Improved Spotting

[NineLine]

Well, the "vanilla-vanish" system sure isn't realistic at all, so calling being physically able to spot something, that a real pilot could, a "cheat" or even an aid sounds wrong to me. But of course, "eyeball radar" makes no sense either.

 

Really, what is the technical limitation to making a system that makes sense and isn't all too hardware dependant?

 

Hard to make something that isnt too hardware dependant for something that not only runs on hardware, but with endless combinations of that hardware. If it was easy it would be done already. Remember this system is still WIP, so its still being improved.

[deyv]

Well Im really struggling with spotting. Sometimes takes away all fun. Made lot of andjustments in nvidia settings. Turned off anti-aliasing. In IL2 cliffs of dover I have no problem. The realism spotting thing is not working in PC games.

Model enlargement works fine to spot the enemy above some serious range but in combat/contact range something is not working right in terms of rendering object. Other aircrafts have no regular shapes or edges and with land background it is to easy to loose visual. Spotting subject is def. worth to discuss, cause for WW2 fighters it is very important part of gameplay

Edited March 17, 2016 by deyv

[NineLine]

[Wolf Rider]

^^^^ Well said

[Bucic]

22" 1080p at a distance of 0.6 m

default FOV

Model enlargement OFF

190 IA furball mission, the first minute

8 MSAA

 

I watched the fighters fly by from right to left. Pairs I think. Against the sky. I waited so there was a moment I could just barely see one of the fighters. Distance: 1 km (+/-250 m) :shocking:

 

Is this normal?

[Decibel dB]

Not sure why but within this community there is a big player base that are happy with the less they see I really don't know why.

[SharpeXB]

Not sure why but within this community there is a big player base that are happy with the less they see I really don't know why.

I think what people want is simply realistic visibility, not enhanced. And a level playing field. This is certainly why most all the populated servers have this option turned off.

Small doesn't make much difference. Medium and Large compromise the realism by making distant targets too visible. So the best setting is Off.

[Decibel dB]

Realistic? On a monitor? Forget about it. Once we will have to realise that it is a game. Yes I agree we want it to be as close as reality but the way it is now it's not. Sorry

[SharpeXB]

Realistic? On a monitor? Forget about it. Once we will have to realise that it is a game. Yes I agree we want it to be as close as reality but the way it is now it's not. Sorry

Right. We can use the word "realistic" in quotes for a PC game. But I think being able to see ground targets from 20+ miles away isn't "realistic". Then the model enlargement just nullifies all the systems you're supposed to be using, radar, target pods, JTAC etc in favor of just looking and seeing stuff at non "realistic" distances.

Model Enlargement isn't supposed to be "realistic" anyways. It's a game aid similar to icons. Which is fine. But you can see why most servers have it turned off.

[Bucic]

^^^^ Well said

Not really. And he knows it. He just prefers not to reach to those more advanced knowledge deposits of his ;) For example, I know he knows that color is half of the way towards succesful optical masking, e.g. you can't just use any material painted white and run around like a fool :) (inherent optical properties of materials). He also knows that it's not unusual that not so glossy aircraft like this one

appear as a 100% white spot twice the angular size of it. Sith knows it or, in the worst case scenario, he has GGTharos to tell him that. :)

 

All in all, the visibility discussions rarely heat up due to DCS being off by a hair.

It would also be more constructive (and what would make it easier to handle the voices on the forums) if ED voiced the direction they are going with such a disputable issue. But from my experience this rarely happens.

 

I'm off to test the influence of the MSAA :pilotfly: Right now I'm unable to dogfight a P-51 at distances higher than 1 km, high aspect, while I know for a fact I would be able to dogfight a bicycle at 2 kilometers away without loosing sight of it IRL.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Bucic

[NineLine]

I know a lot of people think they have super human vision, and in combat would be able to pick up enemy fighters at 20nm against a low contrast background, then kill them with one well placed cannon round right between the pilots eyes... I know that ;)

 

Point of the picture is that its not as easy as you think, its not as hard as you think, and its all a WIP.

 

Not really. And he knows it. He just prefers not to reach to those more advanced knowledge deposits of his ;) For example, I know he knows that color is half of the way towards succesful optical masking, e.g. you can't just use any material painted white and run around like a fool :) (inherent optical properties of materials). He also knows that it's not unusual that not so glossy aircraft like this one

appear as a 100% white spot twice the angular size of it. Sith knows it or, in the worst case scenario, he has GGTharos to tell him that. :)

 

All in all, the visibility discussions rarely heat up due to DCS being off by a hair.

It would also be more constructive (and what would make it easier to handle the voices on the forums) if ED voiced the direction they are going with such a disputable issue. But from my experience this rarely happens.

 

I'm off to test the influence of the MSAA :pilotfly: Right now I'm unable to dogfight a P-51 at distances higher than 1 km, high aspect, while I know for a fact I would be able to dogfight a bicycle at 2 kilometers away without loosing sight of it.

[Bucic]

I know a lot of people think they have super human vision, and in combat would be able to pick up enemy fighters at 20nm against a low contrast background, then kill them with one well placed cannon round right between the pilots eyes... I know that ;)

 

Point of the picture is that its not as easy as you think, its not as hard as you think, and its all a WIP.

Any status updates? Particularly, what kind of issues are legit for buf reports? Only outright artifacts with the impostors or visibility range issues too?

[NineLine]

Any status updates? Particularly, what kind of issues are legit for buf reports? Only outright artifacts with the impostors or visibility range issues too?

 

Report whatever bothers you about them, just do it in a constructive mature manner, I know everyone wants a decent system with options, I want to see some new stuff added to it, like improved spotting of lights, gun flashes, reflections of shiny surfaces, etc... but they are slogging out the conversion to 2.0 right now we just all have to be patient, know what I mean.

