4K - is it worth it?

[Mars Exulte]

Waste of money 4k. The visual ranges mentioned above are unrealistic and represent a hardware cheat. Go VR instead and get the feeling of actually flying a military aircraft as opposed to sitting at a drone opperator's station.

 

Rofl, hardware cheat? You'd hate me, then lol, with my triple monitor full cockpit, head tracking and professional grade HOTAS I should be vac banned for sure. I have better SA, faster respobse times, higher framerates and graphic settings and more precision than probably 90% of people I fight online rofl

[Boris]

I have used DCS with a 4k monitor for a while and have moved on to VR (Oculus Rift) since.

 

The VR experience is far superior to anything you get in terms of resolutions from a 4k screen, in my opinion.

[HiJack]

Rofl, hardware cheat? You'd hate me, then lol, with my triple monitor full cockpit, head tracking and professional grade HOTAS I should be vac banned for sure. I have better SA, faster respobse times, higher framerates and graphic settings and more precision than probably 90% of people I fight online rofl

And still you can't get a kill? :lol::P:doh:

[Fri13]

Thanks Fri13,

 

That is really great news,no zooming and good spotting is really alot.

 

Do you use pc screen or tv?

 

What screen size do you have?

 

Used 27" and 65", the only difference is really how close can you get the display. 27" is easy to get to arm reach so if you lean little forward arm extended you can touch it. 65" requires to be further unless you get some kind support that brings it closer (and fills your field of view easily).

 

What graphic card you use or you think is needed for 4K (with 60 fps)

 

apologies for the bombardment of questions,and thanks again.

 

Long time I used GTX 740 and GTX 750 for good 30-50FPS. But the 2.0.5 started to kill framerate with periodic 5 second 3-5FPS every 30 seconds or so.

 

So you get away with those "low end" cards but question is more about the DCS version then.

[Fri13]

Pretty funny as most likely the future will be drone operated platforms.

 

Concerning 4K, this is a great way to enjoy video games. Even if you're lacking the immersion provided by VR, you can't deny its advantages. Hopefully we'll get 4K VR hardware in the two or three next years - fingers crossed.

 

We have had 4K already (2K for both eyes) that beats every VR that Oculus or HTC has made since 2016...

 

And you only need to achieve 60 FPS instead 90 FPS... Yet you don't get the problems in Rift or Vive like "God rays" and smudged edges, screen door effect (pixelation) etc and you have higher resolution and as wide FOV even...

[Dodly]

Used 27" and 65", the only difference is really how close can you get the display. 27" is easy to get to arm reach so if you lean little forward arm extended you can touch it. 65" requires to be further unless you get some kind support that brings it closer (and fills your field of view easily).

 

 

 

Long time I used GTX 740 and GTX 750 for good 30-50FPS. But the 2.0.5 started to kill framerate with periodic 5 second 3-5FPS every 30 seconds or so.

 

So you get away with those "low end" cards but question is more about the DCS version then.

 

Thanks,

 

So you can feel the resulotion upgrade in a 27" screen? some say it need to be minimum 40".

if a smaller screen then 40" can do the job i will prefer it (thinking about 32") cause off space limitations.

[Fri13]

Waste of money 4k. The visual ranges mentioned above are unrealistic and represent a hardware cheat. Go VR instead and get the feeling of actually flying a military aircraft as opposed to sitting at a drone opperator's station.

 

Yeah... A hardware cheat, sure.... I met once a person who could read a road signs (~25cm font size) from 2-3km distance, at middle of night and normal rain.... And yes... Roads were random ones...

 

She had so great vision that she could read a news paper text from a 20m distance (didn't have longer space to test further as that was already remarkable).

 

And normal people can spot larger aircrafts from 9-10km altitude in an angle at the sky and even identify how many engines those has (and often airplanes don't have contrails!). As well the combat pilots itself telling about spotting aircrafts from 20km or further distances at larger aicrafts, smaller fighters head on to between 3-10km depending many things, some even spotted far far further in good conditions.

 

The thing just is that so many is not taking time to scan the space, they just glance around, wave head around and expect to see something. In visual search you need to remind that the eye has only under 2 degree FOV that is sharp, rest is blurry. Even on monitor you will not spot so easily a couple greyish pixels on blue sky when display is at arm reach and you look a centimeter or two off from the target.

