[REPORTED] Model Visibility Issues

[CoBlue]

Hi,

Hope you guys test enough these values and if you believe they're wrong change them as you want, I'm only a player as you all are and I'm only looking towards realism. I'm no developer, but this is what I find optimum due to some limitations regarding the target's transparency with range.

i

Thanx, I didn't get the results as I wanted, after trying different nr's.

Your nr's worked best though & it was some improvement with the model disappearing in front, but I couldn't spot from even 10nm/18km.

 

I want the visibility to be as it was when small/medium/large options were 1:st introduced in the beginning of 1,5 open beta.

 

ED needs to fix this & why don't they bother to even comment, it's been 2 patches already?

[Why485]

Thanx, I didn't get the results as I wanted, after trying different nr's.

Your nr's worked best though & it was some improvement with the model disappearing in front, but I couldn't spot from even 10nm/18km.

 

I want the visibility to be as it was when small/medium/large options were 1:st introduced in the beginning of 1,5 open beta.

 

ED needs to fix this & why don't they bother to even comment, it's been 2 patches already?

 

If you want the 1.5 settings you can use those.

 

They were:

 

Normal:

Maxsize: 12

Minsize: 3

AlphaExp: 0.5

 

Enlarged:

Maxsize: 12

Minsize: 5

AlphaExp: 0.25

 

Nothing has changed in terms of rendering since 1.5.0, so those values will have the exact same effect now as they did when 1.5.0 first came out.

 

1.5.1 is what introduced the small, medium, and large settings. 1.5.1's settings were also much bigger all round. If those are what you are referring to, they were:

 

Small:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 6.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

 

Medium:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 8.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

 

Large:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 10.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

Edited January 25, 2016 by Why485

[CoBlue]

1.5.1 is what introduced the small, medium, and large settings. 1.5.1's settings were also much bigger all round. If those are what you are referring to, they were:

 

Small:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 6.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

 

Medium:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 8.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

 

Large:

Maxsize: 20

Minsize: 10.0

AlphaExp: 0.0

 

Thank you so very much :thumbup: This is exactly what I've been looking for all this time, this is perfect, BIG Thanx again :smilewink:

[Maverick Su-35S]

To be more specific, the "maxsize" is the number of pixels a unit should get to have on a screen in order to transfer the model between the 2 shapes and "minsize" would be the size in pixels that the constant dimension 2D size would get or what is the reference for "size"? The text in the impostors.lua file doesn't tell what "size" actually means.

 

Thanks!

[Why485]

To be more specific, the "maxsize" is the number of pixels a unit should get to have on a screen in order to transfer the model between the 2 shapes and "minsize" would be the size in pixels that the constant dimension 2D size would get or what is the reference for "size"? The text in the impostors.lua file doesn't tell what "size" actually means.

 

Thanks!

 

Minsize is the smallest the imposter is allowed to get. It's measured in pixels.

[Maverick Su-35S]

... It's measured in pixels.

 

This was important, thanks! It is possibly important to have little difference in the size between the 2 models when transition occurs, so that as the target gets closer or further you should barely notice the difference, otherwise it would look ugly wouldn't it? Hence, the difference between the number of pixels at which the 3D model turns 2D and the number of pixels the 2D model should have (which turns to how big it would look like) should be minimal (0 difference if possible). So I don't know why, for example, a Maxsize of 20 and a Minsize of 8.0 would be a good idea if you see a big difference at the transition between the models.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Maverick Su-35S

[gavagai]

Do these types of changes stick in multiplayer? The current values have broken the transition from long range imposter to the normal 3d model.

[Why485]

Do these types of changes stick in multiplayer? The current values have broken the transition from long range imposter to the normal 3d model.

 

They do if the server is enforcing the whatever setting you modified. E.g. if you modified the medium values and the server is using small then you'll see whatever you have small settings at. Personally, I like taking the minsize and just multiplying it by 2 for each of the relevant sizes. This way you still have the official imposter size, but without the awful and inconsistent problems with the current settings.

 

This is fixed in 2.0.1 and (presumably) will be in 1.5.3 as well. The settings are changing to a compromise between what it was in 1.5.1 (when they were most visible) and what they are now. You'll also be able to tell what setting the server is using in the browser.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Why485

[gavagai]

I tried changing the values and don't see any difference. The file is not set to read-only.:dunno:

[Why485]

I tried changing the values and don't see any difference. The file is not set to read-only.:dunno:

 

You can try and set something totally silly as a sanity check like maxsize of 256 and minsize of 128. Part of the problem is that there's so much ambiguity with what setting is applied. I wouldn't be surprised if most servers aren't even aware of what setting the server is at because of how unintuitive it is to set it and there's no good way to check.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Why485

[gavagai]

I'm trying it out in single player. I did try some crazy values and still don't see any difference.

