1.5.1.46722.87 Model Visibility removal

[MegOhm_SD]

:doh:Wow the things you learn on the forum. Since the feature works for me with my R9 295X2 in crossfire, I guess the card must be broken.

 

Poor horse is being beaten to death.

[Decibel dB]

:doh:Wow the things you learn on the forum. Since the feature works for me with my R9 295X2 in crossfire, I guess the card must be broken.

 

Poor horse is being beaten to death.

 

Are both you're gpu at work by forcing it with ralt+enter?

[MegOhm_SD]

Are both you're gpu at work by forcing it with ralt+enter?

 

That is correct but it is Left-alt-enter for me. Actually left or right both work on my old Merc Stealth KB. And MSI Afterburner confirms.

Edited November 17, 2015 by MegOhm_SD

[Decibel dB]

Can it be a crossfire + resolution thing? It works on one GPU but not with 2

[Decibel dB]

Meg would you care sharing your Catalyst Version with me please?

[Why485]

I think that SERVER FLAGS are a great idea and something we need to use. If you check my post a page back you will see that I have identified gameplay problems that are emerging with the use of high resolution monitors. This is a serious issue that is just going to get more and more extreme with 5K and 8K. Once people find out that being LORES means they don't even get to see a HIRES enemy that CAN see them ... people will be pissed. Trust me they will be pissed off. They will prefer not to play on the same server as HIRES players. Absolutely justified.

 

So in DCS you will have

• HIRES players
  
• LORES players
  
• LORESVR players
  
• HIRESVR players
  

 

Putting HIRES/LORES/LORESVR/HIRESVR flags on servers is very good place to start. If ED put FEATUREX, FEATUREY, FEATUREZ into full release then flags for FEATUREX, FEATUREY, FEATUREZ on servers makes perfect sense too. Everyone can choose the way they want to play and who they play with and/or against.

 

Just doing nothing is not a serious option.

 

This is again getting too complicated. The reason resolution even matters at all is because the setting gives different results depending on your resolution. If the minsize scaled with your resolution, then everybody would get pictures that are close enough that you don't have one resolution with a huge advantage over the other. Before 1.5, it was high resolutions with the big advantage. After 1.5 with model visibility on high, it's now the low resolutions.

 

As I said before, there should be a base agreed upon value, probably at 1080p since it's the most common resolution. For example if they decide a 6.0 minsize is what 1080p should run at, then if you run the game at 1440p your minsize will be at 8.0. If you run 4k, then your proportional minsize would be 12.0. With this, everybody gets roughly the same level of visibility, regardless of resolution.

 

However, I do wonder that if at 4k you might want a slightly lower setting than the proportion would suggest, as that's a very large jump in pixel density over 1080p. Unfortunately I don't have a 4k screen so I can't test it myself.

 

When it comes to server restrictions, then you can leave it as a simple on/off flag like the majority of the difficulty options.

 

Once ED settles on reasonable values for the system, then I believe most servers will force the option on, as not only is it more realistic to have than not, but it also helps to level the playing field between people who play at low resolutions, and those at very high resolutions.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Why485

[SharpeXB]

Probably the mini size as it is currently even at its smallest setting, is too large. The player should never see anything out of scale because it just looks really bad. Many players want to have better visibility but not at the expense of seeing objects awkwardly out of scale. That should be eliminated. Any sprite that doesn't scale down with distance or FOV is bad. It's possible maybe to nudge the graphics a little. But the player should never be aware of it.

And if it's done correctly and can be used "full real" then there's also no need for more server settings. That's the correct and only way to do this.

 

This is unacceptable and just absolutely awful.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2552967&postcount=73

Edited November 17, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Corrigan]

The player should never see anything out of scale because it just looks really bad.

 

Either I'm being stupid or you are. This whole concept is nothing but scaling up objects. Things disappear when they no longer subtend a solid angle of at least one pixel. There is no way of keeping them visible without making them bigger than they should be, or "out of scale".

[vicx]

I am skeptical that there will be a golden bullet solution. I favour giving people choices and letting them work out what are the best combinations.

 

I suggested a range of server flags not because I believe that all them will be used but because it gives people a choice. There is a general pattern to the way online game servers serve a player-base. There are always a couple of hardcore servers, a couple of servers with speciality settings and the rest just seem to have all the fun stuff turned ON. That just seems to be way it plays out. That combination tends to lead to most people getting what they want.

 

Anyway ... I will be capturing images using the MODEL ENLARGEMENT feature next so that they can be compared to the first images I posted. Same scene ... with MODEL ENLARGEMENT: small. We'll see what that looks like.

