New visibility model

[Rikus]

Actually i can´t spot contacts en mi 27" monitor 4K

 

If you can´t spot contacts in a military simulator, one of the most important things....

 

This is a very big problem because even when you are flying formation with your team, and lider says open formation in line abreast 1-2 miles it´s almost impossible to maintain because i don´t see him...

 

Real fighter pilots afirm that you can spot other planes at 5-6 miles

 

I know many people has this problem so, this should be a priority in a fighter sim.

[Mars Exulte]

It's my understanding the higher the resolution, the harder to see. A one pixel aircraft on my 27'' screen is four times the size of a one pixel aircraft on YOUR 27'' screen. There's a limit to what anybody can do about the reality we're chasing pixels.

 

And what a real pilot can see is irrelevant in this context, as mentioned above. Even if that were not the case, you know how everything looks smaller in games when they're actually to scale (Arma, DCS, etc)? That's because of the narrow field of fov on a small screen directly in front of you. You're literally watching people (yourself) fly jets on a TV in front of you. Your sense of scale and perspective is totally f'ed up as a result, as you would expect.

 

That said, while difficult, I've managed to track my wingman after breaking to engage ground targets, and kept close enough track of him that when he broke off I followed him out of the AO. It's difficult, but far from impossible.

 

Conversely, I used to fly with a guy in War Thunder years ago that would routinely lose track of me while in close formation, like 'Ok, I'm turning right.'' two seconds later he's like 'I lost you' @@

 

 

In this context, the WHAT and HOW you're looking matter a lot.

 

First, make use of the tools at your disposal. Zoom needs to be readily accessible on the fly. Some people don't like that because ''MUH IMMERZION'', irrelevant, as already established this ain't real life and we're operating with handicaps that don't exist in RL. Additionally, objects have render cutoff ranges, they have to or the game would be unplayable, as a result you can zoom and see objects that are theoretically within visual but outside render. Lastly zooming turns one pixel into several, increasing odds of you noticing it. Choosing to disregard this tool is a personal choice, but akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, zoom is unrealistic but so are the view ranges. Do you want to be blind and unrealistic, or see the other guy and be unrealistic? There is no solution that is not ALSO unrealistic.

 

Secondly, most people move their eyes around too much. You're searching for a pixel in a pixel stack, let your eyes linger and watch for traces of movement or out of place colors or distortions. Try to keep track of your orientation as well so you know which directions you should be watching in first place so you don't waste time diligently searching for stuff that isn't there.

 

 

 

The only solution to this is 220' FoV, 10k+ headsets, then you'll have proper scale and visual fidelity. Until then, there is no perfect solution, they all are flawed with varying levels of suckitude.

Edited May 23, 2018 by zhukov032186

[draconus]

This is a very big problem because even when you are flying formation with your team, and lider says open formation in line abreast 1-2 miles it´s almost impossible to maintain because i don´t see him..

Cannot reproduce the problem.

[David OC]

Cannot reproduce the problem.

 

I can see at 5 NM @ 1440P, well depending on where they are just like IRL.

 

Using a modified test label, distance only seen and this is a screen shot also reduced down in Photoshop, looks better in sim.

 

Modified label attached place here if you want to try it C:\Users\(Your PC User Name)\Saved Games\DCS(Beta etc)\Config\View

 

All F-15's

 

Labels.lua

Edited May 24, 2018 by David OC

[Mihalich1981]

Its 4k problem. 100%.

[SL PAK]

4K = invisibility

[David OC]

This is on the new update and map with labels turned off?

 

Has something changed? I don't recall being able to see anything this far out.

 

[philstyle]

Actually i can´t spot contacts en mi 27" monitor 4K

If you can´t spot contacts in a military simulator, one of the most important things....

This is a very big problem because even when you are flying formation with your team, and lider says open formation in line abreast 1-2 miles it´s almost impossible to maintain because i don´t see him...

Real fighter pilots afirm that you can spot other planes at 5-6 miles

I know many people has this problem so, this should be a priority in a fighter sim.

 

 

4K resolution on a 27-inch screen is a bit silly if your goal is to see indiviual pixels (assuming you are talking about "contacts" which are "dots" and not "3D models").

You're generating 8,294,400 pixels accross 2000.3 cm2

That's 4000 pixels per cm2, and you expect your eyes to be able to maintatin perception of one of those?

 

Try running 1080p. That's around 1032 pixles per cm2 on your monitor. It shoudl be around 4x "easier" to see these contacts.

 

I'm in the process of changing from 1080p on a 27inch, to 31.5 inch screen, and I'm only going to push it to 2K resolution for combat simming, becasue I know that even then I will be losing some pixel-visibility.

 

 

EDIT: June 01 2018

I now have the 2K, 27" monitor.

