Model Scaling and Visibilty

[[DBS]TH0R]

The zoom view is your tool in the game to see objects like this. There's no other way. No "scaling" or whatever effect is going to make ground objects like that visible in the wide FOV. That's impossible. Better graphics and higher resolution can help but you also have to adjust your FOV in the game. It's normal for all flight sims.

 

And no one here is asking for such details on wide FOV. Simply to be able to spot something in comparison to being blinded as we are now. Throughout this whole thread you are either deliberately or unwillingly failing to make a note there is a difference between spotting and being able to ID the target.

 

 

yes, and as mentioned earlier, you definitely do seem to be talking about LoD, and too bad about the labels not being left on thing....

 

Now tell me please, what other method than manipulating with LODs would there be if we wanted to improve objects appearing at larger distances? If the object isn't visible in the first place, no glimmer or contrast improvement will help - as it is in DCS in it current engine.

 

As for labels not showing in my earlier test - this was done offline for anyone else to replicate if needed. I mentioned it was possible and you posted how it is done, that you can set at which distance the 4 engined bomber will appear. IIRC maximum distance you can set it 25km. You mentioned default is 14km, while the information I have is people set it usually to 20km on MP servers.

 

In IL21946 the dot is not simply a pixel. It is several pixels that enable you to spot the target, total size relative to target's size. Hence my test earlier.

 

 

People seem to be demanding the "scaling" feature (and I say "feature" because they really don't seem interested in an overall "fix", they just seem to want a fps with wings) for way before LoD transitioning occurs, and they want it at an outrageously wide FoV

 

Unless we have been reading two different threads I saw no such demands. It is only you who are perceiving people here want an unrealistic feature that would help them spot and engage targets whilst the game drew them like a cartoon. I personally want a fix that would enable me to spot (not ID!) the target at normal and wide FOV thus enabling better situational awareness as one would have in real life. Every other sim features that, except DCS in its current form where drawing distance for planes and ground objects is abysmal unless using maximum zoom as SharpeXB demonstrated here several times already.

 

 

the video posted up (showing the gnats around the carrier) is quoted in-video as "approx. 15km away", and also appears to be hazy. They're made to look larger than they really are.

 

If you are referring to the video from post #242, this is an example of how to solve this problem I would be happy to have in upcoming EDGE.

Edited April 4, 2015 by T}{OR
spelling

[Wolf Rider]

 

~

 

I personally want a fix that would enable me to spot (not ID!) the target at normal and wide FOV ~

 

 

 

 

and thus, the point is made... your "normal" is already wider than default

 

 

(you get your SA from team work and learning to put your head on swivel, whilst keeping your plane level)

 

apart from all that, you're chopping and changing, and twisting the words of others around... ie - you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (and yes, for a FPS ;) )

Edited April 4, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

and thus, the point is made... your "normal" is already wider than default

 

Where did I say that?

 

 

(you get your SA from team work and learning to put your head on swivel, whilst keeping your plane level)

 

It goes without saying that teamwork beats solo dogfights, however this has nothing to do with being unable to see a plane at medium distance in this sim without heavily relying on zoom.

 

 

apart from all that, you're chopping and changing, and twisting the words of others around... ie - you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (and yes, for a FPS ;) )

 

Why doesn't this comment surprise me... I think I am done here, wasted enough energy and time as it is. Have a nice day. :)

[lanmancz]

Let me explain this once more - the problem for some people around here is the fact that to be able to see pretty much anything not parked right next to you you constantly need to be zoomed in. People are certainly not asking here for "FPS with wings". Please respect other people opinions. I think there have been plenty of ideas in this thread about how to make scaling work in-game. Nobody is saying that they know everything but we wouldn't know what works and what doesn't until we try - that's why we have beta for.

