Can you see well the targets with the 1.5?

[Johnny Dioxin]

Way too much..

 

I actually think ED made it kinda realistic for such a depth lacking environment.

Believe some need to get outside more :noexpression:

 

 

I probably agree - they seem to have made things at least more realistic than they were. I think people got spoiled by the old ways and now things are closer to what they would be in the flesh, some are not happy - but they should just see it as a more realistic challenge.

 

If a target is moving or large (i.e. a large unit of vehicles) or is making a lot of mess, or was in action at the time (i.e. firing/launching etc) they would be easier to spot - but stationary vehicles, especially ones that are concealed - are much more difficult to spot.

 

If they weren't, no-one would fight wars, because their units would simply be decimated by air power all on it's own.

 

We used to regularly have recce flights fly over our detachments in the field, and if we stood out to them, or on photographs, we would be really in the brown and smelly from our superiors (and they from theirs). Not only that - when you know that your survival depends on your concealment, you make a damn good job of it.

[pepin1234]

If they are trying to make a realistic terrain, not necessarily should be realistic when you have a tank just there in the middle of the grass and even making a pass at 1500 altitude and 4000 m distance, this tank at this distance is still a ghost for our eyes. I don't call this realistic.

 

Just in case. Try a MP mission online, whatever server. Just try there... Don't try in missions making by yourself for this. You gonne see.

 

In my last flight I took a real modern plane. At the back of my front seat I had a monitor with gps, speed and altitude data. I enjoy this time looking for vehicles and houses when we approaching the airfield. I got to see a lot of stuff at this altitude and distance.

Edited February 2, 2016 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

RL vehicle detection thresholds are about 3000' for a stationary vehicle like a humvee from an aircraft, when the camo and background match. That's 1km.

 

Most air to ground attack is performed with help from a JTAC or otherwise marked targets, or, if you have it, with help from a pod.

 

It's really easy to spot a car driving on a road in the day, lit by the sun. As soon as this car no longer moves and better yet, if it's in the shadow and not glinting and it's color matches the road or there are trees nearby also showing a dark green color (without covering the vehicle), that car becomes difficult to see.

 

The moment you have a vehicle that is actually trying to hide, it 'dissapears', sometimes even if you know where to look.

 

DCS will probably never be able to simulate it in exact RL detail, but vehicles shouldn't be so easy to find in the middle of combat unless they are doing something that makes them easy to find.

[Nedum]

I wouldn't generalize that it is always difficult to spot any of the targets. Among many visual updates DCS 1.5 brought new textures. Personally I really like the upgrade. The ground looks much more detailed and photorealistic while at the same time the repeated texture patterns are not so obviously noticable.

Probably an unintentional side effect however is that some of the textures make the units blend with the environment. Especially the "bush/mud" like one.

 

Example: a group of 4*arti and 3*trucks:

 

Same group but from a different angle. It's difficult to locate any of the units visually from a really close distance (~200m-500m?):

 

 

At the same time targets placed on ground with other textures are clearly visible from much further away:

There is a tank in the area with ? - below "mission complete..." message. I gave up on trying to find where axactly it is :)

 

Apart of locating the targets with a "naked eye" the same situation applies in case of the TGP. Its rather easy to locate units provided that they are not placed on the "bush/mud" like texture. But if they are, using the BHOT/WHOT mode makes the texture pattern stand out even more further masking the targets.

 

The 3 picture is a very good example of the current situation.

As long as we have no real 3D view to notice the 3D of an object, which is the normal way to notice "hidden" object for a human, we need this be done with colors. If not you see in the near distance only a flat picture with greyed but different colors. This is the problem we have now. To say what we have right now would fit with the reality in any way is plain wrong!

The other problem is the shape, color and size of the textures. They are too dark even the sun is not covered and the object size painted on the textures is 10 times too big so a small 3 feet bush looks like a black hole with a size in which you could put several tanks.

Our brain is trained to find the differences of the size, shape and color of different objects and we compare these things all the time. But if a 3 feet bush is painted in such a way it looks like a 30 meter bush at a 100 meter distance our brain can't guess the right distance and so the right size of an object we are looking for. The bush looks like it would be 10 times closer than it would be in reality. Yes we know that's there must be a tank but our brain is trained in such a way it's extreme hard for us to find it even the tank is direct in front of us. If you look at the third picture you can clearly see the 3D shape of the first electro building but farer away you can't really see any 3D shape anymore. The whole pictures become a flat greyed one. You can see different colors but you can't see any building anymore!

