Dear ED - visibility

[Rikus]

Dear ED, i´m a customer since LOMAC, and i have lot of your products.

 

 

Since i have a 25" monitor 2560 x 1440 and another 27" 4K, i can´t fly because i can´t see enemies in dogfight, also sometime they just dissapear...

 

 

Also i can´t fly formation in line abreast 1-2 miles because it´s almost impossible to see wingman.

 

 

Please, add more people to solve the visibility model.

 

 

I know i´m not the only one with this problem, and there will be more people because they are changing their old full hd monitors to 1440p and 4K

[Mars Exulte]

What's your view range set to? Because it's not 'almost impossible' to see wingmen from 1-2 miles. Whatever issues it may or may not have, if you can't keep formation, it's not because of your monitor @@ I use a 1440 screen, too.

 

There is no magic fix for pixels, yo.

[Knock-Knock]

Try with reduced Field of View.

[feefifofum]

Hi Rikus.

 

There is also a configurable labels file that will allow you to place symbology over friendly and/or enemy units at any given distances.

 

A lot of folks with vision or spotting problems find it helpful to place a black "." symbol over airborne contacts that will appear and disappear as the aircraft enters/exits range.

 

Here is an example of one such modification

[The LT]

What's your view range set to? Because it's not 'almost impossible' to see wingmen from 1-2 miles. Whatever issues it may or may not have, if you can't keep formation, it's not because of your monitor @@ I use a 1440 screen, too.

 

There is no magic fix for pixels, yo.

There is. It is called smart scaling.

[Mars Exulte]

That's not a fix. It's a bs gameification. It's also never going to happen, don't know how many times they have to say no before you people finally accept it.

[razo+r]

"Smart scaling is gameification" * Proceeds to rearm and refuel within 5 minutes and repaired in 3 mins*

[dawgie79]

Jets are really small and fast, and airspace is really big.

[The LT]

That's not a fix. It's a bs gameification. It's also never going to happen, don't know how many times they have to say no before you people finally accept it.

Who are you again and why do you consider yourself in position to tell us anything?

 

It is a fix. It has been implemented in other sims to great success. It is scientifically sound as well.

 

In case you havent noticed, DCS is a game.

[Mars Exulte]

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 @@

[skouras]

+1 for smart scaling

[Tippis]

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.

It's scientifically sound because the science says so. It was not used in 1990s sims for the simple reason that it came out in the 2000:s.

 

Above all, it allows for a far more realistic simulation of perception than is currently in the game, and more realism should always be welcome. It also allows for a normalisation of unit sizes across all kinds of displays, and hardware-agnostic balancinc should also always be welcome. Especially since the stated reasons for not having it have apparently been disproven by highly trustworthy, major modders of the game…

Edited July 27, 2019 by Tippis

[dawgie79]

 

Above all, it allows for a far more realistic simulation of perception than is currently in the game, and more realism should always be welcome.

I don't see how. Like I said, jets are really small, especially with inside a huge airspace with a white/grey/blue background (the sky). They also move fast.

 

Pilots don't use binoculars anymore, don't have a zoom function, or smart scaling. Just watch some YT vids about jets at airshows, or flyby's or something, you'll see how small and fast they are. Example, and this one is real close, go figure.

 

 

I just don't understand the whining (because that's what it is in my humble opinion, I'm sorry). Man up and accept it's really hard to spot. People are just never ever satisfied, unbelievable.

[razo+r]

I don't see how. Like I said, jets are really small, especially with inside a huge airspace with a white/grey/blue background (the sky). They also move fast.

 

Pilots don't use binoculars anymore, don't have a zoom function, or smart scaling. Just watch some YT vids about jets at airshows, or flyby's or something, you'll see how small and fast they are. Example, and this one is real close, go figure.

 

I just don't understand the whining (because that's what it is in my humble opinion, I'm sorry). Man up and accept it's really hard to spot. People are just never ever satisfied, unbelievable.

 

Videos are not really the thing for references due to various reasons. Better proof would be to go out and see them yourself.

 

Depending on the conditions and the background, you can see F-18s and Tigers from 10km out.

 

Just saying...

[dawgie79]

Videos are not really the thing for references due to various reasons. Better proof would be to go out and see them yourself.

 

Depending on the conditions and the background, you can see F-18s and Tigers from 10km out.

 

Just saying...

Yeah, that's nice and all, but I'm still right. Because in the same regard you cannot judge spotting in a game/sim on a 2d screen. But surprise surprise, people do.

