Visibility: 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

[Mar]

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!!!''

 

 

I liked the part where you cherry picked a tiny tiny part of what he said because it was the only part that could help your agenda.

 

But in case you actually didn't know, he was talking about how it would appear on a movie screen. "It's not gonna look right, it's not gonna be exciting, people aren't gonna understand what's going on." Kind of sounds familiar...

 

Do you think RL pilots would train like that if they couldn't understand what was going on?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Mar

[SharpeXB]

Do you think RL pilots would train like that if they couldn't understand what was going on?

RL pilots never used Serfoss scaling, that’s for sure. The belief that this was somehow used in “real simulators” is baloney. Oh yeah they train on big flat screen TVs! (not)

That paper is eggheaded garbage that only ever saw the bottom of a waste can. Arizona State is a diploma mill if there ever was one. :lol:

[Mar]

RL pilots never used Serfoss scaling, that’s for sure. The belief that this was somehow used in “real simulators” is baloney. Oh yeah they train on big flat screen TVs! (not)

That paper is eggheaded garbage that only ever saw the bottom of a waste can. Arizona State is a diploma mill if there ever was one. :lol:

 

 

At least zhukov032186 cherry picked something that could have helped him if it was true. As for you... I have no idea what you're trying to do.

[Kippy]

That paper is eggheaded garbage that only ever saw the bottom of a waste can. Arizona State is a diploma mill if there ever was one. :lol:

Have you ever looked at another airplane in the sky a day in your life? I see A-10s around the KFWA Class C when I'm up VFR'ing around - they don't look like small dots at 2 miles. DCS has some scaling issues. There are some proposed options on the table. It's one thing to refute it with sensible counterarguments...

 

Instead, you've dragged on and made a donkey's rear end of yourself across several game communities tearing this guy's paper apart, attacking his personal qualities and now his alma mater, based on how you think the proposed solutions would "look terrible."

 

Accept your Pyrrhic victory with ED's statement of "no more smart scaling," and take a long walk on a short pier.

 

Where can I find your research paper on this topic at?

[SharpeXB]

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

They’re huge!

[SharpeXB]

tearing this guy's paper apart, attacking his personal qualities

You shouldn’t be so fond of Gary Serfoss either since he screwed up your ability to play flight sims.

 

and now his alma mater,

Well I went to UofA... go Wildcats.

 

based on how you think the proposed solutions would "look terrible."

I don’t think... I know. See the evidence here

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4128716&postcount=99

It doesn’t require a research paper to tell if something looks terrible or not.

[Kippy]

You shouldn’t be so fond of Gary Serfoss either since he screwed up your ability to play flight sims.

 

And so... your sweaty hobby is justification enough to declare somebody's hard earned diploma and academic research to have been granted and conducted from a "diploma mill?"

 

Well I went to UofA... go Wildcats.

Acceptance rate: 84.4% ( ASU 84.8 )

Average admission SAT: 1196 (ASU 1250)

 

Looks like UofA is a "diploma mill" too.

 

I don’t think... I know. See the evidence here

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4128716&postcount=99

It doesn’t require a research paper to tell if something looks terrible or not.

 

I happen to think that identifying an aircraft is more important than having a "good looking" sim. So............ what now?

[SharpeXB]

Looks like UofA is a "diploma mill" too.

At least we don’t have Satan as our mascot :smartass:

 

I happen to think that identifying an aircraft is more important than having a "good looking" sim.

Well you aren’t getting an ugly looking game from ED. Sorry.

[Kippy]

Well you aren’t getting an ugly looking game from ED. Sorry.

 

Cool, we've arrived at the core of where this rabbit hole of a thread has left us.

ED has stated that smart scaling isn't going to happen. Your opinion wins the day. Was it worth tastelessly tearing apart somebody's labor of intensive academic research?

 

Take some NyQuil and head to bed, boomer

[SharpeXB]

Was it worth tastelessly tearing apart somebody's labor of intensive academic research?

Yes it was. If you publish something stupid, be prepared to have it torn apart.

“labor of intensive academic research”? Oh please.... :doh:

Edited December 24, 2019 by SharpeXB

[Mar]

Hmm, looks like you've got some stuff in your sig. I suppose none of that was the result of intensive academic research either...

[SharpeXB]

Hmm, looks like you've got some stuff in your sig. I suppose none of that was the result of intensive academic research either...

Here’s some things that are basically wrong about his whole method

The orientations of the target aircraft result in wildly varying degrees of magnification. One even falling to a negative number (how does that make sense?), one reaching as high as 3.5x at 1mi. Which he even tries to eliminate as it throws off the whole curve. This is the result of these arcane mathematical formulas. The output of these is almost meaningless given the wide range of results. Then these are all stirred together in a pot to get some resulting curve. So any precision or validity here is just lost in the soup. It’s basically mathematical gibberish.

Then his suggestion that it could be used for video games is entirely outdated. Games in 2003 with their simplistic graphics could do anything they want, they already look ugly so who cares.

But Serfoss can’t foresee how realistic games will become and how out of place and awkward targets would look scaled unequally to their context. So that use is just unacceptable today.

Not all “research” is worthwhile. Much of it can just be a giant waste of time.

[NineLine]

And here we are again. Sorry guys, but locked. We are working on visibility, not scaling, but many graphical improvements and aids, as well as looking at a more robust and customizable label system.

 

I tried to leave this discussion as long as possible, I know we have some passionate people on both sides, but we are not getting anywhere but animosity at this point.