Visibility

[Alphazulu]

Okay, here are the screenshots. This is running in 2K in the middle of the day in a test mission.

 

This particular one is in an F5 with a Mig-21 set to fly directly at me from a long distance. I made the screen shots from the current version of DCS then simply rolled that install of DCS back to the last patch before the 8/29 update that implemented the new labels. Then I flew the exact same test mission and took screen shots, using the label system in both to tell you how far away the target was.

 

I ran this test in WW2, Korea, Cold War and Modern and they were all about the same. I'm not going to take, modify and upload every photo to show the same thing over and over again.

 

The last 2 screenshot are from the current version, with me flying in my F-86, and looking at a hill side and not seeing anything. Then the next screenshot is the same hill at that moment with me zoomed all the way in. Prior to this update I could always see cons without zooming in.

 

There has been talk about "zooming in and zooming out" and yes, I did see that effect the visibility and that is why I did not use the zoom at all in my aircraft spotting test. I just wanted to leave the view in the default position. Yes, zooming in would cause things to appear when I had reached the max zoom in but they would disappear as soon as I zoomed out at all. It did not use to do this either.

 

Finally, I have not interest in getting in any arguments about what it is like "in real life". Again, this post was started as a question concerning a technical change to a software, not a discussion on what we all feel is correct or right. If people want to argue over that, there are plenty of threads for that. My only concern here is, was the change intentional? If not is it going to be corrected? That is it.

 

 

To see what is what, you may need to download the images to zoom in properly and see what is there.

 

 

 

Image's in order"

1-DCS Post-Label Change 20.4 miles (for comparing to Pre-Label change screenshot at 20.9 miles)

2-DCS Post-Label Change 9.2 miles with Labels (first spotted enemy)

3-DCS Post-Label Change 9.2 miles with No Labels (first spotted enemy)

4-DCS Pre-Label Change-20.9 Miles with Label (first spotted enemy)

5-DCS Pre-Label Change-20.9 miles No Label (first spotted enemy)

Cons not zoomed in

Same Cons ZOOMED in

Edited September 17, 2018 by Alphazulu

[SharpeXB]

So the current DCS version changed the maximum range you could spot the MiG-21 from 20.9 miles down to 9.2. That is certainly more realistic.

[wilbur81]

 

All, I am upgrading to 4k this week so I can better test. I am only concerned about rendering within realistic distances though

 

Yes! Good news, and agreed! :thumbup:

[NineLine]

So the current DCS version changed the maximum range you could spot the MiG-21 from 20.9 miles down to 9.2. That is certainly more realistic.

 

Yes, the issue is its not scaling properly for VR and 4k, from what I am hearing, and seeing in VR, so it needs to be addressed there. I think the ranges are better, if they were even across the different resolutions.

[SharpeXB]

Yes, the issue is its not scaling properly for VR and 4k, from what I am hearing, and seeing in VR, so it needs to be addressed there. I think the ranges are better, if they were even across the different resolutions.

Agree. If there is some sort of pixel sized sprite being used, it needs to appear as a consistent size regardless of resolution.

[Xordus]

This is such a great change. I'm glad they finally addressed this issue. Study's actually indicate spotting should still be somewhat closer than 9NM tho. An F-16 is only reliably spotted at about 7-8km based on data.

 

 

 

It seems that if they removed the dot all-together (for small aircraft) it would be more representative of normal combat conditions. Then again, I can see AWACS from a really long distance in-game without the dot, so maybe they could just remove it for all planes.

 

 

Anyway it's a great step forward.

[Alphazulu]

"This is such a great change. I'm glad they finally addressed this issue."

 

From Forum moderator: "Nothing has been changed in this regard"

 

Oh yes, very well done on accident.....Now lets just ignore the other results like the cons not showing and all the other visibility bugs reported across platforms from VR to 4k.

