Visual Scaling, Spotting

[Tippis]

As long as users have different hardware, can set any fov and gfx options and can sit howerever they like away from monitors the problem will persist. What DCS can do is to make sure when you set all of that to display the area you want to look at is as close to reality as possible (right angular size, display contrast and brightness) then you have the image as close to reality as possible. And DCS does already great job at this.

The problem is that “the area you want to look at” is only a very tiny part of the whole visibility equation. As the research has shown, it's also not a very accurate representation of what you pick up on — the cognitive process of perception may begin with the mathematical size, but it doesn't end there.

 

The problem is also that it doesn't do a great job at compensating for different gfx options — resolution in particular — even though it quite easily could. Instead, we have this long-proven situation where lower resolutions actually make things show up more easily. Whether that should be fixed by having the lower resolution be the benchmark and make higher resolution be more apparent or vice versa is a separate discussion (although it should be noted that the 30nm visibility came specifically from a lower resolution example).

 

DCS lacks the vast majority of cues that would make something visible and which should be layered on top of that “real size” to make that perceived size become larger or smaller as circumstances dictate. In fact, as it is right now, what does exist creates almost the opposite of reality: where better visibility conditions make units appear much closer on and poor visibility makes them appear at utterly ridiculous ranges. This is then layered on top of the problem where lower-quality graphics also make units stand out more for a really excellent double-whammy of silliness: you get the best visibility in poor lighting on poor hardware.

 

Neither of those should be the case.

 

The latter, in particular, needs to be compensated for an normalised. Just because people can screw up their settings doesn't give the devs license to lazily throw their hands up and say “nah, not our problem” — it's a problem they can solve to make things more realistic, so it's a problem they should be solving. They're supposedly working on the former, but given how things managed to get even worse with the new lighting, I'm cautiously pessimistic about how that will come out…

[LowRider88]

@LowRider88: You have to understand that spotting is subjective because of differences in human eyes, training, weather, equipment, canopy, situation, setup and whatnot. You can get hard numbers only for one single situation. The second one will be different.

 

Thanks Draconus for your feedback and perspective. That's fair, I don't disagree with you. Although, the scenario I tested was rather specific i.e. clear day, noon time, no weather, F-5E head on, with a result of 15 nm, 7 x over the 2 nm from the military documents. Some of those differences in variables you mentioned such as eyes, training, weather, etc. I am assuming are accounted for in the military documents Fri13 referenced, and the light fighter article.

 

The research nighthawk provided is also good. If I try to correlated that to Fri13's source and the light fighter wiki article, it suggests to me that the two latter could be "rounding off" of the findings in the former. So low probabilities are considered in some military sources as near invisible. So e.g. they round to 2 nm.

 

However with my test the impression I get is that the target sticks out too far, too early, that it may represent a different probability region.

 

As you say this may get fixed in later releases, and I can wait for that.

 

In the meantime, I may try to find a cheap 4K monitor some time and give it another test, and confirm if this makes my personal experience of the 15 nm vs 2 nm more congruent.

 

On top of this I am hoping to confirm to be able to see a difference between a MiG-21 and an F-14, with all other variables held constant.

 

Thanks always for your efforts to provide a balanced perspective.

[nighthawk2174]

Having spent a few hours over a few days just observing aircraft of all sizes from ultra light, GA, private, military, and large commercial I have no doubt that 1920, 2560, and above (including VR) are not accurate in terms of visual detection and ability to discern target orientation.

Edited June 25, 2020 by nighthawk2174

[LowRider88]

Having spent a few hours over a few days just observing aircraft of all sizes from ultra light, GA, private, military, and large commercial I have no doubt that 1920, 2560, and above (including VR) are not accurate in terms of visual detection and ability to target orientation.

 

That sounds like commendable experimentation nighthawk.

Sorry but by 'not accurate' do you mean higher res is to harder or easier to see?

[nighthawk2174]

harder than irl.

[LowRider88]

Having spent a few hours over a few days just observing aircraft of all sizes from ultra light, GA, private, military, and large commercial I have no doubt that 1920, 2560, and above (including VR) are not accurate in terms of visual detection and ability to discern target orientation.

 

You are entitled to your opinion nighthawk, however, without further details this statement seems to me like just that, another subjective opinion.

You have noted plane classes/sizes, and resolutions, but no distances or provided example screenshots and comparative photos of real life.

Although, if you provide real life photos, I might question how you can be certain what you see in the photo is in fact the class/size you are referring to, and how you can be certain what the distance is.

