Visibility: 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

[Tippis]

It’s not a complicated stance. When you look at the “Serfoss” screenshot can you tell that the third aircraft on the right is larger than the other two?

Depends. Is it supposed to be larger? In that case, then yes. If not, then no. If they should be the same size but aren't showing up as such (or should be a different size but aren't), the example is incorrect. You're quite right: this isn't complicated, but you have consistently failed to understand this connection and how Serfoss (and especially modified Serfoss) works.

 

Do you think that’s a correct size of a Hornet?

For the purpose of identifying the aircraft and determining relative positioning, yes. That's the whole point of the exercise, after all. The reason I think that it's the correct size is that it has empirically been proven to be. You have yet to explain why the empirics are wrong.

 

Would that look odd in the sim?

As the science shows, no.

You assert without proof that the science is wrong. This makes your assertion trivially dismissible.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tippis

[draconus]

You guys don't know when to stop with this scaling thing, do you?

 

Deliberately introducing false rendering with relative object size errors brings more problems than it solves so it's not feasible as the solution. Especially not for the simulator with realistic graphics. It may have been a solution back then only to match the results they wanted to get. That's all. If we had in DCS only dogfights in the poorly represented world that would be fine. But it's way more than that. For DCS the solution for future are additional effects, real FoV and retinal resolutions.

[Tippis]

Deliberately introducing false rendering with relative object size errors brings more problems than it solves.

Problems such as…?

[SharpeXB]

As the science shows, no.

This isn’t a science experiment. It’s a game. And ED already said they aren’t doing this so I don’t know why you keep on about it.

[Tippis]

This isn’t a science experiment.

Not any more, no. The experiment has been done already and the results are in: scaling offers a much more realistic simulation of cognition. It also serves as a solid foundation for ironing out a number of other issues with the increasingly discrepant display systems in used with this game, thus improving the overall game balance.

 

Regardless, the science shows one thing. You keep trying to dismiss those results without backing it up or offering any kind of contradicting evidence or research of your own. Hell, you've even tried to contradict it while at the same time expressly stating that you have no idea what the research actually says and what the results are.

 

Thus: your objection is noted and dismissed as null and void. If you want to actually bolster your objection and stay relevant to the discussion, this is the time when you need to start coughing up something resembling an informed position backed by some kind of evidence. If not, it's just disruptive off-topic thread hijacking, presumably because you are afraid to lose the unrealism and imbalance that the current view rendering method creates.

[SharpeXB]

Not any more, no. The experiment has been done already and the results are in: scaling offers a much more realistic simulation of cognition. It also serves as a solid foundation for ironing out a number of other issues with the increasingly discrepant display systems in used with this game, thus improving the overall game balance.

 

Regardless, the science shows one thing. You keep trying to dismiss those results without backing it up or offering any kind of contradicting evidence or research of your own. Hell, you've even tried to contradict it while at the same time expressly stating that you have no idea what the research actually says and what the results are.

 

Thus: your objection is noted and dismissed as null and void. If you want to actually bolster your objection and stay relevant to the discussion, this is the time when you need to start coughing up something resembling an informed position backed by some kind of evidence. If not, it's just disruptive off-topic thread hijacking, presumably because you are afraid to lose the unrealism and imbalance that the current view rendering method creates.

ED just told you that they aren’t going to use this scaling stuff. So why do you keep posting about it?

Are you trying to convince me? You won’t. So you can stop.

[Tippis]

ED just told you that they aren’t going to use this scaling stuff. So why do you keep posting about it?

Because there's more to be said.

 

If you don't want to read it, don't.

If you don't want to (or simply can't) participate in the discussion, don't.

 

But your desire to keep the game imbalanced and unrealistic is not sufficient reason for my not posting. Neither are your attempts to hijack the thread, go off-topic, and generally dictate the discussion that you can't participate in just because you don't like what it might result in.

 

You keep bringing up what “ED said” but you obviously don't believe in that argument yourself — if you did, you wouldn't so desperately need to shut down every conversation on the topic.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tippis

[David OC]

The way I see it, which I have said before.

 

There are way to many options for ED to code in to get this all right (How many devices and Rez). Most of these studies are for a fix type of sim and training, not a complete world sim, think civi sims..

[Tippis]

There are way to many options for ED to code in to get this all right (How many devices and Rez).

I'm not so sure about that. The method itself is pretty much resolution-agnostic. Indeed, it may actually be helpful in overcoming the exact issues that those differences currently create, where lower-resolution displays manage to offer better visibility that higher-resolution ones.

 

Now, granted, at the other end of the spectrum, highres displays offer a different advantage, but that is also one that really needs to be addressed, and where related calculations can be applied to determine the cut-off point for long-range visibility.

[SharpeXB]

Because there's more to be said.

No there really isn’t.

[Tippis]

No there really isn’t.

Prove it.

[SharpeXB]

Prove it.

I don’t have to, it’s a dead issue. ED isn’t interested in this. They just said so.

 

Proof that it looks stupid in the game has already been provided.

[draconus]

Problems such as…?

 

- wrong relative size of the target viewed against world objects (airfield, sun, carrier, vehicles...) and HUD symbology esp. broken funnel type gunsights

- broken damage and collision model for projectiles and other objects

[Mars Exulte]

This thread is the same circlejerk between all the same people repeating all the same arguments... and every time they act like they have said something new nobody else possibly thought of before.

