Give servers the option to remove zoom?

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats for sure one of the key elements of DCS future development.

 

The beloved "Improved spotting distance"

[Mr_sukebe]

Thats for sure one of the key elements of DCS future development.

 

The beloved "Improved spotting distance"

 

Hopefully the Pimax will resolve the issues with spotting by improving resolution.

I'm also conscious that applying developer time to this stops them implementing other good stuff.

The FOV workaround is something that could be provided now and for zero effort from ED.

[Esac_mirmidon]

I think is not a good idea to separate-segregate players into VR servers FOV restricted-No restricted servers.

 

But is only my opinion

[Slazi]

I'm on TrackIR and it's a nightmare trying to spot things even with zoom. I have no problem with having this as a server option for those that want it, but I'd never play on that server. My visibility would be down to around 500m.

[Frederf]

No.

[philstyle]

Curious about the views here.

Currently I’m not taking part on mp servers. It’s not that I don’t want to. Rather that I wish to fly in vr and simply can’t compete with monitor users on identifying enemy aircraft (note identify, not spot).

I’ve played a little with my own monitor as a test in SP, and quite clearly, there’s a massive benefit right now for monitor users.

 

 

 

A squad mate tells me that accurate shooting (WW2 birds) is much easier since he moved to VR from TrackIR.

Is a server-side setting needed to remove that advantage somehow?

 

 

As firmek has already pointed out above:If someone decides to use a specific equipment he should acknowlage it's limitations as it's a personal decision to use it in preference or another one.

 

 

By the way also pointed out by firmek : At last on Normandy map, mission makers can already specify the Field of View limits!

If you can, fly on the ACG WW2 server in the Spitfire and notice how the wide field of view will keep going until you get fish-eye effect.

Then, fly on Burning Skies, and you will see how the field of view is restricted before the fish-eye begins.

This is because one of the server mission-makers has a custom FoV setting on their own DCS install, and this setting is being hard-wired into the mission files.

[Nero.ger]

This is because one of the server mission-makers has a custom FoV setting on their own DCS install, and this setting is being hard-wired into the mission files.

 

this is a surefire way to keep me of a server. Anything that fiddls with my ViewSettings makes me quit right away...

[philstyle]

this is a surefire way to keep me of a server. Anything that fiddls with my ViewSettings makes me quit right away...

 

 

 

Yeah, it is annoying as hell.

I sent Iron Jockel a message to let him know that his server was over-riding FoV settings, but nothing has been done to fix it. Puts me off spending time on the ACG server because I constantly wind up with fish-eye effect. It's horrific.

[firmek]

this is a surefire way to keep me of a server. Anything that fiddls with my ViewSettings makes me quit right away...

Because it's a natural reaction. There are people that play on big or small screens, one monitor or 3 monitors, sit close or far from it and finally just have a preference towards narrow or vide FOV.

I had been playing with a group of friends in BF and there were pople that had their FOV set to 120 deg on small monitors making everyone asking how they can even hit anything but they just felt comfortable this way. Others would use something like 60-70 deg on 27'' display.

 

Another critical point, just watch any of the youtube startup tutorials and see how often people zoom in to better see the controls. I just can't imagine doing anything non-trivial in A-10C, especially working with the CDU without zooming-in.

[Knock-Knock]

Just give us the ability to zoom as much in VR, as you can on a monitor. Same function, same principle. If it makes some puke, well dont use it :)

[Mr_sukebe]

I'm surprised at the reactions.

Clearly the functionality exists to do this now, and the reality is that I've asked for just one server to be setup this way.

Is that really asking so much? Before you ask, yes, I've started looking at the viability of setting up my own server. Frankly the issue is less about cost, more about the time and energy to appropriately manage such a server.

 

I dread to think how you chaps will react if the Pimax pans out and how you might react if 2nd/3rd gen VR headsets puts the combat advantage with a VR user.

