Model Scaling and Visibilty

[NineLine]

If you make it WWII aircraft, I dont expect you to pick up a fighter coming at you at 10nm... that isnt realistic. More realistic is 4-5nm (and that is still a stretch with head on aspect, let alone knowing if its friend or foe), which I know DCS doesnt do well right now, but I dont want ED to "fix" it to unrealistic levels either.

 

Again, if you want to see aircraft at 10nm in a WWII or Korean era fighter, turn labels on, because that is just as realistic as scaling pixels.

[xaoslaad]

You realize if you look straight up at a plane at 30,000 ft it's about 6 miles away right?

 

There's also this quote I keep finding, though I can't find a source, so who knows (maybe someone here does can either prove it true or false), "Chuck Yeager claimed he could see the BF109s orbiting over Berlin when he hit the coast of England before crossing the Channel." He was known for having absurdly good vision, but even he wasn't superman. If there is any truth in that comment, even a fraction of the distance it's a massive difference from what we have now.

 

The international space station is also 300 to 460km up and you can spot it in before sunrise and after sunset with the naked eye. It's only slightly larger than a football field.

 

Obviously clouds, fog, precipitation, lighting and on and on can affect that, but even in clear conditions it seems grossly inaccurate.

 

Edit: and there's also the resolution issue. I mean of the eye, not the monitor. Even if you see something at 5,6, 10 miles you're likely not able to tell what it is, let alone friend or foe. But you can still see it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by xaoslaad

[NineLine]

Find that quote for me, where he could ID targets at some 400nm lol.... if that is the kinda discussion this is gonna be, I can just bow out... ugh.

[xaoslaad]

Find that quote for me, where he could ID targets at some 400nm lol.... if that is the kinda discussion this is gonna be, I can just bow out... ugh.

 

Even if false tell me why you can't see a cargo plane or bomber at 10 miles when you can see something barely longer than a 747 at 186+ miles. One extreme is as ridiculous as the other.

Edited March 26, 2015 by xaoslaad

[McBlemmen]

I think people need to keep in mind the idea is to SOMEHOW find a solution to make planes more visible within visual range without having to zoom in... as soon as you zoom in you lose all spacial awareness and it's basically like you're looking trough binoculars.

 

There's a difference between just spotting a guy while looking around , and using binoculars to search the sky in very small segments at a time. THATS what needs to change, imo. I don't know the realistic distances , and like some have said maybe 10NM is too far to be spotted easily , but i'm 100% sure spotting targets closer to 10NM is just as hard for us now

 

And i disagree that labels and scaling are just as unrealistic.

 

If the labels were modded to just be dots then maybe it would be comparable , but default labels are way less realistic then scaling. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about scaling at all , it just provides that necessary visibility that would be realistic.

Edited March 26, 2015 by McBlemmen

[Home Fries]

You would be amazed at what you can see on a clear day. Determining aircraft type and aspect on a GA aircraft like a Cessna at 10nm is not unreasonable, and it's even easier with larger aircraft. Heck, when I was flying out of Whidbey Island, I could look out and see Seattle and easily pick out the Space Needle over 50 miles away*, and it wasn't even difficult (it was like reaching out and touching it). It's amazing what the eye can see and what the brain can automatically process that is difficult to duplicate on a 27" sheet of pixels with a limited FOV and no 3D. To that end, I think scaling, or at least some sort of graphical compensation, is necessary.

 

I think the way Falcon 4.0 does scaling is fantastic. You get enlarged targets so you can at least see something (and determine aspect and aircraft type to a lesser degree for aircraft), but you never get the feeling that the object is closer than it really is.

 

This is one of those occasions where harder does not mean more realistic.

 

 

* I was a NFO, so I didn't have 20/20 vision either.

[KaspeR32]

Find that quote for me, where he could ID targets at some 400nm lol.... if that is the kinda discussion this is gonna be, I can just bow out... ugh.

 

Again, we all speak of extreme examples. We all agree that spotting targets is really difficult in DCS. Some people like it, and think it's a challenge, and realistic.

 

Sith I personally don't see using labels being the same thing as using some form of smart scaling. Yes, neither is "perfectly realistic" but who cares? It's all about immersion and enjoyment. I enjoy being immersed but still being able to fly around with my brother (within 5nm) and able to spot him easier than it is now.

 

I mean enough people chimed in on this thread, and voted (yes I know forum members don't represent the whole player base) that this issue should be looked at more seriously. Also, since the majority of the player base likes FC3 (not just members on the forums), I'm almost positive that they would vote the same way.

 

Keep the immersion but find a way to have planes be slightly more visible.

[McBlemmen]

This is one of those occasions where harder does not mean more realistic.