 

No doubt the results will be ugly and problems with the MODEL ENLARGEMENT feature will be revealed. Which we could use as a platform for constructive suggestions on improving the feature ... or not. I would prefer the first option.

 

---

 

Stand down Corrigan :chair: We are at a rare moment of equanimity and everyone is being well behaved. Just chill and we can have a look at some pictures later today.

[Why485]

Having spent a lot of time experimenting with different values for the imposter settings, I've already laid down what I consider my feedback on the feature in a previous post, and what I think needs to be done to make it as good as it can be.

[Ultra]

Anyway ... I will be capturing images using the MODEL ENLARGEMENT feature next so that they can be compared to the first images I posted. Same scene ... with MODEL ENLARGEMENT: small. We'll see what that looks like.

 

No doubt the results will be ugly and problems with the MODEL ENLARGEMENT feature will be revealed. Which we could use as a platform for constructive suggestions on improving the feature ... or not. I would prefer the first option.

 

---

 

Stand down Corrigan :chair: We are at a rare moment of equanimity and everyone is being well behaved. Just chill and we can have a look at some pictures later today.

 

Has anything changed since I posted my pictures?

 

Also, 50 points for using 'equanimity'. :lol:

[SharpeXB]

Maybe the result of testing both the "Model Visibility" and "Enlarged Models" is:

- It spoils the graphics if the effect is so large that the player can perceive it. (Enlarged Models)

- If it's kept minimal then players will still complain that they can't see objects. (Model Visibility)

- Threatens to split up multiplayer with additional server restrictions.

- At larger sizes the sprite effect just destroys any realism, when players can see targets too easily at unrealistic range. The current Enlarged Models can simply never be used with any expectation of realism.

 

In the end, Neither setting solves the fact that players will always complain about not being able to see objects. Perhaps the result of this test is that neither is implemented.

[vicx]

Hmm ... experimenting with Gameplay.Options.ModelEnlargement = small at the various resolutions shows that effect is very dependent on zooming changes. I think I might need to visualise this totally differently to what I have done.

 

Those initial images I posted were good at showing there was a problem with the render but not at revealing ... WHY?

 

Zooming changes the LOD levels ... I will post a marked up image showing how that effects the game when Gameplay.Options.ModelEnlargement isn't even being used. LODS were the the original ModelEnlargement feature back in LOMAC days and probably even before that.

 

Short history lesson

Over time ... many long distance LOD models have been refined and made less obviously BIG and easy to see. They used to be HUGE in LOMAC ... really obvious with the model for the IGLA terrorist model and Chechens in the ZU23. Those models had long distance LODS the size of a HOUSE.

 

So over time new EDM models have the LOD models built into the model and not externally referenced by a LODS file and the long distance LODS have been getting smaller but still the LODS aren't as uniform across all models as you would hope and some of the box shapes are DARKER than the main model (easier to see), some are LIGHTER than the main model (to simulate distance) and some are just wrapped in a MIP mapped version of the main texture. Models made for different versions of the engine have different approaches.

 

So this is the type of LOD levels that many ground units have. Aircraft boxes aren't as big but they are a box which could change their visible pixel size (compared to geometry) at long distances.

 

 

This is why you have that problem with ModelEnlargement where the ground units are disappearing and then re-appearing larger at long distances ... this is exacerbated by zooming because zooming also changes the LOD setting. If the LOD only changed based on distance away then you could eliminate the randomness and then start to focus on tweaking the base setting. I mean ground units still have a visible model at 100km? Maybe it's like that so that units like Reaper can operate in mission and use their long rage optics on them or it might be required so that the A10-C TGP can work.

 

This is also why without ModelEnlargement you also have problems. I have marked up this image to explain what is happening when an F15 at 5km is totally invisible and one at 10km can be seen more clearly.

 

 

I hope this side of things is more clear now.

 

I might make a new set of images which shows what is happening at each of the 15 zoom levels ... but my interest is in VR which was no zoom so I have a low level of motivation. The images I could have posted today simply show what is already known which is that the scaling is often random.

 

I think a billboard solution with a completely new set of LOD shells/models for all of the units (built with a consistent approach) is what is required. And then tweak the LUA values for different resolutions and zoom levels.

Edited November 18, 2015 by vicx

[dburne]

In the end, Neither setting solves the fact that players will always complain about not being able to see objects. Perhaps the result of this test is that neither is implemented.

 

Perhaps the testing is not finished, so concluding there is a result of the implementation at this point is a bit premature...

[vicx]

Oh yes it is very premature to say that the new system has problems ... when most of those problems are due to the old system.

