actually given type and range (departure was telling us to look for a King Air at 10 miles), the aircraft was in a turn so its planform was exposed. With a glossy finish and CAVU skies, it wasn't hard at all. ~

 

~

 

 

 

err, what I said was...

 

 

 

 

~

 

~

 

 

10miles/ 52,000ft/ 16Km (twice the height of Everest)... ain't gonna happen (except for the very, very few - those with totally exceptional eyesight

 

 

if you can ID a King Air, at the distance you quoted....

 

 

and in the shot, you see what being used Homes Fries?

 

yes, they be binoculars... tracking dogfighting aircraft 1/2 the distance out from what you quoted

Edited April 3, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[skendzie]

Wolf Rider, you are the king at making a non argument into an argument and totally shifting the discussion.

 

First, they're using binoculars because why not? They have them. They help people see farther...that's their function. It has nothing to do with scaling or spotting in DCS which is the point of this topic. So please stay on topic. The photos give no clues or evidence about the visibility of planes in real life. It's too low res. and photos are not moving.

 

You can debate how far you can see a plane in real life in another thread. This is about the importance of scaling or adding some sort of visual aspect to DCS because 90% of DCS players think it's a problem.

[Shmick]

You can debate how far you can see a plane in real life in another thread. This is about the importance of scaling or adding some sort of visual aspect to DCS because 90% of DCS players think it's a problem.

 

I dunno - that's kinda the point though, isn't it? If 90% of DCS players wanted labels to be forced-on, I wouldn't agree :-P

 

EDIT: I should point out that I'm utterly crap at spotting aircraft both in real life and DCS. Just want it to be as "realistic" as possible, whatever that may mean!

Edited April 3, 2015 by Shmick

[SharpeXB]

And yet after all this discussion I still don't understand exactly what "scaling" even is...

Is it pixel enhancement?

Is it literally making distant object models artificially larger?

 

Inquiring minds still want to know.

[Wolf Rider]

 

~

 

You can debate how far you can see a plane in real life in another thread. This is about the importance of scaling or adding some sort of visual aspect to DCS because 90% of DCS players think it's a problem.

 

 

Actually Skendzie, it is quite relevant and it has been brought up by others... so, if you would like to give them a serve as well perhaps?

 

You seem to be all for "scaling"... its old tech and won't solve the "problem". How did arrive at your figure of 90%?

 

may I ask what monitor you're running, and at what resolution , as well, what your FoV is?

[Wolf Rider]

And yet after all this discussion I still don't understand exactly what "scaling" even is...

Is it pixel enhancement?

Is it literally making distant object models artificially larger?

 

Inquiring minds still want to know.

 

 

it appears to be making distant objects temporarily artificially larger.. which can throw off the distance to target

[skendzie]

I'm basing my figure from the vote from a sample size of 400 people. My monitor has nothing to do with the discussion as a 1024x768 monitor would have the same spotting difficulties as a 4k monitor. But since you asked it's a 24' running at 1920x1080 resolution.

 

I'm not "all for scaling." I'm all for fixing the unrealistic/frustrating spotting difficulties in DCS:W. Whether it's a glimmer effect, better contrast, or scaling.

[Wolf Rider]

to say:

 

 

~

 

because 90% of DCS players think it's a problem.

 

 

is completely misleading Skendzie, because you are basing that on the number of "flyers" who have responded to the poll. I'm sure there are many more "flyers" than the 400appr.

 

that's the real problem with "polls" because unless everybody responds, a true indication cannot be obtained. Sure, some fancy extrapolating can be manipulated from any given result, the fact is, no-one can take that which hasn't responded and say it like this or like that.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm basing my figure from the vote from a sample size of 400 people. My monitor has nothing to do with the discussion as a 1024x768 monitor would have the same spotting difficulties as a 4k monitor. But since you asked it's a 24' running at 1920x1080 resolution.

 

I'm not "all for scaling." I'm all for fixing the unrealistic/frustrating spotting difficulties in DCS:W. Whether it's a glimmer effect, better contrast, or scaling.

 

 

 

You're making an assumption that the monitor size/ res has nothing to do with "the discussion"...

 

what is really needed is a clear picture of what monitor, size, resolution/ colour space, etc and if they bothered to calibrate their monitor at all, as well what vga card they have and how the properties of those are set, which people are running and from there those who do and don't have problems

Edited April 3, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[skendzie]

K well, I don't agree with the way you problem solve/analyse things so there is no point to discuss with you. A ton of marketing data, political date and scientific data is done by polling/surveys yet somehow you try discredit the results because it doesn't agree with your stance. Especially how heavily it leans to one side. That is ignorance in my opinion. So I'm done responding to you.