 

ED have been pretty clear scaling is not how they want to do things, that 15-20yo concepts are not how they want to go. You can all keep pissing on the same tree if you want, or you can quit acting like spurned lovers and at least TRY to think of something innovative/new.

[Tippis]

I don’t have to

Yes you do. You always do — in fact, you do more than most due to your history. On this point in particular since it is so self-evidently wrong given where you've posted it…

 

- wrong relative size of the target viewed against world objects (airfield, sun, carrier, vehicles...) and HUD symbology esp. broken funnel type gunsights

At the distances where HUD symbology matters, the sizes will not be sufficiently large to make any difference. Of the world objects that would be relatively “wrong” only the airfield and the sun would actually be affected, but how often do you stare at that and compare it against a target?

 

broken damage and collision model for projectiles and other objects

Rendered size does not in any way affect damage and collision.

[SharpeXB]

Yes you do. You always do —

I don’t have to do anything. ED said they don’t want to do scaling and I’m fine with that.

[nighthawk2174]

ED have been pretty clear scaling is not how they want to do things, that 15-20yo concepts are not how they want to go. You can all keep pissing on the same tree if you want, or you can quit acting like spurned lovers and at least TRY to think of something innovative/new.

 

And this precludes using this solution why?

[draconus]

Rendered size does not in any way affect damage and collision.

Yes, it does, when bullets go trough the oversized model or two models touch their wings, but nothing is happening. Also any single pixel/inch of wrong size is still the wrong size - doesn't matter how far it goes.

[Tippis]

Yes, it does, when bullets go trough the oversized model or two models touch their wings, but nothing is happening.

That's not an effect on the damage or collision modelling — it is simply not a collision or hit at all, and the rendering has nothing to do with that. Neither the collision nor the damage model is in any way affected, and definitely not “broken” like you claimed, by what appears on the screen because the two are wholly separate from each other.

 

Also any single pixel/inch of wrong size is still the wrong size

That's the funny part: the purpose of Serfoss scaling and similar solution is to give stuff the right size, rather than the naively trigonometrical (i.e. wrong) one.

 

 

I don’t have to do anything. ED said they don’t want to do scaling and I’m fine with that.

Good. Then you have no need to try to disrupt every discussion on the topic. And yet you are, every time. So you are obviously not fine with what ED says or you wouldn't be so desperately afraid of the entire topic that all this effort must be spent on trying to shut it down.

 

You understand this, right? That the only thing you've ever managed to prove in all of this is that you are deathly afraid that ED might actually be swayed by the discussions, the experimentations, and the data that keeps being added to the pile. This is the potentiality that explains why I keep posting. It is also why you keep posting. If you didn't strongly believe in that possibility, you would long since have taken your own advice and just stopped. But you don't; indeed, you can't.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Tippis

[draconus]

That's the funny part: the purpose of Serfoss scaling and similar solution is to give stuff the right size, rather than the naively trigonometrical (i.e. wrong) one.

 

Funny is that only the aircraft are of wrong size and not the other objects. Not so funny that you see no problems in implementing scaling. Luckily there are more smart and responsible people in charge of rendering engine.

[SharpeXB]

Luckily there are more smart and responsible people in charge of rendering engine.

Yes that’s for sure.

[SharpeXB]

the purpose of Serfoss scaling and similar solution is to give stuff the right size, rather than the naively trigonometrical (i.e. wrong) one.

That’s hilarious... What’s amazing about this stupid smart scaling nonsense it that it has screwed you guys up from ever being able to play another flight sim. It hasn’t benefitted you at all that’s for sure. No other sim is going to ever adopt something so awkward looking. So your choice now is to quit flight sims or change to adapt yourself to the current games. They’re not going to change just for you.

[Mars Exulte]

And this precludes using this solution why?

 

What part of ''they explicitly stated they don't want to do it'' is hard to understand? They're well aware of it, and all the arguments for and against. It's been discussed many times, and always as if it is something new and exciting nobody thought of before the latest thread. They know. They made a choice to NOT do it that way.

 

People can waste their time agitating for a firmly rejected method, or they can offer alternative methods that might actually be considered. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's also not hard to grasp the word salads some of you are regurgitating are a symptom of ''trying too hard''.

 

''That's the funny part: the purpose of Serfoss scaling and similar solution is to give stuff the right size, rather than the naively trigonometrical (i.e. wrong) one.''

 

Like this timeless gem. Really? Really? Truly a statement that will enter the hall of fame. Or at least be used as fodder for my sig. A dubious honor, but there it is.

 

Ooh! I have flashbacks of the general in Dr Strangelove ranting about his precious bodily fluids!

Edited December 21, 2019 by zhukov032186

[Tippis]

Funny is that only the aircraft are of wrong size and not the other objects.

Says who?

 

Like this timeless gem. Really? Really?

Yes, really. That is, after all, the entire purpose of the exercise. The reason that it is a timeless gem is because no-one has ever been able to argue against it and the empirical evidence that supports it.

 

The only counters that have ever been offered are various forms of expletives, unrelated derision, and general personal abuse.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Tippis

[Mars Exulte]

I liked the part in CW Lemoines latest video where he said fighter jets at 2 miles are tiny tiny dots.

 

This community:

''Blargh! SERFOSS NOOB! NEEDS 2X MULTIPLIER! HODOR!!!''