 

On a similar note. How about making the zoom function a bit more user friendly than it is now so it would be a less of a pain to use. How about adding a stabilized binoculars to the game. Something that would work a bit like zoomed padlock that had it's special key. So we could spot around with our normal fov, keep our SA high and if we'd like to see something, to verify a target it would just take one key press to look through the binoculars and with other key press it would instantly restore back the previous view, fov, everything.

Edited April 4, 2015 by lanmancz

[ShuRugal]

There has got to be some way to improve rendering of other aircraft...

 

I know this has been talked to death, but the lack of any apparent solution is extremely frustrating.

 

I've just finished doing the A2A training in the MIG-21, and it seems like the thing will be pretty much useless in multiplayer combat, simply because the radar and target management systems are clearly geared around providing a means to identify a target given from ground-control intercept and move in for visual engagement.

 

The problem with doing this in DCS is two-pronged:

 

First, most A2A servers have no AWACS/GCI support. This means relying on either dumb luck to find targets, or hope that someone in a Flanker or an Eagle will be willing to play AWACS for you.

 

Second, and more problematically, once a target has been found on the sensors, the aircraft's weapon systems rely heavily on closing to visual range to actually line up a shot. I find this particularly problematic, because for my setup (19" display @ 1920x1080), visual range means within 1-2 km. Any further than this, and fighter-sized craft vary from a line 1-2 pixels thick to a blob 5-6 pixels across, depending on aspect. outside 3-4 km, and there is nothing.

 

Zooming in helps a bit, if i already know where to look for the bandit, pushing maximum visible range out to about 5-6km, but doing this precludes doing anything else, including manuevering, because the FoV is simply too narrow to keep sight of another aircraft.

 

IRL, I can easily spot something as small as an F-16 at a distance of 5km using nothing more than my Mk-1 eyeball. In fact, I spent an hour yesterday watching a pair of them do touch-and-goes at an airfield 2.5km away, and had no trouble picking them out even when they were at the furthest point in their pattern, on the far side of the airfield. At their nearest point to my position (~2km) they appeared nearly the size of my thumb held at arm's length. Why is it than, in DCS, the only time an aircraft is that easily visible is when it's flying in formation with me?

[PFunk1606688187]

The zoom view is your tool in the game to see objects like this.

 

And you keep failing to comprehend that max zoom is a compromise that severely degrades the ability of a pilot to scan and to maintain situational awareness of even where he's looking. There's no ability to maneuver the aircraft while spotting easily since you have no stabilization of the view and with such a narrow field of view you have no reference to the canopy or other terrain features to provide a sense of position or to use as a reference.

 

Its a tool, but a mediocre one in its current form. I would settle for gyro stabilization and a much higher max zoom factor when dealing with the issues of ground target spotting, something akin to 10-12x or whatever it is that they said they had in Kosovo.

[NineLine]

I know this has been talked to death, but the lack of any apparent solution is extremely frustrating.

 

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

[zaelu]

This scaling means that for better visibility the objects of interest are made bigger? Like you fly 10km away from an airfield full of some tanks and you will see the airfield tiny and something like 4-5 blobs of polygons from those tanks covering it completely like some huge battleships from star wars?

 

I think if this is the case... it should be made Server side toggleable. Meaning some servers to allow or not allow such feature. I wouldn't play such thing for a second.

 

And my opinion on this is that many people see such old times (small CRT era) solutions as their saviors but don't think at the bad side. They just want a solution and they will take almost anything for it out of desperation. But, I think that once implemented such thing will be discarded by many of them because only when they will see the complete ugliness of it on a 4K monitor will they realize what they were advocating for. A DCS world that looks like a Blizzard game. (not that games of Blizzard are bad in their sense... I play some of them... like Warcraft 3, Diablo, Heroes of the Storm)

[Solty]

This scaling means that for better visibility the objects of interest are made bigger? Like you fly 10km away from an airfield full of some tanks and you will see the airfield tiny and something like 4-5 blobs of polygons from those tanks covering it completely like some huge battleships from star wars?

