Visual Scaling, Spotting

[...]

Yes, I do. If you deliberately use smaller scale then labels (dots) are the right option for you.

 

 

 

Warning, this is the result of the highly skilled forum search, do not attempt to reproduce:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3247807&postcount=34

 

 

 

Don't you know someone in the other side of the city to have a look and have on phone? Maybe some public internet camera?

 

I see it well as it is. But I would not like to add difficulty.

 

Currently I see it well without labels and without points.

Edited June 26, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[draconus]

Currently I see it well without labels and without points. Is there any way to increase the size of the moon? I didn't know

Duh! Zoom in.

[LowRider88]

Thanks nighthawk for your non emotional, mature response.

 

Sure but its one that matches empirical evidence.

 

This would be difficult as the same effects that make spotting in DCS more difficult would be the same and then amplified by compression effects when uploading any images. Really the best one I can give right at this moment is with an A10 flight. They flew directly over my house at low altitude, low enough I could clearly tell all of the jets in the 4 ship were completely clean. Now having asked my communities resident A10 pilot, habu, I knew that A10's the overwhelming majority of the time fly around at 100% throttle. And I had both Habu's opinion on a flight speed and the max speed chart for the speed of an A10 at the altitude at which they would be flying at. That speed would be around 360+-20mph. From directly over head it took about 50-60 seconds to go to a black dot where I was no longer able to tell what they were. About 90 seconds to the point where I would most likely need to be cued to their location had I not known where they were and about 130 seconds until they disappeared. Visibility that day was 20+Nmi

 

This only seems partially empirical, with alot of the details extrapolated from rumour or assumptions.

This anecdote has data, but the references are still based on what you share, and cannot be verified by others here. Military experts are mentioned, but through other sources, so this sounds like rumor.

In the end, by sharing this, this requires us to take your word for it, it does not seem like a strong position.

 

Distances for civilian aircraft could be pulled from sources like flightradar but anything military it would be a ballpark estimate based on a predicted speed like the above example.

 

I've posted data from military studies as well and we have the study done by sefross as well.

 

Yes, words like ballpark and predicted, I might also question even if it was from an officially documented military source.

 

And the chart posted by Fri13 isn't that for one eye only?

I found and posted in this thread the PDF which Fri13 got the diagram from, and don't see any reference to a single eye being used as part of that diagram. Where do you get this assertion from?

 

Yes that is a factor here as referenced above

 

I'd need to re-exaimne what I have but a good place to start would be sefross's study as he makes reference to this there and has his own sources as well. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

Thanks for the resource, I will check it out this weekend.

 

?

 

No I started in DCS and then moved to falcon for quite some time and then reintroduced DCS as a secondary primary after EDGE was finally released.

 

Well yeah in a twisting dogfight, or any maneuver tactics,loosing sight of people is easy especially if the cockpit can get in the way.

 

More like wanting a more realistic representation of vision.

 

Then we have the same concerns, but seem to disagree on the distances. I unfortunately can't seem to correlate your anecdotal example with the source I feel is official. I will read the linked doc you provided, if it helps.

[LowRider88]

There is nothing profound or unique about that chart. It’s showing that you’d see another fighter aircraft at 4-7 miles. About the same range you’ll see them in DCS. Shocker... again that same sort of stuff has been posted dozens upon dozens of times here. Try the search function.

 

I would suggest you try the search function. Even here within the limits of this thread only.

Try reading the posts of others before responding. The 4 nm of the F-5E correlates to the light fighter article I referenced for the F-5E as planform area size. Head on, as was already said should be 2 nm, from the light figher article. Yet I see it from 15 nm. You failed to correlate or listen to all the details.

 

I won't bother. Spare time is precious, so why spend it getting dragged into a multi year, circular, useless debate with you. I would rather spend that time learning from DCS.

[David OC]

Should use some real word. Its not easy spotting and hard make it to easy for far away spotting and not be gamey i guess.

 

 

Close to med in is good, this is at 1440p to give an idea.

This is also what is missing, a good talk on and or team mate's for ww2. It would be hell and impossible to spot by your self in a ww2 aircraft IRL. Maybe make the all seeing ai wing man call out 2 oclock low, 3 miles.

Go to 5 minutes.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by David OC

[LowRider88]

Yes, I do. If you deliberately use smaller scale then labels (dots) are the right option for you.