 

Like I said many times, I have no issue with ED adjusting the visibility, however and accidental effect from another change that is not consistent across multiple resolutions is not the way to do it. People online crack me up how they are able to ignore whatever does not help make their point. Out of all the people that commented and don't "agree" with the 20.9 miles all ignored the pictures of the cons not showing.....what a surprise.

 

 

People on here blow my mind.....

[comie1]

Now lets just ignore the other results like the cons not showing and all the other visibility bugs reported across platforms from VR to 4k.

People on here blow my mind.....

You've clearly missed Ninelines other comments. he's addressed this issue by going out of his way to get a 4K monitor to help test the issues and compile a report.

[M0ltar]

This is such a great change. I'm glad they finally addressed this issue. Study's actually indicate spotting should still be somewhat closer than 9NM tho. An F-16 is only reliably spotted at about 7-8km based on data.

 

It seems that if they removed the dot all-together (for small aircraft) it would be more representative of normal combat conditions. Then again, I can see AWACS from a really long distance in-game without the dot, so maybe they could just remove it for all planes.

 

Anyway it's a great step forward.

 

I agree with you completely! Something along the lines of 4-5nm to reliably spot an aircraft sounds completely reasonable. Maybe ED needs to implement something along the lines of sun glint off aircraft or something that makes spotting a bit easier. There are plenty of accounts during Vietnam that that was used to spot Migs.

 

The spotting distances and the dots that were created were a blemish to me in my DCS flying experience. These people saying that you should be able to see a fighter from 10 miles is crazy. That is 65k feet. I get that you can see jet airliners flying at 30-40 feet if you follow their contrails to their position, but they are much much larger than a fighter sized object and are painted in hi contrast colors like white that make them stand out against the sky and you most likely used a contrail to determine their position. Good luck scanning the entire sky and finding them reliably. 65k foot spotting is like saying that you would be able to see a fighter sized object from one side of the English Channel to the other. I really think people forget how far these distances are. This is not me saying that it should be invisible, but that the aircraft would be next to impossible to spot unless you knew exactly where to look and even then it would be so small that it would be very hard to see. On top of that camo is designed to make it even harder to spot.

 

One thing I would like changed however is the pop-in of the contrails. Is it possible to maybe make an options slider that allows us to change how far the contrails are rendered. Contrails, in contrast with actual aircraft are easily visible from very very far away.

 

EDit: NineLine, Ive uploaded some pictures of what I see at 3840x1600. I agree with others that planes are hard to spot and should be addressed and slightly increased. Its really hard to see a full sized F15 at 2km without zooming in. However, I do NOT want this to become something where we can reliably spot from 10nm or greater. That just becomes fake and does not help with immersion. Yes it makes flying and dog fighting easier, but it becomes a handicap. Hopefully these images help you out.

 

Moltar's Spotting Distance Test at 3840x1600 Zoomed and Not Zoomed

Edited September 19, 2018 by M0ltar

[falcon_120]

Since we all agree that the most unpolished part is not about spotting at long and medium ranges but rather how "stealthy" fighters are at close to very close ranges in dcs, perhaps what needs more attention is some kind of rendering technique that increase contrast at short ranges and against a dark background.

 

In DCS you some time struggle to track a bandit at gun range if he is against the ground, i think that with something like hdr or any other rendering technique you should be able to see better very close objects, that highlight against background that are further away.

 

PD: that and the different resolutions' spotting distance harmonization

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[NineLine]

"This is such a great change. I'm glad they finally addressed this issue."

 

From Forum moderator: "Nothing has been changed in this regard"

 

Oh yes, very well done on accident.....Now lets just ignore the other results like the cons not showing and all the other visibility bugs reported across platforms from VR to 4k.

 

Like I said many times, I have no issue with ED adjusting the visibility, however and accidental effect from another change that is not consistent across multiple resolutions is not the way to do it. People online crack me up how they are able to ignore whatever does not help make their point. Out of all the people that commented and don't "agree" with the 20.9 miles all ignored the pictures of the cons not showing.....what a surprise.

 

 

People on here blow my mind.....

