For VR: aircraft 25% larger when 2-5 miles away

[Mr_sukebe]

You know, I find it funny.

Multi-player servers restrict all kinds of things in the name of accuracy, e.g. disable labels, no external views etc. Yet servers still allow "bionic zoom" for monitor users. Just why?

I've read the argument of pilots using binoculars, and I could believe that would be viable if say spotting ground targets whilst conducting an easy overfly. What I rather struggle to believe is the idea of a fighter pilot trying to use a set of binos whilst pulling 6G to line up a shot with his guns.

 

Let's face it, we all know it's crap, so please, just stop trying to defend the fact that you know this is an unfair advantage.

[Torso]

You know, I find it funny.

Multi-player servers restrict all kinds of things in the name of accuracy, e.g. disable labels, no external views etc. Yet servers still allow "bionic zoom" for monitor users. Just why?

I've read the argument of pilots using binoculars, and I could believe that would be viable if say spotting ground targets whilst conducting an easy overfly. What I rather struggle to believe is the idea of a fighter pilot trying to use a set of binos whilst pulling 6G to line up a shot with his guns.

 

Let's face it, we all know it's crap, so please, just stop trying to defend the fact that you know this is an unfair advantage.

 

Exactly.

[SharpeXB]

You know, I find it funny.

Multi-player servers restrict all kinds of things in the name of accuracy, e.g. disable labels, no external views etc. Yet servers still allow "bionic zoom" for monitor users. Just why?

I've read the argument of pilots using binoculars, and I could believe that would be viable if say spotting ground targets whilst conducting an easy overfly. What I rather struggle to believe is the idea of a fighter pilot trying to use a set of binos whilst pulling 6G to line up a shot with his guns.

 

Let's face it, we all know it's crap, so please, just stop trying to defend the fact that you know this is an unfair advantage.

Explaination of why it’s necessary to have a variable FOV or Zoom View

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2561114&postcount=221

Edited May 9, 2018 by SharpeXB

[Repth]

The link to your post has a very reasonable and more than likely correct explanation of why zoom is included in sims. And less people would complain if the zoom stopped at a certain level. What most people hate is the fact that you can zoom way past what an acceptable level would be. So much so, that all that fills the screen is the hud or sections of it. It actually makes me laugh to think what it must look like to see a pilot pulling 6 g's in a dogfight with his or her visor pressed up against a hud to get the kind of FOV that people are upset about. But it also has the unfortunate side effect of enlarging distant aircraft to a point that is unrealistic.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Repth

[SharpeXB]

Well the command doesn’t take into account your monitor size. Besides it’s self regulating. You’re just trading one advantage for the other. If you zoom in too much you’re losing your peripheral vision which is a disadvantage.

But it’s also about resolution, not just size. Since your screen can’t have the acuity that your real eyesight does, the only solution is to magnify. That allows you to simulate 20/20 vision, like being able to read small text in your cockpit or see distant objects clearly. There’s no current display technology that can equal real world eyesight, which is a vital attribute for a pilot.

Many games offer a variable FOV. All fight sims do. This is not a feature unique to DCS.

Edited May 10, 2018 by SharpeXB

[Mr_sukebe]

That’s a lot of words, most of which are frankly irrelevant to the issue here.

Breaking it down, in its current state:

1. Is the level of zoom currently available to monitor users accurate?

2. Is it currently benefiting monitor users in MP?

 

I’ll repeat a point again, I don’t care what a player does SP.

My opinion is that something should be done to ensure parity MP.

[blkspade]

That’s a lot of words, most of which are frankly irrelevant to the issue here.

Breaking it down, in its current state:

1. Is the level of zoom currently available to monitor users accurate?

2. Is it currently benefiting monitor users in MP?

 

I’ll repeat a point again, I don’t care what a player does SP.

My opinion is that something should be done to ensure parity MP.

 

Is your complaint over spotting or identifying?