I’ve tested this with my girlfriend. She never played such a game and I asked her to tell me what she saw on the screen. She didn't notice that the withe colors on the pictures should be buildings. She said that she saw limestones. And even she knows how 100 meters height should look like she said that if she has looked down (I was flying at 100 meters) it looks like 10 meters, because all the brushes looking so big/near even so the scratches on the ground textures. Only near the landing field she could tell me how high we are (more or less).Currently the picture size of the ground textures is a way too big. The size distance thing doesn’t fit in any way. Some should really try to see how it would look like only from 25 Meters height. This ugly difference in size and distance of the current textures is "" our brain in such a way that we can't notice the shape difference we need to spot targets and the ground texture color is a way too dark and foggy!

So no, the current ground textures don’t fit in any way with the reality! Look down from a high building/bridge and see the difference… its huge.. like day and night! To say that this would fit in any way with the real live is plain wrong!

Edited February 2, 2016 by NineLine
edit for 1.1

[NineLine]

I’ve tested this with my girlfriend. She never played such a game and I asked her to tell me what she saw on the screen.

 

That is sort of the point, its a trained skill to spot enemy units. I have a training mission I have used in the past, it randomly spawns three tanks so I never know where they are except the rough area. Its tough, it takes some time (it also helped me identify and confirm issues with FLIR), but its an acquired skill. Its the same with any game as well... I can remember my first days in BF4, it takes time for your senses to be 100% sure you are looking at a baddy or a teammate, you have to gain that skill in most games. I wouldnt expect a new person that has never looked at the sim before to be able to spot much lol.

 

Look, you are crapping all over an old map that is going through some growing pains with new textures and a new graphics engine. But bottomline is its not all on the sim, its not about you being Superman and being able to spot a tank among some trees from 10nm... sorry, it just isnt.

[pepin1234]

Most air to ground attack is performed with help from a JTAC or otherwise marked targets, or, if you have it, with help from a pod.

 

So do you say this because you really care about Su-25A. Also you want to help the Su-25A pilots... Come on... So what you say here is the Su-25A can't make his job because have not TG pod or have not datalink for JTAC. And of course you agree with this hard view setting and should be like that, hard to see everything by the Su-25A pilots. I got you...

 

It's really easy to spot a car driving on a road in the day, lit by the sun. As soon as this car no longer moves and better yet, if it's in the shadow and not glinting and it's color matches the road or there are trees nearby also showing a dark green color (without covering the vehicle), that car becomes difficult to see.

 

You are missing a very important thing, The shadow, so your vehicle can be green like the grass or gray like the road, but what about the black shadow? In RL you have the dark shadow always there. Unfortunately we got in 1.5 a lot of dark marks on the new grass. I mean we got too much of this dark mark in a very small terrain area, sometimes we get confused if they really are vehicles with shadow and I spend a couple of missiles in this marks. Why?

 

The moment you have a vehicle that is actually trying to hide, it 'dissapears', sometimes even if you know where to look.

 

What kind of combat is this so the vehicle should hide to get success? I mean if they are just standing there and no move, to be realistic they should be difficult to spot?

[NineLine]

So do you say this because you really care about Su-25A. Also you want to help the Su-25A pilots... Come on... So what you say here is the Su-25A can't make his job because have not TG pod or have not datalink for JTAC. And of course you agree with this hard view setting and should be like that, hard to see everything by the Su-25A pilots. I got you...

 

If it wasnt hard, why did they start using pods and JTAC?

[pepin1234]

If it wasnt hard, why did they start using pods and JTAC?

 

We are talking here about the poor succes of the Su-25A in the new view terrain and view settings in the 1.5v, So we understand with this the real CAS inbound with rockets and bombs should be visual contact in the case the Su-25A against vehicles.

 

Actually we are doing a simulation bombing only with vehicles group because the infantry is not real implemented. IRL the vehicles are easy to spot when they are spread over the battlefield, I mean in real life.

 

The TG pod is to keep a good targeting and shot at safe distance using guided weapons (expensive like hell). This have nothing to do with a real visual spot at 5 km of a vehicles group

Edited February 2, 2016 by pepin1234

[NineLine]

We are talking here about the poor succes of the Su-25A in the new view terrain and view settings in the 1.5v, So we understand with this the real CAS inbound with rockets and bombs should be visual contact in the case the Su-25A against vehicles.

 

Actually we are doing a simulation bombing only with vehicles group because the infantry is not real implemented. IRL the vehicles are easy to spot when they are spread over the battlefield, I mean in real life.

 

The TG pod is to keep a good targeting and shot at safe distance using guided weapons (expensive like hell). This have nothing to do with a real visual spot at 5 km of a vehicles group

 

But you ignore that issues have been acknowledged because you dont want to accept that some of it falls back on our own skills as well, not just issues with the an aging map.

[pepin1234]

But you ignore that issues have been acknowledged because you dont want to accept that some of it falls back on our own skills as well, not just issues with the an aging map.

 

I am not a new pilot. I tried this new skill level but no success till the date.