 

Without that data, I don’t see why ED could not refer to the hard military facts Fri13 provided.

 

Are you also attempting to discern target orientation at distance?

Do you have more evidence that real pilots are able to make out the attitude of a plane over 5 nm away?

 

I am a bit disappointed after joining this forum. It seems there are a large number of users who, as mentioned in one of the earlier posts of this thread, would rather to be able to see a plane reference all the time even if it is outside of WVR, even if it is not realistic, just for more multiplayer satisfaction.

 

I get the impression some of the user base may have come from free to play multiplayer arcade games, where everyone spawns at the same time, fliesto a central location to join a free for all, every man for himself fireball, where everyone looks for dots and drives to each like a heat seeking missile, with less appreciation for team tactics.

This kind of battle seems more like a wwii type fur ball.

 

In Vietnam jet combat, there were Kuban Tactics, Wagon Wheels, Loose Dueces. All of these formations were necessary for mutual support because it was so easy to lose sight of your wing, and because it was so easy to be ambushed.

 

Is the DCS community really that scared for losing visibility? If a sub simmer were to read this they may find it amusing.

Those guys even complain that simulated water is not murkier enough, as they live for the hide and seek, cat and mouse game play, which requires more pilot skill in detection tactics.

Edited June 25, 2020 by LowRider88

[SharpeXB]

Without that data, I don’t see why ED could not refer to the hard military facts Fri13 provided.

 

You say this as if ED has never seen a real aircraft or doesn't have real pilots on their staff. They know all this stuff, there's nothing new you can tell them.

 

Having spent a few hours over a few days just observing aircraft of all sizes

Good thing you did this, I'm sure ED has never seen an airplane before :doh:

 

I am a bit disappointed after joining this forum.

Welcome to the forum. If you're new here you should know that this topic has been discussed hundreds of times. You can search through the thousands of posts on this subject... :music_whistling:

Edited June 25, 2020 by SharpeXB

[LowRider88]

You say this as if ED has never seen a real aircraft or doesn't have real pilots on their staff. They know all this stuff, there's nothing new you can tell them.

 

 

Good thing you did this, I'm sure ED has never seen an airplane before :doh:

 

Yes, I am aware they have good first hand accounts. I believe they have the Fighter Collection for the wwii planes. It doesn’t take a genius, or your reminder to know this, when just browsing the site may show this.

 

Did they have jet pilots? Did they ask the world of questions to those pilots? What if there are additional findings? These have to brushed under the rug because from your perspective, new resources and data are not allowed?

 

Thanks for your closed mindedness..

[SharpeXB]

Did they have jet pilots?

AFAIK they do actually. You must be new here because this topic has been discussed to death hundreds of times, believe me there is nothing new you can add. Use the search function to read through the thousands upon thousands of posts on the subject.

[LowRider88]

AFAIK they do actually. You must be new here because this topic has been discussed to death hundreds of times, believe me there is nothing new you can add. Use the search function to read through the thousands upon thousands of posts on the subject.

 

If there is nothing new to add, why do you and the other guy still battle it out for years?

 

What is the point of a wishlist forum if I can’t have my say because it conflicts with your needs?

 

There apparently is something to add as Draconus already said there is work in place for the future.

 

Are you a developer?

[SharpeXB]

If there is nothing new to add, why do you and the other guy still battle it out for years?

Because that's what happens on a forum. It's the same people saying the same thing over and over. This is the most tired topic in all of flight simming and there really is no solution to it.

Yes ED is always improving the sim but that doesn't mean that they don't already know everything there is to know about aircraft visibility. They don't need another chart showing the ranges you can see another aircraft at or accounts from people looking up at the sky. They know this.

And no matter what improvement they make, no PC game is going to equal reality 100%, not any time in the imaginable future. We don't have displays which give us a 100% prefect view, resolution, colors contrast etc. That will not happen any time soon if ever. No other game achieves this, why should flight sims? Accept the things you cannot change and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

PS if you want real improvement in this regard, here's something that is achievable today and would be the best thing they can do:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173243&highlight=HDR+video

funny this post is 4 years old, today this is commonplace in every game except niche ones like this.

[LowRider88]

Because that's what happens on a forum. It's the same people saying the same thing over and over. This is the most tired topic in all of flight simming and there really is no solution to it.

Yes ED is always improving the sim but that doesn't mean that they don't already know everything there is to know about aircraft visibility. They don't need another chart showing the ranges you can see another aircraft at or accounts from people looking up at the sky. They know this.

