1.5.1.46722.87 Model Visibility removal

[Why485]

The problem here is that somebody without vision problems, with a 4K 60 inches screen will want to use the enlargment system as a way to see thing before anyone can do it.

 

It doesn't work that way, and in fact it's the opposite. The higher resolution, the less effect the model visibility setting has. I've talked about this at length in other threads and other posts. The lower your resolution, the larger the apparent size of the imposter sprites.

 

As I've said numerous times, that resolution dependency is actually my biggest problem with the way this works right now. The values can always be tweaked one way or the other, but no values will prevent lower resolutions from being able to see better than higher resolutions.

 

If somebody with a 4k screen were to ever try to play the game with the model visibility setting on large, it wouldn't make that much of a difference for them. In fact, the current large setting at 4k is equivalent to running something between small and medium at 1080p in terms of apparent size, which should look pretty realistic. I'd love to test out what the current settings look like on a 4k screen, but I don't have access to one.

 

This is also why it doesn't matter to me what the current settings are. They can't find a realistic setting for this as long as your resolution changes the apparent size of the sprites. What looks great at one resolution (e.g. ~7.5 at 1440p) would look too big/small at another.

 

Also I think Sharpe you should try it and see for yourself before campaigning so hard one way or the other. I don't think it's fair for somebody to criticize the system so harshly when they have yet to see/use/experience it for themselves. You have an unusual setup, and that's exactly why it's important for somebody like you to test it. Honestly, I find it ridiculous that you have such strong opinions on something you haven't seen, used, don't plan on using, and don't even play MP where what other people are doing might impact you.

 

Try it for yourself first, then you can hate on it all you want because then you'll have an informed opinion rather than second hand hearsay from everybody else.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Why485

[xXNightEagleXx]

Also I think Sharpe you should try it and see for yourself before campaigning so hard one way or the other. I don't think it's fair for somebody to criticize the system so harshly when they have yet to see/use/experience it for themselves. You have an unusual setup, and that's exactly why it's important for somebody like you to test it. Honestly, I find it ridiculous that you have such strong opinions on something you haven't seen, used, don't plan on using, and don't even play MP where what other people are doing might impact you.

 

Believe it or not, there is nothing new here.

[SharpeXB]

Yes, I should try it out but I just have an aversion to Betas and mods and such. My love-hate relationship with my PC means that if everything is working fine, I won't argue with it.

[Teknetinium]

Is it possible to integrity check the view settings? integrety check view setting is critical for MP environment.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Ramsay]

From my perspective, it's a great addition and x100 times better than using labels or modded game files.

 

It's not perfect, obviously WIP and I'd love to see separate settings for ground and air but I'm not going to ask for 'Large' to be removed for looking silly/a cheat at 1080x1920 when it might be needed for VR or 4k users.

 

If you don't like the new setting, don't use it. As long as the enhancement can be disabled in MP, I don't see an issue.

[DieHard]

In MP, the mission designer and / or server host should have the option to turn it off if so desired and both sides do not use this feature so everybody is on an even and equal playing field.

 

I would be happy with just a red dot out there to know where the general direction of the enemy aircraft are.

 

I have flown on servers and never did see the enemy planes the whole sortie out and back. Then I did a replay in Tacview and they were all around me!

 

There needs to be a better way.

[Witchking]

I still just don't get it.

 

It is a beta, each build can bring changes to things to be tried. Does not mean the sky is falling by any means. It could very well change again in the next build.

 

Model Visibility is being tested in the beta builds.

Model Visibility is an Option.

 

Don't like model visibility at a specific setting? Choose another setting.

Don't like it at all? Turn it off.

 

I do not currently do MP, but as I understand it especially with it being moved into gameplay options, servers can set this.

 

indeed

 

Well said. If people don't like it, just turn it off. The move to the gameplay settings may suggest server side restrictions. Asking for its removal because it is not realistic is unfair just because few people think it is not real. In that case, game mode is still here and labels are still here since LOMAC days. Leave it as a option and let those who want it, play with it on.

