Jump to content

Spotting Distance... again


bell_rj

Recommended Posts

Serfoss scaling only magnifies things 2.0 times at 3.0nm, closer things are less magnified, so visual anomaly (ex:gear looks stucking to ground) are there yes but not so noticeable. they are already small enough larger than what it has to be though. Even in 1080p screen.

 

heh, I've already discussed enough with this guy. All "Smart Scaling is awful vs no its not" discussion you can read this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157129 and its repeating again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serfoss scaling only magnifies things 2.0 times at 3.0nm,

Yeah that’s WAY too much. That would look like $@ :huh:

No wonder ED won’t use it.

 

Thanks. That’s all the real info I needed. It magnifies “only” 2x? That’s horrible. 3nm is like point blank range spotting, that’s not a “distant” object. That’s like almost the size of your radar cue, scaled up 2x?! That’s would be 2x that size!


Edited by SharpeXB

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Is there some downside to smart scaling?

 

Of course there is. My guess is that it looks completely awful. You’ll see other aircraft all out of scale with each other and ground units out of scale next to building etc. it probably applies an egregious level of expando-vision in order the get the effect it needs. You’ll see planes taxiing with their wheels stuck down in the ground etc. That stuff wasn’t noticeable on a 12” 400x600 CRT but it would look gawd awful on a big 1080p or 4K screen.

 

That’s why ED doesn’t use it I’ll bet. So the required software rewrite isn’t worthwhile.

 

We already have games that use this type of scaling, coming up with some actual proof of the things you're listing off should be doable for you? I don't even slightly understand what you're trying to achieve with "expando-vision" explanation (or rather, baseless claims) or whatever. Again go read the actual paper on it..

 

I'd be surprised if i'm not much younger than yourself. I never experienced CRT's properly, and even then, it's well known that enthusiasts back then had way better resolution than 400x600 (CRT). I'll also remind you that certain games that employ this technique for scaling has no problem with 1080p resolutions or higher. (and has been able to do that for as long as i've been on the internet lol)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if i'm not much younger than yourself. I never experienced CRT's properly, and even then, it's well known that enthusiasts back then had way better resolution than 400x600 (CRT). I'll also remind you that certain games that employ this technique for scaling has no problem with 1080p resolutions or higher. (and has been able to do that for as long as i've been on the internet lol)..

 

As someone who was around and flying sims back then, I can tell you that 1) there never were any 400x600 CRTs. 2) The games who used (100% dumb) scaling at 320x200 in the 12" era didn't exhibit any of the problems he's imagining. 3) By the time Serfoss scaling came around, I was running 1440p, as did probably many other enthusiasts.

 

So… yeah. :D

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that’s WAY too much. That would look like $@ :huh:

No wonder ED won’t use it.

 

Thanks. That’s all the real info I needed. It magnifies “only” 2x? That’s horrible. 3nm is like point blank range spotting, that’s not a “distant” object. That’s like almost the size of your radar cue, scaled up 2x?! That’s would be 2x that size!

 

You're saying 3nm is point blank? let me remind you that 3nm is ~5500m.. idk what else to say... Step outside if you think that is a small distance. but even better, give me an example of how bad it looks :) just go ahead, i'll be waiting..


Edited by Farlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Just read this please..

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

There is a need, as in VR, you can barely identify (close range visibility is a problem) aircraft untill you're in between their nozzles.

 

VR headsets are improving at an incredible rate, and honestly saying that you have to be between their nozzles to see them is a gross exaggeration and not helpful to identify issues.

 

Also need to be careful with terms, identifying a target and seeing a target are two different things. If you have read any combat reports, specifically back in the earlier days of combat, identification was much harder to do and generally, you needed to be right up on a target to do so in many cases. Of course, there are scenarios where you don't as well, sort of the point of how all this works I guess.

 

Adding an option to make aircraft easy to spot in all situations would be a pretty heavy knock on realism, and then why not just turn on labels. Has to be a happy medium across all the various setups and configs downloading and playing DCS. Invoking a 20+ year old game doesn't get us anywhere, neither does other arcadish games... again, some things need work still, many are reported, work is being done, but we have to try and balance it all.

