Improved Spotting

[NineLine]

Yup. Options can be winnowed down, but never added. On some servers with regular pilots, the settings are determined by consensus. These things can be changed with healthy discussion among the fliers. Just a matter of speaking up!

 

Yup, exactly, I would rather have the choice, then discuses it with the server owner, than not have any option whatsoever.

[Random]

Just had a thought...

 

Windows knows what monitor is plugged into it right? And what resolution we use is a game setting. Could enlargement be tied to both so size of distant objects on screen is near identical for all users?

[OnlyforDCS]

Optional options cant be wrong, only the way people use them, more options is almost always better.

 

I agree with this sentiment 100%. Which is why I believe it's misplaced here. Making visibility settings server based, is taking away options from the end user and giving them to the server admins. If it is implemented on the most popular servers it will split the community down the middle, something that I believe at this very important formative stage of DCS 2.0 will be very detrimental to it.

[eekz]

If small, medium, and large option were slightly different - it's ok to not force them, and give a player a choice of what fits him (monitor setup, resolution, etc.) most.

 

But currently small medium and large - they have huge difference.

While small is almost unnoticeable compared to off, large for example make contacts visible even at 100km, which works even better than labels in some cases.

 

Would you like to have labels optional on the server? I dont think so...

[airdoc]

10km is not enough. When you know where a plane is, and it's flying above you altitudewise, you should be able to spot them up to 20km away(if you find them of course)..contrails should be seen way further away..till around 40km at least. A limit of 10km is not realistic. At 10-15km i can spot every single engine of an airliner

 

Single engine Warbirds are significantly smaller than airliners. Even an An F-16 would be detected at <10km with optimal contrast, unless your eyesight is exceptional. Have a look at these research data :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885

 

Contrails are a very different thing though.

Edited December 28, 2015 by airdoc

[msalama]

and giving them to the server admins

 

So what you gotta do is to parametrize the option like this:

 

-1 client decides

0 no impostors (or whatsit)

1 small impostors

2 medium impostors

3 large impostors

 

...so that the server admin can choose to _not_ force the option if his clientele is dead set against it. And hey presto, everyone wins again ;)

[Wolf Rider]

^^^ unfair approach, sorry to say

 

If ya really want great big in ya face first person shooter thingies - then by all means set up your own MP. Now, I'm not being unrealistic here, if you want something you think is right, then by all means set it up

 

ya can't be expected to have everyone kowtow to your particular wants though - some like "this"/ some like "that". If you set up your own, and no-one or only a few come in - that's something for you to look at.

 

Mission designers, design their way... don't like, don't join (it was the same on The Zone, as it was on Hyperlobby) - its all free choice

Edited December 29, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Wolf Rider]

Could the mods please look at these threads for what they are? ... it just ends up being same old rehashed hash, and only end up "heated and going 'round in circles

 

 

There is a "solution" administered and only a few (however "vocal" they be) stlll don't like it - set the thing for the middle and be done with it

Edited December 29, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[SharpeXB]

ya can't be expected to have everyone kowtow to your particular wants though - some like "this"/ some like "that". If you set up your own, and no-one or only a few come in - that's something for you to look at.

For better or worse. Limiting the options is exactly what multiplayer requires. Everyone likes playing online with a fixed set of options. Either everyone has icons on or everyone has them off. But that option is enforced on everyone playing. There aren't some with icons on and some with them off on the same server. It's just basic fairness which I'm sure appeals to the majority.

The trouble with flight sims as a genre is that there are so few players, and servers. That's by default going to limit your choices. There's no way around it. If you want this wide range of sizes available for the enlarged models, then be prepared for some servers not to allow certain sizes or to allow them at all. I think the reason that "full switch" (meaning as few game aids as possible) is so popular is simply because that's the easiest option for everyone to agree on. None. Now everybody is at an equal disadvantage.

 

But enough talk. I'll now go finally install 1.5 myself. But I figure whichever setting the most populous servers use i.e. 104th, that will be what I use myself.

[fastfreddie]

For better or worse. Limiting the options is exactly what multiplayer requires. Everyone likes playing online with a fixed set of options. Either everyone has icons on or everyone has them off. But that option is enforced on everyone playing. There aren't some with icons on and some with them off on the same server. It's just basic fairness which I'm sure appeals to the majority.

The trouble with flight sims as a genre is that there are so few players, and servers. That's by default going to limit your choices. There's no way around it. If you want this wide range of sizes available for the enlarged models, then be prepared for some servers not to allow certain sizes or to allow them at all. I think the reason that "full switch" (meaning as few game aids as possible) is so popular is simply because that's the easiest option for everyone to agree on. None. Now everybody is at an equal disadvantage.

