Visual Scaling, Spotting

[LowRider88]

Since there's all these disagreement and discrepancy regarding at what range something should be visible or not. If anyone thinks visibility is unrealistic, they can tweak the labels so it compensates only in the range they think they should be visible. They can make it so the 1 pixel colorless dot fades in and out at certain range.

 

This sounds to me somewhat like the imposters mechanism, why I personally feel should still be an option. It could be off by default if that offends people less.

 

From other threads, it seems like there is a large, sizeable portion of the community that appreciated it, and perhaps an equally size group who opposed it.

To make everyone happy as you suggest, it seems to make good sense to bring that back only as an option.

ED already committed time, money and effort, so why does it sit dormant when there is a large partial user base who want to leverage it?

 

But if there is something better coming down the pipe that may be better, I suppose there is nothing to do but wait.

[Taz1004]

Again, spotting in DCS is unrealistically good. You can spot ground and air units far further distance than you should.

 

So to "improve spotting" should really be "decreasing spotting distances" to make it more realistic.

 

Well, that's the whole debate that's been going on for years isn't it. Some thinks it's too easy, some thinks it's too hard.

 

I think it depends on situation and what module you're flying. If you try to spot 1 pixel black dot on a yellow desert ground or snow, of course it's easy. If you try to spot 1 pixel black dot on a black ground texture, you will not find it. Or an armor stuck sideways to a building. I really don't know how they can hide "better" than that.

 

I believe what draconus is referring to ED improving the spotting for example is when you change the approach angle, the black dot that was showing its shadow side is now reflecting light and will become lighter dot. And can be picked out from black background. Which is welcome feature. And the black dot that was on white snow at all times, will now sometimes be white dot based on the angle. Which will make it harder to see.

 

And maybe it was "easy" for you because ED was trying to compensate for the lack of lighting on the dot by increasing the distance. And with the lighting feature, they may afford to decrease the visible distance.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Taz1004

[Fri13]

I don’t really care so much about the jump from dot to 3D in mid visual range.

That to me is esthetics, and is not an immersion killer for me because I’ve gotten used to that playing flight sims since 1994.

[/Quote]

 

I don't get a such "jump", as through the visual spotting the model gets enlarged just right. There are challenges to identify aircrafts like F-86 vs MiG-15 at some distances as they are so same kind, if they have similar skin. But others like C-130 vs F-15 are so obvious that mistake is unlikely.

 

That detail may scare some multiplayer users who fear they can’t see anything. But for me it adds the next level of challenge I am looking for.

 

And it is supported by reputable military reports, and not commentary from youtubers.

 

It is just sad thing that some people think they should be able spot aircrafts from laughable distances and identify them.

There is always the visual identification problem if you do not know what you are to expect, so if you are fighting against enemy that has same aircrafts than you, then you really have challenge. But example MiG-23 vs F-14 and even if both are variable sweep wings aircrafts, you will have far easier time than if enemy would have same aircraft than you.

 

But visually spot something is extremely difficult if you are not directly looking at it, and prepared to find what you are looking for. And in DCS it is now just too easy to spot things as they just pop-out with too high contrast and dark object against otherwise smooth backgrounds.

 

Why that 5 NM distance is acceptable BVR distance, as it covers in optimal conditions the front/rear hemisphere where either something flies toward you or you are chasing something.

 

So likey you have a search area only in your HUD size space that you are scanning visually to spot the target.

 

Some people here argue how a targeting pod is like searching through straw, but it is far easier because you have general idea where to look at and it doesn't move. Like someone calls over radio that target is east side of a town called "bingobango" near the large white warehouse. You will instantly be able to pin point target area to couple hectares and then you already find it in seconds if not concealed at all.

 

But visually finding a fighter on sky even at HUD size area is challenge. So GCI/AWACS tells you it is straight a head, 500 feet's above you and 3 NM ahead, and all you can say is "I am blind". Until it suddenly appears like you shouldn't have any problems....

[Taz1004]

This sounds to me somewhat like the imposters mechanism, why I personally feel should still be an option. It could be off by default if that offends people less.