 

Anyways, not picking on you or anyone in particular, but you have to be more reasonable with your complaints as well, overselling the issues is just as damaging as underselling it, and there is a little of both going on in this thread.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you base this claim on? Because the science disagrees with you…

Ok I’m not going to invoke science or anything. Just other games. And these are all games.

The problem is if you want to play DCS effectively you need to unlearn the habits from another sim that made targets twice the size of what you get here. No wonder you have trouble seeing anything. It’s not because DCS makes it too difficult but because this other game made it too easy. And yeah 2x the size is too easy. Furthermore I don’t think there are any other flight sims today which do this. So you have to make a choice. I play other sims of course too and one reason I don’t want to be coddled here is it won’t help me in other games.

Sorry but this other sim just spoiled things for you.

 

You're saying 3nm is point blank?

Yeah in modern missile combat? It’s the no escape PK zone. And it’s easy to see a target in DCS at that range. Unfortunately your skills have been spoiled by that other sim.


Edited by SharpeXB

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I’m not going to invoke science or anything.

You're going to have to. Otherwise, the science still proves you wrong.

 

The problem is if you want to play DCS effectively you need to unlearn the habits from another sim that made targets twice the size of what you get here.
Fun fact: the science already addresses this argument. You should read it and figure out a good counter-argument. Oh, and another fun fact: there are medium-range missiles in DCS that will not be able to hit at 3nm. But that's rather besides the point because unless you've hacked in some horrible bionic mutated missiles, they're not using visual guidance…

 

…well, I guess there is one that does, but it will definitely struggle to hit at that range. :P

 

 

Oh, right, and one final fun fact (doubly fun for someone who was so quick to invoke 1.15): this sim you're comparing against does not exist. You should probably read up on this as well before making the kinds of claims you're so fond of.

 

No wonder you have trouble seeing anything.
You're being presumptive and condescending in your baseless guesswork again…

 

And yeah 2x the size is too easy
I'm going to ask you again: what do you base this on?
Edited by Tippis

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definately agreed!

 

"smart scaling" is very likely not a perfect (or maybe even a decent) solution today/for this game or for some other reason. I'm 100% confident there is a reason why DCS does not do it, but that does not mean i know why, or whether it's a good model if problems could be fixed. It's also important to specify exactly what we're talking about, yes. We could easily be mixing type identification (when/how well you can make out shapes), spotting (how easy it is to make out, at different distances), theoretical max range etc..

 

In this case i was talking about the identification of aircraft type, which obviously suffers quite a bit when using VR compared to a standard 1080p panel. It is not accurate to say you need to be between the nozzles of the target aircraft to visually identify aircraft in VR, but from the limited experience i have in real life of spotting, i'd say the range i'm currently able to do the same in DCS is a bit less (though this is subjective)..

 

Personally i don't feel the max range of spotting aircraft has been a problem. Spotting is hard, and so it should be. However for me, i suspect because of resolution in VR, it seems unintuitive with regards to how fast the details of an aircraft fades away as you move apart, compared to how long you are able to track them as just a dot (again subjective..).

 

I think most of us don't want an unrealistic experience playing DCS, if i wanted that, i already have labels. Though i think it is fair to ask the question if not solutions like these could provide a more "realistic" experience with hardware such as VR (or maybe other monitors too). In that report, it is pretty clearly stated that one of the unintended results of a scaling method like that increases size to unrealistic levels outside the "close range" area, and would need to be adressed in some way. That is a massive flaw, and i think most will agree it wouldn't be acceptable. Again my interest in it comes from the feeling that the "close range" is less than ideal currently, not because i want to have arcade/unrealistic levels of spotting or being able to see rediculus details at long ranges. iirc, tests on fighter pilots show spotting of fighters is difficult, and most had varying sucess and most results fell in the ranges of 3-6nm (tho i'm unsure).

 

This is not to bring other games into the discussion, but we see elsewhere that good spotting (every aspect of it, and including DCS i'd say) can also be achieved without the use of this method, so it's important to keep in mind that this (at least from my part) was just meant to discuss one or many options.. Most of effects and visuals that are lacking i'd bet ED are already working on, improving or at least something they know of. I think this is an area where we will se some improvements later on in development (lighting?)

 

edit: With regards to VR headset resolution, we're definately seeing very good development, but it's still going to be a long time untill we see "mainstream" (if that's in any way an acceptable term..) headsets with resolution challenging decent displays i think..


