Visual Scaling, Spotting

[SharpeXB]

Make up your mind.

Do you want reality or not?

I want reality. Which means I don’t want to see scaled up aircraft on the deck of an unscaled carrier.

 

Make up your mind.

• Get one (1) ultrawide monitor.

snip...

Why do you think an ultra wide monitor “unrealistic”?

Edited June 21, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

I want reality. Which means I don’t want to see scaled up aircraft on the deck of an unscaled carrier.

…and as you amply demonstrated, you won't.

 

Why do you think an ultra wide monitor “unrealistic”?

Try reading the explanation.

If that isn't enough, try following along the steps in the exercise.

It should all become quite clear.

[SharpeXB]

Try reading the explanation.

It’s sounds as if you’re trying to say that it’s not realistic because it doesn’t offer a 200d FOV

[SharpeXB]

…and as you amply demonstrated, you won't.

Yes you will. You’ll see exactly this

 

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

[Tippis]

It’s sounds as if you’re trying to say that it’s not realistic because it doesn’t offer a 200d FOV

Again, read the explanation.

Consider the full context.

Try the experiment.

And try not to add in things I never actually said into your assumptions of what was said.

 

Yes you will. You’ll see exactly this

…and, again, as you amply demonstrated, you didn't see it. It had to be pointed out to you before you did. And that's even when it is done incorrectly and poorly. Because no, you would not see exactly that, which you'd know if you had read the explanation, considered the full context, and perhaps even tried the many experiments suggested to you.

[Fri13]

That’s not necessarily realistic. The FOV on a normal sized monitor is far smaller than reality and with much lower resolution. That’s explained in the video as well. Most DCS player’s visibility “trouble” seems to come from not understanding this command.

 

Yet we can spot further than we should, and we can see far more clearly as limitation in graphics. Even if we can't identify as easily, it is not bad either when you need to separate example Su-27 from F-14 from 7 km distance that which one you shoot.

 

You don't need zooming to see better than IRL.

[erniedaoage]

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).

 

 

If you use an axis for zoom like i do and want consistency along all modules you have to edit one of the view.lua files but i don't remember which one and set a near fov value of 20° and a far fov value of 160° so that your axis will settle in the middle which would be 90°. But those values are different on every module. A lot of FC3 planes are different with those values like with every module. That's why you get a different standard fov for almost every plane and its from 80-96° in some cases.

 

A lot of people simply don't understand the concept of fov and monitors and don't get why fully zoomed in would be the real 1:1 on a lot of setups. If every flightsim wouldn't support a fov zoom function and would just set the real 1:1 fov hardcoded, those people who cry its a binoculars cheat would be the first who complain about not being able to see 3 instruments at once on their monitor and they would have to buy a 100" screen where they sit 1m away from to get the full perspective.

 

And iam not for model enlargement but for some kind of consistency between resolutions for everybody. Right now i cannot go to a 4k resolution because i cannot see that pixel, which is there on 1080p. There should be something that this pixel and everything else looks the same on the same fov and different resolutions. I don't know much about those things but 1 pixel in 1080p is certainly larger than 1 pixel in 4k.

[Fri13]

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.

 

Yes, sorry for that.

 

The 5 nmi red dotted line was Burtons definition for average BVR range. So past the 5 nmi range was BVR range, and below it the WVR range.

 

So comparing the missile launches etc, only few really were BVR shots and rest were WVR launches.

 

There is as well this:

 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

And that's even when it is done incorrectly and poorly. Because no, you would not see exactly that,

The images of this scaling were made by a proponent of it to show exactly what it would look like in the game. It’s not hard to replicate. You’d see aircraft scaled up by quite a large factor up against other objects like the carrier which aren’t. And this was ED’s reaction to how silly this looks.

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

In all the gigantic text walls you write you never show any examples of what you’re talking about. It’s all words. So how do you expect anyone to understand what you mean?

[LowRider88]

Yes, sorry for that.

 

The 5 nmi red dotted line was Burtons definition for average BVR range. So past the 5 nmi range was BVR range, and below it the WVR range.

 

So comparing the missile launches etc, only few really were BVR shots and rest were WVR launches.

 

There is as well this:

 

 

 

 

You're awesome Fri13 :thumbup:

Very cool example research.

 

Do you have a link to an original PDF?

 

I will definitely be using these details to tweak my personal AI detection values, since that is the only thing that seems to be adjustable at the moment.

[SharpeXB]

You don't need zooming to see better than IRL.

Well that depends on your display. On a normal sized 1080p screen you need to zoom in just to read the HUD

Edited June 21, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Fri13]

Do you have a link to an original PDF?