[Mr_sukebe]

Identifying.

[SharpeXB]

That’s a lot of words, most of which are frankly irrelevant to the issue here.

Breaking it down, in its current state:

1. Is the level of zoom currently available to monitor users accurate?

2. Is it currently benefiting monitor users in MP?

 

I’ll repeat a point again, I don’t care what a player does SP.

My opinion is that something should be done to ensure parity MP.

There’s no way to determine what is “accurate” is because the game doesn’t know how large your monitor is or how far away from it you are sitting. I suppose you could ask the question in this way; If there was an eye chart in the sim, how much would you need to zoom in to read the 20/20 line? But again that depends on the size and resolution of your display and how far away it is.

As for parity in MP there is only so much that can be done for VR given that the resolution of the current headsets is so low. You could add the same level of zoom view as with a monitor.

Many games and sims have a variable FOV or zoom view feature and I’m not aware of any that limit its use in MP. The feature is self regulating because you’re just balancing advantage and disadvantage at the same time. It’s not seen as a “cheat” even in first person shooters etc.

[blkspade]

Identifying.

 

There is hardly any advantage at all on a monitor in that regard. Whatever little there is you choose to give up going to VR knowing its limitations in resolution. You don't really get much valuable visual info at that range on a monitor. I'm sure most of the time I get TK'd/Engaged by a friendly in STT (that won't/can't IFF) they aren't close enough to see my markings and are certainly mostly on monitors. If you don't have sensors to tell you what you're looking at (or what's looking at you), that's how close you should be getting. If you're not in a fighter, then you're supposed to have CAP. The lack there of will likely result in you being engaged, which makes identifying rather moot. If anything the zoom on a monitor is super broken, because contacts have the tendency to disappear at full zoom. This doesn't happen at all with VR zoom. I'll say it again, I have become more competitive in VR. The LOD transitions appear a little more smooth when given actual depth perception. My experience in VR is that I have the actual advantage.

[Mr_sukebe]

You guys claim no real advantage. If that is the case, then why do most MP videos I see include zoomed in shots during combat?

Be serious guys.

Clearly, I have both a monitor and Vr, so it’s not that I can’t make the comparison.

[cichlidfan]

Guys, you need to face the fact that given the various monitor resolutions that we have available, and then adding in the VR issue, there is no easy answer for the devs.

[blkspade]

I live stream PVP in VR, very rarely use zoom. People zoom on monitors because there is separate visibility issue that exist on monitors, its not to gain some sort of advantage. If you need to use zoom for PVP in VR you've set your pixel density too high. Everyone that has VR also has a monitor. I've flown MP since FC2, well before VR was an option.

[Mr_sukebe]

Ah, the joys of time away from a keyboard and a bit of reflection.

 

Couldn't help but notice that I appear to be the only one who's trying to debate about things being unfair. If it was as unfair as I seem to believe, then I'd be expecting pretty much every MP VR player there is to promptly chip in.

 

As such, I'll bow out at this point.

After all, pointless hassling ED for a solution to a problem that just one player seems to care about.

 

Now, back to business as normal...

[Fri13]

There’s no current display technology that can equal real world eyesight, which is a vital attribute for a pilot.

 

Actually there is. A 4K is already close to limits, but 8K puts far more to foveo than it can really see.

 

See, the theoretical capability of the human eye is extremely high, the actual capability is very low because various distortions affecting it.

Like on long distance viewing, heat waves and haze will render your visual resolution extremely low.

In a cockpit the cockpit glass renders serious softness to view.

A cockpit, HUD etc are lowering seriously the contrast, altering colors etc.

Helmet visor etc are dramatically lowering the resolution of the eye.

 

So eventually you have ultra high resolution of soft, hazy and distorted view.

Why with a 4K display you can have as good vision as in real life because you have all the softness, haze, lower contrast etc just with slightly lower resolution but with same limitations.