 

 

 

Warning, this is the result of the highly skilled forum search, do not attempt to reproduce:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3247807&postcount=34

 

 

 

Don't you know someone in the other side of the city to have a look and have on phone? Maybe some public internet camera?

 

Thanks for finding this post Draconus.

I am curious what advanced search options you used as I tried pulling words from that post which are important to me and replicating your search but got no results:

nm mig 21 "f-14" distance spot km visual

 

To the guy telling me to forget the diagram because it was shared before,

That earlier post was also posted by Fri13. So yes it was mentioned before, but seemed it was not leveraged, at least to me as I don't see the results in my tests.

So what if it was shared before? He was making a different point about C-130s with it. So he posted here for a different purpose.

We just wasted a few posts and got Draconus involved in a search to prove you really don't need to sweep data under the rug.

[...]

I would suggest you try the search function. Even here within the limits of this thread only.

Try reading the posts of others before responding. The 4 nm of the F-5E correlates to the light fighter article I referenced for the F-5E as planform area size. Head on, as was already said should be 2 nm, from the light figher article. Yet I see it from 15 nm. You failed to correlate or listen to all the details.

 

I won't bother. Spare time is precious, so why spend it getting dragged into a multi year, circular, useless debate with you. I would rather spend that time learning from DCS.

 

 

You would see a f5 at 2 miles in real size, but as I said before, realism has to somehow adapt to the simulation within reason, considering that everything a pilot sees in real size, we see it at a smallest scale within a monitor. I don't want to fly with tags, but I also don't want to fly blind. I see everything well like this.

 

Anyway, I've never seen contacts in DCS more than 10 miles away unless I know they are there.

 

It is like the scratch on the new car, nobody sees it except the owner who knows where it is.

Edited June 26, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[Mars Exulte]

Should use some real word. Its not easy spotting and hard make it to easy for far away spotting and not be gamey i guess.

 

 

Close to med in is good, this is at 1440p to give an idea.

This is also what is missing, a good talk on and or team mate's for ww2. It would be hell and impossible to spot by your self in a ww2 aircraft IRL. Maybe make the all seeing ai wing man call out 2 oclock low, 3 miles.

Go to 5 minutes.

 

 

That is one thing that's missing, sadly. Your AI wingmen are largely useless. Even Janes US Navy Fighters did that.

[LowRider88]

Should use some real word. Its not easy spotting and hard make it to easy for far away spotting and not be gamey i guess.

 

 

Close to med in is good, this is at 1440p to give an idea.

This is also what is missing, a good talk on and or team mate's for ww2. It would be hell and impossible to spot by your self in a ww2 aircraft IRL. Maybe make the all seeing ai wing man call out 2 oclock low, 3 miles.

Go to 5 minutes.

 

 

Thanks very much David for sharing these details :thumbup:

[LowRider88]

You would see a f5 at 2 miles in real size, but as I said before, realism has to somehow adapt to the simulation within reason, considering that everything a pilot sees in real size, we see it at a smallest scale within a monitor. I don't want to fly with tags, but I also don't want to fly blind. I see everything well like this.

 

Anyway, I've never seen contacts in DCS more than 10 miles away unless I know they are there.

 

It is like the scratch on the new car, nobody sees it except the owner who knows where it is.

 

If monitor scaling is your concern, then that is why I suggest realistic visibility at distance can be an option disabled by default, with default being what is there today.

But as David points point spotting at distance is difficult and like as you phrase it, like flying blind. It may be something new to try to adjust and master, like the pilot in the video.

 

No point in bragging to wife and friends that we master DCS and am able to feel confident in jumping into the real thing, when in reality, we would get smoked because we favoured ease of play.

[LowRider88]

That is one thing that's missing, sadly. Your AI wingmen are largely useless. Even Janes US Navy Fighters did that.

 

Haha, true. Janes Combat Sims was the DCS of the 90s, no full fidelity and all planes had the same hud, but they had more details in other ways.

[SharpeXB]

I won't bother. Spare time is precious,

I agree. I won’t bother either. You guys seem to want to spend way too much time debating stuff that ED already knows. Have at it...

[Tippis]

That's a bold statement from someone who has been unable to stop posting in every single thread discussing the topic, all to try to head off a change the devs are saying is coming, and all while being able to add anything to bolster the case against those changes, only ever succeeding to disprove his own assumptions and fantasies about how things work and what the result of any given solution would be. :D

 

Haha, true. Janes Combat Sims was the DCS of the 90s, no full fidelity and all planes had the same hud, but they had more details in other ways.