[Frostie]

 

I dread to think how you chaps will react if the Pimax pans out and how you might react if 2nd/3rd gen VR headsets puts the combat advantage with a VR user.

 

More people will buy them obviously.

When I had a crappy stick and no trackir I didn't cry foul play I just practiced harder and took the loses and wins as they came, shame people are always looking for an excuse not to be having fun by persisting with a win or bust attitude.

[AbortedMan]

Cmon this is offtopic and has nothing to do with removing unrealistic zoom or headmovement which is equally unrealistic for all kind of hardware.

 

Why don't we add labels then on all servers cause some people have smaller screens ? Labels are unrealistic and that's it most of the servers forces them off, the same can be said for zoom level. Going off topic doesn't help much.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

I realize FOV and Zoom are basically same, zooming out is not an issue but zooming in should be limited to some degree. I doubt anyone is flying on smaller than 24 full HD screen or if it is it will be an exception. So limiting the zooming to levels for spoting an aircraft from realistic distances on 24 fullhd monitor Is fair and good for realism in my opinion.

 

Monitor size is not the issue. You can have a 1920x1080 24 inch monitor and a 3840×2160 24 inch monitor and they will both require different FOV to look natural.

 

FOV and zoom is not "basically" the same...it is the same.

 

Limiting FOV is just not feasible. If you limit it enough to get rid of simulating binoculars, but give it enough range that each resolution can still look natural, one resolution, 1920x1080 and lower, will still have zoom while 3840x2160 will not.

 

People should find another scapegoat for being shot down/losing because blaming FOV zoom isn't cutting it.

[metzger]

Monitor size is not the issue. You can have a 1920x1080 24 inch monitor and a 3840×2160 24 inch monitor and they will both require different FOV to look natural.

 

FOV and zoom is not "basically" the same...it is the same.

 

Limiting FOV is just not feasible. If you limit it enough to get rid of simulating binoculars, but give it enough range that each resolution can still look natural, one resolution, 1920x1080 and lower, will still have zoom while 3840x2160 will not.

 

People should find another scapegoat for being shot down/losing because blaming FOV zoom isn't cutting it.

It is not about being shot and for me it is not a big deal at all. It is a topic of the discussion and people say their opinions for it.

 

For me having zoom equal to a binoculars is unrealistic feature and it should be limited to a levels when there is some sort of balance.

Having the possibility to turn your head 180 backwards is also unrealistic and plays major factor in the simulation. The reason for many formations and tactics is the flight members to be able to cover their 6 each other but a TIR user do not expirience this issue.

 

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[AbortedMan]

It is not about being shot and for me it is not a big deal at all. It is a topic of the discussion and people say their opinions for it.

 

For me having zoom equal to a binoculars is unrealistic feature and it should be limited to a levels when there is some sort of balance.

Having the possibility to turn your head 180 backwards is also unrealistic and plays major factor in the simulation. The reason for many formations and tactics is the flight members to be able to cover their 6 each other but a TIR user do not expirience this issue.

 

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

 

You can't have much of discussion when you say things like TrackIR users don't need other people to cover their 6 as if it's some omnipotent device that does everything for you. That's hyperbole and conjecture, at best.

[metzger]

You can't have much of discussion when you say things like TrackIR users don't need other people to cover their 6 as if it's some omnipotent device that does everything for you. That's hyperbole and conjecture, at best.

So you say I am wrong and it is not unrealistic (both binoculars zoom and head turn ) ? Fine this is your opinion, be it.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[discwalker]

No. I'm happy if I can read my instruments. Identify planes without headtracking is unlikely.

[M0ltar]

It is not about being shot and for me it is not a big deal at all. It is a topic of the discussion and people say their opinions for it.

 

For me having zoom equal to a binoculars is unrealistic feature and it should be limited to a levels when there is some sort of balance.

Having the possibility to turn your head 180 backwards is also unrealistic and plays major factor in the simulation. The reason for many formations and tactics is the flight members to be able to cover their 6 each other but a TIR user do not expirience this issue.