[Breakshot]

I think the question isn't about not liking or liking the feature.

 

Rather, it's about the ability to exploit it. I can say for certain, as it stands now, if I set it to enlarged, I can fly without ever turning my radar on...

 

Any realistic environment and modern BVR oriented server such as 51st, 104th, etc. should prohibit this feature, no question.

 

Отправлено с моего C5502 через Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

Rather, it's about the ability to exploit it. I can say for certain, as it stands now, if I set it to enlarged, I can fly without ever turning my radar on...

 

Any realistic environment and modern BVR oriented server such as 51st, 104th, etc. should prohibit this feature

Right. If players have the ability to just see each other at long range "beyond visual range" combat has no meaning. You could fly with your radar off as an advantage and just look for the giant models.

[vicx]

xXNightEagleXx, start up another thread and we people WHO HAVE ACTUALLY TRIED IT can provide feedback from testing they have done. I have a DK2 VR HMD so I can give feedback and screenshots from a VR perspective.

 

As for Server Settings I agree that there could easily be more flags setup for filtering users for competitive gameplay purposes.

 

You could have monitor resolution as a flag. So you could have a a 1080P server where 4K users have to run at 1080 fullscreen if they want to connect.

 

You could have a sever where Visibility is ON but Zooming is disabled ... I can see this will be required for competitive servers where VR users are playing.

 

This can be setup in a way where everyone is happy.

[SharpeXB]

As for Server Settings I agree that there could easily be more flags setup for filtering users for competitive gameplay purposes.

 

You could have monitor resolution as a flag. So you could have a a 1080P server where 4K users have to run at 1080 fullscreen if they want to connect.

 

You could have a sever where Visibility is ON but Zooming is disabled ... I can see this will be required for competitive servers where VR users are playing.

 

This can be setup in a way where everyone is happy.

The trouble with that is there aren't enough players online to make use of so many different server options. That's the problem with even adding this one. This isn't a game with hundreds of thousands of players online. Most times all the servers are empty or only have a dozen players on them to populate huge maps. And in reality all the mp attendance will be on only one server like the 104th. So whatever settings that uses are the ones you'll need to adapt to if you want to play online. As much as I've ever seen, combat flight sims tend to gravitate towards "full switch" servers, the ones with all the gameplay aids disabled. Probably because that's felt to be realistic or at least it's easy for everyone to agree on. So the direction that this Enlarged Model setting is headed in it will likely never be used online. It would be better for ED to work on solutions that actually can be.

[Why485]

The problem here is that there is a very strong argument for the model visibility setting being more realistic on than off. The specific values for what is right now the largest possible setting might not be realistic, but the smaller ones work just fine and look very realistic.

 

However, again, I raise the resolution dependency concern if any one specific setting was forced across all resolutions.

[dburne]

So the direction that this Enlarged Model setting is headed in it will likely never be used online. It would be better for ED to work on solutions that actually can be.

 

So if it is not likely used online then it should not be done. OK then.

 

Thankfully, online only is not ED's only focus. And I am still not convinced this feature will not be used in some form online, after all it is still new, still in beta, and still being tweaked.

[msalama]

you got to be joking with this setting tanks around the city are bigger than buildings.

 

This is still a beta, so I'm pretty certain they won't leave it as it is. Anyway, I _strongly_ agree with making it a server-side option, because leaving it for the client would open a somewhat sizable can of slithering invertebrates ;)

[Why485]

I'm definitely agreed on the idea that this should be server enforceable. While I have reservations on what the ultimate outcome of the setting will be once that happens, it's still something optional that gives somebody an advantage they shouldn't have over somebody else. I think it's inevitable that this becomes a server option and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens next patch.