 

Exacly , and if anything, it's kind of a tradeoff. In real life your FOV is so much bigger, so making targets bigger at a distance will remedy this...

 

So realism point : -1 for out horrible FOV , +1 for still being able to see stuff regardless. It balances each other out.

 

Also (this is a general point and not directed at homefires or anyone in particular) : There is absolutely no reason to NOT add scaling. We have labels , we have unlimited ammo , invincibility , you name it. Why not scaling? Why not give people that want it the option , and let people enjoy better visibility without getting sucked out of the game immersion by labels( i really cannot play with labels , it just kills the immersion)?

 

I'm sure loads of servers , especially WW2/korea oriented ones would enable this.. and in turn the amount of people flying those aircraft would also increase.

 

And hey , people who insist its unrealistic and want to keep playing with a pilot that is half blind can keep doing what they want. It's the "realistic" experience after all.

Edited March 26, 2015 by McBlemmen

[NineLine]

Even if false tell me why you can't see a cargo plane or bomber at 10 miles when you can see something barely longer than a 747 at 162 miles. One extreme is as ridiculous as the other.

 

I never said DCS was perfect, but as I did say, it needs to be adjusted to realistic standards, but the limitations of our monitors and such will always hamper that. I have seen aircraft fly over head, and all I can pick out initially are contrails. I dont think its fair to say you could see a bomber at 10+ nm everytime if you didnt know where to look and it it was trying not to be found. You are asking for super vision. Now if it was 100 bombers flying with contrails and all that, sure, you should be able to see that... you are over generalizing. I have gone to airshows and lost sight of performing aircraft depending on the conditions and their paint schemes... its not an easy fix to just make everything visible at 400nm.

Edited March 26, 2015 by NineLine

[SharpeXB]

There is absolutely no reason to NOT add scaling.

I imagine scaling is something that is a much bigger change to a game engine than simply having unlimited ammo or labels.

[McBlemmen]

I imagine scaling is something that is a much bigger change to a game engine than simply having unlimited ammo or labels.

 

Yes i imagine it would too , that's why this is THE perfect time to implement it. It's now or never.

[SharpeXB]

I think the way Falcon 4.0 does scaling is fantastic. You get enlarged targets so you can at least see something (and determine aspect and aircraft type to a lesser degree for aircraft), but you never get the feeling that the object is closer than it really is.

Can you post screenshots of what that looks like? I have a very hard time imagining how that would be accomplished in a flight sim without looking exceedingly odd. Any target shown in relation to a background object would look out of scale.

Are only aerial objects scaled? Ground objects are by nature even harder to see yet scaling them would make them look really strange. When an aircraft lands does it change in size upon hitting the ground if the other ground objects aren't scaled? If the scaling is so subtle what good does it do? There are a lot of "yes" votes here for scaling but no screen examples.

[SharpeXB]

Yes i imagine it would too , that's why this is THE perfect time to implement it. It's now or never.

Given how long the EDGE engine has been in the works and how close it is to release I'd say it's already too late for major changes. Really I have no idea how these things work but scaling sounds like a major rewrite.

[KaspeR32]

The "yes" vote is for something being done about the current situation within DCS, not necessarily using a pre-existing solution from another game.

[SharpeXB]

Hard to spot at 10 miles?

 

10nm with label at normal zoom

 

10nm without label at normal zoom. Can you see anything? I can't..

 

10nm without label at full zoom. You can see something...

What I see in those images and in DCS is a sort of murkiness in the sky, not a lot of contrast. That's I think part of the trouble, not the size or distance. From all the pics I've seen of the EDGE engine, the sky and other contrast is much better.

[Home Fries]

Can you post screenshots of what that looks like? I have a very hard time imagining how that would be accomplished in a flight sim without looking exceedingly odd. Any target shown in relation to a background object would look out of scale.

Aircraft do look larger; that's the nature of scaling. The trick is making it so that the aircraft doesn't seem closer. This is where the small FOV actually works for you; without peripheral vision, you have minimal to no frame of reference, so the brain processes what it sees.

 

Think of comparing your iPad to your 55" HDTV. Despite its smaller size, the iPad has a higher resolution than your 1080p TV. You could put the same image of a MiG-29 on the iPad and HDTV, and it would appear larger on the HDTV because of pixel size. Now think of your eye as the iPad. What you see in the distance with the higher resolution eye is moved to the monitor; it will appear larger on the monitor. However, with the limited FOV, your eye will process it as the right distance based on its rate of motion if there is nothing to shatter the illusion (and if it is scaled properly). It's really more of a dynamic than something that can be demonstrated with a screenshot.