 

But enough talk. I'll now go finally install 1.5 myself. But I figure whichever setting the most populous servers use i.e. 104th, that will be what I use myself.

 

Exactly. It has to be the same and TBH the large icons were just as bad as having icons running. Some people need to work on their spotting skills because alot of them are just not scanning. Shot down a guy in the Mustang about week back who didn't spot me and I got the "well to bad I never got to see you routine". I'd been following him for almost 2 minutes trying to catch up and if he'd just done shallow left or right turns while looking back he'd spotted me. Good Mustang pilots are alot harder to jump like that and they usually require speeds of 675-750 kph to really surprise them. I'd like to see sun glare forced server side so that becomes a viable attack strategy.

 

I think in the end ED is going to have to increase LOD size and distances for all aircraft instead of messing with a scaling system unless it improves.

[Rain]

Is there any news when model enlargement/visibility will be fixed and stay fixed?

The blind mice game is not fun. I had a blast when they first introduced model enlargement because it fixed visibility bug, I was able to use my helmet mount. Even on WW2 planes now I cant fight if I dont see the enemy, or the enemy right on my six.

[CoBlue]

Is there any news when model enlargement/visibility will be fixed and stay fixed?

The blind mice game is not fun. I had a blast when they first introduced model enlargement because it fixed visibility bug, I was able to use my helmet mount. Even on WW2 planes now I cant fight if I dont see the enemy, or the enemy right on my six.

+1

[Ultra]

In 1.5, I can start seeing objects at a max of about 20 nmi, which is pretty far, and that's at a res of 1920x1080 on the Small setting. I think it works a lot better now than in 1.2.

 

The only problem I still have is losing sight of a target when it switches from the imposter setting to the close range setting.

[312_Lobo]

So what you gotta do is to parametrize the option like this:

 

-1 client decides

0 no impostors (or whatsit)

1 small impostors

2 medium impostors

3 large impostors

 

...so that the server admin can choose to _not_ force the option if his clientele is dead set against it. And hey presto, everyone wins again ;)

As for the server enforced settings, I'd prefer if user had the option to disable impostors completely. So that when client has the model enlargement set to 'off', there will be no impostors on client regardless of what the server setting is. If model enlargement is enabled (client has it set to 1,2 or 3) then the server enforces the settings.

Edited January 8, 2016 by do.st

[gavagai]

The trouble with flight sims as a genre is that there are so few players, and servers. That's by default going to limit your choices. There's no way around it. If you want this wide range of sizes available for the enlarged models, then be prepared for some servers not to allow certain sizes or to allow them at all. I think the reason that "full switch" (meaning as few game aids as possible) is so popular is simply because that's the easiest option for everyone to agree on. None. Now everybody is at an equal disadvantage.

 

Well said, especially the first remark. We should also keep in mind that "full switch" in DCS was rendering aircraft smaller than they should appear, and it was hurting the viability of multiplayer.

[SharpeXB]

Well said, especially the first remark. We should also keep in mind that "full switch" in DCS was rendering aircraft smaller than they should appear, and it was hurting the viability of multiplayer.

I think flight sim mp will always be sparse no matter what the features are. This is just a difficult to play niche game.

 

I don't know what "smaller than they should appear" means.

 

I still haven't been able to upgrade to 1.5 since I'm trying to finish a campaign first. :joystick:

Edited January 8, 2016 by SharpeXB

[msalama]

@do.st: a good idea, can't see why you couldn't refrain from using them even if the server had them on.

[SharpeXB]

As for the server enforced settings, I'd prefer if user had the option to disable impostors completely. So that when client has the model enlargement set to 'off', there will be no impostors on client regardless of what the server setting is. If model enlargement is enabled (client has it set to 1,2 or 3) then the server enforces the settings.

So what you're suggesting is that the server enforces a certain setting, off, small, large etc. and all the players have that enforced on them when playing on that server. Isn't that the way it is now?

 

@do.st: a good idea, can't see why you couldn't refrain from using them even if the server had them on.

But then you'd be placing yourself at a disadvantage for no reason. That would be like playing on a server which uses icons and turning them off yourself. If you like that style of gameplay the better option is to just fly on a server without icons. Then you're equal with your opponents.

Edited January 8, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Talisman_VR]

Well said, especially the first remark. We should also keep in mind that "full switch" in DCS was rendering aircraft smaller than they should appear, and it was hurting the viability of multiplayer.

