Visual Scaling, Spotting

[LowRider88]

 

There wasn't any, so he used empirical tests and reports that when did pilots spot enemy fighters when looking at them in optimal scenario.

 

And to this date, everyone who has done any reading about MiG-21 or F-5, should know that when those pilots points aircraft directly at you, you will lose them even in very close distances (below kilometer) and they become "invisible".

 

Thanks again for posting this diagram Fri13.

I was curious what that red dotted line was and whether the "visible", "invisible" labels were with respect to it or the curved line.

 

Had to find the online PDF and download it. Looks like it will be a great piece to read.

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

[draconus]

It still seems unrealistic to me. Unless I am flying an inter war biplane with telescope, I won't use it. I would rather be constrained by technology of my monitor and have a harder time than real life pilots, than simulate putting on binoculars in combat. I got trackir, so I just lean in to see the dash. I should not be able to lean in to the airspace.

 

It's not about using it as binoculars. Just to set the right FoV. It's pretty important for visibility. Game might know your monitor size and resolution but cannot know how far you sit from it. Look for real fov setting. That's just one thing and won't help you not see the distant specks. I agree they should fade in more than just appear or disappear. On the F-5/Mig-21 head on they are indeed hard to see ingame. Invisible? No, it depends, it's very subjective and situational.

[LowRider88]

It's not about using it as binoculars. Just to set the right FoV. It's pretty important for visibility. Game might know your monitor size and resolution but cannot know how far you sit from it. Look for real fov setting. That's just one thing and won't help you not see the distant specks. I agree they should fade in more than just appear or disappear. On the F-5/Mig-21 head on they are indeed hard to see ingame. Invisible? No, it depends, it's very subjective and situational.

 

Thanks Draconus for your feedback. I would just like to tweak for myself the visibility of the small fighters. I was expecting the F-5 head on to be visible in clear daylight conditions in 2 nm, but it appears in 10.

Is the Imposters.lua still working? I tried to make changes here but saw no difference.

 

Is it really a bad option? From what I read the imposters didn't work well with certain resolutions. Can the file not be updated to have different settings for different resolutions?

[Tippis]

Then why have I seen posts of people complaining about not being able to see anything WVR?

Because that's something very different from the hyperbolic strawman you offered.

 

People are complaining about not being able to see things under certain conditions in WVR when they should be able to — conditions that have been demonstrated and supported with all kinds of in-game and historical evidence. That is not the same thing as “making things 4 times easier to spot, and unrealistically keeing targets in visual range all the time”. No-one is asking for that. Or, well… maybe SharpeXB does some times — he likes to inflate numbers out of his lower back just for the sake of exaggeration.

 

What they're asking for is something to fix issues like being able to see aircraft out to 30nm; having aircraft blend into the background at medium ranges where visual cues should exist that make them stand out against that background; having other visual cues be rendered at closer distances; and having a solution where worse quality does not arbitrarily and counter-intuitively make spotting easier across the board. It would also be nice if it brought some more parity between VR users and flatlanders, but that gets tricky, and it would be spectacular if it could do away with zoom, but removing that compensation feature would most likely just reintroduce the hardware imbalance again, so it's… unlikely, let's say. :D

 

It's not a single issue and people aren't asking for a single thing. It's an entire spectrum of issues across the entire range band, with different issues applying to different ranges. None of these issues can be fixed by making things 4 times easier to spot, and definitely not by making them 4 times larger at distance. Indeed, one of the reasons why the impostor system was removed was because it did almost exactly that: it just flat-out made planes stand out N times more at distances where they shouldn't.

 

Again, you've come across the issue of things being far too visible at longer ranges. That's part of the problem. That doesn't mean that the other parts don't exist or that addressing those issues will somehow detract from addressing what you're seeing. It's a systemic problem that needs a systemic solution, not a single-point-shim to inject to fudge just one specific detail.

 

ED already said they are not going to work on “scaling” so there’s no point in continuing to ask for this.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4150636&postcount=163

Seeing as how they say they're working on the well-document spotting issues in DCS, there's every reason to continue discussing it, in spite of your equally well-documented desperate wish to control the conversation and keep improvements to the game from happening.