[Wolf Rider]

Actually, it is the way to analyse/ problem solve :music_whistling: :joystick:

[SharpeXB]

it appears to be making distant objects temporarily artificially larger.. which can throw off the distance to target

If that's the idea, it's a terrible solution for a game of today. That's the kind of thing that was probably done 20 years ago for 11" 4:3 monitors. The graphics were so hokey back then nobody cared how silly it looked.

 

There's only three things that help:

 

Monitor size

Resolution

And image quality.

Edited April 3, 2015 by SharpeXB

[vicx]

I keep posting this because people come to this thread and don't read through it and then claim ignorance as to what is being discussed.

 

In this video (at 1m10s) it shows what scaling can look like. Before scaling you see nothing. After scaling you see a couple of aircraft to your right in the middle of a dogfight.

 

Scaling corrects the visual acuity errors introduced by the display hardware and a default rendering solution. The correction aligns the representation of distant objects closer to that you would experience IRL.

 

 

Who doesn't want scaling? People who think that if other people can actually see stuff they might lose something.

 

Maybe they can share with us what they think they stand to lose so we can understand why they "seem to be" trolling this thread.

[NineLine]

Who doesn't want scaling? People who think that if other people can actually see stuff they might lose something.

 

Maybe they can share with us what they think they stand to lose so we can understand why they "seem to be" trolling this thread.

 

Stop with the accusations because people have a differing opinions please.

[Home Fries]

I keep posting this because people come to this thread and don't read through it and then claim ignorance as to what is being discussed.

 

In this video (at 1m10s) it shows what scaling can look like. Before scaling you see nothing. After scaling you see a couple of aircraft to your right in the middle of a dogfight.

 

Scaling corrects the visual acuity errors introduced by the display hardware and a default rendering solution. The correction aligns the representation of distant objects closer to that you would experience IRL.

 

<...>

 

Who doesn't want scaling? People who think that if other people can actually see stuff they might lose something.

 

Maybe they can share with us what they think they stand to lose so we can understand why they "seem to be" trolling this thread.

That video is the perfect demonstration of scaling. For people who say "it makes the object look larger than it really is", yes it does, but with that example do you really care? At least you can see it, and at that distance the relative speed of the aircraft means more for your brain interpreting distance than the size of the pixels.

[SharpeXB]

But if people are complaining they can't see an object which is a mile away, the above solution won't help. That doesn't appear as though it's scaling objects, it's just rendering them so they don't vanish at great distances.

Edited April 3, 2015 by SharpeXB

[sniperwolfpk5]

Flight simming community is pretty diverse when it comes to the systems they use, we have everything from the guys that can afford cutting edge gear and the guys that are using the box held together with duct tape...

100% agree. I use laptop with full low settings and get 15 to 20 fps. Buying a high end PC is out of my reach.

[Home Fries]

But if people are complaining they can't see an object which is a mile away, the above solution won't help. That doesn't appear as though it's scaling objects, it's just rendering them so they don't vanish at great distances.

1 mile is approximately the diameter of a jet's turn circle at corner, and is also almost in guns range. People should be able to see their targets at 1 mile with or without scaling. Scaling is more of a solution for distant aircraft that are too small to display or otherwise require "pixel-hunting".

[[DBS]TH0R]

And yet after all this discussion I still don't understand exactly what "scaling" even is...

Is it pixel enhancement?

Is it literally making distant object models artificially larger?

 

Inquiring minds still want to know.

 

Again. If you can not understand what has been said here, simply fire up old IL2 and see for yourself.

 

In MP there was an option to dial in at what distance one would like dots to appear. Most online servers had it set on 20km. This made it possible to see a 4 engined bomber at 20 km, while fighters and other single engined fighters appeared at 8-10km.

 

The dot was just that, a visible black dot in the sky. You couldn't tell what it was until you got closer. Much closer.

 

Even ships appeared as dots - but that part was badly done in that sim. When their LODs finally appeared, they were much much larger than the dot itself.

 

 

If that's the idea, it's a terrible solution for a game of today. That's the kind of thing that was probably done 20 years ago for 11" 4:3 monitors. The graphics were so hokey back then nobody cared how silly it looked.

 

There's only three things that help:

 

Monitor size

Resolution

And image quality.