You just have to hope that Heatblur starts handing out part of the Jester AI to whomever works on the wingman programming. Jester is a pretty horrible judge of what counts as a target and not, but it's better than nothing. ;)

[LowRider88]

That's a bold statement from someone who has been unable to stop posting in every single thread discussing the topic, all to try to head off a change the devs are saying is coming, and all while being able to add anything to bolster the case against those changes, only ever succeeding to disprove his own assumptions and fantasies about how things work and what the result of any given solution would be. :D

 

 

You just have to hope that Heatblur starts handing out part of the Jester AI to whomever works on the wingman programming. Jester is a pretty horrible judge of what counts as a target and not, but it's better than nothing. ;)

 

Ah, that's a good point.

I don't have the F-14 yet.

But if it is an improvement I hope they can and it trickles down to the AI wingmen and AWACS/GCI too.

So far I can't complain too much about the AWACS/GCI.

[nighthawk2174]

This anecdote has data, but the references are still based on what you share, and cannot be verified by others here. Military experts are mentioned, but through other sources, so this sounds like rumor.

 

In the end, by sharing this, this requires us to take your word for it, it does not seem like a strong position.

[/Quote]

 

Fundamentally though is why would I lie here?

 

Yes, words like ballpark and predicted, I might also question even if it was from an officially documented military source.

[/Quote]

 

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0645537/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22Effect+of+Aircraft+Range+and+Jet+Aircraft+Type+on+Empirical+Probabilities+of+Detection+and+Recognition%22

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0273691/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22Expected+Sighting+Range+%22

 

I found and posted in this thread the PDF which Fri13 got the diagram from, and don't see any reference to a single eye being used as part of that diagram. Where do you get this assertion from?

[/Quote]

 

My mistake its very similar to another one that I know is for one eye and as mentioned earlier the fact we have two eyes that build an image results in a significant increase in "resolution".

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA241347/page/n7/mode/2up?q=%22A+head-on+aircraft+is+much+harder+to+see+than+one+with+a+side+or+belly+view%22

But I have another issue with that chart as well, its not sourced at all. Without knowing the methodology behind those numbers I can't say as too whether or not its accurate.

 

then we have the same concerns, but seem to disagree on the distances. I unfortunately can't seem to correlate your anecdotal example with the source I feel is official. I will read the linked doc you provided, if it helps.

 

Well hopefully the above will be able to convince you, I know you have know reason to trust me, but hopefully the sources above will do the trick. But just know that I without doubt both based on my own experiences, the experiences of others (including active duty pilots, and the documents that I've listed above can confidently say that spotting in DCS is not as good as it should be maybe not necessarily as much in max range, that being said imo it is a bit to low especially for stuff like big jets and contrails, (depending on your graphic settings) but in particular the clarity at which you can see stuff under this max detection range. Maybe this post could be a good read in this regard: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54749-spotting/?do=findComment&comment=838363

[LowRider88]

Hi NightHawk,

 

Great response, thanks for all these objective details.

 

Fundamentally though is why would I lie here?

 

I am by no means accusing you of lying. But without firm numbers from verifiable sources, the presented material can come off as subjective. I don't want to assume I am some expert of the scientific method, but direct verifiable supporting details would put everyone on the same page sooner and maybe reduce the life of this thread.

That is why I prefer Fri13's, and David's video.

 

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0645537/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22Effect+of+Aircraft+Range+and+Jet+Aircraft+Type+on+Empirical+Probabilities+of+Detection+and+Recognition%22

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0273691/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22Expected+Sighting+Range+%22

 

Awesome :thumbup: Thanks for sharing these details. I will have some good reading material this weekend. Its this knowledge sharing that makes me regret not joining this forum sooner.

 

My mistake its very similar to another one that I know is for one eye and as mentioned earlier the fact we have two eyes that build an image results in a significant increase in "resolution".

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA241347/page/n7/mode/2up?q=%22A+head-on+aircraft+is+much+harder+to+see+than+one+with+a+side+or+belly+view%22

But I have another issue with that chart as well, its not sourced at all. Without knowing the methodology behind those numbers I can't say as too whether or not its accurate.

 

Okay, these are good details. However, I suppose the only way to simulate looking at something with one eye in DCS is to put that object in the periphery of our view in the cockpit.

 

This is a good point.