Edited by Farlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you base this claim on? Because the science disagrees with you…

The problem with scaling should be obvious. You’re applying this scale factor to the target aircraft or whatever. But it’s not being appplied to the surroundings. That might not present a problem in air to air. But when you show this against any non-scaled object i.e. terrain features, buildings, trees, you’ll perceive the aircraft being way out of scale. What if the target is a low flying helicopter? Or a ground vehicle? The effect will look really awkward and bad. That wasn’t a problem 20 years ago because games just looked bad anyways. But today? Are you going to look at a row of gorgeously modeled F-14s parked tip to tip on a carrier 3 miles away and see them all smashed into each other? It will look ridiculous and no current game is going to do that.

Nineline said it already, if you want these heavy visual aids, what’s wrong with icons or labels? They’d look less obtrusive.

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read this please..

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

There is a need, as in VR, you can barely identify (close range visibility is a problem) aircraft untill you're in between their nozzles.

And please stop with this silly paper. We’ve all seen it every time this comes up. It was written in 2003 and let’s all remember what monitors in 2003 were like. And this isn’t a military simulation tool where honestly nobody cares about graphics. Those things look like Call of Duty v0 Alpha. This is a game and stuff needs to look good. It’s about art, not science.

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is if you want to play DCS effectively you need to unlearn the habits from another sim that made targets twice the size of what you get here. No wonder you have trouble seeing anything. It’s not because DCS makes it too difficult but because this other game made it too easy.

 

Let's stay away from attacking people opinions by arguing that they're just bad. Even then the argument is questionable as well, as spotting habits probably would not be worsened to the point you'd have to unlearn what you did because of playing something other than DCS. Outside that, people with real life experience have also commented on the situation, and you'd struggle to argue that real life would make objects unrealisticly easy to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with scaling should be obvious.

Maybe they should, but they aren't, and again, the science explains why.

 

But when you show this against any non-scaled object i.e. terrain features, buildings, trees, you’ll perceive the aircraft being way out of scale.
No. At best you perceive at as being slightly closer than it is, but as the research suggests, this is by such a small margin that it makes no difference.

 

What if the target is a low flying helicopter? Or a ground vehicle? The effect will look really awkward and bad.
Again, this is pure guesswork on your part and both research and actual implementation proves you wrong.

 

Nineline said it already, if you want these heavy visual aids, what’s wrong with icons or labels? They’d look less obtrusive.
You should not put your own words in other people's mouths. Not only is it rude, but if you do it to staff can very quickly take a nasty turn. Icons and labels are intrusive and do exactly the things you claim you want to avoid: they teach you bad habits. The exact bad habits that the scaling methodology was created to avoid.

 

 

By the way, you never answered the question: what do you base your claim on?

 

And please stop with this silly paper.

Why? Because it categorically proves you wrong about everything and has the data to back it up, whereas you only have guesswork and imagined faults with implementations you have never seen? I'll note again that by the time it came out, I was running 1440p. That was the state of monitors back then, and had you actually read the paper, you'd know that it already addresses this point — you've even made the same argument it does.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And please stop with this silly paper. We’ve all seen it every time this comes up. It was written in 2003 and let’s all remember what monitors in 2003 were like. And this isn’t a military simulation tool where honestly nobody cares about graphics. Those things look like Call of Duty v0 Alpha. This is a game and stuff needs to look good. It’s about art, not science.

 

again, serfoss research was made by BARCO 808 monitor which has 1600 * 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels resolution which is not so different to 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels and the answer was they still need to enlarge models 2.0 times at 3.0nm. It is also working in a certain 20 years old but up to date until 2019 sim which is commonly played with 1920*1080 to 3840*2160 resolution monitor. No one actually playing it complained things look awkward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VR headsets are improving at an incredible rate, and honestly saying that you have to be between their nozzles to see them is a gross exaggeration and not helpful to identify issues.

 

Also need to be careful with terms, identifying a target and seeing a target are two different things. If you have read any combat reports, specifically back in the earlier days of combat, identification was much harder to do and generally, you needed to be right up on a target to do so in many cases. Of course, there are scenarios where you don't as well, sort of the point of how all this works I guess.