 

From other threads, it seems like there is a large, sizeable portion of the community that appreciated it, and perhaps an equally size group who opposed it.

To make everyone happy as you suggest, it seems to make good sense to bring that back only as an option.

ED already committed time, money and effort, so why does it sit dormant when there is a large partial user base who want to leverage it?

 

But if there is something better coming down the pipe that may be better, I suppose there is nothing to do but wait.

 

They don't have to bring it back. It's already in the game. Just edit the Labels.lua

[Tippis]

Please stop telling me what I am asking for.

I have to start before I can stop.

 

I'm simply telling you why what you're asking for leads into a much larger issue that has been around for yonks, that has seen a quick fix already (that was removed because it didn't fix anything), and that there is supposedly some development going on to address the full range of issues.

 

If you're looking for a quick fix that will change a single thing, you won't get it because it's been tried and it didn't work, and the devs already working on the bigger-scope issue. The best thing you have in the meantime is various label trickery (and yes, they can be used to decrease visibility, but it's a bit… unreliable).

 

I'm also explaining to you why what you're asking for might not actually yield the result you say you're looking for: because it is part of that larger scope, and when the full scope gets addressed, some thing will become easier, others will become harder, others still will just become different.

 

None of this is to say that what you've offered isn't accurate or that the issue you're having doesn't exist. Simply that it's a small data point in a larger haystack. This is a good thing.

 

Still not sure why people are refuting your accurately sourced data.

I may have missed a post, but I'm not sure anyone really is? SharpeXB contests it, but that's what he always does when research is put on the table in favour of fixing visibility in DCS, and he never manages to refute it because he only ever has assumptions and opinions to offer. Coincidentally, he's also one of the people who claims to be able to spot things visually out to 30nm… ;)

[LowRider88]

They don't have to bring it back. It's already in the game. Just edit the Labels.lua

 

Really, that is not just text labels? Man, all this time I was wasting time fussing around with the imposters.lua which did nothing.

 

That’s for these details. I will try it tonight.

[Taz1004]

It is just sad thing that some people think they should be able spot aircrafts from laughable distances and identify them.

 

Is it also sad thing that you can pull 9G's without a sweat? It is sad that some people forget this is entertainment. And it is really sad that some people think they can tell others how to enjoy their entertainment.

[LowRider88]

I have to start before I can stop.

 

I'm simply telling you why what you're asking for leads into a much larger issue that has been around for yonks, that has seen a quick fix already (that was removed because it didn't fix anything), and that there is supposedly some development going on to address the full range of issues.

 

If you're looking for a quick fix that will change a single thing, you won't get it because it's been tried and it didn't work, and the devs already working on the bigger-scope issue. The best thing you have in the meantime is various label trickery (and yes, they can be used to decrease visibility, but it's a bit… unreliable).

 

I'm also explaining to you why what you're asking for might not actually yield the result you say you're looking for: because it is part of that larger scope, and when the full scope gets addressed, some thing will become easier, others will become harder, others still will just become different.

 

None of this is to say that what you've offered isn't accurate or that the issue you're having doesn't exist. Simply that it's a small data point in a larger haystack. This is a good thing.

 

 

I may have missed a post, but I'm not sure anyone really is? SharpeXB contests it, but that's what he always does when research is put on the table in favour of fixing visibility in DCS, and he never manages to refute it because he only ever has assumptions and opinions to offer. Coincidentally, he's also one of the people who claims to be able to spot things visually out to 30nm… ;)

 

Okay, this for some reason is one of your more enjoyable posts to read.

Thanks for these details.

[SharpeXB]

This sounds to me somewhat like the imposters mechanism, why I personally feel should still be an option.

If you don’t want targets to be visible at absurd distances then you shouldn’t want the imposters. They made it possible to see small aircraft and ground targets from across the whole map. The trouble was they were a fixed pixel size, 3 being the smallest. 3 pixels for a distant target is gigantic, it makes trucks appear the size of battleships. It’s possible that DCS still has something like this although limited to a single pixel, but that’s still too large for something small and far away. Worse still, that pixel becomes larger with lower resolution making that a cheat of sorts. It was tested by a few people quite a while ago but I don’t know if it’s still used.