 

I think if this is the case... it should be made Server side toggleable. Meaning some servers to allow or not allow such feature. I wouldn't play such thing for a second.

 

And my opinion on this is that many people see such old times (small CRT era) solutions as their saviors but don't think at the bad side. They just want a solution and they will take almost anything for it out of desperation. But, I think that once implemented such thing will be discarded by many of them because only when they will see the complete ugliness of it on a 4K monitor will they realize what they were advocating for. A DCS world that looks like a Blizzard game. (not that games of Blizzard are bad in their sense... I play some of them... like Warcraft 3, Diablo, Heroes of the Storm)

No? Where have you seen something like this? It is called scalling for a reason. It means just those tanks would be always the same number of pixels from the time you would be able to see them IRL. So lets say from 1.5-2km above, you will see those little black things 2 pixels each on the ground. If you get closer or zoom in they will rescale to fit the real thing.

 

You seem speak as if you have never played Aircraft Simulators before:huh:

 

Those tanks won't become big as buildings or even bigger. They will just stay visible (be black dots) from realistic distances to you.

 

Check this post. This is how it realy looks:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2366970&postcount=264

Edited April 13, 2015 by Solty

[Wolf Rider]

not if they're camouflaged... its not how it works ;)

 

some just won't accept the distortion (things go further away than what they really are) inducing wide FoV is causing them their problems, for the most

Edited April 13, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Chimango]

A newbie question regarding dot visibility

 

Hello gents!

 

First of all salute you all and sorry for my english as it's not my native language.

 

Finally i have purchased my first DCS module, the MIG-15 which is one of my three all time favorite planes and i'm loving it so far. The only issue i have is that i can´t see any contacts while dogfighting, and being a fighter pilot (virtual ;) ) it's really disappointing not been able to keep in sight your enemy even at very close distances.

 

I mean, i fly full real settings, no labels, no externals, i have a GTX760 (1920x1080) ultra graphic settings, and i have difficulties keeping my fellow wingman (he also recently purchased the module) in sight during formation (when he is beyond 600yds for example) unless i apply the zoom. And is not only me, cause he was having the same problem, specially when a plane is against the terrain. It was almost impossible for us to find each other while we were fighting 2xAI Sabres in a 2 square miles area. So, if we are struggling at so close range, how can we for instance B&Z a Sabre flying 3000ft lower than us?

 

So, is there anything we can do to improve the dot visibility? Is anyone else having issues locating planes? If so, how can you dogfight in MP servers?

 

If we can´t see planes during dogfights, then our MIG-15s will probably sleep in the hangar soon. :(

 

I hope you can help us :helpsmilie:

 

Thank you in advance!

 

* Please if this is not the right section on the forum for posting this just let me know and i'll repost it somewhere else.

[zaelu]

No? Where have you seen something like this? It is called scalling for a reason. It means just those tanks would be always the same number of pixels from the time you would be able to see them IRL. So lets say from 1.5-2km above, you will see those little black things 2 pixels each on the ground. If you get closer or zoom in they will rescale to fit the real thing.

 

You seem speak as if you have never played Aircraft Simulators before:huh:

 

Those tanks won't become big as buildings or even bigger. They will just stay visible (be black dots) from realistic distances to you.

 

Check this post. This is how it realy looks:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2366970&postcount=264

 

You can do what you say with icons/labels. You edit labels.lua and for ground units instead of default code you just put:

 

GroundFormat = {}

GroundFormat[50] = ""

GroundFormat[5000] = "."

GroundFormat[10000] = "."

GroundFormat[20000] = "."

 

and at the end you modify the colors from red/blue to black so you get black dots. If is not big enough you can replace the dot (.) with an asterix or some other sign.

 

Now many people would say but we don't want icons... yeah, it kinda lose the pedigree but having other tricks and not calling icons is the same in the end...