 

A clean break might be the best approach for ED to take. Remove the old to make way for the new.

[Deano87]

Hey All.

 

Just want to chime back in with my 2 cents as I've been doing some testing online with the current model visibility and I have some thoughts.

 

All of this testing was done in the Oculus Rift DK2, I can't speak to what its like on a screen, as I don't play that way.

 

I'm currently using the 'medium' setting of model visibility and here are my thoughts:

 

Ground units:

At medium, ground units are WAY too large currently, I say this even inside the Oculus, They seem to get easier to see the further away you get :huh:, Indeed I was playing on a server last night that was running 'Operation Winchester' (i forget the name of the server, sorry) and I could see the Patriot sam sites from a LOOONG way away, Not only that but the LOD models were so huge they looked like a massive football stadium or something. As I got closer they got noticeably harder to spot. So overall in the Rift, ground units need a serious tweaking.

 

Aircraft:

Aircraft visibility was interesting, for starters the visibility of different aircraft seemed to be totally inconsistent. The standout in this regard was the A-10 which I could see as big black dot some 20 miles away:devil::thumbup:, F-15s however were much harder to spot, barely showing up at all until they were upon me. I confirmed this by watching things back in TacvView and indeed I had flown past, under and around a few F-15s during the session and had never seen them once! Not only that but us Ruskies had a couple of IL-76s dropping vehicles in the mission and Tacview showed that I flew past one of these and came within 2 miles and never saw him either... Now granted part of that could be me not paying attention outside the cockpit and getting focused on driving the Radar but its interesting none the less.

 

I managed to engage F-15s a couple of times and I noticed that If I knew exactly where to look thanks to a radar lock or EO lock I could noticed a small dot, As I closed that dot would become more distinct and easier to see... as I continued to close further to within 6 miles the dot would rapidly shrink and become harder to see, at this point I would loose all visual (in the Rift) contact with the F-15, If I kept closing the next time I could see the aircraft was about the same time I would have seen him in 1.2.

 

This happened a couple of times and certainly explains why I couldn't see F-15 flying around me.

 

Overall Thoughts:

I think the model visibility option is great for us Rift users, but currently it suffers from two problems. Object visibility at range (especially ground targets) is frankly ridiculous currently. And there seems to be very little consistency of how visible each aircraft becomes at different ranges. I need to do more testing but I wouldn't be surprised if I could see an A-10 long before I could see the KC-135 it was refuelling on! Currently (at least on medium) it seems that most objects are very visible at range, becoming harder to spot as you get closer, until they reach a point where they get easier to see again. This is clearly in need of somer serious tweaking but I do think the system shows promise.

 

Again, all of these observations are concerning the Oculus Rift DK2 and my eyeballs, YMMV.

[SharpeXB]

It's only obvious that ground objects seem out of scale because you see them up against other objects. The truth is that the air objects are also equally out of scale.

 

The whole concept is terribly flawed if the player can actually perceive objects out of scale.

 

Another interesting flaw pointed out above it that it's easier to see far away objects than ones that are closer.

[SharpeXB]

Oh yes it is very premature to say that the new system has problems ... when most of those problems are due to the old system.

 

A clean break might be the best approach for ED to take. Remove the old to make way for the new.

"Scaling" is actually the old system. I'm sure this was done back in the days of low res CRT monitors. Those games didn't feature any sort of realistic graphics so nobody cared about how awkward it looked plus at the low resolution of the day it was the only way to make objects visible.

No current flight sim or game today uses it. Because it looks terrible. My guess is that ED will end up abandoning this for the same reason. All the other combat flight games out there don't need this so neither should DCS.

Edited November 19, 2015 by SharpeXB

[dburne]

"Scaling" is actually the old system. I'm sure this was done back in the days of low res CRT monitors. Those games didn't feature any sort of realistic graphics so nobody cared about how awkward it looked plus at the low resolution of the day it was the only way to make objects visible.

 

Actually back in " the day " of CRT monitors and the new accelerated graphics cards, running in 640x480, the graphics were very good for that time. Don't think of today's graphics, for at that time they were just a dream perhaps. It is easy to look back 20 years and think man those graphics looked horrible, or see an old video of a game running back then and think how bad that looked, but at the time it looked pretty dang awesome.

Funny how technology works. There will come a time where today's graphics look archaic as well.

 

No current flight sim or game today uses it. Because it looks terrible. My guess is that ED will end up abandoning this for the same reason. All the other combat flight games out there don't need this so neither should DCS.

 

Note it is being tested currently in a beta form, I would not go comparing it to another game's released form in how they deal with it. Undoubtedly though your feelings are well known. Let's see how it all shakes out and looks in DCS 2.0 release version.