 

I guess I have to wait for the update for the WW2 stuff to be playable.

[Why485]

I'm trying it out in single player. I did try some crazy values and still don't see any difference.

 

I guess I have to wait for the update for the WW2 stuff to be playable.

 

What if you create a new mission in the mission editor, save that mission, and test through that mission? Kind of a weird long shot, but I'm curious if that would work.

[gavagai]

Got it to work. Even with notepad++ it wasn't saving as 1020bytes. I had to remove a few digits to drop it back to 1020.

[CiPherX]

In my opinion the imposters work very well for air units, however they need tweaking for ground units since that ones remain very large even at great distances. They produce a blurry dot that can be seen for several kilometers. It's a pity that ED does not address the problem seriously.

[Why485]

Here are the new impostor settings as of 2.0.1 (and eventually 1.5.3):

 

old value -> new value

 

Small

maxSize 8 -> 16

minSize 4.0 -> 4.0

alphaExp 0.75 -> 0.20

 

Medium

maxSize 12 -> 16

minSize 6.0 -> 8.0

alphaExp 0.5 -> 0.15

 

Large

maxSize 12 -> 16

minSize 8.0 -> 10.0

alphaExp 0.15 -> 0.10

 

The new maxSize settings mean that the flickering and impostors completely disappearing at some aspects should now be fixed. Now, you'll get a small anti-aliased sprite versus the very crude approximations that often ended up looking like a bar, separated dots, or sometimes literally nothing at all. Overall, this change means that visibility should be much more consistent across the board.

 

Or, in picture form, this doesn't happen anymore. They will now look like planes or coherent small dots depending on the settings/distance.

 

The generally larger minsize means obviously that stuff is easier to see. Personally I think 10.0 is too big if nothing else has changed, but I guess on the other hand it means that this setting actually means something. Medium is fairly realistic to me at 2560x1440 (if a bit too large), but at 1920x1080, medium is equivalent to large at 2560x1440.

 

The alphaExp changes mean that the imposters are easier to see in the distance versus 1.5.2/2.0.0. Small in particular should make distant objects appear as little dots versus identifiable objects.

 

These are all good changes. This fixes the issues introduced in 1.5.2, and I believe that (at least at 1440p) these are sensible values going forward. I also have to thank ED for finally making this option visible in the server browser. It will remove the ambiguity of people basing their opinions on unknown settings.

 

Unfortunately, there are no other changes to the rendering as far as I've been able to tell. If ED had fixed the problem where the apparent size of an object depends on your resolution, then this patch would have been golden for the model visibility setting.

 

This is a screenshot I took today in 2.0.1

 

Unfortunately, that is not that case. I must once again reiterate that until this gets fixed, and it is a trivially easy thing to fix, then we cannot even begin to agree on what is most realistic. We can only make compromises or just build the settings around an assumed resolution (likely 1080p) and tell everybody else to deal with it. There is also the elephant in the room of the profoundly negative effect that this inconsistency has on multiplayer servers and its players.

 

Other fixes that would help to make this a universal solution to the visibility problem would be separate settings for ground units, and making imposters fade with distance.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Why485

[SharpeXB]

So I finally was able to update to 1.5 and try this out. On ground targets so far.

At UHD all the settings are so small it makes only a very slight effect. The largest setting might be too noticeable as it actually makes far away targets easier to see. But the overall effect is still slight. And this test was using a light colored grass background with dark vehicles. Those I could see in v1.2 from even a slant range at 14,000'

The way this feature plays in 4K is really not so relevant in any case since it's not common.

Bottom line I can see these targets in any setting.

[lokodehortaleza]

Agreed. I bought a 1440p display mainly for DCS, but now it's almost impossible for me to spot enemy planes and ground targets. Lowering (!) my screen resolution actually improves visibility, and that's just ridiculous. Kudos to Why485 for trying to fix this problem.

[Why485]

It's more than just a bug. It's a pretty complex problem because the impostor system as currently implemented has a few very critical flaws. I'm just going to copy/paste most of what I already said in that other thread, as I'm a bit tired of repeating myself ad nauseum on the topic.

 

While 2.0.1 and soon 1.5.3 will fix the inconsistency issues that 1.5.2/2.0.0 introduced, ED has still only been making tweaks to a fundamentally flawed system. No matter what settings they find, they will always have shortcomings in certain scenarios, be it at extreme ranges, at certain resolutions, and so on.