 

Also, it would be a very good way to test the "theory". I mean. Play with icons on and with them only Dots or Asterixes... for a while. See how much they improve the SA then see how much they destroy the realism of the image. Also it might be a good idea to put all graphic settings to low. Test in many situations... like put a player in Combined Arms and place that dark dot on top of his head... convince him that the camouflage of his unit is useless anyway. If you would find that those little dark dots are not OK how would be OK some dark dots that are not called icons?

 

Those tanks WILL become not big as a building but big as an entire airfield. If you put 10 tanks of 4 pixels (and 4 pixel will not be enough for you trust me) on a column on an airfield you will get 40 pixels. How about some planes there? What will happen with the airfield and buildings around it if you have at least 40 black pixels over it dancing?

 

You gave the example of old IL-2. The image on Il-2 was extremely empty in comparison with DCS World 1 not to mention the new DCS World 2. On such empty image of course you can spot easily lot's of things. Il-2 was made in 2000 when 1280x1024 monitors were considered big and when video cards have a small fraction of the power of the current ones. For that it had extremely low defined objects... Because of that (!!!) Oleg could put all sorts of "visual" optimizations.. like the famous "DOT" and the equal famous "smart LODs" concepts where you could have LODs with "caricatured" aircraft silhouette features so a player could quickly identify the targets. Emils had big radiators under wings, 109s in general had squared wings, stukas had exaggerated undercarriage, etc etc. Today... those tricks don't work. Today you have 1920x1080 monitors as standard and soon 4k monitors will take over. If in 2000 many players would still play in 800x600 to get better SA, today it would be ridiculous on a 3840 x 2160 monitor. Also old IL-2 image on a 4K monitor would be like a blank image with almost no detail.

 

From playing online with my friends I observed that moaning about bad visibility appears mostly caused by these things (which sometimes I am guilty too):

 

-not properly reading the briefing and planing the mission

-not having a "decent" default FOV and playing with a huge 120-140° or even bigger.

-not using zoom correctly and not waiting for "the processing unit" (mind) to distinguish the details and movements.

-stories about armchair plane spotting placed in the same league with stressed life and death situations with overloaded brains, layers of plexiglass, camouflage, atmosphere aaaand... not so 20/20 vision - these usually have the purpose of just enraging the pilot in distress and making things even worse. Here enters also the stories about Il-2 or Falcon4 and their "great" visual aids (lost are the memories of the many many threads on Ubizoo forums about the dots and LODs and how unbalanced they were for some planes).

[OnlyforDCS]

 

So, is there anything we can do to improve the dot visibility? Is anyone else having issues locating planes? If so, how can you dogfight in MP servers?

 

 

I find that turning off Anti-Aliasing has 'slightly' improved my ability to locate and track planes. It's not perfect, but it helps. (For reference I also run the GTX760 at 1080p)

 

Better visibility > jaggy edges any day of the week.

[Solty]

You can do what you say with icons/labels. You edit labels.lua and for ground units instead of default code you just put:

 

 

 

and at the end you modify the colors from red/blue to black so you get black dots. If is not big enough you can replace the dot (.) with an asterix or some other sign.

 

Now many people would say but we don't want icons... yeah, it kinda lose the pedigree but having other tricks and not calling icons is the same in the end...

 

Also, it would be a very good way to test the "theory". I mean. Play with icons on and with them only Dots or Asterixes... for a while. See how much they improve the SA then see how much they destroy the realism of the image. Also it might be a good idea to put all graphic settings to low. Test in many situations... like put a player in Combined Arms and place that dark dot on top of his head... convince him that the camouflage of his unit is useless anyway. If you would find that those little dark dots are not OK how would be OK some dark dots that are not called icons?

 

Those tanks WILL become not big as a building but big as an entire airfield. If you put 10 tanks of 4 pixels (and 4 pixel will not be enough for you trust me) on a column on an airfield you will get 40 pixels. How about some planes there? What will happen with the airfield and buildings around it if you have at least 40 black pixels over it dancing?