 

I can't help noticing that you were — as always — incapable of actually discussing the facts of the matter and instead immediately had to go with that standard fallback strategy: you are wrong about everything and you know it, so try to direct the conversation away from this embarrassing fact. :D

 

By the way, the OP is not the first to ask for reduced visibility. I've been asking about it for ages, as have many others. You know this because you've very kindly provided some of the supporting evidence for why visibility needs to be reduced. Presumably, this fumble is why you now feel the need to try to stall all further conversation on the matter: because it would ruin your artificial advantage.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tippis

[LowRider88]

It seems to me you are trying ever so hard to pin some strawman concept on me.

Things are 4 time larger than they should be from my experience, from my tests.

 

You say people aren't asking to arbitrarily make objects bigger, but then say they are, using SharpeXB as an example. Which one is it?

 

If other users are concerned about other visual scenarios, those are not scenarios I raised. So it seems you are strawmaning me by bringing them up.

I have already stated my test, and the articles and books I am referencing. That is my area of concern.

 

Thank you for all the extra details about the different circumstances. But so far you are just giving me historical debate rather than providing a solution to my concern.

[SharpeXB]

Seeing as how they say they're working on the well-document spotting issues in DCS, there's every reason to continue discussing it,

Discussing what? Smart scaling?

Again here’s another response from ED regarding smart scaling

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4129126&postcount=113

 

Which was the reaction to this. Silly giant planes on a carrier deck.

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

 

This has all been discussed to death before and locked.

Edited June 20, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

You say people aren't asking to arbitrarily make objects bigger, but then say they are, using SharpeXB as an example. Which one is it?

The former. The latter is just a jab at Sharpe's desperate attempts at misrepresenting what a scaling solution does. :D

 

If other users are concerned about other visual scenarios, those are not scenarios I raised.

No, but they are part of the same core issue that you want to see addressed, and you made some initial comments about those issues based on a partial and rather flawed reading of what the issue has been represented to be. You ended those comments by stating “Please correct me if I am wrong.”

 

Hence why I gave the full spectrum of interconnected issues: because when you say that “My perspective is the first group is right”, you're actually discussing the different scenarios and mixing them up, making it seem like there are two contrary perspective when they're in actuality the same.

 

Discussing what?

Maybe next time, read the post you link to? :lol:

 

Which was the reaction to this.

…which proved everything you said was wrong. So again, maybe read the post you link to. :D Edited June 20, 2020 by Tippis

[LowRider88]

Yes, I said please correct me if I am wrong.

I did not say try to pin some stupid strawman concept on me so my request gets belittled and overlooked.

Your usefulness in providing the background to me is starting wane with your holier than thou responses.

 

I never raised any concern ab0ut the complex core scenario. For me if I can use the imposters.lua (for my own use, not multiplayer) to make objects less visible at distance,

I don't give a rat's bung hole if things go from dot to popping wings in an instance. That's your global concern, not mine.

So no, you are making it a global core issue. I just want a quick fix.

[Baco]

Again, the sim is less enjoyable if you cant see things, I realy dont care anymore if its super realistic or not, Dogfights in the 70s or 80s are imposible. My squad ended up using DOT lables in official missions, wich should not be unecesary...

 

I dont get into WWII because of two reasons: damage model (witch is being adressed) and Visibility issues...

 

So yeah its a thing.

[LowRider88]

That is why I am suggesting it be an option to turn on and off. So users who want realism need to suffer for your multipler squad?

Why do you even call it a sim?

[SharpeXB]

The latter is just a jab at Sharpe's desperate attempts at misrepresenting what a scaling solution does.

What misrepresenting? Here’s an example, from a proponent of smart scaling, exactly what it would look like in DCS

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

Everyone can decide for themselves if they think giant the sized aircraft on the carrier deck look ridiculous or not.

 

Apparently ED doesn’t like it:

“We are working on visibility, not scaling”

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4150636&postcount=163

Edited June 21, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

I just want a quick fix.

And that's why what you want is not something that should ever be worked on or implemented.

 

What misrepresenting?