 

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

 

TIR users have just a big of an issue covering and checking 6 as everyone else. Also the binocular thing is not a relevant argument as real pilots carrying binos to assist with target spotting and ID.

 

You really can't set FOV in stone as it messes with a ton of peoples setups. I, on a 3 display setup would be in a world of hurt if I could not change the FOV. The game would just not work correctly.

 

Asking everyone else to change simply because you struggle with something does not mean its a valid argument or option that needs to implements.

[Peaches]

Moltar, I thought you had a six monitor setup. :)

[Buckeye]

I'm surprised at the reactions.

Clearly the functionality exists to do this now, and the reality is that I've asked for just one server to be setup this way.

Is that really asking so much? Before you ask, yes, I've started looking at the viability of setting up my own server. Frankly the issue is less about cost, more about the time and energy to appropriately manage such a server.

 

I dread to think how you chaps will react if the Pimax pans out and how you might react if 2nd/3rd gen VR headsets puts the combat advantage with a VR user.

 

 

 

Combat advantage has nothing to do with TIR vs VR vs no head tracking...it comes down to who the better pilot is. The better pilot holds the combat advantage, regardless of their hardware, end of story.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nero.ger]

Combat advantage has nothing to do with TIR vs VR vs no head tracking...it comes down to who the better pilot is. The better pilot holds the combat advantage, regardless of their hardware, end of story.

 

so you honestly want to tell us that TIR or a good hotas dosnt give you a distingtiv advantage?

 

:no_sad:

[microvax]

VR has so much superior headtracking, honestly i would take 2d Monitor without zoom with that quality of tracking any day. But well. wont happen. TIR will stay like this until its made obsolete by better VR I think naturalpoint missed the moment for a better solution.

 

Nobody forces anyone to fly VR. Limiting others that dont, to worse options, because you are at a perceived disadvantage with your setup is like pretty bonkerz.

 

Like the Idea of a VR only server back in the day was sane imho. Like that splits a tiny community into a even tinier subgroup of VR users, but if they want to mix it up with all the perceived fairness, sure.

Limiting the majority because someone feels they are at a disadvantage and stuff. I dunno. :D

 

Apart from the fact that I have people in VR and people with monitor and TIR and people with a hat switch and a few button stick, no hotas that are still scarry as **** to fight in the merge.

 

Hardware setups will differ, limiting others is a bad approach.

 

Like I fly mirage only a2a, because I like it and I am a systems and customize all the settings type of guy. Still I dont cry limit flanker and f15 to one engine or i dunno what for memes. or limit them to half gun damage because mirage guns shoot rice at very high velocity and thats it.

 

So yee. This thread is amusing me, bring da popcorn.

[MurderOne]

I've stated it already, I'm going to have fun regardless. But to simply say the better pilot has the advantage, while that might hold true in the real world...it's not necessarily so in this frenzy. I might be an outstanding pilot, and I might have this wonderful "advantage" of VR. But I can't see you. Once I do finally see you, if ever at all, I cannot identify you. If we're at range and I happen to lock you up, good on me. I used radar or another sensor to figure you out. So, while a better pilot may very well have an advantage, a pilot who can see absolutely has an advantage. If you can see me at distance X, and I can't even see half that far, I could be a pilot 10x you, and you would wipe the floor with me.

[M0ltar]

Moltar, I thought you had a six monitor setup. :)

 

Haha! I do. You'd think with that many I'd be able to see into the future.

[Yaga]

In VR, use 1.0 pixel density. The DCS system of rendering single pixel dots at range make everything very easy to see in VR as long as you aren't super sampling those details away.

 

VR can compete against people using TIR and 2D. Easily, in fact. I've never found myself at a disadvantage because of it. It's irritating that so many people, when faced with a challenge, resort to "nerf this, remove that" instead of simply figuring out how to get good with the cards they have.