Jump to content

Dear ED - visibility


Rikus

Recommended Posts

I am flying right now, about to do some aerial gun practice against MQ-9s. I am running 35'' screen, 3440x1440, 30-36'' away and have detected the target at approximately 18km without zooming above the horizon. Now, granted he's just a speck, but it's a pretty damn long ways and a MQ-9 isn't very big, but he's there. Below the horizon, he'd be virtually invisible, but he's a long ways away and not very big, I'd expect him to be invisible.

 

It's worth noting I am running 4-5 3rd party shaders, two of which arw anti aliasing that are sometimes prone to ''smoothing out stray pixels'' like distant aircraft, and combined they make him somewhat less visible, without them there is a little extra haze that makes him stand out more.

 

In my favor I knew approximately when and where to look, but he was likely ''visible'' for a short time before I actually noticed him. A second one about 25km out is very faintly visible without zooming. A third one silhouetted against the mountains about 20km I can't find, which is what I would expect.

 

I am climbing above first close target so he passes across terrain, am tracking him clearly, although it would be unwise to look away.

 

You should NOT expect to visually track aircraft at great distance if you look away, or are distracted. You should NOT expect to notice them at great distance at all barring extreme scrutiny or knowing where they are. It's likely they will get quite close before being detected if you don't know they're coming, if they are alone, or you are gawking off. Online they will often be alone which is worst case scenario.

 

If you cannot see your wingman ''a mile or two away'' then you only have your own incompetency to blame.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Mister, go to the russian subforum thread and translate it. You are so full of it it's not even funny. Also, stop acting like you're a dev or a community manager. You are not and we do not need your 900 ridiculous posts predicting future events. You're not qualified to make any such claims.

 

For those of us who can’t or don’t know how to translate the Russian forums, could you paraphrase what they are saying about it over there? I am interested to know what the consensus is over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am flying right now, about to do some aerial gun practice against MQ-9s. I am running 35'' screen, 3440x1440, 30-36'' away and have detected the target at approximately 18km without zooming above the horizon. Now, granted he's just a speck, but it's a pretty damn long ways and a MQ-9 isn't very big, but he's there. Below the horizon, he'd be virtually invisible, but he's a long ways away and not very big, I'd expect him to be invisible.

 

It's worth noting I am running 4-5 3rd party shaders, two of which arw anti aliasing that are sometimes prone to ''smoothing out stray pixels'' like distant aircraft, and combined they make him somewhat less visible, without them there is a little extra haze that makes him stand out more.

 

In my favor I knew approximately when and where to look, but he was likely ''visible'' for a short time before I actually noticed him. A second one about 25km out is very faintly visible without zooming. A third one silhouetted against the mountains about 20km I can't find, which is what I would expect.

 

 

Its more difficult to spot objects at closer ranges than farther away.

Sometimes the aircrafts "dissapear" when you get closer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they ''disappear'' that's most likely a missing or incorrect LoD, and not related to ''spotting'' persay. I.E. a model glitch, not a rendering glitch. Apt to be more common with older models designed for shorter render distances.

 

-edit

I don't know if things like that are affected by arbitrary figures in a lua somewhere, if so, that's a possible issue also. That or a generic glitch.

 

Cause.. it's not logical it would get HARDER to see as you close. That implies a problem NOT related to rendering.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us who can’t or don’t know how to translate the Russian forums, could you paraphrase what they are saying about it over there? I am interested to know what the consensus is over there.
It's pretty much the same as here. Fanbois vs sensible people who actually play the game. But there has never been any statement that they will never do anything. It's more about "not right now, but when we find a way to allow the game engine to make labels even better, we will".

 

There is no consensus. The thread has been going on for quite some time and was heavily moderated as things "got real". It is pretty obvious this is an engine limitation and not an easy problem to tackle.

 

But trying to justify it like some people do here is just outrageous.

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quote out of context.

Using the zoom is gameish, theres no need to have so narrow FOV, but its there because in the game you can't see nothing without it and it would be impossible to dogfight or spot any aircraft at close distance.

The excessive zoom levels wouldn't be necessary if we had some scaling.

The zoomed in view is basically 1:1 scale on a normal size monitor. So how is 1:1 size gamish?

Zoom view is a variable FOV which you need to adjust constantly in order to play effectively. Every flight sim has this feature.

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

If they ''disappear'' that's most likely a missing or incorrect LoD, and not related to ''spotting'' persay. I.E. a model glitch, not a rendering glitch. Apt to be more common with older models designed for shorter render distances.

 

-edit

I don't know if things like that are affected by arbitrary figures in a lua somewhere, if so, that's a possible issue also. That or a generic glitch.

 

Cause.. it's not logical it would get HARDER to see as you close. That implies a problem NOT related to rendering.