 

You need to relax, this affects differ people differently depending on resolution, monitor size, etc. I am trying to help, so lets keep it on the facts and not getting angry at others, for whatever reason.

[NineLine]

You've clearly missed Ninelines other comments. he's addressed this issue by going out of his way to get a 4K monitor to help test the issues and compile a report.

 

Yes, the sacrifices I make for you guys, woe is me :)

[StandingCow]

I agree with you completely! Something along the lines of 4-5nm to reliably spot an aircraft sounds completely reasonable. Maybe ED needs to implement something along the lines of sun glint off aircraft or something that makes spotting a bit easier. There are plenty of accounts during Vietnam that that was used to spot Migs.

 

The spotting distances and the dots that were created were a blemish to me in my DCS flying experience. These people saying that you should be able to see a fighter from 10 miles is crazy. That is 65k feet. I get that you can see jet airliners flying at 30-40 feet if you follow their contrails to their position, but they are much much larger than a fighter sized object and are painted in hi contrast colors like white that make them stand out against the sky and you most likely used a contrail to determine their position. Good luck scanning the entire sky and finding them reliably. 65k foot spotting is like saying that you would be able to see a fighter sized object from one side of the English Channel to the other. I really think people forget how far these distances are. This is not me saying that it should be invisible, but that the aircraft would be next to impossible to spot unless you knew exactly where to look and even then it would be so small that it would be very hard to see. On top of that camo is designed to make it even harder to spot.

 

One thing I would like changed however is the pop-in of the contrails. Is it possible to maybe make an options slider that allows us to change how far the contrails are rendered. Contrails, in contrast with actual aircraft are easily visible from very very far away.

 

EDit: NineLine, Ive uploaded some pictures of what I see at 3840x1600. I agree with others that planes are hard to spot and should be addressed and slightly increased. Its really hard to see a full sized F15 at 2km without zooming in. However, I do NOT want this to become something where we can reliably spot from 10nm or greater. That just becomes fake and does not help with immersion. Yes it makes flying and dog fighting easier, but it becomes a handicap. Hopefully these images help you out.

 

Moltar's Spotting Distance Test at 3840x1600 Zoomed and Not Zoomed

 

 

Totally agree, some people had a really unfair advantage with the older system, a year or so ago we were playing with a dude that used a larger TV with I think a 1080p resolution and he was spotting planes 20 miles or so out, me and my buddy were shocked at what a disadvantage we had.

 

 

 

4-5 miles seems reasonable and realistic.

[wilbur81]

Yes, the sacrifices I make for you guys, woe is me :)

 

Indeed. :-) 4K is awesome and, if everyone online was using it, so that we were all on the same spotting playing-field, I wouldn't mind that one bit. :-)

[philstyle]

4-5 miles seems reasonable and realistic.

 

5 miles is only 26,000 ft.

You know that you can see airliners flying over-head at 35,000ft plus, at least I can regularly see them up at that altitude from the ground (6.5 miles), and that's not the limit.

 

Larger aircraft (twin and 4 engines) are visible at ranges well above 5 miles. . . . about 15 to 20 miles is max for me with a pale aircraft against the blue sky, during daylight/ clear conditions.

 

Using Flightradar24 website, I've just confirmed that I can see Boeing 737-405 (YR-BAZ) which is currently flying at 31000ft, 20km from my house.

That aircraft is therefore 22km away from me in a straight line (13 miles).

Edited September 21, 2018 by philstyle

[imacken]

5 miles is only 26,000 ft.

You know that you can see airliners flying over-head at 35,000ft plus, at least I can regularly see them up at that altitude from the ground (6.5 miles), and that's not the limit.

 

Larger aircraft (twin and 4 engines) are visible at ranges well above 5 miles. . . .

Agreed, Phil, but you are then looking at dark silhouettes against a bright sky. Could you see the same aircraft at 5 miles if you were above it looking at the ground?