 

What we DO NOT have is the refresh rate. We do not have the tiny details that in real life we have like how a sun light reflects from very tiny edges etc. We can't have the 1/15000 expose when in thunderstorm a flash strikes and draws the aircraft silhouette very clearly as our screens at best are just 1/500, usual at best 1/144 and typical from 1/60 to 1/90.

 

We DO NOT have as well the focusing, instead everything is rendered in full detail from infinity to shortest possible distance. Meaning every detail of scratched cockpit glass will be visible, even when in reality we wouldn't even notice it as we look through it and it is out of focus to us.

 

This is same thing why in VR we can't perceive the depth correctly as we do not perceive the out of focus areas nor our eyes are not looking cross so brains don't detect the muscle position and so on tell us what is the 3D effect and distance. Something we can never have in VR unless we start to physically move displays differently apart or closer to cross eyes or soften the graphics depending where we look. But that would take serious computing and sensing where we look.

 

But how many can run a DCS with 8K monitor? That is 4x 4K monitors. 16x of Full HD monitors.

I can get all maxed out in 4K in 2.5.0 for about 140-160 FPS as average. In VR with the default VR settings all drops below 30 FPS. Just nothing can be done to get 45 or even 90 FPS, even when graphics are below highest possible and total resolution (two eye panels together) are lower than 4K display have. Then the VR optics, the "sweet spot" limitation and lower contrast etc. I take 4K if I want to operate the cockpit and spot air targets semi-realistically. But 8K would be more than reality, only because DCS renders things so clearly that you can spot ground units when you shouldn't.

 

One day we can have a SLI setup where one GPU is used per VR display so one per eye. But until that happens, we have realistic and semi-realistic capabilities with monitor as with VR.

[blkspade]

By the way,

[SharpeXB]

Actually there is. A 4K is already close to limits,

Ok I should qualify that statement. It depends on how far away from the screen you are or how large the screen is. If you want life sized and 20/20 simulation, no a 4K screen isn’t enough.

There isn’t a display today (that we can afford) which is 50”-60” in size and of sufficient resolution that can look as sharp as reality. Like literally looking out a window. And of course there are other qualities like color depth and refresh rate.

Somewhere on this forum was linked the Oculus article on exactly what simulating 20/20 would require and it’s very high. An Apple Retina display at 5K is sufficient to make pixels indistinguishable at arms length from a 27” screen but that’s much smaller than life sized for our purposes. I have a 28” 4K screen and at normal seating distance I need antialiasing to remove jaggies, meaning I can still perceive pixels.

[strikerdg]

I have said it before and I will say it again.. scaling is the biggest issue with DCS. It makes WVR engagements, formation flying, and mid air refueling unrealistic. In my opinion this is the largest single problem existing with the game. I know there are many explanations for the reason why but all I can tell you is, from plenty of experience, the scaling is way off. You should be able to see aircraft a lot larger. At 1.5 miles you should have no problem telling a flanker from a fulcrum with your eyeballs and should be able to tell the paint scheme inside of that. The game looks like you are viewing the world from a GoPro at appropriate FOV.

 

In reality you should be able to see what type of aircraft you are joining on (even a small fighter sized target) easily over 2 miles away and be able to tell their aspect. Additionally during BFM you should be able to see vapor and large control surface movements cross circle. I hope this gets addressed. Not saying that it’s perfect but Falcon 4.0 BMS is a much more accurate depiction of scaling at least for WVR and could be used as a reference.. BFM in its current form is very different from reality due primarily to this issue unfortunately.

[SharpeXB]

I have said it before and I will say it again.. scaling is the biggest issue with DCS. It makes WVR engagements, formation flying, and mid air refueling unrealistic. In my opinion this is the largest single problem existing with the game. I know there are many explanations for the reason why but all I can tell you is, from plenty of experience, the scaling is way off. You should be able to see aircraft a lot larger. At 1.5 miles you should have no problem telling a flanker from a fulcrum with your eyeballs and should be able to tell the paint scheme inside of that. The game looks like you are viewing the world from a GoPro at appropriate FOV.