[GGTharos]

So do you say this because you really care about Su-25A. Also you want to help the Su-25A pilots... Come on... So what you say here is the Su-25A can't make his job because have not TG pod or have not datalink for JTAC. And of course you agree with this hard view setting and should be like that, hard to see everything by the Su-25A pilots. I got you...

 

You think A-10A had it better? You think JTAC/FACs used datalinks back then?

 

You are missing a very important thing, The shadow, so your vehicle can be green like the grass or gray like the road, but what about the black shadow? In RL you have the dark shadow always there. Unfortunately we got in 1.5 a lot of dark marks on the new grass. I mean we got too much of this dark mark in a very small terrain area, sometimes we get confused if they really are vehicles with shadow and I spend a couple of missiles in this marks. Why?

 

Do you believe that RL pilots don't get confused?

 

 

What kind of combat is this so the vehicle should hide to get success? I mean if they are just standing there and no move, to be realistic they should be difficult to spot?

 

If they're on terrain that isn't generating contrast yes, they should be hard to spot.

[pepin1234]

You think A-10A had it better? You think JTAC/FACs used datalinks back then?.

 

We are not talking about A-10 here. this is not a comparison thread.

 

 

 

Do you believe that RL pilots don't get confused?.

 

Yes they do. but not with dark marks doesn't exist everywhere IRL inside a 100m square area, like a Dalmatian skin terrain. I mean is ok find somewhere areas with this terrain mask, but currently we find this marks everywhere. I mean too much in small area

 

 

 

If they're on terrain that isn't generating contrast yes, they should be hard to spot.

 

You are talking things we already know. Please take your time and test an inbound attack with a mission made by other buddy. answer with currently stage arguments not with things should be IRL and is not currently in game.

Edited February 2, 2016 by pepin1234

[NineLine]

We are not talking about A-10 here. this is not a comparison thread.

 

You are missing the point, you are flying with older systems, like the A-10A, finding and IDing targets is going to be more challenging.

[MegOhm_SD]

I noticed a line of vehicles from ~4K ft on a light patch of land. At my approach angle they were clearly visible. I kept my eyes on them as I passed overhead and when the lighting angle changed their visibility diminished. When I circled back and the lighting angle changed the targets were more easily seen once again.

 

I find this interesting and have no problem with it. This in the latest 1.5.

 

So we all have a different take regardless of the "technical" arguments.

Edited February 2, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[Schmidtfire]

I would say that firmek and Nedum really nailed down the problem with spotting targets in 1.5.

GGTharos, I get your point that targets in RL is hard to spot. But don't compare RL vision with the vision and experience we're getting from behind a screen. As is, the spotting-experience in DCS is not completely true to life. Don't you agree?

 

A lot of people have been raising their voices about spotting issues. ED got us the Enlarged model option, and it's a great first step!

But I think that this issue runs a bit deeper. It's about contrast, colors, shadows and how the new terrain texture "masks" vehicles. Even if they are standing in the open with no trees or buildings around, they are incredible hard to see. Meg_Ohm_SD, thats the thing you saw the units on a light patch of land. As of now, I think the only solution for playing CAS is either attack units parked on an airbase (easy enough to find) or using Nevada or a Desert-texture mod.

 

It would be interesting to hear what Oculus users are thinking about this, since they have that stereo vision to aid spotting of ground targets.

[Enduro14]

I wouldn't generalize that it is always difficult to spot any of the targets. Among many visual updates DCS 1.5 brought new textures. Personally I really like the upgrade. The ground looks much more detailed and photorealistic while at the same time the repeated texture patterns are not so obviously noticable.

Probably an unintentional side effect however is that some of the textures make the units blend with the environment. Especially the "bush/mud" like one.

 

Example: a group of 4*arti and 3*trucks:

 

Same group but from a different angle. It's difficult to locate any of the units visually from a really close distance (~200m-500m?):

 

 

At the same time targets placed on ground with other textures are clearly visible from much further away:

There is a tank in the area with ? - below "mission complete..." message. I gave up on trying to find where axactly it is :)

 

Apart of locating the targets with a "naked eye" the same situation applies in case of the TGP. Its rather easy to locate units provided that they are not placed on the "bush/mud" like texture. But if they are, using the BHOT/WHOT mode makes the texture pattern stand out even more further masking the targets.[/QUOTe

 

 

Much different situation between those screen shots the second being much better to contrast to background and tgts are in the sun not masked by a cloud shadow. Which is great as shadowing and lighting have a direct effect on tgt visibility just like in the real world.

[Enduro14]

Also you do realize whether it be Air guys or grounds guys part of mission planning includes weather and light data, aka what is the best avenue of approach to tgts as for visibility due to Environmental factors... i think its great but i do agree some of the ground textures aka not the farmer fields could use some work as i dont really agree on the scale of the patches in them. Always room for improvement but i like that its more realistic to what we experience in the real world.

