[REPORTED] Model Visibility Issues

[chihirobelmo]

I already have calibrated my monitor with nVidia Driver to get collect color and brightness curve. In my case, I referred to the following URL.

 

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.jp%2Foredisc%2Fmemo%2Fgamma%2Fgamma.html&edit-text=

 

Gamma calibration has been already possible for DCS(or for any other sims) as it is the matter of monitor settings. Then what is the point of implementing gamma setting per sim? I am afraid new Gamma slider setting will be adjusted by anyone's favor to get "tally more easily" rather than adjusting the color to provide you "what vision developers think is close to real".

 

Well, it is okay for me some individuals adjusts there environments to win the game rather than simulating. I hope ED is developing there graphic engine to provide us what they believe is the most realistic visibility when properly calibrated monitors were used.

Edited June 12, 2017 by chihirobelmo

[OnlyforDCS]

Perhaps on a 27' monitor, because for me it did not change much from the 1.5. Same problem, same ghost planes when against the terrain. It did improve because the map has more contrast.

 

 

You are correct. Having a 1080p, 27" monitor, with great contrast helps a lot. I agree that visibility should be hardware independent, if that means a slight sacrifice in the realistic rendering of LOD models, so be it.

[gavagai]

No one should have to tweak his hardware just to see aircraft at close range. I've tried almost everything myself, but it's a problem with the game, not our hardware.

 

This thread is a veritable history lesson on the topic of model visibility. Go back and find the discussion of impostors and model enlargement and how it was going to be the better option compared to alternatives. It is an edifying read.

 

--------------------

 

Someone deleted the earlier part of the thread.:glare:

Edited June 12, 2017 by gavagai

[=Thrust=]

Even with model visibility on high it looks small.

 

Any statement from ED about what their idea is for model changes? I think large actually needs to be large.

+10000

[CallsignFrosty]

This is still a big issue despite the changes.

It does seem better in 2.1 but when I'm running 4K and flying with 1080p pilots, they are spotting things at great distances!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeaW0lf]

So any news regarding a fix for the ghost planes against the terrain on the Normany map? Today I logged in and had two dogfights and I lost contact with the enemy three or four times against the terrain. Just like in the last flights that I did. All close dogfights.

 

Like in a shallow dive with a 109 that fled, and I was following. As soon as we went under the horizon the guy just disappeared in front of my eyes. I just thought to myself: "What the..." I just kept going and further ahead I saw a contact go up the horizon a bit further than I imagined. But then the foe that I was chasing also went up against the sky and he was where I imagined it to be (if he had not turned). The other contact that confused me was a Spit. So I had two contacts in front of me and I did not see both, and the 109 was close. He appeared against the sky with clear shape and form and color.

 

In one of the turns in my second dogfight (I was going up and he was going down), I looked down and followed his turn and the impression is that the render is much more faded than it is supposed to be. I thought to myself "I cannot take my eyes off him, or else I will not find him again". And I did happen to lose contact with him in a scissor. And then you need to graze the trees to find him against the sky. As I was over enemy territory, I just went home and never saw him again. And logged off from the server.

 

It spoiled the fun, because I did not even started to train with these aircraft (just setting things up and playing around) and every dogfight is a lesson and exciting. The impression is that you need to focus and tunnel vision into an enemy and don't take your eyes off it (not advisable in combat), and still you often lose them anyway against the terrain -- and all this in a clear / spotless sky.

 

Are they going to fix it? I've seen people asking for bigger labels and there are complaints against visibility in the forum, so is there improvements coming? Because the way it looks, it is not realistic and seems to be just like in 1.5. The impression is that the better contrast and render of the Normandy map helped matters when planes are against the sky or very near, but the chameleon / ghost aircrafts against the terrain persists.

 

I know that some people like it for some reason [poor visibility], but this does not mean it is realistic (it is a simulator after all) or that everyone should bear the burden. I consider it a bug / development flaw. A metal 30X30 feet 7000lb aircraft cannot become a chameleon and disappear nearby unless you are flying in terrible weather. It should be a given.

Edited June 17, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[imacken]

An interesting test is to load up the Cold Start Instant Action Spit in Normandy and look to your right. There is a Spit about 3nm away.

Switch labels on and off and see how easy/hard it is to track it.