Here is my feedback:

Edited June 1, 2018 by philstyle
updated post with promised feedback

[SharpeXB]

Try running 1080p. That's around 1032 pixles per cm2 on your monitor. It shoudl be around 4x "easier" to see these contacts.

Running lower resolutions on a 4K screen looks terrible. It’s noticably soft and not “sharp” like 1080p on a 1080p screen looks. And it doesn’t help seeing things. Even 1440p on a 4K screen looks soft.

[philstyle]

Contact visibility shouldn't depend on pixel size. That's a bad design for a competitive game.

It's almost as bad as game mechanic depending on frame rate.

 

 

 

Are you talking about DOT contacts, or 3D model contacts?

3D models can actually be more visible on higher resolutions.

Dot (single pixel) contacts are almost always less visible.

[Mars Exulte]

Contact visibility shouldn't depend on pixel size. That's a bad design for a competitive game.

It's almost as bad as game mechanic depending on frame rate.

 

 

This isn't a 'competitive game'. And as I have stated before, this is an issue with ALL flight sims since the dawn of time, stop acting like it's new and unique to DCS. Other game genres don't suffer from this because they aren't typically expecting you to interact with objects several miles away.

[philstyle]

I play other flight sims and it is not an issue there.

 

 

 

It has to be an issue in IL2(BoX series) if you play that, becasue that sim does not even have a dot system. AFAIKT they ONLY use 3D models which render out of view at around 9km distance.

However, their 3D models visiblity is very good.

 

 

This is why I ask if people are talking about "dot" visibility or 3D model visibility. They are two very different things and are managed/ improved in very different ways.

 

 

In DCS DOT-contacts are visible out to around 20km (1080p, 27inch monitor)... maybe even more, I can't recall the figures I was getting last time I tested.

[SharpeXB]

Are you talking about DOT contacts, or 3D model contacts?

3D models can actually be more visible on higher resolutions.

Dot (single pixel) contacts are almost always less visible.

In 4K an aircraft within 10 miles is already being rendered as more than one pixel. A single pixel contact in 4K is very very far away. In good conditions like Nevada over the desert I can see other fighters at 9-10 miles because they’re generating a good deal of contrast against the sand.

[Mars Exulte]

Two or more people fighting to kill each other? It's a competitive game. It's not e-sports ready yet. (there were organized DCS tournaments though).

 

If it's not competitive game, there would be no ingame leaderboard with points.

 

I play other flight sims and it is not an issue there.

 

I misunderstood your intent, partially, but my point stands, though I'll elaborate. Obviously it is competitive in the combative sense. It is not suitable as 'e-sports' Counterstrike kind of competitive, because there is no balance in aircraft and PC horsepower and control setup vastly influence the end result. My full cockpit with headtracking and professional grade controls give me a massive advantage over somebody using a T16k. Those kind of discrepancies can't exist in a 'competitive game'.

 

Also, PvP makes up a very small portion of the community, again emphasising that it isn't particularly a 'competitive' kind of game, if my statement is more clear now.

 

@philstyle

 

If BoX derenders @9k, that's approximately 5 miles, which was proven to be visible in a screenshot either in this thread or the other. The primary discrepancy I would say is the aircraft in a WWII sim cruise around 300mph, peaking around 400mph during dives or straightline ideal conditions, with most dogfighting taking place at 200-250mph.

 

By contrast, even the Su-25 cruises around 400mph, with straightline speeds approaching 700mph. Fighters cruise between 400-500mph with burst speeds to whatever, 1000+ anyway.

 

The difference is two fighters loitering around in BoX are likely to spend much more time within that 5miles, whereas two wingmen drifting apart at 450mph will be out of sight within 60 seconds, and hostiles closing on one another will be in gun range in moments... unless they choose to pass each other by in which case they'll be specks in less than 10 seconds.

 

It is a COMPLETELY different environment altogether. And people bitch about visibility there too because ''ten miles in RL blah blah'' cause I've already been there heard that.

 

 

To use an example from abother game, I used to play War Thunder a lot, which as we know has both props and early jets, I also spent the bulk of my simming time in Il2 prior to that, so very accustomed to piston aircraft. The first time I moved to jets it was extremely jarring to realise my 'do not go below this' speed was higher than my 'do not exceed' speed of before. Everything felt like it was fast forwarding.

 

My point is that you have a LOT more time to notice and react to events around you. Piston vs jet is no comparison at all.

 

 

 

I stand by previous statements this all boils down to sloppy spotting practices.

[shagrat]

Two or more people fighting to kill each other? It's a competitive game. It's not e-sports ready yet. (there were organized DCS tournaments though).

 

If it's not competitive game, there would be no ingame leaderboard with points.

