[REPORTED] Model Visibility Issues

[Why485]

Hi Chaps,

 

I know this point comes up now and again however I cannot recall an official response to the issues?

 

Now I have heard that clouds will at some point be upgraded and hopefully solve the sync issue.

 

What about spotting, right now as a VR user unless the label mod that is used is enabled I cannot see anything until I am about to crash into them!

 

Last time I had my eyes checked I had almost perfect vision, that was sometime ago though I admit... :music_whistling: still I have better eyesight than most people that I know even if they are wearing glasses/lenses.

 

So is there any plans to improve spotting, I appreciate as a sim built originally around modern warfare the need for spotting with the Mk1 eyeball was not high on the list however for WWII sim this area needs a lot of work :noexpression:

 

There has never been an official response to the issue from the developers. There has never been acknowledgement that there is even an issue.

 

There may be changes to this situation when 2.5 comes out as it features new lighting which may or may not improve WVR spotting, but anything beyond that is speculation. There is nothing confirmed.

[SeaW0lf]

Agreed. The air-to-air aircraft spotting visibility is the biggest issue for me and will be the deciding factor, after the 'great merge' and edge release, as to whether DCS delivers a flight simulator that I can continue with as my sim of choice. Could be the same for many other WWII air combat sim fans that have dropped by recently to sample what DCS has to offer.

 

I am not interested in modern jets, so WWII and early vintage jets (no missiles) are my passion. I dipped my toe in the DCS waters a short while ago to see if WWII could be delivered by DCS and I hope they can do it; however, current air-to-air spotting is so far from anything simulating real life capability that I may need to return to other flight simulator products if there is no joy for us on this issue.

 

Without feedback from the developers on commitment, progress or intentions regarding this issue, I am losing confidence with each week that goes by as we near the release of the Normandy map and the eventual 'great merge'. I am trying to keep faith with DCS, but the elephant in the room is ever present at the moment.

 

I'm in a similar position and I just logged online a couple times. It is already hard to come from the frantic close encounters of WWI, brushing wings (incomparable), but to face these many issues here is not that promising. But they came a long way from the last version that I had, so who knows... But coming from another sim with similar problems does not help to keep the hopes up.

 

There has never been an official response to the issue from the developers. There has never been acknowledgement that there is even an issue.

 

What I can't understand is that these things are so basic and deal breakers; nonetheless several other unimportant features are developed instead. Perhaps visibility needs a complete code overhaul, hence why they won't touch it? Or is it sort of an easy fix?

Edited March 26, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[klem]

Sithspawn did say at one point that ED are aware and it is being looked at but that was many weeks ago. An update on ED's position and intentions would be very helpful.

 

The main objection is that there is a transition from dot to a/c model where the dot disappears and the model is so weak it cannot be seen so the target 'disappears' for a while. I don't think it is a dot problem but a model rendering problem, perhaps size and colour. Scaling has also been suggested but I don't know ED's view on that.

[TBear]

Would be great if ED ask for suggestions from the Falcon 4 and BMS people...there spotting was great....since late 90s !!!!! :music_whistling:

[gavagai]

Would be great if ED ask for suggestions from the Falcon 4 and BMS people...there spotting was great....since late 90s !!!!! :music_whistling:

 

Some said we should wait and see if 2.0 and impostor-scaling would offer improvements.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140014&page=16

 

ED tried impostor-scaling and, in my opinion, it looked pretty bad. The enlarged sprites would blink in and out of existence at some angles. VR users seemed to appreciate them, though, and I accept their usefulness to accommodate new hardware. Where things went really wrong was when servers were allowed to force clients into using a specific impostor-scaling setting. Giant, cartoon airplanes floating around in the distance became a common sight because servers were forcing large impostors (why???).

 

If a new solution is introduced some day, I hope that paranoia over gaming-advantage does not force everyone into using the same setting in multiplayer again. We have thousands of different hardware configurations, and a little bit of wiggle room in how to represent aircraft visibility is a good thing.

[Cik]

the weirdest thing about the whole thing is that smart-scaling is derived from a freely-available university paper and could probably be replicated in an afternoon by someone of reasonable skill.

 

why we didn't have this a decade ago, that's the real question. it's not as if this is some arcane magic. it's literally right there in several other sims and working perfectly fine across the board.

