VTB display size

[sedenion]

I don't know if it's hard to modify but, since the VTB is already pretty small, it would be better if the display take the entire space of the VTB screen, to be more lisible... but if all is hard-coded, so be it...

 

 

 

[Manuel_108]

Uuuhm pretty sure it's supposed to be that way.

 

Edit: Here is the real one. It appears that the real screen is bigger indeed. Also some info is displayed in yellow text.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Manuel_108

[sedenion]

Uuuhm pretty sure it's supposed to be that way.

 

Huu... I think, i remember... i'm pretty sure that in reality, the VTB is not on a virtual cockpit displayed on a 24" screen with 80° FOV and pixellisation...

 

Edit: Here is the real one. It appears that the real screen is bigger indeed.

 

Thanks, Ô God of the Realism...

[myHelljumper]

Huu... I think, i remember... i'm pretty sure that in reality, the VTB is not on a virtual cockpit displayed on a 24" screen with 80° FOV and pixellisation...

 

 

 

Thanks, Ô God of the Realism...

 

WTF !!?

[Koriel]

Huu... I think, i remember... i'm pretty sure that in reality, the VTB is not on a virtual cockpit displayed on a 24" screen with 80° FOV and pixellisation...

 

 

 

Thanks, Ô God of the Realism...

 

+1

[CHRISXTR3M3]

Metal 2 Mesh has a better quality radar. This is what I have seen from real radar pictures as well I will edit with the one I found as soon as I find it again. Different colorization used and look at the tracking info and real time tracking when changing heading etc.

 

[myHelljumper]

This is a RDY radar display, the Mirage 2000C got a RDI radar.

 

Metal 2 mesh put a RDY radar with a RDM radar control panel in a plane that have a RDI.

 

Edit : And the DCS M2000 Radar is still very WIP

[Corsair]

M2M's display is not RDY-like, it's more like a fictional hybrid..

[myHelljumper]

M2M's display is not RDY-like, it's more like a fictional hybrid..

 

Yup, a bit of RDY, some of RDI and a little of RDM.

[PiedDroit]

Huu... I think, i remember... i'm pretty sure that in reality, the VTB is not on a virtual cockpit displayed on a 24" screen with 80° FOV and pixellisation...

That is true for pretty much everything in the cockpit, gauges, indicators, labels, displays, you name it.

[CHRISXTR3M3]

Yup, a bit of RDY, some of RDI and a little of RDM.

 

In that case sorry for the mistake. Didn't know it was a hybrid. I was super excited too for ours to be like that

[statrekmike]

Huu... I think, i remember... i'm pretty sure that in reality, the VTB is not on a virtual cockpit displayed on a 24" screen with 80° FOV and pixellisation...

 

If we go by that kind of thinking, there is zero reason to strive for any kind of realism in DCS, we can just throw out all those old standards and just kinda do whatever. It does not matter since it is all just simulated on our computers anyway.

 

Seriously, the point of these DCS modules is to STRIVE for realism whenever it is possible.

[Manuel_108]

If we go by that kind of thinking, there is zero reason to strive for any kind of realism in DCS, we can just throw out all those old standards and just kinda do whatever. It does not matter since it is all just simulated on our computers anyway.

 

Seriously, the point of these DCS modules is to STRIVE for realism whenever it is possible.

 

Exactly! Besides, making the radar display comparatively smaller to it's real life counterpart makes it even harder to read in the simulation as we are in fact sitting in front of a screen with limiting POV, pixellation etc.

[Zeus67]

Okay, I agree that the screen real estate is a bit smaller than the one used in real life. But this is a design choice.

 

I know some, if not most, of you are using trackir. But many don't. And I made it smaller so it is possible to read ALL the radar data with a single glance without needing to change the cockpit camera position.

 

If I use the entire screen, anybody not using trackir will have to "crouch" using RCtrl+RShift+ArrowDown in order to see the top of the screen, since it tends to be obstructed by the HUD panel.

 

Same with the symbols and data. They are a bit too large, but they are readable. You don't have to press your nose to the screen in order to read them.

 

It is the same issue with the HUD and the RWR. I need the data to be readable to anybody, even to those nearsighted like me.

 

I think that the symbols in the RWR are too large and will make them a bit smaller, but my worry is the numbers identifying the radars. I feel that they are as small as they can be and still being able to be readable.

 

Ergonomics play a lot when trying to create screens in any simulator. It is a contentious issue with my team mates but I feel that since we are looking at a virtual screen from a display (LCD or CRT) any bit of help is welcome.

[Sarge55]

NP Zeus.

 

For me, I'll export it to a second monitor a bit larger for my old eyes. Now, where did I put those bifocals? :thumbup:

[sedenion]

Okay, I agree that the screen real estate is a bit smaller than the one used in real life. But this is a design choice.

 

I know some, if not most, of you are using trackir. But many don't. And I made it smaller so it is possible to read ALL the radar data with a single glance without needing to change the cockpit camera position.

 

If I use the entire screen, anybody not using trackir will have to "crouch" using RCtrl+RShift+ArrowDown in order to see the top of the screen, since it tends to be obstructed by the HUD panel.

 

I well understand the argument, since i have no Track-IR, so i perfectly understand what you mean :D But...