 

And like you said: "Depending on .....". In KM, 10km is like 5.3nm, so obvious you can spot targets that close. If that's what the fuss is about then especially it's a non-topic.

 

Just be satisfied and glad there even is a combat flightsim, in stead of behaving entitled over and over and over again (not directed to you personally but in general, it's getting tiresome, the complaining and the whining over everything). Maybe it's my age, and I'm not even that old comparing to some on here.

[Tippis]

I don't see how. Like I said, jets are really small, especially with inside a huge airspace with a white/grey/blue background (the sky). They also move fast.

The how is easy: right now, perception isn't simulated at all — so any model that simulates it would be an improvement. The whole concept was invented specifically to recreate realistic spotting and identification distances in cases where regular perception cues could not be replicated.

 

The cues can conceivably be replicated in other ways, at least as display hardware improves, but relying on such improvements would just unduly separate the haves from the have-nots. This particular solution doesn't do that — indeed, it could actually help reduce the backwards hardware discrepancies we currently have to suffer.

 

I just don't understand the whining (because that's what it is in my humble opinion, I'm sorry).

Because at the moment, the way units are drawn is horribly badly implemented. It's unrealistic. It is unbalanced. It also wholly counter-intuitive since better hardware creates worse spotting ability. If the imbalance was the other way around it would be just as bad but would at least make some kind of sense — ideally, of course, hardware should be compensated for in both directions and the display size normalised as much as possible.

 

You shouldn't have to reduce resolution and visual quality just to be able to see aircraft as well as the next guy.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Tippis

[Fri13]

Dear ED, i´m a customer since LOMAC, and i have lot of your products.

 

 

Since i have a 25" monitor 2560 x 1440 and another 27" 4K, i can´t fly because i can´t see enemies in dogfight, also sometime they just dissapear...

 

 

Also i can´t fly formation in line abreast 1-2 miles because it´s almost impossible to see wingman.

 

 

Please, add more people to solve the visibility model.

 

 

I know i´m not the only one with this problem, and there will be more people because they are changing their old full hd monitors to 1440p and 4K

 

3 years ago I said that 4K is only way to go if you want to see further than 1-2km. Then the 4K became better so that you could see C-130 size aircraft on clear sky from past 30km distance (way before Mig-21Bis radar could detect it) and F-15C from similar 28-30km distance. Totally unrealistic, but it was worth it when you were in dog fight as you didn't have problems to spot the aircrafts from 10-15 km ranges. Totally unrealistic.

 

Now with CV1 I can spot a F-18C on sky from 6-7km distance, or from 4-5km distance against ground. That is realistic, as I need to know where to look at. A F-5 or Mig-21Bis when coming toward, it is just 1 km or less. Just like how it realistically should be, almost invisible fighter when they are in direct interception. But when they show their wings or tails, it is again 2-3 km against ground as it should.

 

In reality you do not spot, see or find the targets if you don't know exactly where to look. And that means you have 2 degree cone of vision that you need to use to find the target out there.

 

THAT is the problem of the BVR, you can't take your eyes off from the target for a moment because you will lose the target, as it is maneuvering, you are maneuvering and it slips out of your 2 degree vision cone.

[dawgie79]

Well, this discussion has been around for some time. ED has responded on this in the past as well.

 

2D isn't realistic. You simply cannot translate a 2D experience onto a 3D concept. It's that easy. Hardware is not the issue here.

 

I won't respond further since this is, like I already said, an old discussion which just is rinse & repeat at this stage.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all,

 

please feel free to discuss this issue, but remember we do have this rule on the forum.

 

1.15 Discussions of other game companies products are forbidden

 

thanks

[Tippis]

2D isn't realistic. You simply cannot translate a 2D experience onto a 3D concept. It's that easy. Hardware is not the issue here.

That's not entirely accurate, though. Hardware is an issue — indeed, the fact that no attempt is made to compensate for pixel density is a huge part of the problem. There's more to it than that, of course, but it all boils down to the same root cause: the simulation skips over the rather critical component of perception.

 

Over time, those hardware discrepancies will only increase — just look at the range of displays people are using right now, from 1080p to 4k (or higher with multi-monitor) to multiple generations of VR — and will at some point have to be accounted for. Tying it into a normalised simulation of vision and of unit visibility is a pretty natural way of attacking that problem.