Do you even play the game? It is exactly like he says. Spotting targets at intermediate ranges is the main problem with visibility. It is exactly what smart scaling aims to solve...

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even play the game? It is exactly like he says. Spotting targets at intermediate ranges is the main problem with visibility. It is exactly what smart scaling aims to solve...

 

Yeah, I do play the game. ''*Herpderp* somebody disagrees so must not play'' @@ I'm saying I disagree with the fundamental complaint. Not hard to understand that. When they shift from a distant speck to a 3d model, color, aspect, and lighting begin to influence it. They don't disappear entirely, but depending on your movements, yeah, they can be easier or harder to see.

 

Light shining across upper wings, easy.

Banked to point the wing at you, or heading directly to or away from, harder.

Light on dark background, easier.

Dark on dark background, harder.

 

This isn't a ''DCS'' problem. It's a ''reality'' problem. Those things affect visibility in real life, too. Artificially enlarging models so you don't have to pay attention is not an intelligent solution. There are games that do that, though! You're welcome to play them

 

 

 

Edit

He said ''disappear'', i.e. invisible is what I took. A model derendering due to a faulty LoD will do that.

 

''It's hard to see'' is not ''disappearing''

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I do play the game. ''*Herpderp* somebody disagrees so must not play'' @@ I'm saying I disagree with the fundamental complaint. Not hard to understand that. When they shift from a distant speck to a 3d model, color, aspect, and lighting begin to influence it. They don't disappear entirely, but depending on your movements, yeah, they can be easier or harder to see.

 

Light shining across upper wings, easy.

Banked to point the wing at you, or heading directly to or away from, harder.

Light on dark background, easier.

Dark on dark background, harder.

 

This isn't a ''DCS'' problem. It's a ''reality'' problem. Those things affect visibility in real life, too. Artificially enlarging models so you don't have to pay attention is not an intelligent solution. There are games that do that, though! You're welcome to play them

 

 

 

Edit

He said ''disappear'', i.e. invisible is what I took. A model derendering due to a faulty LoD will do that.

 

''It's hard to see'' is not ''disappearing''

And those "games" do that based on real-life research papers in which real pilots were involved. Something you obviously haven't read nor have the desire to read.

Amirite?

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the same as here. Fanbois vs sensible people who actually play the game. But there has never been any statement that they will never do anything. It's more about "not right now, but when we find a way to allow the game engine to make labels even better, we will".

 

There is no consensus. The thread has been going on for quite some time and was heavily moderated as things "got real". It is pretty obvious this is an engine limitation and not an easy problem to tackle.

 

But trying to justify it like some people do here is just outrageous.

 

Copy that. Thanks for the info.:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy that. Thanks for the info.
For your information, opinions are polarized but there is nothing close to "I am sure most people are happy" as someone tries to portray here. A lot of experienced players are not happy with visibility and are trying to come up with various ideas.

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I'd like to see is bright areas on aircraft pop more. It's infuriating when I lose aircraft as they fall below the horizon line, forcing me to stop my attack and climb out to safety. I'm not saying dots are or aren't the answer, but I do think at least a little something could be done to improve spotting, but particularly spotting against the landscape.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I'd like to see is bright areas on aircraft pop more. It's infuriating when I lose aircraft as they fall below the horizon line, forcing me to stop my attack and climb out to safety. I'm not saying dots are or aren't the answer, but I do think at least a little something could be done to improve spotting, but particularly spotting against the landscape.
Sorry to say but this is actually the fundamental issue with spotting. Low target contrast at semi-close ranges. Especially apparent to pilots flying piston engine fighters.

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we do, it’s been posted here like 900 times.

…and yet, you keep making claims that directly contradict how it actually works. Hell, you even accidentally let slip at one point that you had never actually read it, and all your examples prove you haven't seen it in action. You explicitly said that you didn't understand it and didn't care to find out.

 

Had you read up on what it does, or had you seen an implementation of it, you'd know for a fact that it does not behave the way you imagine. You keep repeating the same misunderstandings every time this topic comes up, and every time you do, it reveals that in spite of it having been posted like 900 times, you never bothered to look into how it works and what the end results are like. You arguments hold no water because they're not based on, or even remotely related to, what the tech actually does.

 

e: Oh, and coincidentally, ED have already said that they're looking into methods of presenting visual cues to improve spotting…

 

 

This isn't a ''DCS'' problem. It's a ''reality'' problem. Those things affect visibility in real life, too. Artificially enlarging models so you don't have to pay attention is not an intelligent solution. There are games that do that, though! You're welcome to play them

Just one problem: Serfoss scaling was invented specifically to replicate that reality — it's the most intelligent (to say nothing of scientifically grounded) solution to simulating how aircraft grab a pilot's attention and let them identify what it's doing.