I posted another thread asking about high G, pre black out tunnel vision, which I was not able to experience in the F-5, but someone on the forum posted a DCS game play video with an F-16 which did show the tunneling.

Maybe for peripheral vision, the outer edges of our view can be blurred in a similar way to blackouts, so it simulates seeing with one eye when an object is in the periphery of our view.

Although, I image that would be yet another hotly debated thread.

 

Well hopefully the above will be able to convince you, I know you have know reason to trust me, but hopefully the sources above will do the trick. But just know that I without doubt both based on my own experiences, the experiences of others (including active duty pilots, and the documents that I've listed above can confidently say that spotting in DCS is not as good as it should be maybe not necessarily as much in max range, that being said imo it is a bit to low especially for stuff like big jets and contrails, (depending on your graphic settings) but in particular the clarity at which you can see stuff under this max detection range. Maybe this post could be a good read in this regard: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54749-spotting/?do=findComment&comment=838363

 

Well it seems like we are at an impasse. But that is why I am suggesting that there can different levels of visibility ranges, for those who think it is too hard to see like yourself, and those like me who think it is too easy to spot.

Edited June 27, 2020 by LowRider88

[Scaley]

This seems like the current version of the "going on forever" debate about how easy/hard it is, and should be, to visually acquire and track aircraft in DCS.

 

I'm purely in this thread because I've been wrestling with this problem (as I know many others have) for years, and today I think I have come across a work-around. It's not an especially good one, and not especially pretty, but for me this has enabled me to fly BFM effectively, without constantly losing visual on things less than a mile away.

 

Before I go into details a few statements to describe exactly what I'm talking about:

 

1) I'm not interested in fixing how easy it is to see things very far away at the visibility limit. DCS does some funny things here, but for me they aren't sim-breaking problems.

 

2) I am VERY interested in fixing the problem I have (on a 34" 3440x1440 monitor downscaled to 2560x1080) that there are intermediate ranges at which air targets seem to "disappear". By this I mean that object may be visible far away, then suddenly become much less visible as they get closer, then become gradually more visible. This effect is well described, and has been fixed before with a community mod (back around 1.3x) that no longer works. This effect also happens differently, and in different range bands, depending on monitor resolution, and to a smaller extent zoom/FOV setting. Annoyingly on my monitor this range band is about 0.9 - 1.8nm, in other words exactly the range band that a loose BFM fight would be happening in...

 

3)This small lua edit I'm proposing is NOT intended as an ideal solution to the current problem, but it may function as a temporary work around for some people, as well as allowing people to experiment with settings, and hopefully provide feedback back to the ED team as they work on improving this area, which they clearly are based on previous posts and improvements we are seeing coming into the sim.

 

So, the fix....

 

What seems to be happening to cause the "range band" of low visibility is that DCS swaps from rendering a very low level-of-detail (LOD) model of an aircraft to a proper 3D model at too high a range. The low LOD models are high contrast, and also maybe appear to have some form of dynamic/smart scaling built in. The 3D models do not... If this swap occurs too far away there may be sudden drop in aircraft visibility, and then a gradual increase as the 3D model gets closer and thus bigger, more detailed, and contains more contrast. This swap logic seems to be based on when the model (not clear which) is bigger than some threshold value, and this threshold value has a pixel dependence. This leads to the swapping distance being much further away on high-res monitors, leading to the aforementioned problem.

 

In order to fix this we need to be able to adjust this LOD swap to occur when the visibility of the low LOD model is matched or exceeded by the visibility of the high LOD model, thus preserving the natural laws of physics and biology that as an object gets closer it generally gets bigger and easier to see. This ideal swap distance is resolution dependent at present in DCS due to the way the current rendering works.

 

To do this:

 

In graphics.lua (DCS World/Config/) You will find block of code for each visibility setting, currently line 147 - 244

 

Each setting has a block such as:

 

High =

{

near_clip = 0.02;

far_clip = 150000;

 

--structures = {80, 16000};

trees = {1000, 12000}; -- looks to be obsolete

--dynamic = {300, 16000};

dynamic2 = {300, 16000,0.5};

objects = {5000, 80000};

mirage = {3000, 20000};

surface = {20000, 80000};

lights = {200, 80000};

districtobjects = {300, 300};

districts = {12000, 12000};

 

lodMult = 1.0;

lodAdd = 0;

 

 

The two settings at the bottom: lodMult and lodAdd appear to change (each by addition or multiplication!) the ranges at which models transition from one LOD to another. Higher values of lodMult will give more detailed LODs at a given range. Inversely higher lodAdd appears to give LOWER lods at a given range. I am unclear if lodAdd is truly linear, since at some settings it can drop the LOD of your own aircraft model.