 

My reactions have been purely based on VR. I think others are speaking in terms of a traditional flat screen monitor. What makes spotting difficult in RL doesn’t fully apply to a monitor, because it involves scanning and focusing, where the monitor only involves looking at the correct screen real estate (focusing on the plane of the monitor is an easy given).

 

That said, in VR if it’s difficult to even make out the existinance of an airplane head on same altitude at the other end of the runway, realistic spotting is nearly impossible without some magic in the mix.... Now, it could be that I have all the wrong settings. I’ll admit I cannot clearly read all the instruments in the VR cockpit. Given this, spotting an airplane at multiple miles away is a much harder task.... So, in my case it is partially the technology, but given that.... I’m really still hoping for a workable solution. For me a flat panel isn’t an option.

6700K@4.6 48Gb - 1080Ti Hybrid - Warthog - RIFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, the argument is nonsensical.

 

 

it's harder to see things on a 2d plane, this is noticeable enough that it's unrealistic to see things as badly as we them in-sim, thus it should be corrected until the values are realistic.

 

 

what is your counterargument "muh feelings"? nobody's going to give you credit for "defending" ED on this issue, it's been busted forever and they've put no effort into fixing it as apparently the visual size of something is tied to it's RCS.. somehow. (why?) since these things have nothing to do with each other, somebody should go back and rewrite this code as it's obviously totally bizarre for this to be a thing and further it's obstructing sim improvements.

 

 

tl;dr it's busted, the paper says so, disprove the paper or you've lost the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And please stop with this silly paper. We’ve all seen it every time this comes up. It was written in 2003 and let’s all remember what monitors in 2003 were like. And this isn’t a military simulation tool where honestly nobody cares about graphics. Those things look like Call of Duty v0 Alpha. This is a game and stuff needs to look good. It’s about art, not science.

 

Oh, you don't need to read it, but i'd ask you to consider reading it if you're going to claim things about how it works.. I'm not saying DCS needs to go to this model, this was just a discussion, i see it's probably been argued to death and beyond already, so there is not much more to be said here.. I have not read the whole thing, i have no experience in this stuff, and so i really hope i have not said something which suggests thet ED doesn't know what they're doing, and that this is the perfect solution. I have no idea, and i believe ED has way better judgement than me..

 

However i have not felt the arguments you've made against it has made much sense to me.

 

You also say this game has to focus on graphics and "art", suggesting that simulation and "science" has to somewhat suffer in areas. However some time ago in this thread you made the argument that a method of rendering which takes other "variables" (not based on geometry/mathmatics) into account, is an unacceptable solution.. Why would that be unacceptable then, if it was in the spirit of making the game "look good"?


Edited by Farlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Because it categorically proves you wrong about everything and has the data to back it up, whereas you only have guesswork and imagined faults with implementations you have never seen? I'll note again that by the time it came out, I was running 1440p. That was the state of monitors back then, and had you actually read the paper, you'd know that it already addresses this point — you've even made the same argument it does.

 

Agreed, i'm still of the opinion DCS visibility is not correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding an option to make aircraft easy to spot in all situations would be a pretty heavy knock on realism, and then why not just turn on labels. Has to be a happy medium across all the various setups and configs downloading and playing DCS. Invoking a 20+ year old game doesn't get us anywhere, neither does other arcadish games... again, some things need work still, many are reported, work is being done, but we have to try and balance it all.

 

Anyways, not picking on you or anyone in particular, but you have to be more reasonable with your complaints as well, overselling the issues is just as damaging as underselling it, and there is a little of both going on in this thread.

 

Hi Nineline,

 

Labels make aircraft easy to spot in all situations, but Serfoss Magnification does not.

Plane size continues to decrease by distance. It's just not got small rapidly as without scaling. Therefore spotting possibility decreases by distance, and becomes invisible at a certain distance. Decreasing contrast against background should play for 3d model, but labels don't.

 

It's not coming from 20+ year old game but coming from 2003 study used 1600 * 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels resolution for there research. It's not that different to today's standard 1920 * 1080 = 2,273,600 pixels resolution.

 

Maybe it works to good for 1440p or 4k monitor, I understand it will not fit for multiplayer balance, but I'd like to have it as an option for single-player or just closed multiplayer server so that it helps 1080p monitor user.