 

You gave the example of old IL-2. The image on Il-2 was extremely empty in comparison with DCS World 1 not to mention the new DCS World 2. On such empty image of course you can spot easily lot's of things. Il-2 was made in 2000 when 1280x1024 monitors were considered big and when video cards have a small fraction of the power of the current ones. For that it had extremely low defined objects... Because of that (!!!) Oleg could put all sorts of "visual" optimizations.. like the famous "DOT" and the equal famous "smart LODs" concepts where you could have LODs with "caricatured" aircraft silhouette features so a player could quickly identify the targets. Emils had big radiators under wings, 109s in general had squared wings, stukas had exaggerated undercarriage, etc etc. Today... those tricks don't work. Today you have 1920x1080 monitors as standard and soon 4k monitors will take over. If in 2000 many players would still play in 800x600 to get better SA, today it would be ridiculous on a 3840 x 2160 monitor. Also old IL-2 image on a 4K monitor would be like a blank image with almost no detail.

 

From playing online with my friends I observed that moaning about bad visibility appears mostly caused by these things (which sometimes I am guilty too):

 

-not properly reading the briefing and planing the mission

-not having a "decent" default FOV and playing with a huge 120-140° or even bigger.

-not using zoom correctly and not waiting for "the processing unit" (mind) to distinguish the details and movements.

-stories about armchair plane spotting placed in the same league with stressed life and death situations with overloaded brains, layers of plexiglass, camouflage, atmosphere aaaand... not so 20/20 vision - these usually have the purpose of just enraging the pilot in distress and making things even worse. Here enters also the stories about Il-2 or Falcon4 and their "great" visual aids (lost are the memories of the many many threads on Ubizoo forums about the dots and LODs and how unbalanced they were for some planes).

You have clearly not read what I wrote. Start treating others with respect and maybe you will get somewhere. GL with your quest for destroyed eye sight.

 

PS. If you can't see something from a certain distance, it would not be visible in game. Just things that would be visible would be more pronounced. This helps us players to spot things on this 2D screen.

 

I am just greateful that most people in this thread see that difference and voted "Extremely Important"

Edited April 13, 2015 by Solty

[Chimango]

Voted extremely important

 

I've just joined DCS World community. I'm a WW2 and KTO fan and if visibility distance is not improved i'l will have to go somewhere else and leave DCS World icon resting on my desktop.

[zaelu]

@Solty

 

First you accused me of playing flight sims from yesterday (although it is easy to see at least the year of my account creation here). Then you accuse me of not reading what you said although I reply to you quite a lot on what you said (how much the tanks will be visible and what is my opinion on those IL-2 pics)

 

Then

You wrote me 3 lines in which you accuse me not treating you with respect? Is that your counter argument at what I wrote? You feel offended of my argumentation?

 

How do you do what you simply "want"? How do you do it in a game with current graphics detail and how do you do it so it will be fair for everyone?

 

 

 

What is this mean?

 

If you can't see something from a certain distance, it would not be visible in game.

 

and this from a bit earlier:

 

It means just those tanks would be always the same number of pixels from the time you would be able to see them IRL.

 

Who decides what is to be seen? That person is he taking into consideration the camo of the unit? Its position in terrain? Would you like to be made "visible" to an attack plane if you were in a tank... just because someone decided for you that you should be visible?

 

You should understand that "visible" is a very subjective thing. If we are striving for realism then we should limit artificial or arbitrary gimmicks that makes us see bit more than the simulation mechanics allows. Otherwise why not simply using icons? What is so wrong or offensive to use icons?

 

Did you tried what I was replying to you above? It didn't worked?

 

Let me repeat:

 

Put the icons/labes such they are black dots or asterixes. This way they will resemble your idea of "scaling". They will always be visible at the point you decide. Please tell me if you don't understand the sintax of that lua file and I can help you tune it they way you like. For example if you want a unit to be seen just between 2 and 5 kilometers you can make it have a black dot or a black asterix on it just between those distances.

