My concerns over possible visibility "corrections"

[The Black Swan]

So I've been wanting to get this concern off my chest for a while...

 

As we all know there are a lot of requests for work to be done on making spotting or visibility easier in DCS both here and on other forums.

Now while i agree that within visual range the contrast and ease of tracking a bandit can be improved, honestly I've noticed a big improvement after the new lighting in that regard.

If ED want to improve on that, I've got no problem with it.

 

But what concerns me a lot is when I see people talking about fixing the range that bandits are spotted...

Let me start by saying while I'm not a pilot (hopefully yet?), I have flown before and have been to MANY air shows. So I'm not completely inexperienced when it comes to real life spotting.

When I take my own experience, plus the accounts of actual fighter pilots, plus some simple logic and experiments and put them together; the range that targets are reliably "spotable" seems pretty good.

When i see people who make it sound like we should be reliably spotting bandits at 9 or 10 nautical miles, i get worried.

(If you think that is realistic see the bottom of my post)

I'm worried if ED gives in to pleasing the crowd, it might destroy BVR and many realistic tactics.

Why turn on your radar if you can just fly low and spot bandits from range?

 

I guess I'm concerned that...

-ED might increase the range fighters can be spotted.

-ED might improve closer range visibility but it would have the side effect of above.

-People will keep complaining about visibility until it is wildly unrealistic.

 

-----------------

So just in case some of you think that you should be able to spot fighters at 9 or 10 nautical miles reliably, please consider this...

(First note that I'm talking about times without a contrail or sun glare)

Look up in the sky at the average airliner flying at cruising altitude.

Let's assume a cruising altitude of 40,000 feet. Watch it and imagine the contrail missing.

Focus on the dot with wings that is the airliner.

In most situations a fighter will show you it's front or side, so imagine… that dot with wings being about a third or fourth of the size for a head-on view.

Seems hard but possible to spot right?

Well that's an airliner, imagine that dot being about a third of the size again.

Without the contrail to mark its location that's pretty hard to see reliably.

Sure it's possible but I wouldn't want to rely on my eyes to catch that.

But we got a problem, 40,000 feet is 6 1/2 nautical miles not nine or 10.

So imagine that dot being even further away. A little less than doubled in distance.

 

If that doesn't convince you, get a scale model either die cast or plastic. Do the math to see how many feet would be equal to 10 or nine nautical miles. Put the model that many feet away from you on a road (since you will need a road to get enough space).

I have a scale model F18. The scale for 10 nautical miles works out to put it at an intersection down the road from me that I can see, and honestly it's ridiculous to think I could spot it even with good contrast....

 

So in short, guys practice a lot now with the new lighting because it's improved a good bit.

And I don't want spotting to ever go too far in the other direction.

 

Rant over... whew!

[philstyle]

I completely agree about spotting range already being good.

Without labels or the labels mod, I can spot contacts (that is, when they are simply "dots") which are 60km (yes, 60km) away, provided they are above the horizon relative to me. From the airfields around Pointe-du-Hoc on the Normandy map,. I can see the "dots" of barrage ballons which I have placed at Cherbourg - 50km away!

Dots which are below the horizon are still visible to me a long way out, but perhaps not as far as those above the horizon.

 

 

The main aspect of contact spotting that seems to me to need fixing/attention is the tendancy for contacts to completely disappear when they drop below the horizon at a range of between 500m and about 2km.

 

 

Similar to you, I suspect that this specific problem should/ would not need attending to until after the lighting system is nearer its final completion.

 

 

There are many varied aspects to aircraft visibility, and often the many issues get conflated into a single "discussion" that is unable to separate out the individual aspects of range, attitude/ altitude, surface type and colour, shadow and background.

[Mr_sukebe]

As long as ranges are sensible, I have no issues either way.

My own wishes are that as a VR user, that I have some parity with a non-vr user on not just spotting a dot (frankly I have no problems with that already), and then being able to distinguish what it is (which I find nearly impossible until I'm right on top of them).

From what I've read, real ww2 pilots seemed to be able to identify if good weather upto around 8km.

[PeaceSells]

Guys... Able to see at 60 km and unable to see at 500 m - 2 km... This is really really bad.

[philstyle]

Guys... Able to see at 60 km and unable to see at 500 m - 2 km... This is really really bad.

 

 

 

I think (I am pretty much guessing ehere though) that it is because of the transition from DOT to Model.