 

I play other flight sims and it is not an issue there.

 

Nope, it is a simulation, not a game. It is competetive, but that does not mean it is required to be "balanced", "fair" or "easy".

 

As it simulates armed combat it is as unfair as real world war. A very valid tactic in war is, to always act from a position of strength or even better superiority, to maximize your chances.

 

The times of chivalry and fair "competition" are long gone.

 

I agree though, the spotting is difficult in flight sims, but it isn't "unrealistic". You can of course spot plane at 5 NM, but that is true only, if you know exactly(!) where to look.

 

Don't expect to see a plane against a scattered background at 5 NM, that's very, very difficult IRL as well. There is a nice study with pilots that compares these factors... :smartass:

 

...that does not mean, DCS is perfect. Spotting has its problems, as we have reflections on the canopy affecting a 2D view far more than a real life view, we have no peripheral vision (small FOV), we have pixels that whatever resolution are inferior to the Mk I eyeball, etc.

But on the other hand, spotting in DCS was enhanced and got considerably better to 1.2 times and even the recent GFX engine updates in 2.0 and 2.5 has improved visibiliy of planes and even ground forces, already.

 

Another important factor has been pointed out already. Focus and scan the area you suspect the plane to be, if you just randomly keep your head on the swivel, it does more bad than good. Zoom is a way to compensate a bit for the 2D view and the more you fly and practice, the more used to the recognition of tiny pixel motions you get. ;)

[shagrat]

It is a video game - entertainment software. If you were involved in certification of any simulation software for professional usage, you would know why.

 

I'm acting from a position of strength - keeping my wallet locked.

 

To judge how realistic ingame spotting is compared to rl, I choose to trust my own eyes over your words.

 

Btw this is the only game I know that increases objects sizes when I zoom out.

 

You are welcome to your own oppinion, but this topic is as old as flight sims and in the end it will be either a gamey approach sacrificing what makes a simulation a simulation (a realism focused one), or a console compatible fun to play game (an entertainment focused one).

 

If you think another thread about spotting issues will change that, maybe you have more luck than the dozens of people in the years before. :dunno:

 

Edit: and it is wise not to take wild guesses of the profession and dayjob people do, if you do not remotely know anything about them.

Edited May 24, 2018 by shagrat

[Rikus]

Contact visibility shouldn't depend on pixel size. That's a bad design for a competitive game.

 

It's almost as bad as game mechanic depending on frame rate.

 

Thats correct.

 

 

It´s not a problem of my monitor, it´s how DCS do this.

 

I don´t have any problem in BMS or other sims/games.

 

 

Another important factor has been pointed out already. Focus and scan the area you suspect the plane to be, if you just randomly keep your head on the swivel, it does more bad than good. Zoom is a way to compensate a bit for the 2D view and the more you fly and practice, the more used to the recognition of tiny pixel motions you get.

 

I can accept that for planes at 5 miles, but not for planes at 2-3 miles in dogfight or line abreast formation, it´s almost impossible to see...

 

As i say, no problem in BMS, so, it´s how DCS do this.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Rikus

[SharpeXB]

I can accept that for planes at 5 miles, but not for planes at 2-3 miles in dogfight or line abreast formation, it´s almost impossible to see...

If you can’t see aircraft at 2-3 miles then it’s a case of player error and not something wrong with DCS.

[Rikus]

If you can’t see aircraft at 2-3 miles then it’s a case of player error and not something wrong with DCS.

 

 

As i said in my last post, i don´t have problems to see contacts in BMS or other games, my eyes are perfect.

[David OC]

This is a very hard subject and needs to be as good as it can be, some of these other sims are too easy and not really life like (flashing strobe lights etc) to make the "Game" easier, I'm guessing IRL pilots would agree here and those other sims should not be referenced.

 

ED will possibly will go this way too with a "sever option" for fun air quake ww2 severs with the spirit thing they had before, once the lighting is nailed down better?

 

Can someone screenshot like I did on the first page in 4K. I would have thought there would be more pixels used on different screen settings for this? 1080, 1440, 2160.

 

When I scrolled right in on Photoshop it looked like 2 pixels were used when @ 15 nm, wouldn't this be 4 pixels or more @ 4K to make it equivalent etc?

[Mars Exulte]

Of course pixel size affects visibility... the objects consist of pixels, if you hadn't noticed. The things people say around here @@

 

@David

Not necessarily, it depends on if it's two pixels because that's the 'physical size' of the object at that range, or if it's two pixels as an abstract for an object that's far away and barely visible. If the first, then it would be 4-8 pixels, if the second, it would still be two pixels... two very, very tiny pixels.