[Custard]

I was a huge fan of the previous model visibility settings, especially for ground vehicles. But now even the smallest targets are visible from an insane range. The new aircraft settings are not so bad but I'm having serious issues with far away planes appearing larger than close ones.

 

I'm playing on 2560x1080 for reference.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Custard

[Ktulu2]

I was a huge fan of the previous model visibility settings, especially for ground vehicles. But now even the smallest targets are visible from an insane range. The new aircraft settings are not so bad but I'm having serious issues with far away planes appearing larger than close ones.

 

I'm playing on 2560x1080 for reference.

 

Yeah, the scaling does cause serious issues for visual range estimation...

[Decibel dB]

The trouble with that is there aren't enough players online to make use of so many different server options. That's the problem with even adding this one. This isn't a game with hundreds of thousands of players online. Most times all the servers are empty or only have a dozen players on them to populate huge maps.

 

Maybe the fact that we can't see anything is what preventing people to come online. Surely not the only factor's but an important one. BVR folk's don't really care I understand that but for the Ww2 birds fan it is a bid issue.

[sniperwolfpk5]

I was a huge fan of the previous model visibility settings, especially for ground vehicles. But now even the smallest targets are visible from an insane range. The new aircraft settings are not so bad but I'm having serious issues with far away planes appearing larger than close ones.

 

I'm playing on 2560x1080 for reference.

Yes far scaling is not right

[SharpeXB]

Maybe the fact that we can't see anything is what preventing people to come online. Surely not the only factor's but an important one. BVR folk's don't really care I understand that but for the Ww2 birds fan it is a bid issue.

There are other combat flight sims which feature multiplayer and have a range of gameplay options such as icons. They are still niche games as well. But the majority of players in other sims are also able to function online without icons or enlarged models, so why does DCS need to be different? Adding more server options just divides up the player base and WWII in DCS is sparse to begin with so I don't thing splitting up that base is a good idea.

Edited November 12, 2015 by SharpeXB

[vicx]

The trouble with that is there aren't enough players online to make use of so many different server options.

 

No matter what you say there is going to be a need for server switches to keep people happy. There will be problems if it isn't added.

 

When I'm flying VR I want to fly on server with other people who flying in VR. IF someone connects with standard rig they coud very easily ruin the experience.

 

The Warbird guys who prefer Visibility sprites for better SA probably won't want to fly up against people who are using Zooming and Sprites. Using both is replicating the same mechanism so looks a little like cheating. Some of those Warbird guys will just have LARGE Visibility sprites ans turn off zooming and ban zooming from their servers.

 

Some of the BVR guys might use the Small setting for WVR action but will probably set server flags to keep Med and Large sprites out of the server.

 

In all cases sever flags keep everyone in their comfy area and over time people drop the flags if they wanna bring more players in ... they see how it goes. In my experience the most sucessful servers are the ones that adapt. Plenty of those are very light with the rules but very heavy with the ban hammer.

 

In the end it al woks out.

[SharpeXB]

No matter what you say there is going to be a need for server switches to keep people happy. There will be problems if it isn't added.

 

When I'm flying VR I want to fly on server with other people who flying in VR. IF someone connects with standard rig they coud very easily ruin the experience.

 

The Warbird guys who prefer Visibility sprites for better SA probably won't want to fly up against people who are using Zooming and Sprites. Using both is replicating the same mechanism so looks a little like cheating. Some of those Warbird guys will just have LARGE Visibility sprites ans turn off zooming and ban zooming from their servers.

 

Some of the BVR guys might use the Small setting for WVR action but will probably set server flags to keep Med and Large sprites out of the server.

 

In all cases sever flags keep everyone in their comfy area and over time people drop the flags if they wanna bring more players in ... they see how it goes. In my experience the most sucessful servers are the ones that adapt. Plenty of those are very light with the rules but very heavy with the ban hammer.

 

In the end it al woks out.

Good luck with all that.

