Model Scaling and Visibilty

[gavagai]

True I haven't tried any game that uses this scaling, the only one that keeps getting mentioned is Falcon. But nobody has shown any examples of how this works in that game.

 

Here is what I wrote about it a while back:

 

I just did a little test in Falcon BMS with and without smart scaling in a dogfight against an AI Mig-29. The main difference I can see is that smart scaling fills in extra pixels when the opponent aircraft is at an aspect that would otherwise make it nearly invisible. There was not a detectable difference in the aircraft model at long range (in both cases very hard to see without changing the FoV).

 

So I think there is a misperception here (not necessarily yours) that smart scaling makes things appear larger. What it really does is to prevent aircraft from disappearing when they should be visible.

 

Whether the algorithm is from 20 years ago or 100 years ago doesn't matter. Math is math.

[PFunk1606688187]

I also think that solving the problem of spotting targets in an air to air engagement should be seen as a separate issue to ground units. There is no rule that ground units must use scaling if we want some kind of scaling to work with air to air engagements. Its two separate scenarios. In terms of DCS the newer terrain engine absolutely will improve our ability to visually identify enemy targets because it'll be much easier to use basic terrain association to keep tack of where something is whereas right now since all the ground textures are muddy and indistinct we basically have to be lucky to have the ground appear unique in the vicinity of the target whereas in real life the ground is almost always unique to some degree.

 

For air to air engagements the sky is the sky. It creates a type of contrast puzzle that is largely the same regardless of the age of your game engine. Dots look blackish, the sky is blue, sun makes things white if it shines on them, etc etc.

 

I see no reason to conflate the scaling discussion of air to air with that of air to ground.

[SharpeXB]

Here is what I wrote about it a while back:

 

 

 

So I think there is a misperception here (not necessarily yours) that smart scaling makes things appear larger. What it really does is to prevent aircraft from disappearing when they should be visible.

 

Whether the algorithm is from 20 years ago or 100 years ago doesn't matter. Math is math.

Scaling makes sense if it's just enhancing distant aircraft to prevent them or parts of them from vanishing if they become smaller than a pixel. Cliffs of Dover (pre TF) was just awful in this regard probably because it lacked antialiasing and the distant aircraft would flicker and vanish

But scaling can't mean enlarging objects to 2-4x their size at a distance that's noticable by the player.

[Geronimo989]

Guys that have flown DCS on oculus rift:

Does it fix the spotting problem? Or we still need scaling for it to work right?

[SharpeXB]

The accounts I've seen about OR seem to indicate the player still needs to use the zoom view in order to read cockpit instruments etc. don't know if the final version Crescent Bay? Will have higher resolution. I imagine VR will have to feature higher than 1080p per eye in order to be really good for flight sims.

[PFunk1606688187]

OR should be worse since the pixel resolution of existing models is inferior to typical monitors that are themselves insufficient.

 

The thing about scaling and making sure things don't disappear should count for not just the entire aircraft but as you said Sharpe parts of it. Those parts are what make it possible to determine aspect and closure rate and such. If the tips of the wings, the vertical stabilizer, things of that sort become impossible to see or get truncated then it changes what you think you're seeing.

 

Its unlikely that a decent scaling solution should make using zoom unnecessary but it should make it possible for us to use less zoom to achieve a similar or better result. So instead of going to max FOV I should be able to go to maybe 15-20% narrower than default. This makes it possible to still maintain peripheral SA while gaining that ability to read the opponent aircraft and hopefully as range closes needing progressively less FOV as those bits become larger in terms of pixels.

 

Going back to the ground target thing, I wish ED would give me some damned gyro stabilized binoculars. That would more than make up for much of the pixel issues in ground target search.

[vicx]

Nobody yet has explained exactly how it works or posted any screenshot examples of it.

 

It looks like this. From 1m15

 

_b9o7Wcf9Wg#t=68

 

You wanna bring up the semantics of scaling? In the context of this conversation, Scaling or Homothetic transformation (if you like), encompasses all techniques for "scaling" the visibility of objects. The exact methods are not as relevant as the acceptance that there is a actually a problem with how hard it is to see some objects in DCS. Acceptance and then we can fix it. Lets just agree that zooming is an easy fix BUT not the best fix for the problem.

 

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression(lets call it a reversal of resolve), Acceptance.

 

Bringing the semantics of "scaling" into an argument indicates you are at the Bargaining stage.

Edited March 28, 2015 by vicx

[PFunk1606688187]

Lets just agree that zooming is an easy fix BUT not the best fix for the problem.

 

Disagree. Zooming is a poor fix that would only become better with scaling. :thumbup:

[HiJack]

Disagree. Zooming is a poor fix that would only become better with scaling. :thumbup:

I believe so too. I think scaling and less zooming would be good :thumbup:

[SharpeXB]

You wanna bring up the semantics of scaling? In the context of this conversation, Scaling or Homothetic transformation (if you like), encompasses all techniques for "scaling" the visibility of objects.

So "scaling" is just enhancing the visibility of distant objects not literally making them bigger?

[Wolf Rider]

 

I believe you are worrying too much over this. The above example is an excellent point why scaling or any other solution should be implemented to fix the inability to spot targets (not ID them, for that you'd still have to use zoom) with normal FOV. IMO those trucks should be visible in normal FOV, represented by a dot that may or may not look slightly out of proportion. An excellent compromise with wich most of us who voted here will agree.

 

Zooming is a poor excuse for already poor spotting ability we have in DCS.