 

Then play a while like this... see if it helps. If you are satisfied then think about it... The icon or the label sits a bit off to the respective unit. Would it make much difference if it will be exactly over-imposed on it? If not (wich I think would be the case)... then what is the difference between this scaling and icons?? Just the name? Just so people can play with the tick of labels/icons turned off and brag about it??

 

 

Lets think of this problem differently.

 

Lets take a relevant image from IL-2 game. Any relevant image or any part of a recording. Meaning something that contain ground units from far or air units. Lets make them at a standard medium quality for IL-2 game settings and 1024x768 rezolution... a standard for that era.

Lets give it a rating for how much things are distinguishable in that image or replay. Say... 7 out of 10. (the number doesn't matter much)

 

Now

 

Lets say we lower resolution on the same monitor (a 17" CRT for that era) from 1024X768 to 800x600

 

Do you think the perception will improve? people that used to lower the resolution back in those days said it did. So scaling up the image (which lowering the resolution does) helps.

 

Lets say now we lower the settings from medium to low. Do you think the perception will improve? Again... that was a practice back then to improve perception.... much like the above suggestion to lower the Antialiasing... So we could agree I think that the perception will improve. Same if we change the monitor with a 19" one. Or change the monitor with a 19" one and also lowering the resolution to 800x600.

 

So we can say for now that the lower the settings and the lower the resolution the perception is better. How do we explain it?

 

Simple. The lower the details the less complicated image we have to analyze so easier to understand and detect things on it. Also, The lower the resolution on the same monitor the bigger the image is so bigger and simpler image is better to understand hence we have better perception on those situations.

 

Now lets fast forward to current date and graphic engine. DCS. 2015.

 

Is clear that we have a way more complicated image rendered and the monitor is bigger and with better resolution. So we have a bad thing and a good thing. How we would quantify the perception of DCS World on a Full HD monitor at full resolution with graphic settings on medium? 7? I bet not... let say 4.

 

How do we improve it?

 

Lowering the details and complication of the image is one thing, right? How do we do that?We could take the ground texture away and put a simpler one... like the eternal green of IL-2 so the background being simpler things are easier to spot but that would be bad for the quality of the game. We could try to reduce the number of objects in the scene from hundreds of buildings of a town to a handful like in Il-2... this way we could also improve spotting. But that again lowers the quality of the game to a substandard for today. We could try to make the things we want to spot pop out a bit more than the rest. But that will have 2 effects... one... the quality will surely diminish as things would not appear as in a realistic image... maybe this one is not interesting for some. What is the other bad thing. Fairness. What if in that other unit be it ground or air there is another human that actually tried hard to sneak away from detection and a simple trick like... "scaling" makes its wheels pop a nail high on the enemy's monitor and he is seen. Or his very well camouflaged tank is now transformed from green of the surrounding forest into a back blob ready to be turned to bits.

 

So if we are to chose those gimmicks... why no simply concede and use icons/labels? maybe an improved system of labels where units covered by foliage or clouds would not be rendered with a label attached?

 

And in the end... what else can we do to improve our perception?

 

 

What have we forgotten from the above experiment? Sizing up the monitor/Image.

 

My opinion is that going higher with the monitor size/image will improve the perception from 4 where we said it was. If we go 4k we would have a lot of canvas to paint that now simpler image and better chances to distinguish things on it.

 

Other things we could do would be what I said above but nobody seems to admit it will improve perception. But we could run an experiment here too. We can create a mission in which one player is instructed to take of from an airfield and search for a single tank around the airfield on a 30 kilometer radius. Then we give the same mission to another player that we instruct to search for a single tank on vector 90 from airfield around 25 kilometers distance from the airfield, on a road from City A to City B. We can add some time the tank leaves city A and its speed.

 

Which player has better chances to spot the tank?

 

I know... it sounds offending and trivial...