The lighting on the models is currently quite flat (i.e colours that fade into the bacgound and the lack of sharp/ defined shadows). This means that the models disappear and certain ranges and under certain conditions. It is at its worst when the model has a mid-tone background behind it (i.e. not a really dark background like the sea, and not a really light background like clouds or pale sky).

 

 

I tend to loose sight of aircraft (and it's not just "i lost them in the clutter", it is actually impossible to pick out their shape or form on the screen at all, even with a paused DCS) when they dive away from from, in a space from the horizon down to about 30 degrees below the horizon. Often I don't pick them up again until they are right under me, or have climbed back up again.

If the fly away far enough I can see them again, or if the close right up on me and are only a few hundred metres away...

[philstyle]

real ww2 pilots seemed to be able to identify if good weather upto around 8km.

 

 

 

It's hard to get any knid of hard data in this respect.

One thing cou can do, is go to a warbirds display and then drive 5km from the airfield. See if you can ID any of the warbirds at that distance from the ground.

 

 

Try it also at a civilian airfield that is used by small aircraft. Can you identify the type of a civilian aicraft on the other side of the airfield with naked eye?

What about if you drive 5km away?

 

 

Remeber also that civvy mahcines tend to be painted white, so they can be extra visible under certain conditions. Warbirds are painted in order to be hidden - but either way you can't really hide a shadow/ silhouette.

[Mr_sukebe]

It's hard to get any knid of hard data in this respect.

One thing cou can do, is go to a warbirds display and then drive 5km from the airfield. See if you can ID any of the warbirds at that distance from the ground.

 

 

Try it also at a civilian airfield that is used by small aircraft. Can you identify the type of a civilian aicraft on the other side of the airfield with naked eye?

What about if you drive 5km away?

 

 

Remeber also that civvy mahcines tend to be painted white, so they can be extra visible under certain conditions. Warbirds are painted in order to be hidden - but either way you can't really hide a shadow/ silhouette.

 

Good call.

As mentioned, I don't really care what those ranges are, more that there is a degree of parity.

[Reflected]

I'm a glider pilot and I really need to keep my head on a swivel to avoid collisions. If the other glider is above the horizon, I can spot them from about 8-10km if I look really hard. According to tests I have really good eyesight though. And keep in mind that gliders are painted white. I can only ID them from within 5 km though.

 

I find that DCS 2.1 is not far from reality, especially with the label mod on the BS server.

[The Black Swan]

Guys... Able to see at 60 km and unable to see at 500 m - 2 km... This is really really bad.

 

I assume you meant to say "able to see at 60km and unable to ID at 500m - 2km"?

 

Just use the zoom function, it works for me pretty well to ID targets.

[PeaceSells]

I think (I am pretty much guessing ehere though) that it is because of the transition from DOT to Model.

The lighting on the models is currently quite flat (i.e colours that fade into the bacgound and the lack of sharp/ defined shadows). This means that the models disappear and certain ranges and under certain conditions. It is at its worst when the model has a mid-tone background behind it (i.e. not a really dark background like the sea, and not a really light background like clouds or pale sky).

 

 

I tend to loose sight of aircraft (and it's not just "i lost them in the clutter", it is actually impossible to pick out their shape or form on the screen at all, even with a paused DCS) when they dive away from from, in a space from the horizon down to about 30 degrees below the horizon. Often I don't pick them up again until they are right under me, or have climbed back up again.

If the fly away far enough I can see them again, or if the close right up on me and are only a few hundred metres away...

 

Exactly. This was extensively discussed by many at the model visibility thread (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3074477#post3074477). ED suggested turning labels on and closed the thread.

 

I assume you meant to say "able to see at 60km and unable to ID at 500m - 2km"?

 

No. There is a "phantom zone" about where the dot transitions to the plane model. In this zone the plane is almost invisible, until it's very close.

[Knock-Knock]

Well, we have a few fighter pilots frequenting these forums. Just ask them.

[Knock-Knock]

Had to look around a little for this article, about a F-14 pilot at Top Gun.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8282/how-to-fight-to-win-in-the-f-14-a-4-and-f-5-at-the-navys-t?iid=sr-link6

 

Attempting to use the environment and vertical separation to make us harder to see, I brought the nose on and had a speck in the target diamond on the heads up display (HUD). By about 2 miles the bogey had spotted us and turned nose on, and just inside of a mile I was able to visually identify (VID) him as an A-4E Skyhawk. Our game plan was set.