 

In reality you should be able to see what type of aircraft you are joining on (even a small fighter sized target) easily over 2 miles away and be able to tell their aspect. Additionally during BFM you should be able to see vapor and large control surface movements cross circle. I hope this gets addressed. Not saying that it’s perfect but Falcon 4.0 BMS is a much more accurate depiction of scaling at least for WVR and could be used as a reference.. BFM in its current form is very different from reality due primarily to this issue unfortunately.

“Smart Scaling” cannot be used with the DCS engine. Wags explains here

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3475872&postcount=68

 

You can’t see a tanker for AAR? Or wingmen in formation? That’s hard to believe.

Edited May 10, 2018 by SharpeXB

[strikerdg]

I have said it before and I will say it again.. scaling is the biggest issue with DCS. It makes WVR engagements, formation flying, and mid air refueling unrealistic. In my opinion this is the largest single problem existing with the game. I know there are many explanations for the reason why but all I can tell you is, from plenty of experience, the scaling is way off. You should be able to see aircraft a lot larger. At 1.5 miles you should have no problem telling a flanker from a fulcrum with your eyeballs and should be able to tell the paint scheme inside of that. The game looks like you are viewing the world from a GoPro at appropriate FOV.

 

In reality you should be able to see what type of aircraft you are joining on (even a small fighter sized target) easily over 2 miles away and be able to tell their aspect. Additionally during BFM you should be able to see vapor and large control surface movements cross circle. I hope this gets addressed. Not saying that it’s perfect but Falcon 4.0 BMS is a much more accurate depiction of scaling at least for WVR and could be used as a reference.. BFM in its current form is very different from reality due primarily to this issue unfortunately.

[Fri13]

I don't know what settings has affected as now going from PD 1.8 to 1.0, gamma 1.8 and AA 2x only, we can spot a AH-64 against a Caucasus Fall trees (12:00, cloudy weather) from 6-8km distance.

Against a sky from a 10km.

Seeing a attitude (left, right, towards/away) is about from 2-3km. The window glare reveals the toward attitude easily from 2-3km range as we see when it is dangerous to fly toward. A maverick launching is difficult to see but we see the missile coming against sky at max range.

A cannon fire as well from maximum about 1.5-2km against ground as the spread is visible.

 

We can ass well see Mi-24V engaging ground units with 12.7mm from 4-5km range against fields and over trees, as green tracers are individuals.

 

Spotting a M1A1 Abrams form M2A1 Bradley (2+2) is possible from 2-3km by their size difference in many angles.

 

Spotting a Vulcan SPAAG from 4-5km makes it now possible to engage it with S-13 rocket maximum range before it lock to you and shoots. And seeing the spread of tracers leaving it visually gives couple second time to change approach to avoid it. Even without lock tone.

 

An F-18 is possible to identify from a F-16 at about 3-4km when you see them above and about 2km from a side and about 1-1.5km from head on.

 

A-10 is identifiable from 4-5km. Attitude is easy to see by light and shadows and when going BFM it is possible to see the larger control surfaces by shadows and highlights movements.

 

BFM is possible with F/A-18 as it is possible as angles change so you can predict the turn rate at about 2-3km.

 

This was now done on DCS 2.5 stable, as we moved from 2.5 open beta to it. We changed the PD 1.8 to 1.0 in testing purposes and enabled labels at start with custom distances so labels were -20px in X and Y axis and transparency at 0.2 to make more difficult to spot position but know general area. No identification but just range and type (air,ground,missile).

Now we are back to no labels as we can spot targets again.

 

These tests were done in Su-25A with quick mission creator at highest difficulty and above mentioned seasons and weather settings. And our first conclusions were that we could see all air engagements at max range how MIGs and Sukhois engaged with F-16 and hornets. Missiles shot and all from those 15-20km distances.