 

Sorry but no. I found that again today by accident anyways, luckily well timed just for this thread.

 

But as it is for the specific source mentioned in it, it shouldn't be impossible find the original PDF.

[Fri13]

On a normal sized 1080p screen you need to zoom in just to read the HUD

 

Then you have something terribly wrong, as I can put DCS running much lower resolution and the HUD renders example on Hornet or Harrier completely fine (what now a overlapped RWR symbols in Harrier are problematic even in 4K).

[Tippis]

The images of this scaling were made by a proponent of it to show exactly what it would look like in the game.

No. Read the post again, in its entirety. Understand the full context and understand the specifics of each image. Read the context and specifics of what the images were a response to.

 

You can keep misrepresenting what the post is showing and how you responded to it, but the facts of the matter will not change. Reality will never match your imagination.

 

You’d see aircraft scaled up by quite a large factor up against other objects like the carrier which aren’t.

…which means it's not what it would like like in the game. And, again, you didn't see it. That's how “huge” a difference it makes. There's no way for you to get around that fact. :lol:

 

And this was ED’s reaction to how silly this looks

No. This is why I keep asking you to take the context into mind.

 

In all the gigantic text walls you write you never show any examples of what you’re talking about.

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. You have even quoted and responded to my examples, so you really need to strop trying to push this nonsensical lie of yours. Repeating it won't suddenly make it true, nor will it ever change the answer.

 

On a normal sized 1080p screen you need to zoom in just to read the HUD

Have you tried mounting the monitor near your computer as opposed to two rooms over?

[SharpeXB]

Then you have something terribly wrong, as I can put DCS running much lower resolution and the HUD renders example on Hornet or Harrier completely fine (what now a overlapped RWR symbols in Harrier are problematic even in 4K).

Your real eyesight is better than 1080p or even 2160p. One of the reasons there is a zoom view is to make up for lack of resolution. Since you can’t increase the resolution of your screen, the only solution is to magnify the image. VR needs a zoom view for this reason as well. The zoom view feature is not unique to DCS. All flight sims have this and for the same reason. Why it’s so confusing for DCS players in particular I have no idea.

[SharpeXB]

No. Read the post again

snip...

It’s funny you’re trying to talk your way around these ugly images that indeed show exactly what you’re proposing. And yeah I didn’t get it at first because I thought those were three different aircraft on the deck. They’re all the same. There are three and the one on the right is scaled up. The size difference is so great that you’d mistake it for a different plane. The scaling factor isn’t subtle, it’s huge.

 

How many times does ED need to say that they aren’t going to do this? Because the effect is just ugly looking.

[Tippis]

Your real eyesight is better than 1080p or even 2160p.

That depends on the viewing distance. You understand this, right? It has been explained to you on numerous occasions how angles and linear distances are very different things…

 

Hence why you shouldn't mount your monitor two rooms away and have the issue you're describing.

 

It’s funny you’re trying to talk your way around these ugly images that indeed show exactly what you’re proposing.

It's funny how you're trying to talk your way around the FACT that those “ugly images” show differences you were not able to spot. How some of them are unaltered. How they do not show what I'm proposing but were rather offered as a gift to you because you refused — or were unable to — create your own examples of what you were suggesting (which is still not how the different methodologies are implemented). How you are unable to comprehend that your imagination (which is what these images illustrate, and promptly disprove) is not what I'm proposing to begin with. How what you imagining did not match up to how it actually ended up looking. How you are still unable to fathom that the images do not show one single thing. How you are still unable to fathom that one of those methodologies completely invalidates the (uninformed and unproven) assumption behind your complaint.

 

So, I'm sorry that you have to read this again, but your refusal to actually make cogent, coherent, or cohesive arguments force me to repeat it every time you post: no. Read the post again, in its entirety. Understand the full context and understand the specifics of each image. Read the context and specifics of what the images were a response to.

 

You can keep misrepresenting what the post is showing and how you responded to it, but the facts of the matter will not change. Reality will never match your imagination.

 

There are three and the one on the right is scaled up. The size difference is so great that you’d mistake it for a different plane.

Yeah, no. That would have worked if that's what you actually said at the time. It wasn't. You said that you didn't see any difference. It would also require you to not actually look at what the images contain or not reading the descriptions or ignoring the context in which they were produced.

 

In short, pull the other one. You got tripped up by your own failure to understand what your imagined complaint was and you've been trying to save face ever since.

 

How many times does ED need to say that they aren’t going to do this?

They've said repeatedly that they're working on fixing visibility in DCS. Oops.