[Bucic]

Report whatever bothers you about them, just do it in a constructive mature manner, I know everyone wants a decent system with options, I want to see some new stuff added to it, like improved spotting of lights, gun flashes, reflections of shiny surfaces, etc... but they are slogging out the conversion to 2.0 right now we just all have to be patient, know what I mean.

Of course.

ED is in the process of ditching cruft. You don't see it often in software development. :thumbup:

[SharpeXB]

The trouble with the current "imposter" idea is that it only addresses the least important aspect with regard to visibility. Size. The most important factor is color and contrast. Size itself is really not that important. And there are instances in DCS, like a bright aircraft against the sea or a dark ground target on the lighter grass where you can see targets quite well. And honestly, a camouflaged target is camouflaged for a reason. Because it makes the object harder to see.

But if there's room for improvement in rendering, color depth, reflections and so forth. That's a more worthwhile effort than the imposters. The imposter scheme is also dependent on resolution and having it user-adjustable guarantees it will get turned off online. Making the imposters fixed-pixel sized has the effect of actually making far away objects "larger" which is just counter intuitive. As a game aid it's fine. But in anything striving for "realism" it gets questionable.

Edited March 18, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Wolf Rider]

~

... while I know for a fact I would be able to dogfight a bicycle at 2 kilometers away without loosing sight of it IRL.

 

 

 

some, would find that un-"realistic" though :smilewink:

Edited March 19, 2016 by Wolf Rider

[Solty]

http://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html

[gavagai]

The trouble with the current "imposter" idea is that it only addresses the least important aspect with regard to visibility. Size. The most important factor is color and contrast. Size itself is really not that important. And there are instances in DCS, like a bright aircraft against the sea or a dark ground target on the lighter grass where you can see targets quite well. And honestly, a camouflaged target is camouflaged for a reason. Because it makes the object harder to see.

But if there's room for improvement in rendering, color depth, reflections and so forth. That's a more worthwhile effort than the imposters. The imposter scheme is also dependent on resolution and having it user-adjustable guarantees it will get turned off online. Making the imposters fixed-pixel sized has the effect of actually making far away objects "larger" which is just counter intuitive. As a game aid it's fine. But in anything striving for "realism" it gets questionable.

 

So far the impostors have not been turned off online. No one wants to go back to what we had before: no matter the size of your display or resolution, you can't see what isn't rendered by the software.

 

But I agree that the impostor system leaves a lot to be desired. Even the bare-metal wings of the P-51 blend in with ground clutter under most lighting conditions. The model transitions look really bad, and the impostors get smaller when you narrow your field of view to identify them.

Edited March 19, 2016 by gavagai
grammar

[SharpeXB]

So far the impostors have not been turned off online.

Well there are some servers running the enlarged models but these aren't very well attended. The only server that is ever populated enough to make playing online worthwhile is the 104th. That server has it turned off.

[otto]

Since 1.5 version the problem of sighting other planes has been solved for me:

 

 

This had been the most fun part of DCS since 1.5(EDGE) update: Trying to spot as far as i can.

With 4k that i don't have the hardware power to use i can see much much better than this.

 

But in real life i live not that far from a military airfield and can say that it's much more easy to spot planes than in any game. That's not ED's fault it's just technology is not that advanced yet.

[gavagai]

Well there are some servers running the enlarged models but these aren't very well attended. The only server that is ever populated enough to make playing online worthwhile is the 104th. That server has it turned off.

 

Oh, well that's not WW2. When you have sensors to find the enemy it's a different situation. F-15s and Su-27s are also bigger than WW2 fighters.

 

ACG and DOW have impostors set to large and medium, respectively.

[deyv]

Judge yourself. Its no troll simple sequence of screenshots from the dogfight

Edited March 20, 2016 by deyv
missing one image

[Bucic]

Judge yourself. Its no troll simple sequence of screenshots from the dogfight

A word of advice. Compressed jpegs are rarely of any use in disecting visibility-related issues. It's best to switch to lossless PNGs.

...\DCS World OpenBeta\Config\graphics.lua
ScreenshotExt = "png";

 

Your case is pretty severe. I'd gather the data (logs and screenshots), wait for another release or two and file a new bug report.

[deyv]

A word of advice. Compressed jpegs are rarely of any use in disecting visibility-related issues. It's best to switch to lossless PNGs.

...\DCS World OpenBeta\Config\graphics.lua
ScreenshotExt = "png";

Your case is pretty severe. I'd gather the data (logs and screenshots), wait for another release or two and file a new bug report.

...thanks for the tip, I've used steam to get screenshots so its jpeg by default, but you are right png would be better... anyway it's not only about dissapearing objects but also cases like aircrafts without one wing rendered for example. So the funny thing is that in DCS we are talkin about spotting the enemy and in IL2 Cliffs of Dover on the other hand people are talking about how to recognize whos friendly or foe from afar.

Edited March 20, 2016 by deyv

[SharpeXB]

Oh, well that's not WW2. When you have sensors to find the enemy it's a different situation. F-15s and Su-27s are also bigger than WW2 fighters.

IMO the modern A2A is the most challenging environment for spotting targets. Somehow this issue always gets focused on WWII but the modern era is more difficult.

Radar is only so useful if you understand how it works on the fighters. Think of it like a flashlight. It doesn't give you 360d awareness or make up for visual scanning. Within Visual Range combat means exactly that. And the aircraft are traveling faster and have weapons that can strike targets miles away. In WWII if a bandit is farther away than a thousand yards you're immune to them. In modern air war 10 miles is close range.

DCS renders other aircraft much farther away than the other WWII sim on the market. In that game they completely spawn out at 6 miles. Yet that seems to work just fine there.

But a 6 mile spawn range would be impossibly close in modern air combat though.