 

 

 

 

 

actually, that's why TGP's and RADAR were developed... because real life objects don't scale, don't adjust their contrast to suit the attacker and are hard to both spot and ID

[Bourrinopathe]

Even if the scaling should not be overdone and far too unrealistic, a delicate balance could compensate the engine's lack of realistic rendering, and numerous hardware limitations.

 

EDGE may very well improve the visibility with better lighting techniques.

Is there any WIP screenshot with distant aircraft? (I couldn't find any - even with parked aircraft)

 

In the meantime, I agree zooming with those instant in-cockpit binoculars is a poor solution (I've seen too many DCS YouTube videos with cyborg pilots ;) ).

[[DBS]TH0R]

actually, that's why TGP's and RADAR were developed... because real life objects don't scale, don't adjust their contrast to suit the attacker and are hard to both spot and ID

 

No argument there. But with the current situation objects disappear well out of normally visual range. If you aren't using zoom or TGP.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I believe the original platform being a much more Modern Air War oriented sim didn't place the sufficient efforts in visual identification of other aircraft.

 

When we started using WW2 stuff, and now Vietnam fighters too, the problems with visual ID of air targets became rather apparent.

 

I haven't read anything about the way EDGE can improve on this. To give positive examples of how I would like to have it in DCS World I can only mention the other two air combat sims I have used recently - il2 BoS and il2 CoD.

 

It is unrealistic, IMHO, to be forced to use the zoom view to spot enemy aircraft, in any sim.

[Hummingbird]

Extremely important!

 

Right now it is way too difficult to spot targets in the air, and it quite often makes the gameplay extremely tedious and ruins a lot of potential fun.

 

They got it right in the IL2 series where it's sufficiently easy to spot enemy aircraft in the distance to be realistic, and you don't loose your enemy in the middle of a dogfight just because he headed for the ground. So take some cues from IL2 please ED!

 

Please please please do something about this soon!

Edited March 31, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Hopefully EDGE will solve the problem, because crickey it is unbearable atm!

[skendzie]

Yea, I'm not sure how a ten year old game gets it right but a high fidelity flight sim ignores one of the most fundamental visual aspects of dog fighting. To be fair, the DCS workhorses are the Blackshark and A-10 so I guess visual representation of other aircraft wasn't high on the list.

 

But then again they had flaming cliffs! So no excuses ED. Please address this in DCS 2.0!!

[Wolf Rider]

 

Scaling makes sense if it's just enhancing distant aircraft to prevent them or parts of them from vanishing if they become smaller than a pixel.

 

~

 

 

To further this... parts of aircraft at distance do indeed "vanish". It depends on lighting conditions and parts, say a wing, enter into shadow.

 

 

what a lot of people could try; is to go a real life airport and do a bit of plane spotting - wait until they take off, keep them in view, then as they recede off into the distance look away and try re-aquiring them.

 

 

 

I believe you are worrying too much over this. The above example is an excellent point why scaling or any other solution should be implemented to fix the inability to spot targets (not ID them, for that you'd still have to use zoom) with normal FOV. IMO those trucks should be visible in normal FOV, represented by a dot that may or may not look slightly out of proportion. An excellent compromise with wich most of us who voted here will agree.

 

Zooming is a poor excuse for already poor spotting ability we have in DCS.

 

 

 

 

And at the same time you haven't tried it yourself in before mentioned sims. Also, see post #97.

 

 

then, "cartoon balloons' is the result

 

 

No argument there. But with the current situation objects disappear well out of normally visual range. If you aren't using zoom or TGP.

 

 

 

That's just it though... objects do, in fact, disappear when out of normal visual range

 

again... that's the TGP was developed, as well as JTAC and forward spotters

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

then, "cartoon balloons' is the result

 

If this is referring to the possible overlapping of dots - negative, no such thing ever happened in old IL2 which I am still playing after over 10 years now. Even with large bomber formations that could possibly produce such an effect.

 

 

That's just it though... objects do, in fact, disappear when out of normal visual range

 

again... that's the TGP was developed, as well as JTAC and forward spotters

 

Again, no argument there. In DCS current version objects disappear well inside normal visual range due to no such thing as scaling or other solution that would make spotting them possible due to current hardware limitations.

[Wolf Rider]

Thor... you said; "IMO those trucks should be visible in normal FOV, represented by a dot that may or may not look slightly out of proportion"

 

"slightly out of proportion" is cartoon balloon

 

 

and just out of curiousity; what do you refer to as "normal visual range"?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

and just out of curiousity; what do you refer to as "normal visual range"?

 

Things you can, under normal atmospheric conditions and in broad daylight see at a distance with a naked eye.

[Wolf Rider]

okay... let's go further into "see at a distance, with the naked eye"; how far out (at what distance) would your "normal vision" allow for an aircraft to be seen at and then separately to that, clearly identified?

 

 

all this though, isn't to say the situation in sim can't be or shouldn't be looked at by the developers and with a mind to keeping things realistic. The equivalent of "flashing neon arrows", in whatever form they may be wished for by those who only want an easier time of things, is far from realistic

Edited April 1, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

I don't wear glasses so my vision is almost perfect. Still, I can not give you numbers if that is what you are asking for. Others have already posted some estimated numbers at which distances planes should be visible.

 

Back to the TGP and zooming in. If some kind of smart scaling does get implemented, I would definitely be for applying it to ground units as well. Without TGP we are almost blind as bats in the air unless zoomed in to the max, which prohibits normal eye ball mk.I scanning due to very narrow FOV. At least, that is my experience.

[Wolf Rider]

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

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

[[DBS]TH0R]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited April 1, 2015 by T}{OR