[David OC]

Of course pixel size affects visibility... the objects consist of pixels, if you hadn't noticed. The things people say around here @@

 

@David

Not necessarily, it depends on if it's two pixels because that's the 'physical size' of the object at that range, or if it's two pixels as an abstract for an object that's far away and barely visible. If the first, then it would be 4-8 pixels, if the second, it would still be two pixels... two very, very tiny pixels.

 

I was thinking it would be set by ED when labels are off? ED can see what the screen pixel settings are set to 3840px x 2160px

 

1080 = 1 pixel

1440 = 2

2160 = 4

etc

Edited May 25, 2018 by David OC

[mhe]

To truly make the spotting points equal in size for all users, we would need to account for screen size and seating distance from the screen besides only resolution. The true measure to equal that out would be how many angular minutes/seconds from the user POV a spot point fills and these are the values you'd need to calculate for that.

 

Probably a lot of coding that would not yield that different results from the status quo. Doesn't feel that far off from RL to be honest.

[Mars Exulte]

@David

Only if it actually scaled 1x1 like that, and it doesn't necessarily. As a pure image ratio, yes, but for a rendered object in the distance, not necessarily. And while they probably COULD ping for the res you're running, I doubt they do.

 

The most likely thing we have now is either the 3d model just gradually shrinks until it only renders as a single pixel (in which case it would take a greater distance to reach one pixel size and what you say would apply) or at a set distance it disregards the 3d model altogether and at said distance switches to a single pixel, in which case it might go from several pixels to just one. In this second case, whether you're running 1024x768 or 3840x2160 one pixel is one pixel. In this case visibility would boil down to the size of a single pixel on your monitor. I have a dead pixel on a 27'' 1080p I'm using, on a 19'' screen would be smaller, on a 34'' screen would be maddeningly large.

 

Most likely it is the second case, that it switches to pixels at a set distance. Dunno for sure, though. Evidently they're 3d models out to at least 5mi, and I'm pretty sure I've detected objects at greater diatances than that in the past, so at REASONABLE distances, a higher res should actually make objects sharper and more recognisable. It's only at extreme distances that they become unidentifiable, and you're not going to notice them anyway.

 

These guys that think they can identify aircraft at 20 miles or some nonsense are flat out of their minds, when you stop and really think about the apparent size of even a 60ft fighter from 10-15 miles away... it's just a speck. A speck of a speck, even. ''But muh buddy is in the chair force and says he can see the stars on the wings at 30 miles!'' Did anybody ever stop to consider maybe their buddy is an idiot? That maybe he is a helluva lot closer than he thinks he is?

 

The ones that can't find stuff at close range are just helplessly helpless. They can't be saved lol

[David OC]

Thanks for that zhukov032186

 

Here is a great research study in Predicting Visibility of Aircraft and possibly ED would be using something like this to get this right, once the "atmospheric and lighting conditions" I.E Graphics engine is more tuned in. Wags even talked about dusty conditions in the future perhaps.

 

Predicting Visibility of Aircraft

 

Few Quotes below Need to read that again to sink in LOL.

 

"Visual detection of aircraft is also crucial in military operations. Of two opposing fighter pilots, the one who first detects the other is most likely to prevail. And in this context, visibility may depend upon the optical qualities of devices such as visor and canopies."

 

"Visibility of aircraft will depend upon their size, shape, distance, and coloration, as well as upon atmospheric and lighting conditions, but collection of human empirical data for all of the possible variations among these quantities is not practical. An alternative approach is to develop a general model for visibility of aircraft targets to a human viewer. Such a model would enable rapid evaluation of aircraft visibility in particular contexts. In particular, it could be used to assess the limitations of the see-and-avoid principle under diverse conditions, in order to provide better protective measures."

 

Previous research

 

Howell carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course.

 

(DC-3) collision course Over various conditions (detection distance)

5.5 to 8.7 km

3.4 to 5.4 Miles

 

Knew exactly the approach angle of the target aircraft

17.3 to 23 km

10.7 to 14.9 Miles

 

About three times larger than the detection distance.

 

@David

 

These guys that think they can identify aircraft at 20 miles or some nonsense are flat out of their minds, when you stop and really think about the apparent size of even a 60ft fighter from 10-15 miles away... it's just a speck. A speck of a speck, even. ''But muh buddy is in the chair force and says he can see the stars on the wings at 30 miles!'' Did anybody ever stop to consider maybe their buddy is an idiot? :megalol: That maybe he is a helluva lot closer than he thinks he is?

 

The ones that can't find stuff at close range are just helplessly helpless. They can't be saved lol

 

Almost spat out my coffee...:D

 

:thumbup:

 

So it's possibly not far off in DCS now, just bit harder at 4K on small screens and some want ED to bring back the sprites label thing just to make DCS an easier and more fun game to play etc.

 

-

Edited May 25, 2018 by David OC