 

As DavidRed said, no current available monitor size and resolution will fix something that can not be seen in the first place. Even if it could, then perhaps if we're talking about 20K resolution, and I don't see that arriving any time soon, let alone hardware that can run it.

 

Smart scaling was used less than 10 years ago, and it still works. Is it realistic? No. Is what we have in DCS now realistic? Even less. It is a compromise that works.

 

No, a terrible solution would be going to a super high resolution for today standards. Even if the dot was visible, the pixel size is much smaller than on a HD screen - and even there it is very difficult to spot it on default FOV.

 

A pixel chasing sim, is even more unrealistic. :pilotfly:

 

it appears to be making distant objects temporarily artificially larger.. which can throw off the distance to target

 

No, it prevents them from disappearing when they should normally still be visible. At that range, especially when we're talking about ground targets, everything else is more or less a pixel.

 

For planes I strongly disagree with the above statement.

 

But if people are complaining they can't see an object which is a mile away, the above solution won't help. That doesn't appear as though it's scaling objects, it's just rendering them so they don't vanish at great distances.

 

And that is the reason why this poll has 90% people thinking it is important to be implemented.

 

 

Bottom line is - smart scaling alone would probably fix what we have now in current DCS engine. A compromise of contrast, glimmer and smart scaling plus what ever else is possible would be something to expect from EDGE. Hopefully. :)

Edited April 3, 2015 by T}{OR
spelling

[lanmancz]

Btw: I am now reading A10s over Kosovo. According to their ROE the A10 AFACs had a hard deck at 8000 ft AGL at the lowest and operated between 8-10k ft AGL (during initial stages of the operation they even had it at 15k ft AGL, which was then lowered to 10 and even later to 8 ). From this altitude they were able to spot possible target locations by seeing indications of their presence using just their eyes and confirming using binoculars. The problem in DCS currently is that this is impossible without being completely zoomed in which I don't think is "realistic" at all.

 

When AFACs looked for a particular target around a set of coordinates,

their observant, naked eyes could often spot telltale

signs of other targets—new revetments, tracks leading into the

woods, and unusually configured shapes on a hillside. “Well,

looky here!” was our normal reaction. The AFAC would then use

his binoculars to get a closer look, and if it proved to be a valid

target, he’d set up attacks.

 

At 20,000 feet and with my naked eyes, I could tell the target was

not military—at least most of it wasn’t. It consisted of lots of colorful

vehicles. I could see blues, reds, and a lot of bright silver

from bumpers reflecting the sun. I let Arden know that I was

going heads-down to use the binos.

Edited April 3, 2015 by lanmancz

[Wolf Rider]

~

In MP there was an option to dial in at what distance one would like dots to appear. Most online servers had it set on 20km. This made it possible to see a 4 engined bomber at 20 km, while fighters and other single engined fighters appeared at 8-10km.

 

The dot was just that, a visible black dot in the sky. You couldn't tell what it was until you got closer. Much closer.

 

Even ships appeared as dots - but that part was badly done in that sim. When their LODs finally appeared, they were much much larger than the dot itself.

 

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

And that is the reason why this poll has 90% people thinking it is important to be implemented.

 

 

~

 

 

 

iirc, the setting affected all objects equally

 

 

and it is 90% of poll responders

[[DBS]TH0R]

iirc, the setting affected all objects equally

 

I set it up personally, and tested it with my squad over a year ago. The server is still running if you are interested in testing for yourself.

 

Planes at different sizes appeared at different distances.

[Wolf Rider]

The server hosting an on-line game now has an ability to set distances at which the plane icons will be visible. The command syntax is:

mp_dotrange [FRIENDLY|FOE] [DEFAULT] [RANGE ] [TYPE ] [iD ] [NAME ]

 

FRIENDLY of FOE keywords define as to what party the following parameters apply - the aircraft of the viewer's army, or the aircraft of the hostile armies.

 

The following keys define the distance the appropriate icon effect is enabled at:

 

COLOR - the distance the icon takes the color of the inbound plane's army at. Icons farther than that are drawn in grey.

 

DOT - how far the 'dot' plane marker is visible.

 

RANGE - how far to draw the distance numbers in the icon.

 

TYPE - how far the airplane model or model family is visible.

 

ID - how far the tactical number is visible.

 

NAME - how far the aircraft's pilot name is visible (if it is driven by a human pilot).

 

mp_dotrange DEFAULT restores the Il-2 pre-defined icon set-up.

 

 

 

the setting affected all equally