[NeilWillis]

Against the ground clutter, even in the real world, spotting targets is bound to be problematic. Look for movement, not shape in those circumstances.

 

ED could simplify things by just making all targets pink so they show up. but that is completely ridiculous. Targets are sometimes easy to lose, it is just how it is, and how it ought to be.

 

One way to keep track of an unsighted target is to predict where he will reappear, and when. It's all part of situational awareness. And that is what makes the difference between kill and be killed.

[imacken]

Against the ground clutter, even in the real world, spotting targets is bound to be problematic. Look for movement, not shape in those circumstances.

 

ED could simplify things by just making all targets pink so they show up. but that is completely ridiculous. Targets are sometimes easy to lose, it is just how it is, and how it ought to be.

 

One way to keep track of an unsighted target is to predict where he will reappear, and when. It's all part of situational awareness. And that is what makes the difference between kill and be killed.

Very true Neil. However, it seems to me that AI planes never lose sight of me!

[SeaW0lf]

ED could simplify things by just making all targets pink.

 

Is this a joke? So all this thread and all the things people are reporting and asking is a joke? I hope not, because we invest time and expectations and money in these things. If you belong in the category of wanting things to be harder than they are, fine, but there are people here who just wants to fly a simulator.

 

After all the complaints it did not change much from 1.5 and this is disappointing to say the least.

[iLOVEwindmills]

Yeah I would not put too much value in those. It's harder to spot things against the ground than against air, but it's clear that DCS does some things that makes it absurdly hard to spot aircraft against terrain.

 

Supposedly things are still changing, so we'll see.

[Bearfoot]

Personally, for me, flying in VR, I think spotting is less of an issue than ID'ing. That's not to say spotting is easy. Just that I generally tend to spot the "dots" satisfactorily enough "for government work", but have to make some really close tracking passes before I can figure out what they are. And then after figuring out they are I: (a) realize I've spent a good 5-10 minutes tracking a good guy or (b) found the bad guy and now am in a terrible position to engage, not to mention there's somebody else shooting at me.

[Roblex]

As someone with real flying experience I can tell you that it is quite easy to miss or lose sight of another nearby aircraft but I agree it is probably worse in DCS. I think the problem is lighting. you can follow an enemy down at only about 600yds range while staring at him and still lose him against the ground because he is so dark and the ground details are the same. In real life, looking down, the other aircraft are often well lit so easier to see. I am not sure what the solution is though as it comes down to definition ie the model only has so many pixels even on a high res monitor. It needs nice crisp edges to show up as well as in real life but with limited definition we get jagged edges and then AA fades the edges to make the jaggies go away. You could increase the contrast by making the land lighter so the dark plane shows up or the plane lighter against the dark ground so it shows up but then people would complain that either the terrain or the aircraft looked washed out.

[SeaW0lf]

I think the problem is lighting. you can follow an enemy down at only about 600yds range while staring at him and still lose him against the ground because he is so dark and the ground details are the same. In real life, looking down, the other aircraft are often well lit so easier to see.

 

Yeah, this is critical. Like In my last flight I was just behind a 109 and he vanished in front of me (300ydr perhaps). He could have made a turn and I would never see him again.

 

Instead of washing out the terrain, I think it would be better to give contrast to the aircraft. Because the 1.5 version was too washed out, even near to the ground. Normandy is better on this regard. But lighting does not seem to be that hard to do. There are good solutions in the market and it is so nice when the aircraft makes a turn and its wings light up. The monitor by itself is a challenge (2D), but they can create ways to mitigate it and make it realistic. For some reason the approach of the game does not take into account the media involved (the monitor).

 

Personally, for me, flying in VR, I think spotting is less of an issue than ID'ing. That's not to say spotting is easy. Just that I generally tend to spot the "dots" satisfactorily enough "for government work", but have to make some really close tracking passes before I can figure out what they are. And then after figuring out they are I: (a) realize I've spent a good 5-10 minutes tracking a good guy or (b) found the bad guy and now am in a terrible position to engage, not to mention there's somebody else shooting at me.

 

It affects game play a great deal. I'm not used to WWII, but I spent years flying multiplayer in WWI aircraft (every day) and I know my way around in a map. DCS is like flying blind most of the time. And I see when other people are having the same problem because of the pattern of their flying. The dynamics are flip sided in multiplayer. It is all towards seeing something like we are flying in haze. But dots I could say is OK now. The problem is near sight / combat range. The rendering is too basic and might not take into account distances? I'm not sure. But it is off-balance a great deal.