And no matter what improvement they make, no PC game is going to equal reality 100%, not any time in the imaginable future. We don't have displays which give us a 100% prefect view, resolution, colors contrast etc. That will not happen any time soon if ever. No other game achieves this, why should flight sims? Accept the things you cannot change and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

PS if you want real improvement in this regard, here's something that is achievable today and would be the best thing they can do:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173243&highlight=HDR+video

funny this post is 4 years old, today this is commonplace in every game except niche ones like this.

 

I don’t think you answered my question, about whether you are a developer or not. If you are not part of ED, how can you know for certain the scope of what they know? And if they know everything, does that mean I am not allowed to express myself? When you have been expressing yourself all over the place for 4 years, and may have even out posted me in this thread?

To try to devalue research by saying someone has already looked at it but you provide no proof to that.

[SharpeXB]

I don’t think you answered my question, about whether you are a developer or not. If you are not part of ED, how can you know for certain the scope of what they know? And if they know everything, does that mean I am not allowed to express myself? When you have been expressing yourself all over the place for 4 years, and may have even out posted me in this thread?

To try to devalue research by saying someone has already looked at it but you provide no proof to that.

No I’m not a Dev. I’ve just read everything they’ve said about this for years. After that much time I can pretty much tell what they think about this subject. There are hundreds of posts on it.

[LowRider88]

No I’m not a Dev. I’ve just read everything they’ve said about this for years. After that much time I can pretty much tell what they think about this subject. There are hundreds of posts on it.

 

Okay, that’s fair. In the preceding threads, was there ever a post that contained Fri13’s diagram?

[Mars Exulte]

If there is nothing new to add, why do you and the other guy still battle it out for years?

 

What is the point of a wishlist forum if I can’t have my say because it conflicts with your needs?

 

There apparently is something to add as Draconus already said there is work in place for the future.

 

Are you a developer?

 

Yes, they have spoken to jet pilots. Not THAT hard to find them. As for why they argue over this well dead horse, because they're bored and/or dumb. Tis the internet afterall.

 

And no Sharpe isn't a dev, nor are 90% of the people talking here, but nor are you nor anybody else here bringing up something new that's never possibly been.thought of before over the last ten years. Case and point : ''Do they have jet pilots?'' 1 propulsion method has nothing to do with spotting and 2 Gee, I wish somebody had thought to ask a real pilot some simple questions... surely nobody thought of that, glad we have the local forumites to slap people in the face with that one @@

[LowRider88]

Yes, they have spoken to jet pilots. Not THAT hard to find them. As for why they argue over this well dead horse, because they're bored and/or dumb. Tis the internet afterall.

 

And no Sharpe isn't a dev, nor are 90% of the people talking here, but nor are you nor anybody else here bringing up something new that's never possibly been.thought of before over the last ten years. Case and point : ''Do they have jet pilots?'' 1 propulsion method has nothing to do with spotting and 2 Gee, I wish somebody had thought to ask a real pilot some simple questions... surely nobody thought of that, glad we have the local forumites to slap people in the face with that one @@

 

I never said I was a DCS developer. What’s your point?

Who’s slapping anyone in the face? As I just asked, did anyone post Fri13’s diagram before? No? Then why am I getting chewed out for talking about it?

Feel free to open a new thread.

Believe me, if support did not direct me here for my suggestions, why bother interacting with closed minded folks.

Please keep in mind, as I have mentioned early on, I am suggesting what I am suggesting as an option, where what you experience now is default, and what I am suggesting, which is based on reputable data is an option for others like me. Why so sensitive?

[SharpeXB]

Okay, that’s fair. In the preceding threads, was there ever a post that contained Fri13’s diagram?

That diagram or other diagrams like that or charts or anecdotes or studies... believe me everything that can be posted about how far away you can see or could see this or that aircraft has just about certainly been posted here already.

[LowRider88]

That diagram or other diagrams like that or charts or anecdotes or studies... believe me everything that can be posted about how far away you can see or could see this or that aircraft has just about certainly been posted here already.

 

Really, got a link to the earlier post with the diagram, which Fri13 duplicates?

 

Even if you find it, the purpose of this thread is to talk about that as I had did some tests and still see a discrepancy.

You just want to shut me up because you like arcade and think plane aspect should be discernible for multiplayer at 30 nm, when I keep saying what I suggest should not affect your game play if what I suggest is an option disabled by default. Holy crap, why not let others play another way?