 

I'm sorry that you will not be able to keep your artificial advantage of being able to spot aircraft out to 50km and that all your hard work to try to keep the game unrealistic will come to naught. But that's just reality for you. :thumbup:

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

That depends on the viewing distance.

There is no display technology today which can replicate real life visual acuity and size.

That should be obvious to everyone. :doh:

[Tippis]

There is no display technology today which can replicate real life visual acuity and size.

Incorrect. It just depends on the distance.

This is obvious to anyone who understand how angular resolution works.

 

Cost and rendering bandwidth become problematic from a practical standpoint, however. :D

[SharpeXB]

They've said repeatedly that they're working on fixing visibility in DCS. Oops.

Yes they said that. They also said they will not do smart scaling. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4150636&postcount=163

“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. “

[SharpeXB]

Incorrect. :D

Show us and example of such technology.

Ok you could array a wall of 8K TVs or some sort of high tech dome projector. That’s not what anyone today uses to play DCS

Show us a consumer display which can recreate real life sized 20/20 vision.

I don’t even think 8K is equal to real life and good luck running a game at this resolution

https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/qled-8k-tvs/65-class-q800t-qled-8k-uhd-hdr-smart-tv-2020-qn65q800tafxza/

Edited June 21, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

Show us and example of such technology.

Well, since maths is such a weak point for you, let's do that:

 

Basic accuracies of the human eye:

• Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance.

• Field of view (FOV): simultaneous visual perception in an area of about 160° × 175°.

 

Your average 27" display sits at at 109ppi — in other words, each pixel is 0.2335mm across.

 

Since radians are so easy to calculate (r_ang = width / distance), for 0.2335mm to cover less than 0.3 mils, it has to be at a distance of at least 778mm. Coincidentally, this means that the ~60cm wide display would be below the resolution threshold when (0.778×2560) = 1.992km away, which unsurprisingly nealy matches the 0.3m at 1km point of reference.

 

As such, any old 27" 2560×1440p monitor at just under 1m distance provides better resolution than the eye can perceive.

 

At 1m distance and being 60×34cm large, the display area covers 0.6×0.34 radians. To fill that visual perception area, it needs to cover 3.05×2.79 radians. This means tiling 6 by 9 displays. The only technical challenge is building them in the curved shape required to allow for that tiling.

 

 

e: Oh, and coincidentally, the monitor I'm sitting in front of right now has an even smaller pixel pitch: 0.112mm — as long as my elbow isn't touching the screen, its pixels are below the angular resolution of the eye.

 

 

Yes they said that.

…and as such, they are indeed doing what this and many other threads are discussing. The final methodologies haven't been nailed down, but what that means in the end has yet to be seen. Either way, the artificial advantage you're so desperately kicking and screaming and trying but failing to control the conversation to retain will go away. So'z.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

As such, any old 27" 2560×1440p monitor at just under 1m distance provides better resolution than the eye can perceive.

That’s not true. I’m looking at a 32” 2160p screen and can still see jaggies on it. Apple figured that a 27” screen needed to be 5K on their iMac in order to achieve “retina” resolution where the pixels are not perceivable.

And for sim like this we would need “retina” resolution and a 1:1 size. A 27” screen is too small for a life sized image. You need something like 55” for that

[Tippis]

That’s not true.

Incorrect, as the maths show.

 

If you want to dispute it, find research that determines a much higher angular resolution of the eye. Otherwise, you're just wrong on this one, and no amount of unproven subjective opinion will change that. So'z.

 

I’m looking at a 32”

At what distance?

You see, you keep getting hung up on all these irrelevancies — screen size, and numbers of pixels — when none of that actually matters for the purpose of fulfilling the goal you set up. For any given high- or low-pixel count display you would like to suggest, I can trivially fulfil that goal simply by changing the distance. A traffic light with the yellow light replaced by a blue one will fulfil it at suitable distance.

 

The reason Apple went with retina displays on the iMacs is because they expect graphical artists to be habitual pixel-peepers that sit unergonomically close to their screens by default. The reason they went with even lower pixel pitches on their phones is because they expect phone users to hold them up close their faces. It has nothing to do with the screen size — it has to do with the distance from your eyes.

 

As long as you keep mentioning inches and pixels as opposed to radians and ppi-at-a-given-distance, rest assured, you have not understood the topic you're trying to discuss and your assertions will inherently be wrong.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

Incorrect, as the maths show.

Forget math, just look at the screen. I had a 28” 4K screen and at normal viewing distance I still needed to run antialiasing to avoid seeing jaggies ie I can perceive the pixels.

VR headsets run 1440x2560 and of course project that resolution to lifelike size and fall very very short of 20/20 acuity.