 

The visibility, environment and campaign building issues are key, as I believe that if DCS crack this the WWII side of the house has the potential to expand the customer base, pilot population and the on-line MP experience for the better. However, at the moment I am starting to lose a bit of hope from the WWII perspective; perhaps it's the early New Year blues :((

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[gavagai]

I don't know what "smaller than they should appear" means.

 

That language is not ambiguous, is it?

 

Here was a great analysis from klem before the introduction of the "object magnification" in 1.5:

 

Consider this: a 37ft Mustang wingspan at 2 miles subtends (is covered by) an angle of ~0.0035 radians or 0.200 degrees. On a typical human FOV to screen of ~70 degrees that's just 0.0029% which on a 1920 screen = 5.5 pixels. Now look at the attached DCS image from the Mustang. The circled (centre) dot (a Mustang) is 3km (~1.9miles) away. Without splitting hairs it should be about 5 pixels but is in fact only 3. The grey line I added at the bottom of the circle is 5 pixels. I expect there's some technical argument why 3 pixels is used (perhaps it was almost 4 and rounded down). What I can say is that what I see in RL at 2 miles is nearer those 5 pixels than 3. Also, if you zoom right in, a/c at 5,6,7,8 and 9 km are each one pixel. And that's the other problem (apart from pixel count), the screen resolutions are too coarse. Whilst my three screens deliver about 6MPixels across my full field of view for about 40% of my visual height range the human eyeball has about 576MPx covering the same area. Even 4k screens can't compete with that.

 

 

So much for the 'size' problem.

 

How about rendering?

 

Even if 3 pixels is correct, the graphics engine does not render it clearly and at 2 miles it should be very clear if small. Remember, I had to move my view (Trackir) around just to get the pixels to show as they do because the pixels come and go, the attached image is the best I could get. Also, zooming in you can see the jumble of coloured pixels used in an attempt to stay faithful to the aircraft colours in just three pixel blocks instead of more consistent averaged colouring across the pixels to overcome the problem. The LODs simply do not deliver.

[SharpeXB]

The above analysis isn't really correct.

The FOV you're seeing on a PC isn't reality. Niether is the resolution. In order to see another aircraft at the correct angular size you'd have to zoom in. And even then a monitor's resolution isn't sufficient at all.

 

Here's a better explanation

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2561114&postcount=220

Edited January 8, 2016 by SharpeXB

[gavagai]

The FOV you're seeing on a PC isn't reality.

 

No one is arguing otherwise.

 

All Klem is pointing out is that even compared to the simulated FOV, the aircraft are drawn too small by the DCS rendering engine.

 

Your link is very good, too.

[312_Lobo]

@do.st: a good idea, can't see why you couldn't refrain from using them even if the server had them on.

 

But then you'd be placing yourself at a disadvantage for no reason.

 

I don't like how it's done at the moment, real immersion killer for me, and I would like to be able to disable it even if it puts me into disadvanage on the servers that have it enabled-enforced.

 

Of course the best implementation would be if user/client could use any of lower settings than those that are enforced by server. E.g. if server enforces '2', client could use anything between 'off' and '2' at will but could not use '3' (if client sets '3' server will enforce '2'). If that makes sense... .

Edited January 9, 2016 by do.st

[Decibel dB]

I think flight sim mp will always be sparse no matter what the features are. This is just a difficult to play niche game.

 

I don't know what "smaller than they should appear" means.

 

I still haven't been able to upgrade to 1.5 since I'm trying to finish a campaign first. :joystick:

 

I disagree with that. Other sim like CloD come in mind where SP is none existent and MP on the other hand is very good. Yes it's tough but people come online on TS and get help from an helpfully community, for some it takes months before they get a kill but they keep coming back. Why? Because the immersive multiplayer experience.

 

As much as I love the aircraft in DCS I only seldom play and only in SP because I can't see anything. When they fix it and that folks can find aircraft and dogfight without loosing sight

and have a WW2 theater, people will come

[SharpeXB]

I disagree with that. Other sim like CloD come in mind where SP is none existent and MP on the other hand is very good. Yes it's tough but people come online on TS and get help from an helpfully community, for some it takes months before they get a kill but they keep coming back. Why? Because the immersive multiplayer experience.

 

As much as I love the aircraft in DCS I only seldom play and only in SP because I can't see anything. When they fix it and that folks can find aircraft and dogfight without loosing sight

and have a WW2 theater, people will come

Multiplayer in CoD is like all these other flight sims. There aren't enough players for more than a single server. There's only about a hundred players in the whole world playing it and they're all on ATAG. That's the point I'm trying to make. Flight sims don't have enough players to support a wide variety of options online. You'll end up playing with whatever server options are enforced on the few server choices there are.