 

And what I stated as ranged are the default DCS weather and change any factor and the spotting distance is difference (move display further, change size from 27" to smaller or larger, spend less time to look around, have custom weather than standard default, have target against ground or behind clouds etc etc).

 

So sorry, it is very realistic as it ain't any model enlargement that will reveal the target as long you have LOS.

[Fri13]

Thanks,

 

So you can feel the resulotion upgrade in a 27" screen? some say it need to be minimum 40".

if a smaller screen then 40" can do the job i will prefer it (thinking about 32") cause off space limitations.

 

I went from 24" FHD to 27" 4K and then get a secondary TV (that I have tested as screen) for 65".

 

The 65" is clearly superior IF you can get it close to you, it will nicely fill the FOV but same time makes the cockpit and all that larger so it is that way "unrealistic" but spotting is very easy.

 

The VR (Rift as Vive) doesn't offer anything like that, it is like flying something else as visual targets just appear at some point and can very well understand the trial to get it working with model enlargements etc.

 

I am curious to test that 4K VR headset that would it be much better than rift or vive but still think it is second to 4K display.

 

Need to remind that it is a lot of question in what kind conditions you fly in DCS and in reality.

Like if you have a sunlight hitting to your monitor, don't expect great contrast and so on spotting becomes more difficult.

Have it over 80cm distance and benefits are going down. How good is your eye sight etc.

Fly in other weather than "perfect for spotting" etc and 4K loses its benefits.

 

Where the benefit still stays is in the cockpit readout capability, but spotting the target is behind many variable anyways.

 

I example like how I can in a helicopter to spot a moving infantry from 1500-2500m distance (just like in reality) but stationary infantry is difficult to spot unless almost landing on them.

 

The 4K display really made the "motion reveals location" more true like. And yet I am waiting to see ED to implement a pseudo-camouflage technique where units would become semi-transparent when stationary, just to mask them to terrain as should be.

 

This is fairly good presentation when you will benefit from 4K:

 

[Chic]

No doubt, personal preference is the determinant factor.

I fly both Rift and 4K on Curved 65" (approx 28" view distance). All things considered, I much prefer the 4K experience. I anticipate that changing as VR evolves.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Chic

[streakeagle]

I am a fan of big screen/high resolution. VR has been the goal since the first headsets were available in the 1990s, but the resolution never met my standards. I am presently using a 46-inch 1080p TV about 3 feet from me as my monitor. It is a much better experience than my old 20-inch 1600x1200 LCD monitor. It covers about 70 degrees field of view, which isn't as good as VR, but even at only 1080p, it is still effectively a higher resolution. My intention is to go to both a larger screen (60+ inches) and 4K.

 

My brother has both the HTC Vive and the Occulus Rift. While it is an amazing experience, I still prefer the large monitor/TrackIR/home cockpit experience for flying. When VR's resolution is adequate for the field of view, then it will make me happy.

[BigDuke6ixx]

Yeah... A hardware cheat, sure.... I met once a person who could read a road signs (~25cm font size) from 2-3km distance, at middle of night and normal rain.... And yes... Roads were random ones...

 

She had so great vision that she could read a news paper text from a 20m distance (didn't have longer space to test further as that was already remarkable).

 

And normal people can spot larger aircrafts from 9-10km altitude in an angle at the sky and even identify how many engines those has (and often airplanes don't have contrails!). As well the combat pilots itself telling about spotting aircrafts from 20km or further distances at larger aicrafts, smaller fighters head on to between 3-10km depending many things, some even spotted far far further in good conditions.

 

T.

 

It's already been explained to you elsewhere, and from an authoritative source, that your visual ID ranges at the aspect ratios for fighter aircraft quoted in 4k are not realistic. If you're goal oriented (which you appear to be), then that's fine, but if you're realism oriented it's no good. But I doubt anyone who is truly into realism would be bothering with 4k monitors anyway.

[some1]

Like here? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3196906&postcount=25

[BigDuke6ixx]

Like here? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3196906&postcount=25

 

 

No, different thread. Key phrase from your link: '...depending on aspect ration...'

[Fri13]

It's already been explained to you elsewhere, and from an authoritative source, that your visual ID ranges at the aspect ratios for fighter aircraft quoted in 4k are not realistic. If you're goal oriented (which you appear to be), then that's fine, but if you're realism oriented it's no good. But I doubt anyone who is truly into realism would be bothering with 4k monitors anyway.