The one where you keep suggesting — without any understanding of the concept; without reading the sources and indeed while outright refusing to do so; without any experience of it in practice; contrary to all the evidence posted that proves you wrong, and all of that by your own express and explicit admission — that it will make units look “giant”, often accompanied by completely made-up numbers about what factors would apply under what circumstances.

 

You're trolling, arguing in bad faith, and are — now, as always — simply trying to control the discussion because you have no actual arguments in favour of keeping things broken in the way that benefits you. All you have is misrepresentations of what others have said in feigned and failed attempts at covering up your wilful misrepresentation of facts.

[LowRider88]

And that's why what you want is not something that should ever be worked on or implemented.

 

Are you a DCS developer? If not, don't care what you think anymore.

[Tippis]

Are you a DCS developer? If not, don't care what you think anymore.

Ok.

The fact remains. A “quick fix” to a critical core component of an air combat simulator will inherently be a bad idea that just ends up wasting time and effort. The impostors were such a quick fix, and had to be removed because they didn't really fix anything. Instead, we're here, years later, and ED are still working on fixing visibility.

[LowRider88]

Okay I am willing to listen to you again when you no longer talk down to me.

 

So the quick fix does not fit everyone's needs. But if it works for some people, it seems it would be a good candidate for a option. If someone can tell me how to do this, then I don't care if they build it in as an official option or not. So long as I have access to it for my own non multiplayer, personal usage.

[Eldur]

Then why have I seen posts of people complaining about not being able to see anything WVR?

 

By the definition of WVR, planes are within when they can be seen. And by that definition as well, in DCS the AIM-9 is a BVR missile for many ones.

 

TL;DR of this thread, again: It's not realistic if it's not hard.

 

It's not about using it as binoculars. Just to set the right FoV. It's pretty important for visibility. Game might know your monitor size and resolution but cannot know how far you sit from it. Look for real fov setting. That's just one thing and won't help you not see the distant specks. I agree they should fade in more than just appear or disappear. On the F-5/Mig-21 head on they are indeed hard to see ingame. Invisible? No, it depends, it's very subjective and situational.

 

In most cases you shouldn't be able to see more than just your HUD when looking forward, Yet people do fly all zoomed out 140° on totally unrealistic Ultrawides with a burqaesque FOV.

 

BTW I discovered a long time ago that "specks" would be easier to see all zoomed out since all the detail around it is shrunken, but the contact is still being rendered as one pixel, even if it's just low contrast. Flying in realistic FOVs actually makes spotting harder, especially in VR where the resolution is a lot lower and therefor the single-pixel specks have even less contrast.

 

Fun thing though about that discovery is that it apparently isn't like that from 2.5 on anymore, probably those were the "impostors" that's being talked about. I still was under that impression to have those until I got my Rift CV1 and suddenly wasn't able to see planes at around 1nm anymore, even in WWII. And I do have the same issue in that other sim where I always had the impression it was a lot easier to spot things in. Apparently, if things are too small for 1px, they just vanish. So you'd have to zoom on in to even be able to see things at all. But TBH, I at least don't use VR zoom to spot. It's there for ID things that have been spotted without already to overcome the low res. But usually it's just "tumbleweed, as always, blind, no joy" for me...

 

Be wary of the fact that those guys who claim to see things at 30+nm and are crying to have the visibility decreased are running on 60+ inches 4k Pancakes or 1440p Ultrawides...

[SharpeXB]

And that's why what you want is not something that should ever be worked on or implemented.

 

 

The one where you keep suggesting — without any understanding of the concept; without reading the sources and indeed while outright refusing to do so; without any experience of it in practice; contrary to all the evidence posted that proves you wrong, and all of that by your own express and explicit admission — that it will make units look “giant”, often accompanied by completely made-up numbers about what factors would apply under what circumstances.

 

You're trolling, arguing in bad faith, and are — now, as always — simply trying to control the discussion because you have no actual arguments in favour of keeping things broken in the way that benefits you. All you have is misrepresentations of what others have said in feigned and failed attempts at covering up your wilful misrepresentation of facts.