 

By editing these settings one can adjust the range at which DCS switches from a wireframe/low LOD model to an aircraft 3D model. By tinkering with the settings one may arrive at a setting where the swap occurs as the visibility of the two models is equal, and thus there is no sudden change in visibility.

 

Below is a video with the default settings (1.0 and 0) and then my updated settings (0.6 and 500). There are 3 runs at slightly different zoom levels (the 2nd run being my default) before the mod and 3 runs after. In all cases you can clearly see the sudden "disappearance" when the LOD changes, but with this mod you can control when this happens. I really hope this is of use to some people, and that we can maybe test and adjust this to help the DCS team improve this area of the sim. If anyone has any thought or comes up with any additional ideas it would be great to hear them.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: This is not tested extensively. Back up your files and use at your own risk!

 

For the avoidance of doubt - I will not be interacting in any way with the two well known posters who will no doubt shortly arrive to tell me that everything is fine because DCS renders objects 1:1 all the time and that provides perfect realism, or that my "technique" is somehow bad. Numerous well educated people have posted in these threads before with a multitude of data and resources describing various methods used, or proposed, to accurately simulate human visual perception on a computer monitor. One well posted method is in current and highly effective use in another PC flight sim near you... It should be clear to anyone who has ever tried to follow a flying object visually that the current DCS implementation does a very poor (although incrementally improving, especially recently) job of this simulation aspect. I have flown computer sims since 1988 in the commodore 64, and was taught my visual scanning technique by RAF instructors in RAF aircraft (at 150kts mind, not fast jet speeds). I also have a degree in bioengineering and have been taught and examined on human-computer visual interface and modelling characteristics. Sensible discussion and feedback is very welcome.

[SharpeXB]

Maybe for peripheral vision, the outer edges of our view can be blurred in a similar way to blackouts, so it simulates seeing with one eye when an object is in the periphery of our view.

It’s impossible to simulate stereoscopic vision on a 2D monitor and I can’t imagine any player in this sim wants their image blurred. Also since each eye has a cone of vision inwards by 60d, the stereo field of view is 120d, beyond what most anyone uses for an FOV on a single screen. And if someone had triple monitors set up for beyond this range they already get this effect from their own eyes.

[Mars Exulte]

I knew you wouldn't be able to walk away for long, Sharpe

[LowRider88]

This seems like the current version of the "going on forever" debate about how easy/hard it is, and should be, to visually acquire and track aircraft in DCS.

 

I'm purely in this thread because I've been wrestling with this problem (as I know many others have) for years, and today I think I have come across a work-around. It's not an especially good one, and not especially pretty, but for me this has enabled me to fly BFM effectively, without constantly losing visual on things less than a mile away.

 

Before I go into details a few statements to describe exactly what I'm talking about:

 

1) I'm not interested in fixing how easy it is to see things very far away at the visibility limit. DCS does some funny things here, but for me they aren't sim-breaking problems.

 

2) I am VERY interested in fixing the problem I have (on a 34" 3440x1440 monitor downscaled to 2560x1080) that there are intermediate ranges at which air targets seem to "disappear". By this I mean that object may be visible far away, then suddenly become much less visible as they get closer, then become gradually more visible. This effect is well described, and has been fixed before with a community mod (back around 1.3x) that no longer works. This effect also happens differently, and in different range bands, depending on monitor resolution, and to a smaller extent zoom/FOV setting. Annoyingly on my monitor this range band is about 0.9 - 1.8nm, in other words exactly the range band that a loose BFM fight would be happening in...

 

3)This small lua edit I'm proposing is NOT intended as an ideal solution to the current problem, but it may function as a temporary work around for some people, as well as allowing people to experiment with settings, and hopefully provide feedback back to the ED team as they work on improving this area, which they clearly are based on previous posts and improvements we are seeing coming into the sim.

 

So, the fix....

 

What seems to be happening to cause the "range band" of low visibility is that DCS swaps from rendering a very low level-of-detail (LOD) model of an aircraft to a proper 3D model at too high a range. The low LOD models are high contrast, and also maybe appear to have some form of dynamic/smart scaling built in. The 3D models do not... If this swap occurs too far away there may be sudden drop in aircraft visibility, and then a gradual increase as the 3D model gets closer and thus bigger, more detailed, and contains more contrast. This swap logic seems to be based on when the model (not clear which) is bigger than some threshold value, and this threshold value has a pixel dependence. This leads to the swapping distance being much further away on high-res monitors, leading to the aforementioned problem.