[Enduro14]

I would say that firmek and Nedum really nailed down the problem with spotting targets in 1.5.

GGTharos, I get your point that targets in RL is hard to spot. But don't compare RL vision with the vision and experience we're getting from behind a screen. As is, the spotting-experience in DCS is not completely true to life. Don't you agree?

 

A lot of people have been raising their voices about spotting issues. ED got us the Enlarged model option, and it's a great first step!

But I think that this issue runs a bit deeper. It's about contrast, colors, shadows and how the new terrain texture "masks" vehicles. Even if they are standing in the open with no trees or buildings around, they are incredible hard to see. Meg_Ohm_SD, thats the thing you saw the units on a light patch of land. As of now, I think the only solution for playing CAS is either attack units parked on an airbase (easy enough to find) or using Nevada or a Desert-texture mod.

 

It would be interesting to hear what Oculus users are thinking about this, since they have that stereo vision to aid spotting of ground targets.

 

with the dk2, and also when i had nvidia 3d vision setup having actual depth makes the spotting of ground targets much easier. Currently on a 55 inch at 4k no problems seeing tgts unless they are not contrasted to back ground and or its a cloudy area for day operations and finally the one texture set that is shown above has allot of distortion that hides vehicles very well. Us military may want to look at this pattern for a new uniform LOL. I make it a habit threat environment permiting having the sun to my back when i go in gun runs. Seems to help with what we have currently. I hope this is retained in future patches but in same token some of the ground textures touched up a bit.

 

One last comment on this is that VR and 3D really bring out the beauty of this sim, it puts everything in proper perspective compared to 2d. In 3d and Vr that lighting and shadows really help you or help the tgt, also the geometry of terrain and objects just clicks more naturally with the brain.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Enduro14

[paulca]

It occurred to me that I spend quite a lot of time at the altitude and range where visual target spotting would be done.

 

I paraglide. Thus I spend a lot of time floating along a ridge line looking down in the valley. I am 2,000ft to 5,000ft above and 2-3km out from the valley. Not only can I see the landing field and spot individual cars parked there and moving along the road, I can also see groups of people standing under the trees.

 

I even one day spotted, in my periphery vision a plane. Wasn't even looking at it and spotted it off to my left, about 1,000ft below me, coming down the valley low and hot. "Bandit, 9 o'clock low, hot. WTF!?" To a paraglider a GA plane IS a bandit and quite deadly, low level helo's are worse! So I radioed out "Heads up, plane coming up the valley west to east, low about 2,000ft AGL." and promptly did a big tight 360 to show my wing to the pilot give him the best chance of seeing me.

 

The only advantage I have on a paraglider is I'm slow, practically hovering over the valley... that and polarized sun glasses.

 

I believe the problem lies in the different texture resolutions between the ground, trees, buildings and targets and the way the isotrpohic filtering is applied. The eye locks into the detail it can see, so when looking at blurry textures under magnification it almost looks past the sharp targets as noise.

 

One thing you see very clearly in DCS that you don't in reality is power lines. Power lines are a curse in reality. You can't see the lines even when 1000 foot above them. So you look for the poles or the shadow of the poles and you can pick them out from a good way off... if you are lucky. Spotting one across your landing field when you are committed is a butt tightening moment. Always have a plan B until the last second.

[pepin1234]

Today I was rocket shooting to a couple of tanks were moving on the road. I hit them two times. The second time they got apart to the grass. After that my attack was finish, I never got see them again on the grass, even when they were some yards from the road.

[kobac]

I don't know why everybody is trying to find justification for mistakes that were clearly made ED developers? They spoiled vehicle visibility or is it because the terrain - does not matter. It's important the vehicle is now much harder to find compared to the previous version DCSW.

Let this be corrected, or tell us plainly that you will not, and we have to buy DLC terrain or use moded, so that we know where we stand.

[tovivan]

I don't know why everybody is trying to find justification for mistakes that were clearly made ED developers? They spoiled vehicle visibility or is it because the terrain - does not matter. It's important the vehicle is now much harder to find compared to the previous version DCSW.

Let this be corrected, or tell us plainly that you will not, and we have to buy DLC terrain or use moded, so that we know where we stand.

 

Because in everything and everywhere there will always be apologists.

 

"Right or wrong, my country..."

[NineLine]

I don't know why everybody is trying to find justification for mistakes that were clearly made ED developers? They spoiled vehicle visibility or is it because the terrain - does not matter. It's important the vehicle is now much harder to find compared to the previous version DCSW.

Let this be corrected, or tell us plainly that you will not, and we have to buy DLC terrain or use moded, so that we know where we stand.

 

Its all still WIP

[kobac]

Its all still WIP

 

I was comforted with this comment more than any other. :thumbup: