[REPORTED] Model Visibility Issues

[Reflected]

+10000

 

After the DM this is the biggest issue in DCS for me. I turned on the model enlargement. It makes planes crazy big at large distance and large FOV. Very unrealistic, but at least I can see them. But as soon as I get closer they disappear, depending on the zoom. Try to attack them from above, and you have absolutely zero chance of spotting anything.

[Why485]

Hi.

 

I am getting more and more into DCS Multiplayer as of late. Which is great, but one thing that bothers me a bit is Air 2 Air visibility, more so than in any other sim I played. I think the air to air visibility in DCS 1.5 needs to be improved by a substantial amount.

There are multiple issues with the A2A spotting in DCS 1.5 at the moment that make dog-fighting significantly less enjoyable. In this thread I would like to point some of them out as well as give a few ideas of what could be improved.

The Model enlargement doesn't help in the situations I am talking about btw, because the planes are to close to be enlarged, and should be big enough to be seen anyway.

 

Welcome to DCS, where the planes are invisible and it's hailed as realism.

 

As you can tell by the swift moderation into the nearest garbage bin megathread, this is a very, very longstanding issue of DCS. The recent (as of 1.5.0, from December of last year) model enlargement helps, but it's a significantly flawed implementation that ends with most servers disabling the setting completely, making its existence pointless. Aircraft visibility has been, and remains, one of my greatest issues with DCS for years.

 

There are many examples of threads over the years about this. Here's a good one from three years ago and before 1.5:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101143

 

I don't know what much else there is to add to this, as everything that can be said on the subject has been said a million times over. The biggest problem is that there has been absolutely zero messaging on this subject from ED. ED is in general very tight lipped about everything, so we have no idea what their plans are to address this, if any plans exist, or if they even consider this to be a problem.

 

I know one of the reasons you left a certain other game was because of the unresponsive and uncommunicative developers, but you'll find no such reprieve here. If anything, ED are even more tight lipped than a certain snail themed developer.

 

Something I'd recommend reading, or at least skimming through, is this paper on aircraft visibility and identification done for military flight simulators, and one method of compensating for the difficulty of spotting/identifying targets in a sim versus in real life. This is the paper that a certain F-16 themed flight simulator's excellent smart scaling is based off of, a system where the realistic setting is "on" rather than "off".

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwis8d_Cv_jLAhVCJR4KHa58CSUQFgg9MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA414893&usg=AFQjCNHKm798R5vMZNOJFfz5dxX2GJwwHA&sig2=YAF950PMFgtBbKimsif_Bw&bvm=bv.118443451,d.dmo&cad=rjt

 

2.5 is supposedly going to see some big changes to the lighting engine. Will this give more contrast to targets? Will the engine updates in 2.5 help keep planes from apparently disappearing? Will ED include some system in 2.5 to work as a better model visibility setting? Nobody knows, and we likely won't know until it's released.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Why485

[CoBlue]

Hi.

Now, lets talk about what could be improved.

At the moment I would say there are two main problems:

First, geometry of planes sometimes disappears completely, or blinks in and out of existence.

Might be when geometry like wings get smaller than one pixel and dont render anymore. (this should never happen unless you want to simulate pilots with a massive visual impairment) Might be a different problem too.

Here is an example. A F-86 Saber at from behind at a range of about 800 meters.

Geometry keeps appearing and disappearing

Well done Sir! thank you for the pictures & summery :thumbup: it shows exactly the shortcomings with current visibility/spotting.

For me the spotting is the nr:1 deterrent for getting new modules.

[Talisman_VR]

Welcome to DCS, where the planes are invisible and it's hailed as realism.

 

As you can tell by the swift moderation into the nearest garbage bin megathread, this is a very, very longstanding issue of DCS. The recent (as of 1.5.0, from December of last year) model enlargement helps, but it's a significantly flawed implementation that ends with most servers disabling the setting completely, making its existence pointless. Aircraft visibility has been, and remains, one of my greatest issues with DCS for years.

 

There are many examples of threads over the years about this. Here's a good one from three years ago and before 1.5:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101143

 

I don't know what much else there is to add to this, as everything that can be said on the subject has been said a million times over. The biggest problem is that there has been absolutely zero messaging on this subject from ED. ED is in general very tight lipped about everything, so we have no idea what their plans are to address this, if any plans exist, or if they even consider this to be a problem.