 

And I have already explained, a real person can see that far, spot something etc. It is realistic because it is reality! And notice that I am not talking that you can do that all the time, every time, in every situation etc. That is what you might think but it ain't so. It is in good conditions when it is possible but the fact stands, 4K will deliver far more realistic spotting and tracking capabilities than any VR.

 

And when you do know what kind target you can have there, just few (instead few dozens at least) then you can very well identify a target by its shape.

 

Those who are for realism, benefit from 4K because you have the spotting and tracking capability that VR doesn't provide to the reality.

 

And as I explained in the thread you mention, the DCS doesn't handle correctly the ground units because there ain't the capabilities by anyone to spot any vehicle further than a couple kilometers and that only if they are on clear high contrast areas like a desert or road or anyways some clear contrast like yellow car in a green field.

 

And as well as I agreed, those who want the immersion and experience to sit in a aircraft, without investing to moving platforms etc, the VR will be the one.

But to get the experience what you can get by being in the aircraft and spotting targets etc in more realistic manner, the 4K is better.

 

Already so many Full HD user needs to zoom in with the TrackIR to see far, just a 3-5km distances or to track the target angle etc. And VR is less than that even.

 

So lets take example the reality:

 

Back in 1941, the vision scientist Selig Hecht and his colleagues at Columbia University made what is still considered a reliable measurement of the "absolute threshold" of vision — the minimum number of photons that must strike our retinas in order to elicit an awareness of visual perception. The experiment probed the threshold under ideal conditions: study participants' eyes were given time to adapt to total darkness, the flash of light acting as a stimulus had a (blue-green) wavelength of 510 nanometers, to which our eyes are most sensitive, and this light was aimed at the periphery of the retina, which is richest in light-detecting rod cells.

 

The scientists found that for study participants to perceive such a flash of light more than half the time, the subjects required between 54 and 148 photons to hit their eyeballs. Based on measurements of retinal absorption, the scientists calculated that a factor of 10 fewer photons were actually being absorbed by the participant's rod cells. Thus, the absorption of 5 to 14 photons, or, equivalently, the activation of just 5 to 14 rod cells, tells your brain you're seeing something. [Why Do We See in 3-D?]

 

"This is indeed a small number of chemical events," Hecht and his colleagues concluded in their seminal paper on the subject.

 

Considering the absolute threshold, the brightness of a candle flame, and the way a glowing object dims according to the square of the distance away from it, vision scientists conclude that one could make out the faint glimmer of a candle flame up to 30 miles away.

 

But how far away can we perceive that an object is more than just a twinkle of light? For something to appear spatially extended rather than point-like, light from it must stimulate at least two adjacent cone cells — the elements in our eyes that produce color vision. Under ideal conditions, an object must subtend an angle of at least 1 arcminute, or one sixtieth of a degree, in order to excite adjacent cones. (This angular measure stays the same regardless of whether an object is nearby or far away; distant objects must be much larger to subtend the same angle as near objects). The full moon is 30 arcminutes across, whereas Venus is barely resolvable as an extended object at around 1 arcminute across.

 

Human-scale objects are resolvable as extended objects from a distance of just under 2 miles (3 km). For example, at that distance, we would just be able to make out two distinct headlights on a car.

 

So lets put that to another context. I can see from the location I am right now (in a Office) that is 7.2m height from ground, flat ground over the lake to opposite side of the lake to exact 4km (give or take 200m as the field is so wide in that place) where are farmlands. In a night time, I can separate car headlights, meaning that is about a 1.7m separation. But I can't spot a separation of the tractor headlights, that are about 40-50cm, headlights like these:

 

Then you can find things like this to opposite:

 

In 2015, Professor Kevin Krisciunas and his colleague Dan Carona set out to settle the question of distance using the scale that measures the brightness of stars. Very bright stars have a magnitude of zero, and the number gets higher as light grows dimmer. The human eye can see stars as dim as a magnitude of six, and the scientists returned to the candle flame model to determine how far away such a light would have to be to emit a similar glow.

 

After performing various tests using both the naked eye and digital cameras to assess brightness, Krisciunas and Carona determined that the candle flame would become imperceptible at a distance of just 1.6 miles, a little more than half the distance to the Earth’s horizon. However, unlike Hecht’s research, these experiments only tested light that remained a steady brightness.

 

http://www.correctvision.com/eye-health/eye-spy-gauging-the-distance-of-human-sight/

 

And what is a aircraft bubble cockpit that reflects a sun? Far more powerful than a any candle?