 

In order to fix this we need to be able to adjust this LOD swap to occur when the visibility of the low LOD model is matched or exceeded by the visibility of the high LOD model, thus preserving the natural laws of physics and biology that as an object gets closer it generally gets bigger and easier to see. This ideal swap distance is resolution dependent at present in DCS due to the way the current rendering works.

 

To do this:

 

In graphics.lua (DCS World/Config/) You will find block of code for each visibility setting, currently line 147 - 244

 

Each setting has a block such as:

 

High =

{

near_clip = 0.02;

far_clip = 150000;

 

--structures = {80, 16000};

trees = {1000, 12000}; -- looks to be obsolete

--dynamic = {300, 16000};

dynamic2 = {300, 16000,0.5};

objects = {5000, 80000};

mirage = {3000, 20000};

surface = {20000, 80000};

lights = {200, 80000};

districtobjects = {300, 300};

districts = {12000, 12000};

 

lodMult = 1.0;

lodAdd = 0;

 

 

The two settings at the bottom: lodMult and lodAdd appear to change (each by addition or multiplication!) the ranges at which models transition from one LOD to another. Higher values of lodMult will give more detailed LODs at a given range. Inversely higher lodAdd appears to give LOWER lods at a given range. I am unclear if lodAdd is truly linear, since at some settings it can drop the LOD of your own aircraft model.

 

By editing these settings one can adjust the range at which DCS switches from a wireframe/low LOD model to an aircraft 3D model. By tinkering with the settings one may arrive at a setting where the swap occurs as the visibility of the two models is equal, and thus there is no sudden change in visibility.

 

Below is a video with the default settings (1.0 and 0) and then my updated settings (0.6 and 500). There are 3 runs at slightly different zoom levels (the 2nd run being my default) before the mod and 3 runs after. In all cases you can clearly see the sudden "disappearance" when the LOD changes, but with this mod you can control when this happens. I really hope this is of use to some people, and that we can maybe test and adjust this to help the DCS team improve this area of the sim. If anyone has any thought or comes up with any additional ideas it would be great to hear them.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: This is not tested extensively. Back up your files and use at your own risk!

 

For the avoidance of doubt - I will not be interacting in any way with the two well known posters who will no doubt shortly arrive to tell me that everything is fine because DCS renders objects 1:1 all the time and that provides perfect realism, or that my "technique" is somehow bad. Numerous well educated people have posted in these threads before with a multitude of data and resources describing various methods used, or proposed, to accurately simulate human visual perception on a computer monitor. One well posted method is in current and highly effective use in another PC flight sim near you... It should be clear to anyone who has ever tried to follow a flying object visually that the current DCS implementation does a very poor (although incrementally improving, especially recently) job of this simulation aspect. I have flown computer sims since 1988 in the commodore 64, and was taught my visual scanning technique by RAF instructors in RAF aircraft (at 150kts mind, not fast jet speeds). I also have a degree in bioengineering and have been taught and examined on human-computer visual interface and modelling characteristics. Sensible discussion and feedback is very welcome.

 

Thank very much Scaley for all these details. I may try to use this method to disable the wire lod altogether if it helps me achieve what Fri13 and David posted.

[Phil C6]

Hi, for info in French Air Force the minimum visual acuity you must have for pas the exam in the past (don't know if it's always like that) is 28/20 (14/10 in French unit) without glasses

And the best acuity recorded about human is 40/20 (20/10 French unit) very very rarely and very impressive

But 30/20 isn't rarely (with or without glasses)

32 to 36/20 I don't know I don't have the test

 

Best regards

[Tippis]

It’s impossible to simulate stereoscopic vision on a 2D monitor.

Not really, no.

Especially not the aspects LowRider is talking about.

 

Having the visibility of an object depend on how far it is into the overlapping area, or how far it is in the periphery is hilariously trivial. You could do it with shader parameters or with scaling or with just good old LoD, all depending on ƒ(angle to target).

Edited June 28, 2020 by Tippis

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah agreed there's a lot of things that need fixed in terms of spotting, glint, apparent size, contrast against the ground, that odd lod issues posted above, and visibility range of contrails just as a few examples.