 

I know one of the reasons you left a certain other game was because of the unresponsive and uncommunicative developers, but you'll find no such reprieve here. If anything, ED are even more tight lipped than a certain snail themed developer.

 

Something I'd recommend reading, or at least skimming through, is this paper on aircraft visibility and identification done for military flight simulators, and one method of compensating for the difficulty of spotting/identifying targets in a sim versus in real life. This is the paper that a certain F-16 themed flight simulator's excellent smart scaling is based off of, a system where the realistic setting is "on" rather than "off".

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwis8d_Cv_jLAhVCJR4KHa58CSUQFgg9MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA414893&usg=AFQjCNHKm798R5vMZNOJFfz5dxX2GJwwHA&sig2=YAF950PMFgtBbKimsif_Bw&bvm=bv.118443451,d.dmo&cad=rjt

 

2.5 is supposedly going to see some big changes to the lighting engine. Will this give more contrast to targets? Will the engine updates in 2.5 help keep planes from apparently disappearing? Will ED include some system in 2.5 to work as a better model visibility setting? Nobody knows, and we likely won't know until it's released.

 

Thank goodness more people are giving this issue an airing again. I was beginning to think this issue was a bit like that story about the Emperors new clothes; the one were the people are supposed to all agree that his new clothes are great, he believes he looks great too, but really he is stark naked and it takes a young street urchin boy to blurt out the truth during a parade and break the whole pretence.

 

This issue is one of the main reason my squad (and many others I suspect) is not transferring to DCS as the flight simulator of choice. It is the main reason why all the flash sales and new aircraft models are wasted on me (I will make and exception for the Spitfire), I am waiting to see if Edge will deliver the air-to-air visibility improvements needed before I fully commit to this simulator. So far I have only the Mig-15 and P51D.

 

When flying with others on TS in MP this issue is by far the main thing talked about that people are not happy with. I have never met anyone on TS in MP that has a good word to say about DCS air-to-air visibility.

 

Better air-to-air visibility is the main thing I have been waiting for edge to deliver and so far I have seen nothing to encourage me. In fact quite the opposite. The imposter system leaves me almost lost for words as I cant help but find it is such an ugly and unnatural attempt at a solution IMHO.

 

I so want to be able to fully commit to DCS, but this issue is so frustrating and we appear to be getting so little recognition of the issue from DCS, which makes me as a customer feel somewhat perplexed to say the least.

 

Please, please, please DCS communicate with us on this topic and let us know what is happening.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[SharpeXB]

Model Enlargement was not a good idea to begin with. It's devisive in multiplayer and doesn't solve the issue. And EDs work on it has just precluded working on better solutions. What's simply needed is better color, contrast, shading, reflections etc.

I'd say scrap Model Enlargement altogether and develop something that works better in the rendering qualities. There's another flight sim out there which features white painted planes fighting over a white snowy landscape. And the visibility is superb. So do something like that.

[Schmidtfire]

Model Enlargement was not a good idea to begin with. It's devisive in multiplayer and doesn't solve the issue. And EDs work on it has just precluded working on better solutions. What's simply needed is better color, contrast, shading, reflections etc.

I'd say scrap Model Enlargement altogether and develop something that works better in the rendering qualities. There's another flight sim out there which features white painted planes fighting over a white snowy landscape. And the visibility is superb. So do something like that.

 

+1 !!!

[Talisman_VR]

Model Enlargement was not a good idea to begin with. It's devisive in multiplayer and doesn't solve the issue. And EDs work on it has just precluded working on better solutions. What's simply needed is better color, contrast, shading, reflections etc.

I'd say scrap Model Enlargement altogether and develop something that works better in the rendering qualities. There's another flight sim out there which features white painted planes fighting over a white snowy landscape. And the visibility is superb. So do something like that.

 

Very much agree with this. I would definitely celebrate a decision by DCS to discontinue Model Enlargement for more fundamental changes to make model visibility much more realistic.

I find it hard to believe that DCS considered Model Enlargement it the first place and hope that it was just a stop-gap attempt until they produced a solution that makes the grade.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[panther494th]

just dont need f5 makes it to easy not real

[iLOVEwindmills]

I think model enlargement is essential if they are not going to put a dot over long distance contact. There is not much point in making color/contrast/shading/reflections improvements when the game is not drawing a single pixel on your screen on which to display those effects. It doesn't make much sense to see a reflection on an object you can't even see in the first place.