 

We passed left to left, turned left just far enough to keep him in sight, unloaded, accelerated and attempted to build separation. As the bogey’s nose was coming around towards us and approaching three miles separation, I went to idle power and extended the speed-brakes to slow rapidly to about 350 knots so that the Tomcat would turn at a good rate and small radius. The difficulty now would be to maintain sight of the relatively tiny A-4.

 

At three plus miles of separation and nose on, the A-4 was a speck as we looked over our left shoulders about 160 degrees aft of the direction we were heading. We had the separation; it was now time to pitch back and shoot the A-4 in the face. The hard part would be maintaining sight. It was difficult enough while extending away, but now smack 6.5 Gs on and it would be infinitely more difficult, but we were successful.

[PeaceSells]

I think the real question is "do you really need to ask a real fighter pilot if being able to see at 60 km is correct, and if not able to see at 500m - 2km is correct?"

 

I think whatever limit distance ED decides to implement will be good enough, as long as it's not inverted as it is at the moment. You can even see through clouds right now. There will always be discussions about what is the exact limit, and they will be always off. The good side is that it doesn't matter, as long as it's not astronomically off as it is right now.

[lemoen]

Average human vision sharpness allows us to see details down to 1 minute of arc (360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree). So at what distance does a Mig-21 (seen from the side) subtend 1 min?

 

d*theta = l

 

where d = distance, theta=angle subtended, l=lengh of arc(Mig21 length)

 

d = l / theta = 12.3m / (2*pi / 360 / 60) ~ 42km or 23nm

 

This is the absolute maximum range you can hope to spot a mig-21 at, in daytime, with perfect contrast, in clear conditions, from the side and without extra help like sun glinting off the canopy. So only being able to spot planes below 10nm or even 5nm doesn't seem too bad. On screen they're a bit pixelated, the anti-aliasing causes shimmering and causes them be difficult to spot when they're only a few pixels wide.

[Fri13]

When i see people who make it sound like we should be reliably spotting bandits at 9 or 10 nautical miles, i get worried.

(If you think that is realistic see the bottom of my post)

I'm worried if ED gives in to pleasing the crowd, it might destroy BVR and many realistic tactics.

Why turn on your radar if you can just fly low and spot bandits from range?

 

Here is a thing.

 

A real pilots (as non-pilots) can spot an passenger jet (lets say C-130 in DCS) from further than 30km distance (that is about 16nm).... And that is totally possible in DCS at this current moment without zooming at all (using default zoom/FOV)! Meaning you can spot a target while flying Mig-21Bis before you will see it as blib on your radar!

 

BUT

 

And this is the HUGE BUT.

Just like in real world, you need to know exactly the spot in the sky where you are looking them!

Just like in the real world, you need to have very perfect conditions to be able do so (default weather in DCS, C-130 at same altitude with you at 3000m, so not against ground!).

 

And that is the HUGE thing that really puts it in realism box. Alter the variables like weather, altitude, background, contrast, day of time etc etc and most importantly random location, and you will have pure luck to spot anything at that range!

 

There is reason why in real life a dual-seat cockpit is very much preferred because you have two pairs of eyes there looking around when patrolling. And you are constantly scanning all across the skies trying just to beat the luck to spot something. And that something can be a reflection from enemy fighter cockpit glass or from the surface of aircraft fuselage that makes you spot the target. Or just having that blue camouflage paint above green terrain....

 

And in then comes the factors like the fighter size, where example Mig-21 is basically invisible to naked eye when it is flying toward you and you can spot it about 1-2km distance as it is so slim aircraft compared to many others!

 

I guess I'm concerned that...

-ED might increase the range fighters can be spotted.

-ED might improve closer range visibility but it would have the side effect of above.

-People will keep complaining about visibility until it is wildly unrealistic.

 

The DCS needs working... But it is far better than what it was at 1.2x or early 1.5.x versions.

But ED has now a totally new challenge and that is the VR.

In 2D I was very happy to be able spot a C-130 from about 32-34km distance in perfect conditions and when I knew exactly where I was suppose to look (meaning, I knew range, heading and altitude of them) and then I could spot the very tiny one pixel difference in sky to know it was in such direction.

When in dogfight, I could spot a F-16 size fighter from 4-5km distance easily when I knew it was somewhere at that general direction and when weather conditions were optimal.

I could recognize and separate an F-16 from F-15 at about 3-4km distance when the silhouette was optimal (but throw there some random aircrafts like example F-5E or a F-18 and it became more difficult if not impossible).

 

That was with a 4K display.