You keep making these long-winded high-minded posts that don’t offer any depiction of what you’re advocating would look like. So how can anyone understand what you are asking?

At least the other post I linked showed actual images. They look ridiculous IMO but at least you can tell what that proposal is. I don’t think anyone can understand what you want.

[LowRider88]

TL;DR of this thread, again: It's not realistic if it's not hard.

 

No argument there. I completely agree.

 

Be wary of the fact that those guys who claim to see things at 30+nm and are crying to have the visibility decreased are running on 60+ inches 4k Pancakes or 1440p Ultrawides...

 

These variables do not apply to me.

 

Who's crying? Seems a lot of other people on this forum are much more sensitive.

 

I am not referring to 30 nm. The video poster is.

 

Also don't have large screen. What does it matter? Why can't a fix cross cover different resolutions?

Seen a post where someone did a great mod to provide consistency across resolutions with the imposters, only to have it made incompatible later.

[Tippis]

By the definition of WVR, planes are within when they can be seen. And by that definition as well, in DCS the AIM-9 is a BVR missile for many ones.

 

TL;DR of this thread, again: It's not realistic if it's not hard.

That's a frighteningly common theme in all sim discussions, imo: that somehow “real” must mean “hard”; that making things easier somehow makes it less realistic. In many cases, what makes things hard is how unrealistically they're portrayed in the simulation, and a more realistic approach would make them easier. Or just different, which would be harder for some and easier for others.

 

The problem, as always, is that's never a 1:1 thing; it's never one or the other. It's almost always a continuum where some details have to be simulated a certain way to make them realistic and others have to be handled differently. A single solution will exceedingly rarely work across the board, and yet, the argumentation so often breaks down to “I would like to see X done because it will make Y better” vs. “…yes, but it will make Z worse” (substitute better/worse/realistic/arcade/hard/easy as required). The suggestion doesn't consider the full range of aspects that would be affected, and neither does the critique.

 

In most cases you shouldn't be able to see more than just your HUD when looking forward, Yet people do fly all zoomed out 140° on totally unrealistic Ultrawides with a burqaesque FOV.

That's another thing that a fix to all this mess really should address: the calibration of “normal”. In another one of these threads, I tested what full zoomed in, 50% and fully zoomed out did to a fixed-sized cue in the cockpit (usually a HUD reticle with a known size in mils). Turns out, the limits and zoom levels vary between aircraft. In an A-10, I get 1:1 sizes at the 50% zoom position by some strange coincidence; in an F-5, I have to pus the zoom forward to maybe the 65% position.

 

It would be a bit fussy (but then, this is a clicky-cockpit sim so…) but it would be nice to be able to input the distance you sit from your monitor and have the game calibrate the middle position so that it yields a 1:1 view scale at that zoom level. And, of course, that max and min zoom were recalibrated along with it.

 

If nothing else, it would make for far easier comparisons between what people are seeing (as backed up by screenshots) and what they should be seeing (backed up by research).

 

Be wary of the fact that those guys who claim to see things at 30+nm and are crying to have the visibility decreased are running on 60+ inches 4k Pancakes or 1440p Ultrawides...

Funnily enough, the guy who demonstrated being able to see things at 30nm+ is one of those who want the visibility system to remain unfixed and unabalanced. :D

 

You keep making these long-winded high-minded posts that don’t offer any depiction of what you’re advocating would look like.

Incorrect, as always. You just choose to ignore it because reality doesn't match your wild fantasies. Again, you should try reading the things you link to because — with this as with just about everything else you say — they prove you wrong. Like the ones you linked where you had to be told where the zoom was in effect. You accidentally exposed the fact that you couldn't tell the difference, after repeatedly stating (without basis) that it would look obvious and grotesque… except when faced with it, it didn't, not even to you. Only after you had been told could you try to recover back to your now thoroughly disproven (by yourself) position that it would look ridiculous. Somehow. Even though you couldn't tell. :lol:

[SharpeXB]

You just choose to ignore it because reality doesn't match your wild fantasies.

What I want is reality not a fantasy. Seeing giant sized aircraft is your wild fantasy. :lol:

Don’t hold your breath waiting for ED to create your fantasy, they’ve repeatedly said that they won’t.