 

Not to say that those things shouldn't be added, but they should probably be added on top of an improved imposter system. Whether such a system can/will be made, or if ED are even aware that it is necessary/whether ED believes its fine as is, nobody knows.

 

That's the part that hurts.

[Decibel dB]

just dont need f5 makes it to easy not real

 

What?

[majapahit]

Hi.

 

I am getting more and more into DCS Multiplayer as of late. Which is great, but one thing that bothers me a bit is Air 2 Air visibility, more so than in any other sim I played. I think the air to air visibility in DCS 1.5 needs to be improved by a substantial amount.

There are multiple issues with the A2A spotting in DCS 1.5 at the moment that make dog-fighting significantly less enjoyable. In this thread I would like to point some of them out as well as give a few ideas of what could be improved.

The Model enlargement doesn't help in the situations I am talking about btw, because the planes are to close to be enlarged, and should be big enough to be seen anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, with threads like this it is not uncommon to blame the player.

Get glasses, learn to play, this is how camo paint works and so on.

So let me give you some examples of the issues with the current A2A visibility in DCS.

 

 

Here for example I am attacking a Mig-23. Well, I take your word for it radar....

 

 

 

Here is a Mig-23 right behind my Buddys F-15C.

Just right behind it, cant miss it....

 

 

In case you missed it anyway.

http://i.imgur.com/vTP9j72.jpg

 

 

 

And here we got a nice picture of a P-51 climbing up behind my Fw-190 and about to open fire.

 

 

 

Its in the Blue circle, the black bar below represents the wingspan.

http://i.imgur.com/QnFEvxw.jpg

 

 

 

 

And last but not least.

Here we have a Mig-15 over the Green field in about the middle of the screen.

The one a bit to the left and up.

 

 

Ok ok, thats a bit unfair, there are a lot of green fields here, let me help.

This one, right in the middle. Distance about 1.5-2km.

 

 

Still difficult, lets zoom in a bit.

Oh, there he is.

http://i.imgur.com/Rrdqm9E.jpg

 

 

 

Well, I hope those example show that there is indeed a problem. And not a small one.

I always try to get friends interested in DCS, but when doing some dogfight training they often leave frustrated because they can barely see me even when they are using F2 and Bad-Lock view to help.

And I am not talking about people new to flight sims in general btw.

 

Now, lets talk about what could be improved.

At the moment I would say there are two main problems:

 

First, geometry of planes sometimes disappears completely, or blinks in and out of existence.

Might be when geometry like wings get smaller than one pixel and dont render anymore. (this should never happen unless you want to simulate pilots with a massive visual impairment) Might be a different problem too.

Here is an example. A F-86 Saber at from behind at a range of about 800 meters.

Geometry keeps appearing and disappearing, good luck getting an ID on that plane.

 

 

 

 

Geometry should never disapear.

Even when wings, tail sections and so on get thinner than 1 pixel. Than it should still be drawn with at least one pixel thickness.

 

 

 

Here I made two quick comparison pictures in Paint between what we currently see and what we in my opinion should see.

Here I am in a BF 109 and have another BF 109 in front of me.

As you can see Wings and vertical stabilizer dont or barley render, even though at this range the wingspan of the plane would be high enough that you could still see them.

 

Here is how it should look like.

 

 

 

A second problem is the color of the planes. It seems that at the moment most planes in DCS when to far away for there actual color to render, default to a light color tone, which is very difficult to see over most textures and blends in with the background extremely well.

Almost like a chameleon.

 

Here are two examples.

Here you can see the silver Mig-15 without problem.

 

 

But change the zoom just a little bit, and it is almost invisible. It seems to have taken a light grey blue color that blends in with the background extremely well.

The plane is still in the same spot.

 

Here the same with the previous example over green field.

Nice and visible.

 

Change zoom a bit, suddenly light grey-green, almost impossible to see.

 

A bit more and its just gone.

http://i.imgur.com/mT1AB8y.jpg

 

 

In order to improve this, the “defaul” color that most planes seem to get needs to be a lot darker, and lose the chameleon effect.

 

Again, a bit paint magic to show that.

 

Here we have the picuture with my buddys F-15 and a Mig-23 behind him how it looks now.