 

Now with a VR, it is totally another game. Adjusting some pixel densities (like 2.0x) I can get it so I can spot the C-130 from that above 30km distance, but because Rift HMD has so low resolution, it is again single pixel and so on far easier than with 4K.

 

But that aircraft will stay as single dot far far closer ranges, so close that when I was in first days test flying above sea a one mission I didn't anymore remember at all what there were, I spotted an aircraft 500-600m below me, and I couldn't recognize what the heck the aircraft type was. A clean light gray aircraft against dark blue sea and I was guessing is it a F-5E, is it F-15C or is it even a F-14. I dived lower in my F-5 and about at 200-300m the model turned to be an A-10C. And I was straight above it, total perfect silhouette from above and just couldn't recognize the shape as it was nothing else than mushy gray shape.

 

I did go as well fly my old missions as I was doing a "cleaning" and just went flying and tried to complete them etc. And with VR it was total waste of time most often as spotting ground units, spotting even a burning fully smoking destroyed ground unit on middle of the NTTR desert was difficult! If I didn't know exactly where to look, the burning 10 units were nearly invisible at 2-3km distance! With 4K (any 2D really) it was easy to spot such units from 10-20km distance like nothing! And there with VR you are squeezing trying to see something like you would have lost your eye sight!

 

If that doesn't convince you, get a scale model either die cast or plastic. Do the math to see how many feet would be equal to 10 or nine nautical miles. Put the model that many feet away from you on a road (since you will need a road to get enough space).

I have a scale model F18. The scale for 10 nautical miles works out to put it at an intersection down the road from me that I can see, and honestly it's ridiculous to think I could spot it even with good contrast....

 

So in short, guys practice a lot now with the new lighting because it's improved a good bit.

And I don't want spotting to ever go too far in the other direction.

 

Rant over... whew!

 

Yes, many should do the testing. I can spot a moving man in a wheat field from 4km distance when I know where I am looking at. But if that person stops and stands still, it is totally lost case (just did that yesterday as I have 4km straight distance over the lake to such field and farmer was there working).

Week ago I was calculating one passenger jet contrails deforming and I could see the aircraft itself in front of the contrails, but it was slightly difficult. Pulled phone from my pocket and checked the aircraft data on the route and did the math and it was over 45km distance (angle and height to me). Without contrails I couldn't have spotted it at all if I wouldn't have know exactly where to look exactly and what I was suppose to search.

 

But if it would have been an fighter, lets say a F-16. The math is very simple. Divide the distance by the ratio of the size ratio difference of F-16 and such passenger aircraft and you get the distance when they are equal to spot.

 

So if the F-16 is said to be a 4 times smaller, then the distance to spot it would be 4 times shorter too, so instead 45km it would be about 12km.

 

I don't like to use any labels.... All the model enlargement tricks etc just, no go for me.

And I found the 4K display to be very close to realism for spotting units in the air or ground in optimal situations. BUT The VR is totally another case. It is like playing DCS with 800x600 display! You can't even see the labels inside a aircraft in most modules and trying to fly when you don't exactly know all by your hand, is just impossible without continually leaning forward to stare what is that you are looking at.

 

And try to do dog fight with such system, it is just chasing a dot in a space.

 

The 4K is very good at the moment, VR is total trash compared to 4K.

 

And if we take the realistic situations that weather, sun location etc are counted in, you are not spotting anything from far with 4K or with VR.

 

VR at the moment requires very heavy focus by ED and every module maker so all labels, textures, cauges etc needs to be redone with very simple manner. So you can read, see and use things in them.

[Fri13]

 

Just use the zoom function, it works for me pretty well to ID targets.

 

Zoom is cheating. It really is!

 

Zoom should be available only if you are carrying a set of binoculars in your cockpit, and even then the zoom to be locked to specific magnification values like example 4x or 7x and you need to choose which one is that you are "carrying with you" from options.

 

There is still the thing that we can spot things far away, but to identify them, we need to get far far closer and that is ultra dangerous!

[Fri13]

It's hard to get any knid of hard data in this respect.

One thing cou can do, is go to a warbirds display and then drive 5km from the airfield. See if you can ID any of the warbirds at that distance from the ground.

 

 

Try it also at a civilian airfield that is used by small aircraft. Can you identify the type of a civilian aicraft on the other side of the airfield with naked eye?

What about if you drive 5km away?

 

What is the "identify" in this case?