 

Yeah I would not put too much value in those. It's harder to spot things against the ground than against air, but it's clear that DCS does some things that makes it absurdly hard to spot aircraft against terrain.

 

Supposedly things are still changing, so we'll see.

 

I hope so, because as it is the game (play) is unfortunately a dud. The impression is that they did not touch the way the near aircraft (with shape) is displayed from 1.5. It just gained a makeup with the new engine.

[inf3rn0]

+1 guy here who is extremely frustrated with the visibility, being someone who exclusively flies on WWII servers, I really hope there will be a fix for this.

I really don't want to give up flying DCS world which provides the best flight combat simulation over a simple but immensely game changing issue of visibility.

[TwojaStara]

+1 guy here who is extremely frustrated with the visibility

+1 too

[Esac_mirmidon]

-1 Here.

[probad]

-1. much room to improve on in terms of fidelity, but visibility is serviceable.

[Ramsay]

+1 Visibility is a game breaker for "within visual range" combat or even just finding your wingman.

 

Bought a second Gazelle last year rather than deal with the poor visibility. We revisited the L-39 and stuck with bad weather NDB (radio) navigation and Flame Out landing procedures. I've just added second copies of the A-10C and M-2000C as they are TGP/radar based (and ED has fixed the TGP somewhat).

 

It's neither realistic or fun to fly around blind as a bat, and no, labels shouldn't be ED's answer for a broken mechanic that worked in 1.2 after CGI/AWAC has directed you to the "merge".

Edited July 17, 2017 by Ramsay

[SeaW0lf]

Today I found a strange behavior in lighting. Looks like the aircraft only lightens up against the Sun when it is in the sun glare radius. In other words, looks like the sun glare and aircraft reflection is binned together, which should not be that way. The wings of an aircraft (especially) can and should light up (at different intensities) if it is facing the Sun, or even luminosity for that matter depending on the clouds cover.

 

I've done turns and turns with a P-51 against two 109s and they never light up, except if they cross the path where the Sun glares in the eyes of the pilot (me) so it seems. Otherwise sometimes there is a little color change to indicate it is facing the Sun, but no glare or not a drastic change in color. It is as if we are flying under a mat canopy in the sky.

 

Spotting cannot be only palette against palette -- it must be compensated for by volume and shade, brightness, reflection and contrast against the terrain. All this taking the Sun in consideration, but I think any 3D model should handle it with ease. Could anyone explain this behavior? I will try to fly more to see if I can see a pattern, but I'm a bit slammed right now.

 

The other problem is that the palette is shaded at close distance. Near sight rendering seems to be a very blend solution that only renders the image of the plane with a single layer. It is almost as in a color blind test -- to spot a colored letter against a similar background. At altitude the contrast is a bit better because the background is faded (still I think it is not near enough), but at low level it really becomes a color blind test.

 

I don't work with 3D, but if this is correct, that reflection is binned to sun glare, something is off. It might need some expert work on this to reproduce how objects behave in space for the human eye. And there are good solutions out there, not many I admit, so it is not just a matter of wanting to make it right, but to allow us players be able to play.

 

Late note: I flew 109s and 190s against the P-51 and the Spit and they seem to have better lightning. Of course the P-51 is more visible, but still something is off. Is the visibility handled by each studio (which might indicate that each module will behave differently no matter if it has a camo skin or not) or it is the same for all?

Edited July 18, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[BadHabit]

ED just has to sanitize themselves and give ultra high priority to visibility above all else.

[SDsc0rch]

*OPTIONS*

 

they need to build in to DCS the ability for the server to choose visibility settings

 

want to see missiles and drop tanks from ten miles? check that box

 

want aircraft difficult to see at three miles?? check THAT box

[NineLine]

ED just has to sanitize themselves and give ultra high priority to visibility above all else.

 

Doesn't makes sense when lighting and the graphics engine are still a WIP....

[BadHabit]

Doesn't make sense that a WIP product is available in a release brunch. Sorry won't bite. And I have zero hopes of this being solved following that road, as many engines may come and go. It is still 2D.

[NineLine]

I've already seen them working on it, so not sure what that is based on... 1.5.7 is old engine, not gonna benefit much from most improvements...