 

Another thing Serfoss scaling helps is a smaller monitor user. 24inch monitor user might see things 1:2 scaled but 42-inch monitor might see things 1:1 scale. magnifying 3.0nm object 2 times helps 24-inch monitor user.

 

So Serfoss Scaling is not as arcadish as label but just helps low res / small monitor user. user can enable or disable option considering their setup.

 

Yes it will not balance open public multiplayer server but I wish ED consider singleplayer and closed multiplayer server.

 

regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wags says otherwise.

 

Are you saying that his claim is incorrect?

 

Right. Because you don't like the discussion of a feature you, by your own admission, do not understand, means they should make a rule against it. Makes sense. :lol:

 

 

 

A bug that means I can trivially inject graphics changes (think ReShade) to effectively give me infinite-range, perfect-detection radar (and presumably IRST and EO tracking) is pretty darn urgent. It is an issue at all ranges, and it has nothing to do with doing anything “wonky” to 3D models. Quite the opposite. Solving it would allow for “wonkiness” (read: balancing, normalisation, better simulation) to be applied to those models.

 

Note that I'm not saying they should make RCS more complicated (although that would be fun too). I'm saying it must be decoupled from the rendering pipeline.

 

I'm going to stop you right there. You don't get it. You should probably heed NineLine's advice and stop with the condescension, mmmkay?

 

No, I get it. I just think you folks are insisting on a ridiculous ''feature'' for all the wrong reasons and are trumping up exaggerated claims. As soon as people start talking about balancing hardware I want to vomit.

 

When I start cussing you out, harshly insulting you, etc, you can complain. People not liking my being moderately abrasive attitude isn't my concern @@ By any standards, particularly on the internet, I'm pretty tame. But then, I'm not dreadfully thin skinned, either

 

 

Also, lol @ the ''science says'' you sound like Alex Jones now =)

 

Agreed, i'm still of the opinion DCS visibility is not correct.

 

Actually, the ''problem'' is that it IS correct, as in 100% to scale. Which ia causing problems for some forumites that can't seem to figure out the solution =) These guys are asking for training wheels based on a white paper written 15 years ago.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, serfoss research was made by BARCO 808 monitor which has 1600 * 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels resolution which is not so different to 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels and the answer was they still need to enlarge models 2.0 times at 3.0nm. It is also working in a certain 20 years old but up to date until 2019 sim which is commonly played with 1920*1080 to 3840*2160 resolution monitor. No one actually playing it complained things look awkward.

I can’t read that because it’s too utterly boring but I can’t fathom how it’s related to, a game. Today. On today’s displays and VR headsets.

This isn’t a purely technical mil sim trainer. It’s a game that has to look nice and immersive.

Seeing targets at 2x their size at such close distance looks horrible. You claim people playing that other game don’t complain about it but you aren’t getting the opinion of anyone who would just quit and never play something that awful looking.

Taking the scale of the target out of context with its surroundings is just ridiculous. No current game would implement something like that.

The phenomenon that determines the size of distant objects isn’t “science” I believe this is considered “art”

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

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, the spotting distance in DCS is terrible and its a real damnation of this game.

 

1) You can't compare the real life visability and in-game visability directly.

 

No matter how advanced the graphics in PC game, no matter how high is resolution, the computer simulation on flat screen is a pale shadow of reality.

 

The colors, light, details, fov etc. ect. - they are on entirely different levels. Its obvious, that our eyes suited to percieve the reality very well, while they are not evolved to watch PC screen.

 

Judging from my experience as a common civil flights passenger, I can definitely tell that in real life I can see much much better and at much much far distances.

 

2) Those who dig into plastics models should know the common rule for painting: if you use absolutely the same color for plastic model as for the real life model, it wont look realistic. To make it as in real life you should use the lighter tones, because of the scaling and the way our perception works.

 

The same applies for DCS: even if you use the same scaling as in real life it would be unrealistic. You can't simply apply the scaling of real life to the scaling of PC screen. This is much more complicated task than it seems.

 

3) I guess there are some in-build restrictions and problems with the game engine that prevent EA from making visability better. Thus they claim it is OK.

 

4) Don't hope for the change, just use markers (e.g. I use simplified dot markers that help to uplift the targets).

Извините за внимание

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...