 

Do you mean "recognize" like you can recognize that every 25 different models are what, from your recollection of 300-400 of kinds?

Or do you mean that you can identify targets like a F-4 from an Mig-15 or Mig-21?

 

P-51 vs Bf-109 should be fairly easy thing at distance.

[The Black Swan]

Fri, I agree with everything you said pretty much.

 

Just so im clear I bolded "reliably" because like you said, there are ranges where it is very possible to see aircraft, but only if you know where to look (AWACS calls, radar lock diamonds, contrails, sun glare, etc.)

Just wanted to be clear that I'm in complete agreement with that.

 

My point about the 9 or 10 nm range (18-20 km) was that it should be for fighters, outside of the range of reliable spotting and more like what you said. Where you need to know where to look.

 

 

Zoom is cheating. It really is!

 

Now here I disagree, the small size of most monitors, even big ones, in comparison to the large size of real life sight and resolution of the eye; just don't cut it for every thing. Especially for air to ground.

 

EDIT: have you tried the zoom for VR?

Edited August 28, 2017 by The Black Swan

[Knock-Knock]

Just look at zoom as FOV, which it is.

With my 40", and me sitting some 85 cm away, a true FOV would be 55 degrees. Would I be using a 27" monitor, it would be 39 degrees.

True fov being, if I would just be looking at the world trough a square hole, same size as the given monitor, viewed from the above distance.

 

Granted we can zoom/set the FOV as low as 20.

[philstyle]

Just look at zoom as FOV, which it is.

With my 40", and me sitting some 85 cm away, a true FOV would be 55 degrees. Would I be using a 27" monitor, it would be 39 degrees.

True fov being, if I would just be looking at the world trough a square hole, same size as the given monitor, viewed from the above distance.

Granted we can zoom/set the FOV as low as 20.

 

 

 

Correct, the argument that "zoom is cheating" only works if your monitor is 1:1 with real life in terms of FoV, which it is not.

[PeaceSells]

Zoom is cheating. It really is!

 

 

 

In most games (DCS included), the default view is zoomed out. So, to get 1x zoom, like naked eye IRL, you need to zoom in in-game. Plus monitor's resolution doesn't compare to the real eye resolution, so, in order to see details that you'd see IRL with naked eye, you have to zoom in even more in-game.

[Mr_sukebe]

Are we getting to some kind of common ground on indicative spot range distances that we consider acceptable?

Sounds like we're saying 5-15 miles, in perfect conditions, and depending upon the size of the aircraft.

For identification, sounds like we're saying 1mile for a small aircraft in perfect conditions.

 

Sound about right?

 

The question then is how ED can translate that technically, such the size, light and weather are accounted for, such that it's common for both monitor and vr users?

[The Black Swan]

Are we getting to some kind of common ground on indicative spot range distances that we consider acceptable?

Sounds like we're saying 5-15 miles, in perfect conditions, and depending upon the size of the aircraft.

For identification, sounds like we're saying 1mile for a small aircraft in perfect conditions.

 

Sound about right?

 

The question then is how ED can translate that technically, such the size, light and weather are accounted for, such that it's common for both monitor and vr users?

 

Until VR gets to the resolution of monitors, people will have to make do with work arounds. That or ED adds a different rendering system for VR

 

My point with zoom was that it does more to add realism than it does to take away from it, especially when it comes to identifying aircraft at a range where you can see them but not ID them while you should be able to ID them IRL.

 

I'm curious how well the zoom helps this in VR, not many have commented on that feature.

[Slazi]

In most games (DCS included), the default view is zoomed out. So, to get 1x zoom, like naked eye IRL, you need to zoom in in-game. Plus monitor's resolution doesn't compare to the real eye resolution, so, in order to see details that you'd see IRL with naked eye, you have to zoom in even more in-game.

 

Agreed. Zoom is essential for DCS - even just reading cockpit dials requires it. Are we supposed to be simulating shortsighted pilots? I have no problems with have a server locked as no zoom, but I would never play there.

[PeaceSells]

Are we supposed to be simulating shortsighted pilots?

 

No, the default zoomed out view is there to compensate the lack of field-of-view you'd have in a normal monitor if it wasn't zoomed out. It's necessary.

 

You can't compare looking at the real world with your eyes to looking at the world through a monitor. The monitor will at the same time give you less field-of-view and less resolution. You compensate field-of-view zooming out and compensate resolution zooming in. That's why you'll find the zoom feature in every realistic game, to reproduce human sight and FOV as best as it's possible through a monitor.