[Why485]

Some said we should wait and see if 2.0 and impostor-scaling would offer improvements.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140014&page=16

 

ED tried impostor-scaling and, in my opinion, it looked pretty bad. The enlarged sprites would blink in and out of existence at some angles. VR users seemed to appreciate them, though, and I accept their usefulness to accommodate new hardware. Where things went really wrong was when servers were allowed to force clients into using a specific impostor-scaling setting. Giant, cartoon airplanes floating around in the distance became a common sight because servers were forcing large impostors (why???).

 

If a new solution is introduced some day, I hope that paranoia over gaming-advantage does not force everyone into using the same setting in multiplayer again. We have thousands of different hardware configurations, and a little bit of wiggle room in how to represent aircraft visibility is a good thing.

 

While I don't think the impostor system was the greatest solution, it was a workable solution if ED wanted to put in just a little bit more effort into making it work. All the system needed was a few more parameters to make it a little smarter about how it scaled which would have solved most of the issues people had with it.

 

Having the impostors scale down with distance would have solved the oversized planes, and having the impostors scale with both field of view and resolution would have prevented the situation where a lower resolution gives players an advantage. Both of these things are easily doable, as I was able to do them in a mod to the shader files without access to any of the game code. ED could execute those ideas better than I was able to because they can edit game code, they just never seemed remotely interested.

 

That said, a better system would I believe adjust the contrast of the target to make it stand out more, perhaps add some element of glinting to the aircraft frame, and apply some slight (slight!) scaling to keep the identify ranges in line with real life data.

 

I also disagree that it should be optional. Ideally, it would be at its most realistic setting and that's it. If the system works well, nobody will even know it's doing anything. A good example of that is a certain WWII sim that now simulates multiple theaters.

[chihirobelmo]

Another interesting reasearch article I have found recently.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005594

[SeaW0lf]

I also disagree that it should be optional. Ideally, it would be at its most realistic setting and that's it. If the system works well, nobody will even know it's doing anything.

 

+1

[gavagai]

Sorry, there is no one realistic setting when there are dozens of different display sizes and resolutions.

[Cik]

what are you even talking about my man

 

in real life there is no such thing as display sizes and resolutions, so there definitely IS exactly one realistic setting.

 

you may have to abstract it a little but there is no reason anybody should have an advantage while at a specific resolution, if there is such an advantage it is because the system is flawed.

[klem]

what are you even talking about my man

 

in real life there is no such thing as display sizes and resolutions, so there definitely IS exactly one realistic setting.

 

you may have to abstract it a little but there is no reason anybody should have an advantage while at a specific resolution, if there is such an advantage it is because the system is flawed.

 

I think this is what gavagai is saying. It is necessary to achieve a 'realistic' setting across many different resolutions etc., so there can not be one setting. The software must interrogate the hardware and deliver the correct solution.

[NineLine]

Visibility is still a WIP, but I think the push is for issues holding back the Great Merge. So we will have to hold tight till we get there. They could do something now, then some shaders change and we are back to zero again. ED understands its importance for sure...

 

I would say though for WWII, that GCI is very important for a good experience and for finding targets....

[Why485]

I think this is what gavagai is saying. It is necessary to achieve a 'realistic' setting across many different resolutions etc., so there can not be one setting. The software must interrogate the hardware and deliver the correct solution.

 

Yes. Ideally, the game would take resolution and field of view into account to reach a "close enough" solution. Again, I believe there are other sims well within the close enough realm, so there's no reason why DCS wouldn't be able to do this.

[OnlyforDCS]

Yes I believe it is exactly like Sithspawn said, it makes logical sense too.

 

Unfortunately the stable release branch of DCS is basically a dinosaur. They patch it because they have to fix and add funcionality to existing and new modules but any new features that affect the whole of DCS World such as model visibility fixes, or clouds or other WIP features would probably be a waste of time to code, as they would have to redo it again in 2.X and probably a few more iterations in 2.5.

 

2.5 needs to get here ASAP, and 1.5.X can't die soon enough. Patience is hard, but if there is one thing I've learned in my years as an ED customer, it's that patience is required to stay a sane and happy ED customer :)

[SeaW0lf]

That is good to know. Let's hope they unify all the versions soon enough and start to build up from then on.