The enemy aircraft approach and formation was possible to spot at the start. The range for own first waypoint is usually 40+km at that point and somewhere before enemy air units.

 

Without labels, of someone will guide to general area and tells where units are like example "about three kliks to west from eastern lake crossroad, on right side of road and near tree island." It is possible to fly and usually find targets at about 4-5km. If someone shoots smoke marker, it is very easy to get on range of S-25L and launch it almost at maximum range and fine tune targeting middle flight with good change to hit or missile hit just next few meters from target. This from 1.2-1.5km altitude in straight dive toward targets.

 

We tested the VR zoom as well (we don't use any zooming on monitors or in VR) AND found that to make super easy to target and find ground targets from 6-8km ranges once you have general idea what is where.

 

So if you can see briefing of expected targets on map, like "northern side of river going to east 1-1.5km from large lake there is MBT platoon" you can find them.

 

But not having any intelligence, is very likely wasted time by most of the time as you just try to spot something and suddenly a AA hits you.

 

So having a good GCI and general idea what is where on ground, even when a ground commander tells you it over radio, you can now perform fast better than what it was with DCS 1.5 and 2.5 open beta until stable 2.5.

 

Still can't read all or most gauges or labels etc on cockpit but at least it is possible to spot ground and air units and do something about it.

Missiles without labels are most annoying. Like how AIM-120B gets you downed even when you fly 5-10m from the ground, about 90° (SPO-15 giving just 90) to it and behind trees just 30-50m aside you, and releasing chaff few per second and the missile doesn't even care but comes straight from 20km distance and strike. Even when flying straight away from it and releasing chaff, no help as it's magic good its radar locks and see through chaff between you and it.

 

 

 

--

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.....

[strikerdg]

Yes you can see them but it is unrealistically portrayed and honestly much more difficult than reality when it comes to visual acuity and perspective. As I said before I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why the scaling is the way it is but I can tell you with absolute certainty that the visual perspective of some other sims are much closer to reality. This is most apparent to me during bfm or formation flying. It’s quite usable in the current state obviously but it’s my opionion that this is the area lacking the most for realism in WVR combat. That and perhaps vibration/buffet at high angles of attack and max performance turns

[strikerdg]

Bottom line it should be easier to see things. In BFM the other plane should appear larger than it does and I really don’t understand the specifics as to why that is. Science and stuff. Sorry I guess I don’t know how to reply to a post on these forums ha

[SharpeXB]

In BFM the other plane should appear larger than it does and I really don’t understand the specifics as to why that is. Science and stuff.

Actually the other planes appear exactly at the correct size. Some people just want to make them artificially larger. The DCS engine can’t do that to the 3D models without creating a bunch of problems as mentioned above.

The science and stuff which explains the size of the distant objects is due to this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

Edited May 17, 2018 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

Bottom line it should be easier to see things. In BFM the other plane should appear larger than it does and I really don’t understand the specifics as to why that is. Science and stuff. Sorry I guess I don’t know how to reply to a post on these forums ha

 

It's simply a matter of perception. The brain uses a bunch of cues to pick out and focus on what's important, and only a fraction of those are available on a monitor — especially one with low angular resolution. The reason why smart scaling offers a far more accurate recreation of reality than pure mathematical perspective is that it uses size to compensate for those missing cues to create the same end-result in terms of what's perceivable and what's not.

 

It's also a truly trivial thing to apply — scaling a model is such a basic thing in any rendering pipeline that it's usually just a single line that needs to be altered. The tricky part is figuring out a good curve to determine the appropriate scale factor as a function of distance. BMS, for instance, uses a skewed bell curve to make identification at medium-to-long range realistic while still maintaining correct sizes at short range and making it too small to see at extreme ranges. With a bit of additional fiddling, you could even tune it so that not even LoD pop-in becomes an issue as the scaled-up model still is small enough to hide the lower levels of detail.