Jump to content

When is ED going to Fix WWII . ????


KoN

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

No one is making a leap to anywhere. You made a blank statement about the real world detail that was visible at 1 km, I just filled in the blank for you!

But the question was, are you saying that the LOD in the images I posted above do not represent what we should expect to see in real life? In the image taken from about 4 km, you can clearly see all six planes. The actual distance separating them in the ME is 100 meters. If you have a picture of multiple WWII fighters taken from about 4 km, why don't you put it here so we can all see the LOD of real life?

I gave you everything you need to figure that out for yourself.

I will provide you will some of the math to help you out.

At 4 km, a P51 fuselage will subtend an angle of 8 arc minutes.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My issues with DCS visibility of aircraft are, as I previously described, with the drawing of aircraft at the middle ranges and with lighting errors. However, I fly exclusively in VR.

Visibility on a pancake is certainly much, much better/easier. 

 

  • Like 1

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes well I can't say I'm having your issue, and the question I am asking is can you demonstrate, or show the lighting errors? Can you show that DCS is rendering object lighting incorrectly?

I don't know that it does, or it doesn't, but saying that the amount of light being emitted by an object is similar or less than its surrounding hardly suggests a problem because it could in fact be the case in real life.

Like I said, I have a low end system so you can expect the images I created with it are not the best, but still capable of spotting WWII fighter aircraft at 5 km.

The point of this thread is suggesting that DCS is making it hard to spot planes, and that the LOD is inaccurate. I haven't seen much proof of that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bozon said:

You come off really pompous and trying to show that you are better than everyone else.

Not really, but I get why you might think like that. Happens all the time in written communication.

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the self-reinforcing problems with DCS spotting is that at ultra-low resolution settings the DCS game engine will show the smallest LOD dot for other aircraft out to 55nm. All the experienced WW2 players know that and have deliberately reduced their graphics settings to exploit this feature.

When jet jockeys join a WW2 multiplayer server, they don't know about this exploit and have their graphics set so the game looks nice. That means they lose ~45nm of spotting distance compared with their opponents. Then they complain everyone else is pwning them before vanishing into all that richly detailed terrain.

I'd really like to see ED implement a hard cutoff on visual spotting distance at 15nm in all resolutions to get rid of this exploit. It's very immersion-breaking. It would also mean I can turn my resolution back up without becoming a flying pincushion again!


Edited by Skewgear

DCS WWII player. I run the mission design team behind 4YA WWII, the most popular DCS World War 2 server.

https://www.ProjectOverlord.co.uk - for 4YA WW2 mission stats, mission information, historical research blogs and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Yes well I can't say I'm having your issue, and the question I am asking is can you demonstrate, or show the lighting errors? Can you show that DCS is rendering object lighting incorrectly?

I don't know that it does, or it doesn't, but saying that the amount of light being emitted by an object is similar or less than its surrounding hardly suggests a problem because it could in fact be the case in real life.

Like I said, I have a low end system so you can expect the images I created with it are not the best, but still capable of spotting WWII fighter aircraft at 5 km.

The point of this thread is suggesting that DCS is making it hard to spot planes, and that the LOD is inaccurate. I haven't seen much proof of that yet.

Unfortunately, its impossible to show others what is visible inside a VR HMD. Aircraft completely disappear at ranges where they should be plainly visible and are more difficult to see than they are out in the real world under certain conditions. I am not saying they are hard to spot. They undraw or appear to undraw as you look at them. As I said earlier, it is so reliable that one can use it as a indicator of range. The dot transitions to invisibility, telling you how far away he is and, depending on closure, reappears. The distance all this happens is affected by VISIB RANGE in DCS System Options. 

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skewgear said:

One of the self-reinforcing problems with DCS spotting is that at ultra-low resolution settings the DCS game engine will show the smallest LOD dot for other aircraft out to 55nm. All the experienced WW2 players know that and have deliberately reduced their graphics settings to exploit this feature.

When jet jockeys join a WW2 multiplayer server, they don't know about this exploit and have their graphics set so the game looks nice. That means they lose ~45nm of spotting distance compared with their opponents. Then they complain everyone else is pwning them before vanishing into all that richly detailed terrain.