 

Thankfully, ED/DCS is not like every other flight sim out there.

:thumbup:

[Ripcord03]

another thing to mention related to model visibility is the Draw distance of the Nav and Collision lights at night, flew a couple missions with the DoW guys, and then some more in single player at night, and i can see the "Model" way before the lights.

 

The lighting doesnt seem to "draw" or show up until im with in 1/4 nm, which on a really dark sky with no clouds just isnt right when i can stand on my porch at night and see airliners nav and collision lights when they are flying at cruise alt...

[SharpeXB]

Actually back in " the day " of CRT monitors and the new accelerated graphics cards, running in 640x480, the graphics were very good for that time.

Right but that's the era where this scaling business comes from. It's for making distant objects visible on an 11" 640x480 monitor. It's completely archaic today.

 

Yes I know this is only being tested and if we are fortunate, that's all the farther this goes. Everyone wants improved visibility but not at the expense of really awful graphic effects and wrecked gameplay.

 

I truly wonder if this whole Enlarged Model thing was simply put out in the Beta as a form of appeasement.

ED can't seriously think this looks decent or not realize that it would destroy all the realism in the sim. Especially the current version of this. No way. They can determine this for themselves, there's no need to Open Beta test it. Except that since its been asked for, this is a way of saying "be careful what you ask for, you might get it"

So fine, release it in Beta to literally demonstrate how unworkable this is so people will stop asking. That's the only explaination that makes sense of how bad the current version is.

 

Edit: I understand exactly why the current setting is the way that it is. Keep it firmly in the realm of "Gameplay Aid" like an icon. Don't attempt to make a "realistic" version of this like the previous Model Visibility because some players will still be unable to see objects. And there's no "realistic" way to depict objects out of scale. So just keep the Enlarged Models actually enlarged. That way people who need help get help but it's not confused with realism. Make it a server controlled setting like labels so there can still be realistic action in multiplayer.

Edited November 19, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Deano87]

Right but that's the era where this scaling business comes from. It's for making distant objects visible on an 11" 640x480 monitor. It's completely archaic today.

 

Yes I know this is only being tested and if we are fortunate, that's all the farther this goes. Everyone wants improved visibility but not at the expense of really awful graphic effects and wrecked gameplay.

 

Your opinion seems to be that we should throw the whole concept in the trash and forget about it? I personally like the feature, I think it needs tweaking and changing to better represent reality and give more parity on different screen and HMD setups, but personaly I think it makes DCS a lot more playable. Don't misunderstand me.. Its broken as it currently is.. for sure. But I think the concept is sound.

 

Of course I am biased because I am primarily a VR player but I think that some system which allows aircraft to be seen at distances where you would be able to see then IRL shouldn't be considered archaic. For sure If you have a UHD monitor and you use the zoom feature you already have vision way beyond a real human being sat in a cockpit. So maybe we should limit the zoom level because that is clearly unrealistic?

[dburne]

So fine, release it in Beta to literally demonstrate how unworkable this is so people will stop asking. That's the only explaination that makes sense of how bad the current version is.

 

I somehow don't think ED would have gone to all the work to add this feature and test it, just to get people to stop asking...

 

And has been evidenced by previous beta builds, they are trying/testing different things. I somehow don't think they are done just yet.

[Deano87]

I truly wonder if this whole Enlarged Model thing was simply put out in the Beta as a form of appeasement.

ED can't seriously think this looks decent or not realize that it would destroy all the realism in the sim. Especially the current version of this. No way. They can determine this for themselves, there's no need to Open Beta test it. Except that since its been asked for, this is a way of saying "be careful what you ask for, you might get it"

So fine, release it in Beta to literally demonstrate how unworkable this is so people will stop asking. That's the only explaination that makes sense of how bad the current version is.

 

You always have the option of turning it off. Also am I right in thinking that you haven't even tried it?

 

This very much seems that you are pissed off that they may be altering 'your' vision of what DCS is or should be. To that I say... Tough. People want this feature, in at least some form. Because it is otherwise impossible to see each other. As i just said... If you don't like it, don't use it. The Zoom-o-vision that is currently in game is equally unrealistic imho.

[dburne]

For sure If you have a UHD monitor and you use the zoom feature you already have vision way beyond a real human being sat in a cockpit. So maybe we should limit the zoom level because that is clearly unrealistic?

 

Model visibility = horrible and archaic, full zoom ( superman eyes), fully realistic.

:thumbup:

 

I am betting the final release with model visibility feature will be quite different than what is being seen currently in the beta builds. We'll see.