[Roblex]

While I agree that DCS needs to do something about the vis problem, I am not sure I can agree with the people saying WWTE "Most of the other flight sims have found a solution so why can't DCS?" Battle Of Stalingrad/Moscow etc. had bad vis problems last time I flew (a while ago I admit) and Cliffs Of Dover is better than it was but not 'perfect'

 

The problem we are facing is that commercial developers think single-player is the most important aspect and that single players will be happy having icons turned on and all enemies showing on the map. CLOD only concentrated on fixing the visibility and adding sun-glints etc. because it was written by players who wanted to fly online with no icons. DCS has always had radar and smoke trails and live maps to fall back on and are not used to prop pilots wanting to fight online using just their Mk.1 eyeballs.

[SharpeXB]

I play mostly SP with icons off. They spoil the graphics and the challenge.

[Talisman_VR]

I play mostly SP with icons off. They spoil the graphics and the challenge.

 

I play SP with icons off too SharpeXB :), but my main passion and the reason I am here is MP flying with other humans and against other humans, with as much immersion as possible :joystick:.

A scripted SP mission with AI is much easier and I like to use these for practise and trials to hone my skills for MP, which is the big deal for me and the people I fly with. Different stokes for different folks and all that, I am pleased that people have the choice and that some only want to fly SP with AI and that is catered for, but the visibility issue is killing in the competitive MP human pilot environment WWII style. The folks I fly with would rather not have a totally unrealistic navigation map showing the position of our own and other peoples aircraft, we don't want icons/labels on aircraft in the sky, we want to fly stick and rudder by the seat of our pants using the Mk 1 eyeball.

I totally agree with you SharpeXB, icons spoil the graphics and the challenge, but the challenge is harder in the unscripted action WWII MP human player environment and I worry that this visibility issue has the potential to fail the MP community on the Normandy map. I so wish the developers well in this regard and dearly hope they can fix the visibility issue as soon as possible.

 

Salute and happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[cichlidfan]

The problem we are facing is that commercial developers think single-player is the most important aspect ...

 

Since that is where most people fly, it is a reasonable thing for a dev to think.

[SeaW0lf]

The folks I fly with would rather not have a totally unrealistic navigation map showing the position of our own and other peoples aircraft, we don't want icons/labels on aircraft in the sky, we want to fly stick and rudder by the seat of our pants using the Mk 1 eyeball.

 

+1

 

 

 

I might be wrong, but I think in this day and age multiplayer is the thermometer of a combat flight simulator.

[Talisman_VR]

Since that is where most people fly, it is a reasonable thing for a dev to think.

 

It would be a shame for the devs work to be lost to a considerable chunk of the potential customer base for lack of quality air-to-air visibility.

The WWII MP enthusiasts that I fly with have been attracted to dip their toe in DCS by the WWII project. We fly many hours a week on flight sims and are mad keen. We fly with each other as squads, we fly against each other as squads, we meet up at airshows and sometimes travel between countries to do so. I would have thought the developers might see our community as a valuable resource to be tapped and want to attract us as customer stakeholders for a long term future.

No one likes to feel that they might be being treated as a second class customer, particularly if all they are looking for is an improvement in product quality for the good of all concerned.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited March 28, 2017 by 56RAF_Talisman
grammer

[NineLine]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3092516&postcount=438

[Talisman_VR]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3092516&postcount=438

 

Understood. Holding tight.

 

Thank you and happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[OnlyforDCS]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3092516&postcount=438

 

Indeed. Thanks for the heads up Sith.

 

What follows is a polite request intended for all owners of large(quality) monitors or rather players who prefer the current system:

 

I understand that you wish to keep the current system, and won't go into the reasons why. I will respect your wishes. Please understand that there are people who have serious issues with seeing enemy planes within visual range and at distance. These people may have hardware issues, play at lower resolution, or as is my case have vision problems and deteriorating eyesight due to medical problems.

 

If ED can at some point provide an optional solution for us, we would be happy.

 

My request is this, please don't use this thread to push for a "status quo" because you are happy with it as it is. All we are asking for is an option to enable some kind of visual aids (that don't feel like cheats, such as labels). Please respect our wishes just as we respect yours.

 

Thank you.

Edited March 29, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
spelling