[Tippis]

No I’m not a Dev. I’ve just read everything they’ve said about this for years.

Lol no.

You've dismissed everything that has been said over the years, but the one constant in all of that is that you always manage to prove — sometime you even explicitly state — that you haven't read it. Remember how much we had to push you to actually have you start quoting the research? :megalol:

 

The problem has always been that actual facts and research have utterly annihilated any of the arguments you've attempted because what you've tried to offer has always been assumptions, guesswork, long-disproven nonsense, or just outright fantasies. The research has remained unchallenged because having to challenge it would require you to read it, and per your own admission, you find it “boring” or “gibberish”. So you keep trying with your unfounded assumptions, doubling down on them whenever it turns out that the research you refuse to read has already proven those assumptions false, and then trying to pivot to some new nonsense when the old one apparently doesn't have the desired effect.

 

So no. You haven't read anything. You've just seen it pass by and smash your hopes of being able to use mere guesswork and arguments from ignorance to bolster your case. It has never worked, so your only hope is to continue to ignore it and hope that no-one notices.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Tippis

[nighthawk2174]

You are entitled to your opinion nighthawk, however, without further details this statement seems to me like just that, another subjective opinion.

[/Quote]

 

Sure but its one that matches empirical evidence.

 

You have noted plane classes/sizes, and resolutions, but no distances or provided example screenshots and comparative photos of real life.

[/Quote]

 

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

 

Although, if you provide real life photos, I might question how you can be certain what you see in the photo is in fact the class/size you are referring to, and how you can be certain what the distance is.

[/Quote]

 

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.

 

Without that data, I don’t see why ED could not refer to the hard military facts Fri13 provided.

[/Quote]

 

I've posted data from military studies as well and we have the study done by sefross as well. And the chart posted by Fri13 isn't that for one eye only?

 

Are you also attempting to discern target orientation at distance?

[/Quote]

 

Yes that is a factor here as referenced above

 

Do you have more evidence that real pilots are able to make out the attitude of a plane over 5 nm away?

[/Quote]

 

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

 

I am a bit disappointed after joining this forum. It seems there are a large number of users who, as mentioned in one of the earlier posts of this thread, would rather to be able to see a plane reference all the time even if it is outside of WVR, even if it is not realistic, just for more multiplayer satisfaction.

[/Quote]

 

?

 

I get the impression some of the user base may have come from free to play multiplayer arcade games, where everyone spawns at the same time, fliesto a central location to join a free for all, every man for himself fireball, where everyone looks for dots and drives to each like a heat seeking missile, with less appreciation for team tactics.

This kind of battle seems more like a wwii type fur ball.

 

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.

 

In Vietnam jet combat, there were Kuban Tactics, Wagon Wheels, Loose Dueces. All of these formations were necessary for mutual support because it was so easy to lose sight of your wing, and because it was so easy to be ambushed.

 

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.

 

Is the DCS community really that scared for losing visibility? If a sub simmer were to read this they may find it amusing.

 

More like wanting a more realistic representation of vision.

 

You've dismissed everything that has been said over the years, but the one constant in all of that is that you always manage to prove — sometime you even explicitly state — that you haven't read it. Remember how much we had to push you to actually have you start quoting the research?

[/Quote]

+1

[Mars Exulte]

I never said I was a DCS developer. What’s your point?

Who’s slapping anyone in the face? As I just asked, did anyone post Fri13’s diagram before? No? Then why am I getting chewed out for talking about it?

Feel free to open a new thread.

Believe me, if support did not direct me here for my suggestions, why bother interacting with closed minded folks.

Please keep in mind, as I have mentioned early on, I am suggesting what I am suggesting as an option, where what you experience now is default, and what I am suggesting, which is based on reputable data is an option for others like me. Why so sensitive?

 

I didn't say you said you were a dev. I said you're not saying anything new or that nobody has ever thought of. Neither is anybody else in this thread a genius example of originality, including me. Most the people quarreling in this thread, are the same ones that quarreled in the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that.

 

You're not being chewed out (not by me, anyway). Nobody's sensitive, although this is a ridiculously well worn topic. Fri13 has been here for ages, by definition if you posted his diagram, it's been seen before. Likely in one of these threads.

 

Reputable data does not mean unassailable data. People disagree, sometimes vehemently. Welcome to the internet. Fire retardant clothing is recommended.

[SharpeXB]

Really, got a link to the earlier post with the diagram, which Fri13 duplicates?