[philstyle]

Agreed, Phil, but you are then looking at dark silhouettes against a bright sky. Could you see the same aircraft at 5 miles if you were above it looking at the ground?

 

I'm interested primarily in when the aircraft is first visible to the human eye - i.e. when should it render in in game.

 

Other factors such as whether the contact and it's background are the same colour are dealt with in game by the colours assigned to those things.

A green aircraft on a green background would obviously be harder to see. But that shouldn't stop the game from at least rendering the contact in at the maximum range to begin with.

That maximum range value should be the starting point.

[imacken]

I'm interested primarily in when the aircraft is first visible to the human eye - i.e. when should it render in in game.

 

Other factors such as whether the contact and it's background are the same colour are dealt with in game by the colours assigned to those things.

A green aircraft on a green background would obviously be harder to see. But that shouldn't stop the game from at least rendering the contact in at the maximum range to begin with.

That maximum range value should be the starting point.

Agreed!

[Knock-Knock]

For what its worth. Was flying the A-10C's with a buddy the other day, and spotted him silhouetted against the sky in a slight descent. Tried to assess the distance, and then checked on the TAD. He was a smidge over 7nm away, and when I looked for him again, he was against the mountains - I believe, cause I didnt spot him again, despite knowing aprox where he was. I was in 1080p.

 

I think one thing that makes the planes in DCS easier to spot against the sky, and almost impossible to spot against terrain, is that the distant LOD's are just black, or incredibly dark. They dont receive / react to any light, so even a white / bright grey plane, is just black at fairly close distances.

 

Regarding comparing to airliners in the sky at 20-30km distances. We see those because they are big, more than often contrailing, and most importantly, because we already spotted it. An airliner at altitude that isnt contrailing is a lot harder to spot, but again, we notice them, cause we spotted it.

 

Ever heard a fighter jet, looked up, and end up spinning around cause you cant locate the bugger?

 

Personally, in 1080p, I think the spotting distances seem quite accurate, with what Ive read over the years, on the subject (reports from fighter pilots etc). Problem is closer in, and those 'dead' dark LOD's. The LOD's dont need super detailed texture obviously, but just a small sample of the fuselage for example (or maybe a texture average color from a low mip?). If the fuselage and canopy would glare, it would help quite a bit I think.

Another factor is obviously field of view. Flying in high FOV makes spotting harder. I practiced with that a a few weeks ago, with some BFM on monitor (40" tv). My true FOV is 68 degrees (based on how far away my eyes are from the screen), and I never lost the bandit out of sight. I had a hard time looking around, would confuse me, compared to using 90 FOV, with which looking around felt natural to me, but ouf, Id loose the bandit quite often, especially against the ground.

 

I prefer the current spotting model over the one we just had, where we could detect planes at insane distances. Both models still have the same close in problem.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I of course have zero experience spotting jet fighters or any plane, in the sky with me.

[David OC]

5 miles is only 26,000 ft.

You know that you can see airliners flying over-head at 35,000ft plus, at least I can regularly see them up at that altitude from the ground (6.5 miles), and that's not the limit.

 

Larger aircraft (twin and 4 engines) are visible at ranges well above 5 miles. . . . about 15 to 20 miles is max for me with a pale aircraft against the blue sky, during daylight/ clear conditions.

 

Using Flightradar24 website, I've just confirmed that I can see Boeing 737-405 (YR-BAZ) which is currently flying at 31000ft, 20km from my house.

That aircraft is therefore 22km away from me in a straight line (13 miles).

 

That matches close to this old research that I have posted here before.

 

If you have 20/20 vision or corrected 20/20 with glasses as the pilots. This is something ED cannot fix tho. Could add help for SP only or for a veterans only server.:)

 

(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

 

Predicting Visibility of Aircraft

[M0ltar]

5 miles is only 26,000 ft.

You know that you can see airliners flying over-head at 35,000ft plus, at least I can regularly see them up at that altitude from the ground (6.5 miles), and that's not the limit.