 

You forgot to mention the Zombie Mod server, there could be one of those too

Edited November 12, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Ultra]

Just some more evidence of the problem, since I think there obviously is one.

 

Model Enlargement Setting: Small !!

 

Resolution: 1920x1080

 

Pic1: confirmed distance of 65km away, those blurry dots are vehicles. They are slightly easier to see in-game than in the pictures.

 

Pic2: confirmed distance of 36km away.

[DieHard]

Maybe the fact that we can't see anything is what preventing people to come online. Surely not the only factor's but an important one. BVR folk's don't really care I understand that but for the Ww2 birds fan it is a bid issue.

 

WWII and Korea era, anyway. Flew my Mig-15 against a F-86 the other night, the Sabre pilot is a real life, current, Navy F-18 fighter jock, 2 years into his career. He just laughed at the current non-real life aircraft visibility in game on the MP server we were playing on. I was all around him, he never could see me.

 

I have been saying it since coming to DCS 4 or 5 years ago, ED needs an online server similar to what Aces High has had for years, a $15 monthly fee, and at prime-time USA there can be 500 people on simultaneously in game. I don't think ED is gonna' do it. Aces High got to be too arcade is why I quit it.

[Why485]

No matter what you say there is going to be a need for server switches to keep people happy. There will be problems if it isn't added.

 

When I'm flying VR I want to fly on server with other people who flying in VR. IF someone connects with standard rig they coud very easily ruin the experience.

 

The Warbird guys who prefer Visibility sprites for better SA probably won't want to fly up against people who are using Zooming and Sprites. Using both is replicating the same mechanism so looks a little like cheating. Some of those Warbird guys will just have LARGE Visibility sprites ans turn off zooming and ban zooming from their servers.

 

FYI, zooming in on a sprite does not make the sprite bigger on your screen. It's actually the opposite and makes the apparent size of the sprite smaller. The only thing you gain by zooming into an imposter sprite is getting a more accurate idea of where it is. It won't let you find it any easier. In fact, it's actually harder to find things when zoomed in because the sprite will have a smaller apparent size.

 

Remember that the imposters scale based purely on pixel sizes and nothing else. When you decrease your field of view to zoom into a model, that physical model can very easily still be so small that it's under the minsize (i.e. it still takes up less pixels than the smallest the impsoter is allowed to get) and as such will stay the same screen size even if you zoom in.

 

This has the effect of the imposter going down in apparent size as you zoom into it, often to the point where if you zoom in all the way, it doesn't look enlarged at all. Zooming in won't help you ID it either, because it's still taking up the same pixels zoomed in as it does at the default FOV.

 

This goes both ways. Conversely, if you raise your field of view above the default, you make the apparent size of the objects actually grow. This is because when you zoom out, objects take up less pixels, which means their imposters will more quickly run into their minsize value.

 

I don't see that as a big issue, but some kind up upper limit where the imposters will scale down with a large FOV would be appreciated. It's kind of just the nature of such a system. This happens in other games which use pixel based scaling systems as well.

 

There are other combat flight sims which feature multiplayer and have a range of gameplay options such as icons. They are still niche games as well. But the majority of players in other sims are also able to function online without icons or enlarged models, so why does DCS need to be different? Adding more server options just divides up the player base and WWII in DCS is sparse to begin with so I don't thing splitting up that base is a good idea.

 

On the contrary, DCS is very much in the minority when it comes to distant spotting. Until 1.5, it was pretty much the only combat flight sim out there without some kind of system to aid in spotting targets at a distance.

 

I can only think of one combat flight sim (Strike Fighters 2) that doesn't do anything to address the issue of how unrealistically difficult it is to see distant objects on a computer screen, and it's not really designed to be ultra realistic and instead uses an advanced padlock system to counter the problem. Hell, I can even think of console flight sim (Energy Air Force/Over G Fighters) example that use some kind of aid to help in seeing distant targets.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Why485