[Taz1004]

If you don’t want targets to be visible at absurd distances then you shouldn’t want the imposters. They made it possible to see small aircraft and ground targets from across the whole map. The trouble was they were a fixed pixel size, 3 being the smallest. 3 pixels for a distant target is gigantic, it makes trucks appear the size of battleships. It’s possible that DCS still has something like this although limited to a single pixel, but that’s still too large for something small and far away. Worse still, that pixel becomes larger with lower resolution making that a cheat of sorts. It was tested by a few people quite a while ago but I don’t know if it’s still used.

 

You can edit the Labels.lua so 1 pixel dot fades in from say 5 miles. Then fades away at 3 miles for example (don't know the exact distances) when the actual pixel of the plane fades in. You can make it grey so you don't know friend or foe. You can customize it anyway you want.

[Fri13]

Well, that's the whole debate that's been going on for years isn't it. Some thinks it's too easy, some thinks it's too hard.[/Quote]

 

Please notice how I talk only about optimal scenario. Just like the documents I shared. People needs to understand that what is the scenario.

 

And currently in DCS spotting is too easy even on optimal scenarios, like the tank on flat desert or snow field. We do not have camouflaged, we do not have mechanics to conceal units, we do not either have tracks on ground and especially in snow etc. Even our helicopters generate laughable white cloud when they are at specific range from terrain, that you can see from tens of kilometers as cloud on ground.

 

I think it depends on situation and what module you're flying. If you try to spot 1 pixel black dot on a yellow desert ground or snow, of course it's easy. If you try to spot 1 pixel black dot on a black ground texture, you will not find it. Or an armor stuck sideways to a building. I really don't know how they can hide "better" than that.[/Quote]

 

How? Easily, you train soldiers to hide from the enemy recon and enemy spotting! If we look at the third world child soldiers, they might not know how to hide in plain sight. But modern military (since WW2) is about concealment from enemy. Germans did invent the camouflage uniforms for that reason, as well their tactics were based to hide your existence and mobility.

 

Decades ago the camouflage netting has become standard in militaries. As well using your terrain elements to conceal your location and your shape and shadows etc.

 

You can literally walk in a forest and hit your head to a well camouflaged tank, as you didn't see it even when you looked straight at it.

 

When troops does all they can to hide from being spotted, they truly are incapable to be spotted even with thermal cameras. Why in DCS the FLIR is laughable over powered device as all units glow like a hot barbecue in a winter night. No matter their engine use, environmental temperature and especially complete lack of concealment methods.

 

If a tank parks itself to side of a forest, you shouldn't be able spot it at all unless something breaks it's shape and surrounding pattern. A snow camouflage in a forest at summer time doesn't help so much either.

 

And people just here expect that you should be able spot ground units in such scenarios where they are to be blended in.... Even when DCs doesn't support such.

 

I believe what draconus is referring to ED improving the spotting for example is when you change the approach angle, the black dot that was showing its shadow side is now reflecting light and will become lighter dot. And can be picked out from black background. Which is welcome feature. And the black dot that was on white snow at all times, will now sometimes be white dot based on the angle. Which will make it harder to see.[/Quote]

 

That again should be based to skin only. As only thing that really reveals your position is glare from the canopy. Otherwise camouflaged aircrafts are almost completely same colorful as backgrounds. That is why USA uses middle grey as it is so effective regardless terrain at the sky. While others might use camouflage that helps against ground or helps to hide them when parked on ground.

 

And maybe it was "easy" for you because ED was trying to compensate for the lack of lighting on the dot by increasing the distance. And with the lighting feature, they may afford to decrease the visible distance.

 

Well, hopefully they will manage to improve it more realistic, not just easier.

 

As we need same things for ground units. Where breaking shadow and shape is important. As well would be nice to get good tracks on some terrain. Like drive over a crop field and you leave easy tracks to find you at end of it. Same thing in snow if sun is lighting at good angle.

 

But those are very difficult to get working in large scale.

[Fri13]

Is it also sad thing that you can pull 9G's without a sweat? It is sad that some people forget this is entertainment. And it is really sad that some people think they can tell others how to enjoy their entertainment.