Edited April 13, 2015 by zaelu

[[DBS]TH0R]

Please read what was posted here and explained many times already.

 

No, the 4K resolution will not fix (make it visible) something that the engine isn't rendering past 2 miles no matter if you use 25K resolution.

 

The argument about old IL21946 solution and low resolution doesn't apply, since there dot wasn't able to be anything other than a dot (as I demonstrated few posts back). Therefore engine doesn't render anything but a blob that on a high resolution still looks like a dot.

 

In a modern flight sim such as IL2 BOS all planes are nicely visible all the way up to 9.5km. They do not need to be rendered any further since the sim doesn't feature heavy 4 engine bombers.

 

No matter what kind of FOV you use in BOS the plane will still be clearly visible, just like in old IL21946. Instead of the old blob/dot, BOS renders plane shape and type - thanks to the higher resolution. And yet, tanks are still very hard to spot from anything above 2km.

 

As for the label solution you are suggesting here - none of us here is expecting to see tank from 10km with a naked eye.

[NineLine]

I am just greateful that most people in this thread see that difference and voted "Extremely Important"

 

It's too bad though that the poll pins you to one possible solution out of many.

 

There are a number of issues and solutions to look at.

 

To start with, yes, the sim has some issue. And to those issues some other solutions can be found outside of using scaling.

 

LODs, there are known LOD issues, many fixed internally. There are solutions with LODs that can be explored, how they are coloured, how they blend and what effects are applied to them, do they reflect sunlight, etc?

 

Improvements with LODs maybe be effected by a new graphics engine, how those LODs are rendered may be impacted heavily by EDGE, higher resolution textures might improve contrast with aircraft/shadows/etc. This is an aspect that scaling would fail at, you take a green aircraft, scale it, but its against a green terrain, you still wont see it... but add reflection, smoke, shadows, etc... than you have something.

 

Textures, again.. high resolution textures have to make a different, more contrast. But I am not sure how the higher object count on the ground will effect that, will there be more moments of higher contrast because of that, or will all the ground cutter lesson visibility more? We will see over Vegas I suppose.

 

Perception, people have a perception of what they think is realistic, and its some what confused between real world and experience with other games/sim. Real fighter pilots have stated that head on you would be lucky to see smaller fighters (F-16, F-5, MiG21) any farther than 2-3nm. And larger fighters (F-15, Su-27) 3-4nm. If the larger aircraft where showing you the whole wing, you might see it as far as 5nm, but thats it. Again, there are exceptions depending on conditions, but thats a pretty good average I think. People showing me tests of head on with an aircraft at 10nm and not being able to see it... well... thats about right. Larger aircraft like transports and civilian aircraft, sure... farther out... but lets talk about fighters right now, because that is the issue most face.

 

Peoples set ups, all the above can be effected by colour calibration and quality of monitors. Resolution and quality of rendering as well... I dare say you wont see 2 exact systems viewing DCS exactly the same....

 

So no... scaling isnt important to me unless ED determines that is the best fix for DCS 2.0. I havent seen much compelling that it is the end all be all solution either. I could be wrong. But scaling has its own issues. People need to look at both sides of an issue and a fix before getting so heated about its implementation. And back to my original point... the poll isnt useful when it holds you to one solution.

[NineLine]

In a modern flight sim such as IL2 BOS all planes are nicely visible all the way up to 9.5km. They do not need to be rendered any further since the sim doesn't feature heavy 4 engine bombers.

 

9.5km is too far to see a WWII fighter head on unless you are told where to look and conditions are perfect and contrast is maximum.

[[DBS]TH0R]

9.5km is too far to see a WWII fighter head on unless you are told where to look and conditions are perfect and contrast is maximum.

Very true. Spotting and rendering are two different things. What you describe is exactly how it is in BOS, even to some extent in old IL2. What I showed before are extreme ranges in clear perfect weather.