 

Are only aerial objects scaled? Ground objects are by nature even harder to see yet scaling them would make them look really strange. When an aircraft lands does it change in size upon hitting the ground if the other ground objects aren't scaled? If the scaling is so subtle what good does it do? There are a lot of "yes" votes here for scaling but no screen examples.

This is where it gets tricky. Falcon 4.0 mainly used repeating tiles for terrain, and only added buildings where it was necessary. DCS has a much higher object count (and it will be even higher with EDGE), so now you have something that can break that illusion. However the problem still exists that you can see stuff on the ground in real life just because it looks different from everything else. Simply put, nature doesn't like straight lines, so if you see something straight and angular your eye is immediately drawn to it. Even in urban areas, though, you can pick out vehicles without too much trouble, visibility permitting.

 

I don't know the solution to this. Perhaps a smaller amount of scaling when near objects (which could be realistic because your eye is likely to be drawn to the object as much as the vehicle, and also doesn't break the optical illusion), and larger scaling when in the open. Perhaps this is where the reflections should be implemented in lieu of magnification, since you're not as interested in the aspect angle of a vehicle and if you are you can usually figure it out by the dust trail.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Home Fries

[SharpeXB]

This is where it gets tricky. Falcon 4.0 mainly used repeating tiles for terrain, and only added buildings where it was necessary. DCS has a much higher object count (and it will be even higher with EDGE), so now you have something that can break that illusion.

That's why scaling would not work well in DCS or any current flight sim. Here's another image as an example of how many object there are in DCS that would make the scaling of ground targets awkward. What does this scene look like if viewed from afar with scaling enabled? Do the parked planes overlap each other or stick out the top of the hanger? That doesn't reconcile with how realistically it's all modeled. If you see a something land here does it get smaller when it touches down if ground objects aren't scaled?

Edited March 26, 2015 by SharpeXB

[IAF.Cheetah]

Yes for scaling! Learn from falcon BMS! they know their sh&$t!

[Djent33]

I would kindly urge the readers who have 3ds max and EDM at their finger tips to create a black box the size of B-52, possibly high specular black material for LOD-1 and non specular for LOD-5 at 8000m. I think it would be interesting for many of us to see. Ie the screenshots of rendered boxes with varying material properties at various distances.

Thanks.

[GeorgeLKMT]

Watch from 1:08 (in full screen 1080p)

 

_b9o7Wcf9Wg#t=68

 

I hope moderators won't get heart attack that I'm posting this here.

Edited March 26, 2015 by GeorgeLKMT

[KaspeR32]

Watch from 1:08 (in full screen 1080p)

 

 

Amazing. :thumbup:

 

Does that tech hurt everyone in terms of realism?? :music_whistling:

[otto]

After spending 5-6 days on the ACG WW2 server I got use to a certain extent to spot enemy planes(the size of a ww2 fighter) in DCS. But I have quite better vision than the average person.

The map was quite small so the area you need to scan for enemy planes is also small which helps a lot. On larger maps it's very very hard to spot planes.

 

Things that I find problematic:

 

1.Frame rate drops. In adition to the amount you need to zoom a frame drop has made me loose the plane I was tracking many times. Probably will get fixed with EDGE arrival.

 

2.You need to zoom in quite a lot to spot anything and you loose a lot of the peripheral vision.

 

3.More than a few times I find myself spotting the shadow of a plane first and the plane later and harder. Should this be happening ?

Shouldn't a plane reflect more light towards my eyes than it's shadow ?

[Rogue Trooper]

I just do not know the answer here... I listen to the arguments but I am hearing air superiority arguments only and DCS is not just that.

This is a real tough argument.

I am a chopper guy who flies low and fast so scaling is a no go as this will expose me far too much than real life would....

From my perception I can pull up my Kamov behind some trees and I am fully masked from a fast mover and happy to relax knowing that I am safe.

From the fast movers perspective there is some burke trying to hide a 50 foot chopper behind 20 foot trees!

it just will not work.

[SharpeXB]

targets are easily visible before even 10 miles which I think is where the labels kick in

this Su-27 is beyond that distance and he's spotted with no trouble

[otto]

I just do not know the answer here... I listen to the arguments but I am hearing air superiority arguments only and DCS is not just that.

This is a real tough argument.

I am a chopper guy who flies low and fast so scaling is a no go as this will expose me far too much than real life would....

From my perception I can pull up my Kamov behind some trees and I am fully masked from a fast mover and happy to relax knowing that I am safe.

From the fast movers perspective there is some burke trying to hide a 50 foot chopper behind 20 foot trees!

it just will not work.

 

I get your point. There should be done something to improve vision in DCS but don't think scaling is the answer.