 

Larger aircraft (twin and 4 engines) are visible at ranges well above 5 miles. . . . about 15 to 20 miles is max for me with a pale aircraft against the blue sky, during daylight/ clear conditions.

 

Using Flightradar24 website, I've just confirmed that I can see Boeing 737-405 (YR-BAZ) which is currently flying at 31000ft, 20km from my house.

That aircraft is therefore 22km away from me in a straight line (13 miles).

You only responded or read part of what I said. I said that you could see airliners that high, but they are much much larger than fighters and are painted white or other high contrast colors that do not try and hide them for camo purposes. I even admit that I can see airliners at 30k feet, but and airliner is very different to a jet fighter.

[NineLine]

I go to an airshow with my 6 year old, and can lose sight of an aircraft with a subtle distraction, I can see airliners flying over head, although I am closer to a major airport so they arent at max altitude when they fly over either. Ones that are, you have signs like contrails or sometimes even flickering of reflections.

 

SO there is a lot too it.

 

Now what we are talking about here is VR, high res, small screen size. Or 4K on a 43 inch monitor vs 4K on a 27 inch monitor.

 

ANd something else, DCS's age, and older content. Older models generally dont have proper or updated LODS, and for instance, in VR disappear when they shouldn't.

 

SO what is the answer? Its tough. Maybe we should have a scaling system based on resolution vs monitor size, but how to enforce it, and not have someone use the scaling as a cheat?

 

Labels? Maybe a more robust and tunable label system, we have been talking about that in another thread. But again, labels to help one user, could be abused by another.

 

Its a slippery slope for sure.

[Bogey Jammer]

Sounds just like responsive design.

[philstyle]

I go to an airshow with my 6 year old, and can lose sight of an aircraft with a subtle distraction, I can see airliners flying over head, although I am closer to a major airport so they arent at max altitude when they fly over either. Ones that are, you have signs like contrails or sometimes even flickering of reflections.

.....

SO what is the answer? Its tough. Maybe we should have a scaling system based on resolution vs monitor size, but how to enforce it, and not have someone use the scaling as a cheat?

 

Labels? Maybe a more robust and tunable label system, we have been talking about that in another thread. But again, labels to help one user, could be abused by another.

 

 

 

Hi Nineline,

It seems to me that you understand both whats going on here (i.e. what is driving the comments/ complaints from many players) and that solutions might not be simple due to the hardware variations involved.

 

 

My suggestions would be, in the short/medium term to pursue a flexible labels system that server operators can force on all clients. A system that allows the server operator to modify range, opacity, size, colour and symbol for any label (with a simple dark grey or black dot - located at the object model's visual centre by default), as well as options to specify what kinds of units the labels apply to. Ideally, this system would also have toggles for whether or not the labels showed through (over) aircraft structures and/ or cluds.

 

 

For single players, "forcing" labels is not required, as they are the only person who might want to see or not see labels.

 

 

For the longer-term, I would recommend some kind of resolution/ hardware dependant solution. However, as you state, these kinds of solutions are more open to abuse. Players could crow-bar an option that was not designed for their hardware in order to get a disproportionate advantage beyond what the system was designed to do. This is a really difficult one.

 

 

Here is one furgther suggestion:

ED already has a in built system which implies for us how far away ED thinks certain sized aircraft should be, at a minimum, visible. This is the range at which A.I. aircraft (i.e those A.I. aircraft which are not equipped with aircraft-finding RADAR sytems) start reacting to another aerial threat. I've noticed recently, with judicious use of the external views key, that AI aircraft will begin to turn to engage me long before I can see them visually. The conlcusion, they can "see" me at that range, and ED wants it that way. For the sake of fairness and consistency, I should be able to see them too.

[Reflected]

I fly small planes in real life, and I'm happy with aircraft visibility in DCS as long as I fully zoom in. But then I can't fly...looking at the world through a toilet paper roll is highly unrealistic too. So the question is: how to make contacts just as visible when you're zoomed out as when you zoom in fully.