An large aircraft, moving, having a very distinctive shapes etc...

 

Have you ever spotted a normal car from a 7-8km distance, driving on the roads etc? I think you should get to such position that you can see so far, as you can easily spot the cars when you are searching for them. and aircrafts are "little" larger than a normal car... Or to spot non contrailing aircraft from far further in reality than the distance I can spot it in DCS...

 

The thing still is, 4K display will bring reality to the DCS about spotting and tracking, something that VR doesn't.

 

And no, you will not get away "Oh it is like a drone control on the screen" because I don't think that any drone pilot is using a 180 degree fisheye with a less than 2 degree sharp field of view and likely use a higher than Full HD (if even that) display to do it. Instead they have high magnification lenses and low resolution video link anyways (as we are talking usually about TIS cameras they use).

[Quadg]

your office isn't vibrating.

 

and aircraft vibrate.

 

especially war planes that dont have to keep herds of passengers comfortable..

 

in some instances pilots cant even read their instruments because of vibration..

 

and formula 1 drivers cant see corners.

 

i sail and spotting from a moving, vibrating platform is just more difficult.

 

than from a comfy office..

[hansangb]

Rofl, hardware cheat? You'd hate me, then lol, with my triple monitor full cockpit, head tracking and professional grade HOTAS I should be vac banned for sure. I have better SA, faster respobse times, higher framerates and graphic settings and more precision than probably 90% of people I fight online rofl

 

 

I'm sure you have a great setup, it sure sounds like it. Having a full cockpit with physical buttons certainly adds to being more competitive. But you can't have better SA. Because you're looking at a 2D representation of a 3D world. Your brain knows it's not real.

 

I came from TrackIR, 3 monitors, 2X 8" Lilliput+MFD setup. And I'm telling you that VR is in another class when it comes to SA.

 

Except for the obvious benefit of 4K when looking at targets etc. For that, 4K wins hands down.

[hansangb]

Fri13, that was very interesting read. And I can tell you from performing OPFOR missions for pilots during SERE training that you can spot a glowing cigarette from a long distance when it's very dark outside. When I finally caught up to the pilot (several miles away) I asked "What the hell were you thinking?" he told me "I cupped it, didn't think anyone would see it" LOL.

 

But we don't need 4K VR. We need foveated view VR. That's how our vision works anyways. So all the rendering required for 4K is a complete waste because our vision can't process anything when using peripheral vision.

 

There are a bunch of shows on this on Brain Games

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/brain-games/episodes/focus-pocus/

and

 

fascinating stuff

[BigDuke6ixx]

your office isn't vibrating.

 

and aircraft vibrate.

 

especially war planes that dont have to keep herds of passengers comfortable..

 

in some instances pilots cant even read their instruments because of vibration..

 

and formula 1 drivers cant see corners.

 

i sail and spotting from a moving, vibrating platform is just more difficult.

 

than from a comfy office..

 

Exactly. All he's doing is simulating flying a drone then claiming it's as realistic as flying a real plane. It's very easy to spot one off colour pixel against the rest, but that's not a realistic representation.

[BigDuke6ixx]

Fri13, that was very interesting read. And I can tell you from performing OPFOR missions for pilots during SERE training that you can spot a glowing cigarette from a long distance when it's very dark outside. When I finally caught up to the pilot (several miles away) I asked "What the hell were you thinking?" he told me "I cupped it, didn't think anyone would see it" LOL.

 

But we don't need 4K VR. We need foveated view VR. That's how our vision works anyways. So all the rendering required for 4K is a complete waste because our vision can't process anything when using peripheral vision.

 

There are a bunch of shows on this on Brain Games

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/brain-games/episodes/focus-pocus/

and

 

fascinating stuff

 

Yes, an increase in FOV is more important than increases in resolution. I'm hopeful about eye tracking giving us both in the near future.

[Fri13]

your office isn't vibrating.

 

and aircraft vibrate.

 

especially war planes that dont have to keep herds of passengers comfortable..

 

in some instances pilots cant even read their instruments because of vibration..

 

and formula 1 drivers cant see corners.

 

i sail and spotting from a moving, vibrating platform is just more difficult.

 

than from a comfy office..

Did you notice that I wrote that not even VR match the moving platform?

 

And actually fighters are very stable to fly in the conditions we talk about (DCS standard weather) and if you didn't know the DCS simulates shaking too... Making 4K hard to read when so happens.