 

Even though it is rendered in BOS, at 9.5 km I would be hard pressed spotting a lone fighter before it gets closer.

[NineLine]

Very true. Spotting and rendering are two different things. What you describe is exactly how it is in BOS, even to some extent in old IL2. What I showed before are extreme ranges in clear perfect weather.

 

Even though it is rendered in BOS, at 9.5 km I would be hard pressed spotting a lone fighter before it gets closer.

 

Yup, and thats a point people fail to pick up on. Even if you make a fighter render a bit better, you will still be hard pressed to spot him in combat.... its still a learned skill at the very least...

[shagrat]

A little info to all people not using a 4k resolution: it DOES make a difference! The sim renders at least a pixel for a plane if the relative size calculated at the distance in the simulation exceeds the calculated size of a pixel... You notice that when going 4k.

I agree their is still a bit potential to the optimization of LOD and distance modeling visibility (any trick to help not have spotting planes dependent on FOV or resolution).

So a 4k monitor definitely improves the ability to spot a plane, yet it is not the cure to the root cause.

Let's wait and see how EDGE improves things.

P.S. the labels "dots" have one significant issue: they show on top of the cockpit interior, even if they are black, and I miss a possibility to define alpha values for them.

[zaelu]

No, the 4K resolution will not fix (make it visible) something that the engine isn't rendering past 2 miles no matter if you use 25K resolution.

 

Sure, but I was assuming everyone knows by now how to edit the high.lua file or use an edited one that increase the rendering distance for map objects. As for Human/AI planes... I think they are rendered as long as something can be rendered, meaning is at least one pixel to be rendered. Like you say... if you have 25K resolution it will render the plane at 100 miles out or what is the corresponding distance for that resolution.

 

People with 4K monitors can say here if they needed to edit something to make planes render further than on HD monitors. But I assume from their posts they didn't needed anything. Simply... planes that were not rendered on my monitor on theirs were rendered. And as SiThSpAwN said, even other solutions like lighting, etc can be explored to improve it further.

 

P.S. the labels "dots" have one significant issue: they show on top of the cockpit interior, even if they are black, and I miss a possibility to define alpha values for them.

 

Agree... that's why I said in my post that maybe an improved label/icon system can be made that makes icons not to be seen where it would be impossible to be seen... behind the clouds or in the forest. We could add under the plane also without being arbitrary.

Edited April 13, 2015 by zaelu

[shagrat]

.

Agree... that's why I said in my post that maybe an improved label/icon system can be made that makes icons not to be seen where it would be impossible to be seen... behind the clouds or in the forest. We could add under the plane also without being arbitrary.

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

 

What would improve the labels tremendously would be the "Dot"/Symbol being rendered on top of the unit/airplane plus a simple alpha value defined for each distance level that increases between levels.

That would make the label dot blend in with the background at higher distance and get more and more noticeable when getting closer until it is rendered as a dark gray dot, then you could hide it to let the LOD do its job, at closer distance.

[SharpeXB]

You gave the example of old IL-2. The image on Il-2 was extremely empty in comparison with DCS World 1 not to mention the new DCS World 2. On such empty image of course you can spot easily lot's of things. Il-2 was made in 2000 when 1280x1024 monitors were considered big and when video cards have a small fraction of the power of the current ones. For that it had extremely low defined objects... Because of that (!!!) Oleg could put all sorts of "visual" optimizations.. like the famous "DOT" and the equal famous "smart LODs" concepts where you could have LODs with "caricatured" aircraft silhouette features so a player could quickly identify the targets. Emils had big radiators under wings, 109s in general had squared wings, stukas had exaggerated undercarriage, etc etc. Today... those tricks don't work. Today you have 1920x1080 monitors as standard and soon 4k monitors will take over. If in 2000 many players would still play in 800x600 to get better SA, today it would be ridiculous on a 3840 x 2160 monitor. Also old IL-2 image on a 4K monitor would be like a blank image with almost no detail.

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