 

In most cases you shouldn't be able to see more than just your HUD when looking forward, Yet people do fly all zoomed out 140° on totally unrealistic Ultrawides with a burqaesque FOV.

You know that real life peripheral vision is about 200d right? So how is an Ultra wide screen unrealistic? btw “burqaesque “ is not a word...

 

 

Be wary of the fact that those guys who claim to see things at 30+nm and are crying to have the visibility decreased are running on 60+ inches 4k Pancakes or 1440p Ultrawides...

Even screens like this fall very short of real world visual quality. What’s your point?

Edited June 21, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

What I want is reality not a fantasy.

So presumably you want something that is based on research, then, not just guesswork by someone who refuses to actually study the data and who suddenly rejects evidence they previously accidentally accepted when it turns out it shows something that didn't match their fantasy. Glad that you're finally on board.

 

You know that real life peripheral vision is about 200d right? So how is an Ultra wide screen unrealistic?

It doesn't cover 200°, for one…

Btw, the suffix -esque can be applied to just about any noun to signify “in the style of…” and thus create a completely new word.

[SharpeXB]

So presumably you want something that is based on research

I don’t want to see this, that’s for sure and neither does ED

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

[LowRider88]

I have found a way to force the AI to only see the F-5 within 3 nm, and am happy with the results.

Too bad I cannot do the same for other planes because the MiG-21 is all locked up because apparently they got everything right the first time.

 

So for the F-5, I am half way there to what I have read to be reality. Now I feel I am cheating when I play in the F-5 because I see the other F-5 way too early.

 

Hope someone who actually knows something and has control to do something about this can help.

 

Then I can get off this forum. Starting to remember why I avoided joining it for so long.

Only a few cool people who are open minded and provide research and new ideas or solutions.

And a horde of close minded, nit picky, others who don't provide solutions, and are hear only for the debate, to talk down to strangers, and super sensitive about change.

 

Yeesh. If my company was like this, we would never get anything done.

[SharpeXB]

It doesn't cover 200°, for one…

Yeah it does. It certainly isn’t the 50+/-d narrow FOV you see zoomed in on a 16:9 monitor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision#/media/File:Peripheral_vision.svg

[Tippis]

I don’t want to see this, that’s for sure

Make up your mind.

Do you want reality or not? Do you want balance and parity or do you want external factors to give all kinds of silly advantages even though they could be compensated for? Do you want a simulation that… you know… simulates the core aspects of its area — ones that the devs themselves have said they're not happy with and are working on — or do you want one that ignores those aspects? Or don't you want a simulation at all, perhaps?

 

Yeah it does. It certainly isn’t the 50+/-d narrow FOV you see zoomed in on a 16:9 monitor.

Lolno. We have long since established that you don't follow maths all that well, so let's see if this more physical practical demonstration is more to your liking:

 

• Get one (1) ultrawide monitor.

• Grab both of its sides — left and right — firmly, with one (1) hand each and with the front of the monitor facing you.

• Bring your hands back until they are both in line with your shoulders, on hand on each side of your body, while still maintaining a firm grip on the two sides of the monitor and not turning it in any way.

• Bring your hands back even further until they are slightly behind you, still one on each side, probably until just before you start to feel a bit of a stretch in your shoulders. Do this while maintaining a firm grip on the two sides of the monitor and not turning it.

• Now watch the front of the monitor.

 

If you failed at any step or if you were suddenly required to phase through the monitor, it does not cover 200°.

 

Oh, and btw, I notice that you still think monitor dimensions matter, so let's just clarify something. The “narrow FOV you see zoomed in on a 16:9 monitor” is no different than the narrow FOV you see zoomed in on a 4:3 monitor or on a 21.5:9 monitor or indeed any monitor of any size. The narrow FoV you see is determined by the zoom you choose, because they're one and the same. Monitor dimensions and sizes are not a factor. The “narrow FoV you see zoomed in on a 16:9 monitor” at max zoom in DCS is also more along the lines of 13–17° depending on which aircraft you're in.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tippis