 

I've long maintained that model visibility is one of the most important issues facing DCS. I'm very happy that ED has finally decided to address it, but I'm not satisfied with the solution. Ideally, it should be something that is robust enough that it works equally well across all platforms, and provides a realistic level of visibility. Prior to EDGE, this was an atrocious shortcoming of DCS, and while it's now significantly better, the system is hampered by its own flaws which in turn causes many servers to disable it for various understandable reasons.

 

Here are the two essential changes needed in order to make this the solution DCS needs:

 

1. Objects MUST become harder to see with distance.

 

When this doesn't happen, you get situations like the above picture where you see ground targets from ridiculous distances the size of football stadiums, and 200ft long F-15s taking off from runways 50km away. It's primarily a scaling problem. Not only is this unrealistic, but it also just looks strange and immersion breaking.

 

2. Resolution must NOT significantly impact the ability to see objects.

 

This is absolutely critical as if everybody is seeing something different, then nobody can even begin to discuss what's realistic or not. I'm also very adverse to the idea of punishing somebody in an area so important as seeing your target for reasons largely out of their control. In the current system, the lower your resolution the bigger your impostors. Before the model visibility setting in 1.2, the higher your resolution, the better you could see.

 

Additionally, if it were up to me, this would also be a system that is simply on or off, with the default being on. For those that would rather play with it off for one reason or another, they should have that option. However it should be designed so that everybody runs the same settings, everybody sees the same results, and servers default to running with it on.

[GGTharos]

Default off until it:

 

1) Separates ground units from air units

2) Is realistic. Your mod is actually over-done, even though you believe you were conservative.

 

You can pick up a MiG-29 at 7nm if you know exactly what to look (specifically, TD on target, pull into HUD to see), you won't see his wingman even though he's close by because there's nothing to point him out to you. That's from real-life, missiles-in the air combat experience (no, not mine).

 

Your chances of picking up an aircraft outside of 7nm should be zero-ish. Not interested in going back into the good-old 'turn off the radar and hunt dots' era.

 

The main concern is visibility inside 3-4-5nm, and even then, there's plenty of testimony that says a head-on/tail-on MiG-21 would 'disappear' at a little over 2nm even as you were staring right at him.

[Why485]

Default off until it:

 

1) Separates ground units from air units

2) Is realistic. Your mod is actually over-done, even though you believe you were conservative.

 

You can pick up a MiG-29 at 7nm if you know exactly what to look (specifically, TD on target, pull into HUD to see), you won't see his wingman even though he's close by because there's nothing to point him out to you. That's from real-life, missiles-in the air combat experience (no, not mine).

 

Your chances of picking up an aircraft outside of 7nm should be zero-ish. Not interested in going back into the good-old 'turn off the radar and hunt dots' era.

 

The main concern is visibility inside 3-4-5nm, and even then, there's plenty of testimony that says a head-on/tail-on MiG-21 would 'disappear' at a little over 2nm even as you were staring right at him.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because I completely disagree with your assessment and there's just as much testimonial to the opposite of what you just said from pilots and ATC personnel, and I doubt there's anything either of us can do to convince the other.

 

I will give you that ED's current implementation is extremely flawed, and I spent some time trying to see if I could separate ground for air targets but unfortunately that's something ED will have to do themselves.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Why485

[GGTharos]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because I completely disagree with your assessment and there's just as much testimonial to the opposite of what you just said from pilots and ATC personnel, and I doubt there's anything either of us can do to convince the other.

 

Sure, we can disagree.

 

I will give you that ED's current implementation is extremely flawed, and I spent some time trying to see if I could separate ground for air targets but unfortunately that's something ED will have to do themselves.

I think you did pretty good work.

[Rounin]

Your chances of picking up an aircraft outside of 7nm should be zero-ish.

 

I must be superhuman or something then.

[tobaschi]

well, i think the best solution is to give people the possibility to adjust that by their own.

[GGTharos]

You regularly pick up non-contrailing fighter jets from the cockpit of your fighter jet beyond 7nm by just looking around?

 

I must be superhuman or something then.

[Petchyboy]

11yrs of flying I don't think I've ever picked up traffic outside of 6-7nm that's a fighter or similar size, even when I get Atc position reference...inside 3-4nm I can keep visual with any size traffic which in dcs I can't...makes dogfighting extremely hard and unrealistic on a 46" screen at 1080p siting right in front of it. Will try this mod and see how it goes though.

 

Thanks for your work.