 

DCS' problem is that it does not attempt to simulate perception. Serfoss scaling does (at one end of the spectrum; at the other end, it just needs some hard clamping to get rid of visibility that shouldn't even be there). It boggles the mind that people are so adamantly against improving the realism of the simulation, and the overall balance of the game. It's doubly baffling when so many are also eager to illustrate how utterly broken the current visibility is, especially at extreme ranges.


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

It isn't ''scientifically sound''. And before you post that same ''study'' for the 9 millionth time we've all seen it before. Yeah, it was used in 1990s sims, good for them.

 

None of it matters because they deliberately removed it and have said it isn't coming back. But by all means, go ahead like this hasn't argued ad nauseum before and you're the first one to make these arguments @@

 

 

 

+1 for Smart Scaling

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VR Cockpit (link):

Custom Throttletek F/A-18C Throttle w/ Hall Sensors + Otto switches | Slaw Device RX Viper Pedals w/ Damper | VPC T-50 Base + 15cm Black Sahaj Extension + TM Hornet or Warthog Grip | Super Warthog Wheel Stand Pro | Steelcase Leap V2 + JetSeat SE

 

VR Rig:

Pimax 5K+ | ASUS ROG Strix 1080Ti | Intel i7-9700K | Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master | Corsair H115i RGB Platinum | 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB 3200 | Dell U3415W Curved 3440x1440

Link to comment
Share on other sites

…and yet, you keep making claims that directly contradict how it actually works.

It isn’t necessary to read this whole big eggheaded paper to understand:

1. It’s a terrible solution

2. Bringing up other games repeatedly is a violation of the forum rules.

 

Why is scaling a terrible solution? Because it looks terrible

How can you tell the difference between a target 3mi away scaled up 2x vs another target 1.5mi away scaled up 1x?

 

If you look at a carrier 3mi away, are the F-18s on its deck scaled up 2x but the carrier isn’t? Or is the carrier scaled up 2x? That’s sure going to look awful.

 

The figure of 2x at 3mi was described here already as the factor. That’s egregiously high and would look really awkward.

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

Sorry to say but this is actually the fundamental issue with spotting. Low target contrast at semi-close ranges. Especially apparent to pilots flying piston engine fighters.
That would be me. I fight only in warbirds. I live and breathe them. So, spotting aircraft with me eyes is necessary, and issues with spotting are especially apparent to folks like me who fly the warbirds.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there has never been any statement that they will never do anything. It's more about "not right now, but when we find a way to allow the game engine to make labels even better, we will".

But ED has never said anything that suggests they will do scaling. Quite the contrary. Wags himself said “it’s (smart scaling) not really a smart solution”

The responses from the ED members on this thread suggest you should not ever expect to see it.

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

And those "games" do that based on real-life research papers in which real pilots were involved. Something you obviously haven't read nor have the desire to read.

Amirite?

 

You keep saying this stuff like it's something new, that you're the first person to create one of these threads, or that this is the first time I've participated in this sort of topic. I get it, it's easier to whine and complain that somebody dares to disagree with you, but easy or not, it's still stupid.

 

Yes, I've read ''the paper'', and several ''studies'' commonly referenced, and have even shared or referred to a couple myself. You're not having any original thoughts anymore than I am.

 

What's ''scientific'' is 1-to-1. Magically enlarging stuff is not ''scientific'', it's lazy. Can things be done to improve visibility and contrast, yes. Is that the best solution? No, it's just a piss poor excuse ''somebody else did it, so it must be done, too''.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn’t necessary to read this whole big eggheaded paper to understand:

1. It’s a terrible solution

2. Bringing up other games repeatedly is a violation of the forum rules.

 

Why is scaling a terrible solution? Because it looks terrible

How can you tell the difference between a target 3mi away scaled up 2x vs another target 1.5mi away scaled up 1x?

 

If you look at a carrier 3mi away, are the F-18s on its deck scaled up 2x but the carrier isn’t? Or is the carrier scaled up 2x? That’s sure going to look awful.

 

The figure of 2x at 3mi was described here already as the factor. That’s egregiously high and would look really awkward.

 

I actually think scaling could be a moderate halfway solution. It doesn't have to be ridiculous, but a scaling bump 1.2x wouldn't be that noticeable as far as how awkward aircraft would look, but could provide far better visibility at the same time.

 

If you are recalling the model enlargement used in DCS a while back, yeah, especially at the large setting, it looks pretty bad (and blurry). But giving it a very slight bump could make a world of a difference in spotting, without making the aircraft look ridiculous or nasty.