 

And this is in my opinion more how it should look like.

 

 

 

 

Just my two cents on the current A2A spotting situation.

I very much hope that we see some large improvements here soon, or with 2.5 at the latest.

Because the current portrayal is not realistic and makes it really hard to get people interested in DCS dog-fighting.

 

exactly,

well done

:thumbup:

[SharpeXB]

The Model Enlargement concept was not a good idea to begin with because it doesn't address the real reason why spotting targets on a PC monitor is difficult. It has nothing to do with size and more to do with the picture or video quality. The range of color and contrast.

The real solution for this is coming soon in Ultra HD + HDR video. It's here now in displays, games, discs and streaming video. Only a matter of time till DCS upgrades to it as well.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173243

 

The future is higher resolution displays or VR headsets with a much greater range of color and contrast. Model Enlargement was a solution borrowed from 20 year old PC games and attempting it in today's world. Not a good solution on so many levels.

Edited September 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Ktulu2]

Well BMS solved the problem so there certainly are ways around other than 50000000$ screens

[SharpeXB]

Well BMS solved the problem so there certainly are ways around other than 50000000$ screens

Yeah Falcon's solution was from the days of 4:3 400x600 10" monitors.

4K+HDR is the new standard for video and will be as universal as 1080p is now. And the screens will be as cheap as 1080p ones too.

[Kaszub]

Yeah Falcon's solution was from the days of 4:3 400x600 10" monitors.

4K+HDR is the new standard for video and will be as universal as 1080p is now. And the screens will be as cheap as 1080p ones too.

 

Let's welcome our new friend in the community, where "two more weeks" is not only an answer, but a philosophy and a way of life :). But being serious, maybe in 5 years. Until that moment, we need a solution for that now, even if the solution is 20 years old.

[SharpeXB]

DCS needs better rendering quality. Even within the specs of current monitors.

The Model Enlargement is essentially the same thing Falcon did and it doesn't help really. Also it was probably mentioned earlier in this thread, DCS cannot literally scale the LOD models as that affects their radar cross section.

Under conditions of good contrast, distant aircraft in DCS are very visible. I can see my A-10 wingman 5 miles away without even using the zoom. But that assumes a dark spot against the sky or a cloud. It's about contrast, not size.

Also HDR isn't that far away, the last thing to adopt it will be broadcast TV. But streaming video Blu-Ray discs and games have it already. The displays are almost as cheap as 1080p.

The new line of Pascal GPUs support it right now.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-goes-full-in-with-hdr-support-for-games-and-4k-streaming-for-movies/

Edited September 5, 2016 by SharpeXB

[iLOVEwindmills]

Considering we currently see afterburners as 'dots' even at long distance it seems that it should be technically very possible to simply put a small dot over the enemy.

[GGTharos]

The 'dot' was done before and all it resulted in was radar-off 'dot hunting'. You didn't need sensors because the dot could be spotted quite far when zoomed in.

[hughlb]

Did anyone else notice the bloom effect visibile in the Nevada screenshots from today's update?! If this is to do with the spec map, then perhaps we can finally get the sun glinting off aircraft in 2.5. Now that would help visibility (and realism) wouldn't it :thumbup:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2896320#post2896320

[iLOVEwindmills]

The 'dot' was done before and all it resulted in was radar-off 'dot hunting'. You didn't need sensors because the dot could be spotted quite far when zoomed in.

 

When was this done?

 

The idea would be that you wouldn´t see the dot at too long a distance obviously.

[GGTharos]

As far back as LOMAC.

[Why485]

Square wheels don't work, so we shouldn't bother with wheels.

[probad]

in regards to this issue, it's more like "wheels are but a part of an airplane"

 

an airplane's visibility changes vastly with varying conditions, an expedient solution like the dot doesnt even begin to properly address it.

[Why485]

in regards to this issue, it's more like "wheels are but a part of an airplane"

 

an airplane's visibility changes vastly with varying conditions, an expedient solution like the dot doesnt even begin to properly address it.

 

Which is why nobody is suggesting a simple dot. There are realistic ways to do this, but nobody wants to even try it because somebody once did it poorly in the past.

[GGTharos]

Square wheels don't work, so we shouldn't bother with square wheels.

 

Square wheels don't work, so we shouldn't bother with wheels.