 

It is also sad that some people holds grudge when they fail in logic....

Like that they can any time in game settings go to enable labels with wanted settings so they can just enjoy themselves and let others enjoy from increased realism with improved visual effects that makes game more challenging.

[SharpeXB]

You can edit the Labels.lua so 1 pixel dot fades in from say 5 miles. Then fades away at 3 miles for example (don't know the exact distances) when the actual pixel of the plane fades in. You can make it grey so you don't know friend or foe. You can customize it anyway you want.

The imposters weren’t labels. They were a feature called Model Enlargement which used a 2D “sprite” image of the aircraft which was rendered over the 3D model if it fell below a certain number of pixels. There were three setting, small, medium and large. The largest was 12 pixels I think and the smallest was 3. Again they made it possible to see targets from crazy distances and made BVR combat or radar irrelevant. They are no longer used.

[Taz1004]

It is also sad that some people holds grudge when they fail in logic....

Like that they can any time in game settings go to enable labels with wanted settings so they can just enjoy themselves and let others enjoy from increased realism with improved visual effects that makes game more challenging.

 

LMAO. Is it logic that you don't even remember what you said?

 

It is just sad thing that some people think they should be able spot aircrafts from laughable distances and identify them.

 

Sad? Laughable? You are the one who displayed sarcasm towards people who wants to "enable labels with wanted settings so they can just enjoy themselves"

 

I had no problems with people who wants realism. Other than those who ridicules others.

[Tippis]

The imposters weren’t labels. They were a feature called Model Enlargement which used a 2D “sprite” image of the aircraft which was rendered over the 3D model if it fell below a certain number of pixels. There were three setting, small, medium and large. The largest was 12 pixels I think and the smallest was 3. Again they made it possible to see targets from crazy distances and made BVR combat or radar irrelevant. They are no longer used.

The impostors were less granular, less capable, less customisable, and just worse in general solution to something that labels are now able to do anyway. Everything the impostors did can now be replicated through various label trickery, but at even longer (or shorter) ranges, with larger (or smaller) dots and symbols covering up the unit models.

 

They're not longer used because they no longer serve any purpose, having been fully supplanted by advanced label options, and because they never actually solved the problem they were meant to solve.

 

Of course, they didn't exactly make BVR combat or radar irrelevant since they were just display overlays, nor do the current labels — you still had to make sure you radar and BVR weaponry was pointed in the right direction with the right settings to be able to pick up the target. They made it easier, sure, but that's a far cry from “irrelevant”.

 

 

e: Noticed in the quoted post below that I had written “not” instead of “now”, which completely reverses what I wanted to convey. D'oh! :D

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tippis

[Fri13]

LMAO. Is it logic that you don't even remember what you said?

 

I remember perfectly, problem is that you don't.

 

Sad? Laughable? You are the one who displayed sarcasm towards people who wants to "enable labels with wanted settings so they can just enjoy themselves"

 

It is not sarcasm. It is a fact. If someone does feel that they should have capability see further and identify objects reliably, they can always go and enable the labels in the game that offers that feature. They don't need to come demand that everyone else should be limited to unrealistic mode where they would start seeing units that they shouldn't.

 

No one is taking away anything from those who think they should see better, because the game has the functionality already to make it so.

 

I had no problems with people who wants realism. Other than those who ridicules others.

 

You are the one who is building straw man arguments and insults with purposely misquoting.

 

If you can't see, then go and enable the assisting features to help you see! Don't come to demand that game should be pushed further away from realism when it already offers you the means to do so!

[Fri13]

The impostors were less granular, less capable, less customisable, and just worse in general solution to something that labels are not able to do anyway. Everything the impostors did can now be replicated through various label trickery, but at even longer (or shorter) ranges, with larger (or smaller) dots and symbols covering up the unit models.

 

The enlargement was just bad. Ground units popped up clearly from over 50 km ranges, and it was actually difficult to see distance to target on sky as sprite size didn't really change for long distances.

 

It was just good that they got rid of it.

[Taz1004]

If you can't see, then go and enable the assisting features to help you see! Don't come to demand that game should be pushed further away from realism when it already offers you the means to do so!