 

Personnaly to have a good look to the panels and VTB i use de "numpad 0" key (which i configure as my convenience for a good panel view), this is in fact very more convenient than moving the head: You push Numpad 0, you see your panel, you release Numad 0 you return to normal view ... that work even when you are padlocking a target ( view on target, <press Np0> panel view <release Np0> view on target ) or external view... And the Np0 key is mapped on a joystick button (an HAT exactly)... In that case, i have no less/more dificulty than Track-IR users to have a good (and quick) view to the VTB, without fighting with the "view move" keys or Pov Hat...

 

Well, all i want to say is that, there is no realy point (i think) in this case, about Track-IR or Non-Track-IR users... ( the missing padlock view is way more a problem for non-Track-IR users... :D )

 

And the fact is that the real interesting data is the range indicator, and the main "target" area... this where you look in "action".. when you have more time, you can adjust the view to read all what you want...

 

Same with the symbols and data. They are a bit too large, but they are readable. You don't have to press your nose to the screen in order to read them.

 

It is the same issue with the HUD and the RWR. I need the data to be readable to anybody, even to those nearsighted like me.

 

I think that the symbols in the RWR are too large and will make them a bit smaller, but my worry is the numbers identifying the radars. I feel that they are as small as they can be and still being able to be readable.

 

Currently, the only very interesting numbers of the radar screen are:

- The Range

- The Target data...

 

They are barely lisible if we keep a good "fov" on the panel... i think if we can have a larger screen, while keeping view to the range (and remember the numpad 0 key), i think the VTB will be more readable...

 

Ergonomics play a lot when trying to create screens in any simulator. It is a contentious issue with my team mates but I feel that since we are looking at a virtual screen from a display (LCD or CRT) any bit of help is welcome.

 

exactly...

 

PS: However, currently, the VTB display size is not a dramatic issue... if this is easy to modify for you (i don't know how this is coded), try to make it bigger (we will see if this is better or not), bu if you have to "recode" all the shapes with diferents size, just forgot the idea and let it as it is currently...

Edited January 21, 2016 by sedenion

[Manuel_108]

Following that logic, Belsimtek should've never included the whole electrical panels in the Mig-15, which are also obstructed and only readable when using TrackIR or the num controls to shift the view downwards. So what Belsimtek should've done is use a fake location for all the switches so users without TrackIR can read them without any difficulties.

[sedenion]

Following that logic, ED should've never included the whole electrical panels in the Mig-15, which are also obstructed and only readable when using TrackIR or the num controls to shift the view downwards. So what ED should've done is use a fake location for all the switches so users without TrackIR can read them without any difficulties.

 

The Razbam's point makes sens. When it's not a blasphemy to cheat on pure reality to make things more readable or more ergonomic is a good thing, while you keep a balance between realism and ergonomy...

 

But in this precise case, i think the "numpad 0" key is here precisely to help user to have a good quick view to the panel... so, i think we can enlarge the VTB display to have in fact, a better lisibility...

[T_A]

get TrackIR or get bigger screen , i don`t think such changes can be justified just to cater to a certain audience.

[Johnny Dioxin]

get TrackIR or get bigger screen , i don`t think such changes can be justified just to cater to a certain audience.

Following that logic, Belsimtek should've never included the whole electrical panels in the Mig-15, which are also obstructed and only readable when using TrackIR or the num controls to shift the view downwards. So what Belsimtek should've done is use a fake location for all the switches so users without TrackIR can read them without any difficulties.

 

Don't people ever bother actually reading posts and form (loud) opinions based on their personal preconceptions?

 

the issue isn't fictional positioning or any such - it's about what the panel really looks like and how it is in the sim. In the sim it is not as it is in real life, but Zeus has explained why.

 

Read the posts properly before you start heckling.

[sedenion]

get TrackIR or get bigger screen , i don`t think such changes can be justified just to cater to a certain audience.

 

I think the next step, is to developpeing an ultra-realistic simulator which can be embed only in a 6DOF hydraulic Motion simulator... then ED will tells us: "Okay guys, get an 6DOF hydraulic Motion simulator in your livingroom, ED is not here to cater to a certain audience"...

[Manuel_108]

Don't people ever bother actually reading posts and form (loud) opinions based on their personal preconceptions?

 

the issue isn't fictional positioning or any such - it's about what the panel really looks like and how it is in the sim. In the sim it is not as it is in real life, but Zeus has explained why.

 

Read the posts properly before you start heckling.

 

I've read every post carefully and decided to compare Zeus' approach to another example. However I don't see how your post reasonably contributes to the discussion.

[KLR Rico]

What LUA do we edit to make it the correct size?

[sedenion]

What LUA do we edit to make it the correct size?

 

Hmm, maybe in <>/Mods/aircraft/M-2000C/Cockpit/VTB/VTB_definitions.lua where i see this:

vtb_scale = 0.55/275 
vtb_grid_scale = 0.5/275 
vtb_hdg_scale = 0.7/275 
vtb_hdg_displ = (3448 * vtb_hdg_scale / 480) * GetScale()

 

But not tested...

[T_A]

Don't people ever bother actually reading posts and form (loud) opinions based on their personal preconceptions?.

 

Seems like you are the one who didn't read before making a very a useless reply.

 

Hmm, maybe in <>/Mods/aircraft/M-2000C/Cockpit/VTB/VTB_definitions.lua where i see this:

vtb_scale = 0.55/275 
vtb_grid_scale = 0.5/275 
vtb_hdg_scale = 0.7/275 
vtb_hdg_displ = (3448 * vtb_hdg_scale / 480) * GetScale()

 

But not tested...

 

Interesting , if its really a LUA change, i hope they can make a setting for this so we can choose.