 

But fighters are designed as well to operate in terrible conditions so you can operate them as well as possible.

 

A smudged VR is nothing to reality unless you sail always in a mist, swimming goggle in head and in stronger wind.

 

In reality pilots see further, spot things and identify them than in DCS with FHD.

 

But as it is known, <2° is the area, just like on monitor as well. You need to look at it directly to spot.

And that is what makes DCS realistic as well because you will not spot something unless you know where to look at.

It is easy to miss, and it is nothing like you seem to think that units just pop-up like black enlarged dots with colorful text next to them.

 

You need to know where to look or luckily spot them in those ranges, but possible in DCS.

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Fri13]

Exactly. All he's doing is simulating flying a drone then claiming it's as realistic as flying a real plane. It's very easy to spot one off colour pixel against the rest, but that's not a realistic representation.

One pixel that is 5% different by color than sky... Even a start speckle is more visible on screen! (Why I dust the display often).

 

When you see a pattern of two to four or is even more easier to spot because pattern.

 

And it is totally realistic.

 

It is you who doesn't get what is said.... You think it is super easy and obvious thing and there is a bright contrasty spot to see every situation.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Art-J]

your office isn't vibrating.

 

and aircraft vibrate.

 

especially war planes that dont have to keep herds of passengers comfortable..

 

in some instances pilots cant even read their instruments because of vibration..

 

and formula 1 drivers cant see corners.

 

i sail and spotting from a moving, vibrating platform is just more difficult.

 

than from a comfy office..

 

Failed examples on both accounts.

 

The only thing that makes reading instruments on vibrating platform difficult is the fact that instruments are attached to the vibrating platform. Doesn't apply to any objects outside the platform, which is the subject discussed here.

 

Also, body and eyes dampen vibrations - you don't "loose" vision of distant objects while driving a car or a bicycle on normal roads do you? Unless you go full speed into some very bumpy and rough surface, but that's nowhere near comparable to vibrations in any plane (which isn't just falling apart from major failure or turbulence ;) )

[Fri13]

Fri13, that was very interesting read. And I can tell you from performing OPFOR missions for pilots during SERE training that you can spot a glowing cigarette from a long distance when it's very dark outside. When I finally caught up to the pilot (several miles away) I asked "What the hell were you thinking?" he told me "I cupped it, didn't think anyone would see it" LOL.

 

But we don't need 4K VR. We need foveated view VR. That's how our vision works anyways. So all the rendering required for 4K is a complete waste because our vision can't process anything when using peripheral vision.

 

There are a bunch of shows on this on Brain Games

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/brain-games/episodes/focus-pocus/

and

 

fascinating stuff

Actually i spotted that change in the video and it draw my attention for a moment because i observe the surroundings as that i have done whole my life. The motion, colors changes and pattern reveals things very even outside of Foveon but not in great detail.

And trick is too to keep looking around without moving eyes all the time and be a sugar/caffeine addicted who moves eyes all the time.

 

And it helps to been playing one of the fastest FPS games in gaming history to be able spot very small things outside of Foveon field of view.

 

The eye tracking is coming to VR where only the tracked area is calculated in full resolution and rest is mixed and then blurred (low resolution). But that is only to speed up processing as full resolution and detail is only required to smaller area in screens. Yet our eyes does that blurring already naturally.

 

And 4K doesn't change that. The 4K just allows us to spot the tiny differences better when we look at it.

 

And in DCS that requires the typical things as in reality as well to spot things.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Quadg]

@art-j

 

did you just try to top trump a formula 1 analogy with one about a bicycle?

 

okay. you dont need to say any more

 

you have me convinced :)

[BigDuke6ixx]

One pixel that is 5% different by color than sky... Even a start speckle is more visible on screen! (Why I dust the display often).

 

When you see a pattern of two to four or is even more easier to spot because pattern.

 

And it is totally realistic.

 

It is you who doesn't get what is said.... You think it is super easy and obvious thing and there is a bright contrasty spot to see every situation.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

Plenty of fast jet pilots have mistaken an approaching aircraft for a mark on the canopy and had a nasty shock. Basically, your 4k desk monitor setup is nothing like sitting in a cockpit and having to deal with all the realities that make the job so challenging.

 

I'd don't really care how you play the game, but your claim of 'more realistic' than VR is just a bit laughable, imo.

 

and as for TrackIR

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by BigDuke6ixx