I have changed sides on this now though, and do think that dots (done right) would be a better solution than scaling, in the long [distance] run


Edited by Magic Zach

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn’t necessary to read this whole big eggheaded paper to understand:

1. It’s a terrible solution

To prove that it's terrible, you actually have to address the findings in the paper. To do that, you actually need to read the paper. Sorry — there's no way around that, and until you do, all your objections are based on imaginary issues that you dream up.

 

Until you start using the reality of how this methodology works as the basis of your arguments, they are all inherently void.

 

Why is scaling a terrible solution? Because it looks terrible

How can you tell the difference between a target 3mi away scaled up 2x vs another target 1.5mi away scaled up 1x?

That's not what Serfoss scaling does. So no, that imaginary — completely incorrect — “terrible look” does not make scaling a bad solution.

 

If you look at a carrier 3mi away, are the F-18s on its deck scaled up 2x but the carrier isn’t?
Had you bothered to read up on how it works, or looked up any examples, or just listed to people describing it to you all those 900 times, you would know this already. Again, just because you're imagining something does not mean that it's an actual problem.

 

What's ''scientific'' is 1-to-1.

No, that's just mathematic, not scientific, and the problem with that bit of maths is that 1-to-1 does not accurately and realistically replicate perception.

 

You can employ as many quotation marks as you like, but the science still proves that this kind of methodology is more 1-to-1 to how pilots perceive aircraft than a purely trigonometric solution does. To actually disprove that science, you're going to have to bring more to the table than the unsaid implication of those quotation marks.


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

That's not what Serfoss scaling does.

Fine. Explain it for us that aren’t going to read this giant dissertation. Summarize it in simple terms.

 

Answer these simple questions:

If an aircraft is 3 miles away, how much of a scale factor should be applied?

 

Is that scale factor applied to any nearby objects as well? If so, how do you prevent that from looking awful? If not, how do you prevent that from also looking awful?

 

DCS is an interactive entertainment product. Not a research paper. Stuff that might seem to make sense on paper would look really awful in a game.

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

Fine. Explain it for us that aren’t going to read this giant dissertation. Summarize it in simple terms.

Serfoss scaling is a continuous, non-linear function — essentially just a curve — that maps a given range to a given scale factor. It creates an equally continuous strictly diminishing (so no overlaps or points of confusion) angular size of any scaled unit as to goes farther and farther away. This is done to improve the visual cueing that lets the (virtual) pilot estimate pitch, bank, and aspect to the same degree that they're able to in the real world.

 

The scale curve goes from 1 at 0nm to just over 1.5 at 6,000' to 2.0 at 14,000', after which it starts to asymptotically approach 2.5 (but really, it could just as well go back to 1 as the target moves into BVR range – that's more a matter of implementation, and the research was not interested in those extreme ranges to begin with).

 

What the scaling applies to and when is also a matter of implementation. Any zooming or scaling done at the viewer's end (eg through FoV manipulation or by using targeting pods with their own zoom) can/should be discounted from the scaling, since it is only intended to represent unaided eyesight.

 

Stuff that might seem to make sense on paper would look really awful in a game.
The good news is that it looks good in a game as well if implemented correctly.
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

Serfoss scaling is a continuous, non-linear function — essentially just a curve — that maps a given range to a given scale factor. It creates an equally continuous strictly diminishing (so no overlaps or points of confusion) angular size of any scaled unit as to goes farther and farther away. This is done to improve the visual cueing that lets the (virtual) pilot estimate pitch, bank, and aspect to the same degree that they're able to in the real world.

 

The scale curve goes from 1 at 0nm to just over 1.5 at 6,000' to 2.0 at 14,000', after which it starts to asymptotically approach 2.5 (but really, it could just as well go back to 1 as the target moves into BVR range – that's more a matter of implementation, and the research was not interested in those extreme ranges to begin with).

 

What the scaling applies to and when is also a matter of implementation. Any zooming or scaling done at the viewer's end (eg through FoV manipulation or by using targeting pods with their own zoom) can/should be discounted from the scaling, since it is only intended to represent unaided eyesight.

 

The good news is that it looks good in a game as well if implemented correctly.

That’s what I figured it did.

So a factor of 2x at 2.65 miles as actually quite huge. And as the target merged you’d see it scale down rapidly which would look really odd. Also what if that target aircraft was on a carrier deck? At 2x size? 2.65 miles is very close. You’d perceive it out of size with the carrier. DCS has low flying helicopters and ground attack aircraft. How do you apply such a factor to low flying objects without them looking odd? Players today have large 4K displays where this oddity would be much more noticeable than it was on 2003 era CRT monitors

It’s easy to see why ED would be reluctant to adopt this. It’s also easy to understand why players accustomed to this scale level think visibility in DCS is poor, they’re used to seeing targets at twice the normal size.

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

Crap, I've run out of popcorn

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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