 

I'd also like to hear what you mean by “translating a 2D experience onto a 3D concept”? What experience are you referring to and what about it can't be translated? It's important to note that the same issue exists in VR, and, once again, the issue of pixel density and how it affects (or, rather, does not affect) how units are drawn creates some pretty significant imbalances between setups, as well as wildly varying and almost universally unrealistic spotting capabilities (at both extreme ends of the spectrum).

Edited July 27, 2019 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

Also i can´t fly formation in line abreast 1-2 miles because it´s almost impossible to see wingman.

With the monitors you describe it should be very easy to see other aircraft at this range. Perhaps there’s something odd with your settings or FOV. The default wide FOV in DCS is quite wide for a single monitor. Try reducing that.

 

There is. It is called smart scaling.

Smart scaling isn’t used in DCS because it would affect the RCS of the aircraft. It’s all been discussed before so use the search function.

 

Go to 1:45 to hear Wags explain it.

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

Smart scaling isn’t used in DCS because it would affect the RCS of the aircraft. It’s all been discussed before so use the search function.

Apparently, this has been proven not to be the case by modders, and as discussed before, if it were the case, then that's a huge flaw that needs to be addressed anyway.

[Mars Exulte]

The higher the resolution the MORE accurate it is. If it's hard to see, it's probably because it's HARD TO SEE. If you're using an excessively small screen, or are sitting across the room, that's going to affect things to an extent, yes, but the solution is not to game from six feet away.

 

There is no such thing as ''hardware agnostic''. It's a bs concept that is.impossible to achieve and ridiculous to even try. Some people.have better monitors, framerates, and flight gear than other people. Welcome to real life, where you are not the hero of the story and not gifted magical dragon god powers.

 

I will also reiterate, I fly in RL, and frequently am on/around airfields. If you don't know where to look, the odds of you noticing an aircraft at any given moment are slim, especially since it's heavily influenced by aspect and weather conditions.

 

Barring the occasional missing LOD that causes an aircraft to outright derender, as a rule whatever it is IS being rendered by the game. It's there. Full stop. You not noticing it is a personal problem.

 

@Sharpe

 

After the last in depth discussion of this topic, I agree with the others that Wags was probably mistaken. The guys diving in these files would know, and some of them performed tests. Test conclusions of trustworthy people trump stray comments from a developer.

[Tippis]

The higher the resolution the MORE accurate it is. If it's hard to see, it's probably because it's HARD TO SEE. If you're using an excessively small screen, or are sitting across the room, that's going to affect things to an extent, yes, but the solution is not to game from six feet away.

From what others have reported, here and in other threads, the opposite seems to be true: the higher the resolution, the less realistic the distances at which you can see things — the 30km claim has shown up from multiple posters.

 

It goes both ways, which is why it's such an issue. On the one hand, higher resolutions make units show up way beyond distances where they should be seen because the naive trigonometry employed does not set any appropriate limits to how soon something is drawn. On the other hand, lower resolutions make units show up much easier than they should, because again, the naive maths behind it just results in “this pixel should be drawn in airplane colour” even though it really should be too small at that point.

 

The former is more an issue with how zoom remains a necessary affordance for the limited FoV (or frustum) of having a monitor rather than a full 360° environment, but the underlying issue is much the same: the actual ability to perceive the unit is not simulated, so with the push of a button or lever, your pilot somehow gains eagle vision and spots things way outside of any sensible range limits. And of course, there's the weird (probably LOD-related) pop-in/pop-out that is sometimes seen as you move through the zoom ranges — a unit is visible at low zoom, but disappears as you zoom in a bit, only to appear again at max zoom.

 

Both issues are caused by the lack of a simulation of perception. In some cases, such a simulation would make spotting a whole lot harder (or even impossible), which would be good. In other cases, it would make spotting a whole lot easier, which would also be good. In either case, it would be more realistic, hence why both are good at the same time.

 

There is no such thing as ''hardware agnostic''. It's a bs concept that is.

There's nothing BS or impossible about trying to normalise draw sizes across hardware by compensating for known physical parameters such as pixel density. Yes, people have different monitors and graphics cards, but that doesn't mean you should just throw up your arms and give up — it means you should account and compensate for that to the best of your ability.

 

The only thing you can't compensate for (except in VR) is the distance between the player and the screen, but everything on that screen can indeed be normalised.

[NineLine]

Why are people not using the dot option in DCS for visibility issues, that really is not much different than some form of model enlargement and works really well, and doesn't get in the way like full labels? We did model enlargement and it didn't suit us, it caused as many issues as it might have helped.