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.

Edited June 26, 2020 by SharpeXB

[...]

After searching broader DCS user forums, I have found that there are differing opinions about the ability to see aircraft in DCS.

 

Some, who I agree with, state DCS objects both air and ground are too easy to spot.

If I understand the history correctly, as a result there was some imposters.lua mechanism used to help reduce object visibility at a distance by replacing the 3D object with a small image which then fades out with distance. Sounds like a good workaround. But I read this is no longer being used?

 

Others in the community have complained that they are not able to see other aircraft, making within visual range air combat impossible, and cited different variables like screen resolution and the use of VR, their age, etc.

If I understand it correctly, as a result some are advocating for some scaling feature to make objects at a distance scaled larger, just so it can be visible for this group of users. But it presents a problem with calculating radar cross section.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

My perspective is the first group is right. You should not be able to see things easy in WVR combat, unless you are playing the WWII planes.

In WWI, the average fighter plane length was roughly the length of a car, and only a few hundred km/h in max speed.

In WWII the fighter was only about a third longer. Even though they were longer, wingspans were about the same, and going from bi-plane to monoplane, made these planes look the same size or smaller. But the speed doubled.

During Vietnam, the planes were roughly double or triple the length of a WWI plane, but the speeds are now transonic, supersonic or Mach 2.

 

How do people expect to be able to spot aircraft so easily in the jet age?

There is a reason why WWII pilots were able to rack up kill victories in the hundreds, while in Vietnam, aces had around or under 10 kills. It is because with the great speeds and distances involved there was a greater chance of not spotting anything.

It is because fighter aircraft size has not changed much, but speeds have increased dramatically in relation. Visual range has not changed, as that is the physics of the eye ball. But fighter engagement speeds and distances have.

Most of Vietnam kills were because they got spotting help from FAC, or GCI.

 

To force DCS to show planes at long distances just for more easy playability really kills it for people who want to relive history or fly a real simulation and not an arcade game.

 

Where is the fear of flying out of AWACS or GCI range? Where is the benefit of flying a small, hard to see plane versus a big honking beast? What is the point of having long range radar with the ability to differentiate targets from ground clutter?

All of this is lost because some people want superhuman eagle eyes that see things 4 times farther than they should so they can make jet combat similar to biplane combat.

 

 

In the wiki article for Light Fighter:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fighter

 

In the Design Aims > Effectiveness section, Point #1, it says small fighters like the F-5E should only be visible broadside (platform exposed while banking) within 4 miles, while head on, or tail on, it is only visible within 2 miles.

 

I tested and as soon as I see the speck which represents the F-5E ahead, head on, using the F-10 map ruler shows the F-5E is still 10 miles away. It is way too soon to be seeing it.

 

Can the visible range for the small aircraft be reduced to what the article says? The citations in the article appear to be credible sources.

 

I already play with no arcade like labels or icons, as it provides the most realistic experience, and I NEVER user zoom in. But it seems a lot of the advantages of some of the light fighters, like small size are not represented in the game.

 

Please note I never play multiplayer, and am not somehow trying to sabotage that community. I am just hoping for more realism.

It would also be great if the AI could also respect the same visual detection rules.

 

If there is a need to cater to any loud voices about not being able to see in WVR, maybe there can be an option like the easy/real skill setting which lets them see things 4 times farther, while in realism mode it is as the article above states.

 

 

I also bet on realism. But we need to see that pixel, because we are not in a real size environment, but in a 70% smaller scale environment with 34-inch monitors without peripheral vision. I don't see anything at actual size and resolution. Therefore, the pixel is completely justified.

 

Do you see the DCS moon the same size on your monitor as looking out your window?

Edited June 26, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[Tippis]

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.

So once again, that's a “no” on your part, then. You can't provide anything to support what you claim so instead you ask him to do the job you should be doing as far as digging something up, and on top of that, you're asking him to do something that the forum simply doesn't support.

 

Classy.

 

Wouldn't it have been nice if, just once, you had actually attempted the thing you're talking about yourself? Wouldn't it have been nice if, just once, you had actually read what people wrote and the context in which it was written so that you wouldn't have to become confused about what — in the context of the topic of the thread — actually is profound about the chart.

[draconus]

Do you see the DCS moon the same size on your monitor as looking out your window?

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

 

 

Okay, that’s fair. In the preceding threads, was there ever a post that contained Fri13’s diagram?

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

 

 

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.

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?