 

LMAO. Me? Demanded? Where? Misquote? At least quote something instead of making things up.

 

It is just sad thing that some people think they should be able spot aircrafts from laughable distances and identify them.

 

How is that a misquote? You did not say that or you did not mean it? Actually... you're admitting something by saying it's a misquote.

 

You really are "sad" and "laughable". That's not insult. It's a fact per your reasoning :megalol:

Edited June 22, 2020 by Taz1004

[Phil C6]

Hi, 1 of the visibility prob come from contrast difference between the sky and the object check this 1:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250760

1500ft and near invisible

In the past I remember sometimes another prob was the distance the skin appear/disappear (Maybe this prob is already fixed, didn't verify)

 

Best regards

Edited June 23, 2020 by Phil C6

[Fri13]

Hi, 1 of the visibility prob come from contrast difference between the sky and the object check this 1:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250760

1500ft and near invisible

In the past I remember sometimes another prob was the distance the skin appear/disappear (Maybe this prob is already fixed, didn't verify)

 

Best regards

 

That doesn't look unrealistic nor bad. Difficult to say as no information from weather, attitudes between fighters and sun position.

[Fri13]

LMAO. Me? Demanded? Where? Misquote? At least quote something instead of making things up.[/Quote]

 

You came with personal attacks and talking trash about pulling 9G without sweat, that this game is not for entertainment. Or telling everyone else how to enjoy from their purchased game Go read yourself at your sarcasm to be against...

 

As you don't even remember what you claim, better stop there.

 

 

How is that a misquote? You did not say that or you did not mean it? Actually... you're admitting something by saying it's a misquote.[/Quote]

 

Telling that you won't even quote right is not admitting that what you quote is what I have written.

 

You really are "sad" and "laughable". That's not insult. It's a fact per your reasoning :megalol:

 

When you can't even remember that you come with hostility, misquoting by purpose to build a straw man to do personal insults. You can enable your wanted labels, but don't come to say it is then more realistic and acceptable for those who want more realism, or any technology to make spotting easier in situations where it shouldn't be possible.

 

And as you think it is not laughable distance that one should be spotting fighters from tens of kilometers and wants graphical adjustments that will affect everyone, but doesn't want to use labels or wouldn't accept solutions that are easy modes, yes that is sad situation.

 

Never I said that someone is laughable, like you did.

Never I said that someone is sad, like you did.

 

As it is not mine reasoning, but yours.

 

Yeah, now I stop feeding you.

[tugais]

I just watched a youtube video from a former Rafale pilot who retired 2-3 years ago. He's actually using DCS as a training tool within a company he created after leaving the french navy. In his video he states that he has to use the label system to overcome the poor rendition of the visibility in ACM and BFM situations.

 

This former fighter pilot is not the only one to use labels, I already watched on youtube others fighter pilots from the US using labels too.

 

The fact that fighter pilots use labels and that one of them is clearly stating that DCS has some rendering issues makes me think that something is definitely off at the moment.

[draconus]

The fact that fighter pilots use labels and that one of them is clearly stating that DCS has some rendering issues makes me think that something is definitely off at the moment.

Bet they use 120 degrees FoV too. They may be good pilots but poor gamers.

[SharpeXB]

I just watched a youtube video from a former Rafale pilot who retired 2-3 years ago. He's actually using DCS as a training tool within a company he created after leaving the french navy.

That’s cool. He did says he’s using lesser hardware such as a 15” laptop and no TrackIR just to that DCS can be fun without and expensive rig. That’s one reason had the labels on. At this range other aircraft are easy to see, you wouldn’t really need labels especially if you have head tracking. I like the French Air Force using DCS, nice ultra wide screens :thumbup:

Edited June 23, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Phil C6]

Hi, I do DCS almost dogfight my screen is a TV (standard TV screen so enough big in Full HD) and personnally i have feeling something isn't ideal at short medium range, too easy to lost visual.

Guys have you compare your feeling when you look plane at Air show and in DCS?

When you use F5 (external view to the target) it seems better

 

 

 

Best regards