I'd really like to see ED implement a hard cutoff on visual spotting distance at 15nm in all resolutions to get rid of this exploit. It's very immersion-breaking. It would also mean I can turn my resolution back up without becoming a flying pincushion again!

 

We have found, after extensive testing, that the far dot spotting range is directly driven by VISIB RANGE setting in System Options. This setting also drives the distance at which the aircraft "renders". Set to EXTREME, you can see dots out to 50 nm or so and they "render" while they are still a tiny dot. Set to LOW, you don't see the dots very far out and they don't render until they are airplane shaped. My personal preference when playing WVR Jets is HIGH. This reduces the amount of disappearing aircraft in a two circle rate fight. My wingman flies with his set to ULTRA. He spots dots 5-10 nm before I do. This is all in VR, of course.

In VR, I am also forced to reduce my resolution significantly in order to be able to maintain the ability to see aircraft in a WVR fight. I play at approximately 2100 x 2100 when my system can easily run 3400 x 3400 in DCS because higher resolutions make aircraft impossible to see.

I would love a visual system that allowed me to take advantage of my substantial hardware investment without making aircraft invisible but there is no evidence that is even contemplated.

ED knows its customer base. The vast majority never fly in a MP WVR air combat environment. Of those that do, only a very tiny subset of this already tiny group fly in VR. This stuff isn't an issue in SP for a large variety of reasons. SP isn't even the same game as MP. It is a totally different experience. And MP BVR air combat doesn't require you even look outside the cockpit. Its basically a submarine simulation with really fast torpedoes.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skewgear said:

One of the self-reinforcing problems with DCS spotting is that at ultra-low resolution settings the DCS game engine will show the smallest LOD dot for other aircraft out to 55nm. All the experienced WW2 players know that and have deliberately reduced their graphics settings to exploit this feature.

When jet jockeys join a WW2 multiplayer server, they don't know about this exploit and have their graphics set so the game looks nice. That means they lose ~45nm of spotting distance compared with their opponents. Then they complain everyone else is pwning them before vanishing into all that richly detailed terrain.

I'd really like to see ED implement a hard cutoff on visual spotting distance at 15nm in all resolutions to get rid of this exploit. It's very immersion-breaking. It would also mean I can turn my resolution back up without becoming a flying pincushion again!

 

Yes I agree, the problem certainly does appear to be self-reinforcing.

So are you suggesting that a real life F15 pilot would be able to pick out the MiG-29 dot from a group of civilian passenger jets at 55nm to shoot his really fast torpedo at if he had nothing else but his own vision to assist him? The next question would be, is he wearing a red cape and at what distance do you classify as a BVR engagement?

The argument here seems to be that DCS is rendering the surface light being emitted by WWII planes incorrectly, and that causes them to disappear into the terrain detail. So this raises at least a few questions for me.

The first would be is it even possible for a pilot to loose sight of something while flying an airplane? In other words, has this ever been recorded as having happened before to Navy/Air Force pilots? 

The second would be how does the surface of an assortment of WWII planes in terms of the amount of light they emit compare against the background light being emitted by the earth at various times throughout the day? The follow on question to that of course would be how this compares to what is being rendered in DCS?

But going back to the WWII jet jocks, most of them I am assuming realize that they don't have to worry about the 55nm dots until they get within 300 meters.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Unfortunately, its impossible to show others what is visible inside a VR HMD. Aircraft completely disappear at ranges where they should be plainly visible and are more difficult to see than they are out in the real world under certain conditions. I am not saying they are hard to spot. They undraw or appear to undraw as you look at them. As I said earlier, it is so reliable that one can use it as a indicator of range. The dot transitions to invisibility, telling you how far away he is and, depending on closure, reappears. The distance all this happens is affected by VISIB RANGE in DCS System Options. 

The issue here as I understand it is not whether you can show what's inside your VR HMD, or the differences in visual perception between 1 and 2 minutes of arc! 

The issue is whether or not DCS is causing the player to loose sight of his opponent because it is rendering surface light incorrectly.

I'm not saying that it does, or it doesn't, but you claiming that a pilot could see a dot from 18 km away and say... it's a Cessna 172 is a fairly hefty load of the stuff coming out the South end of a bull facing North. 

But I think if you want to add anything meaningful to your argument that DCS is preventing WWII players from seeing their opponents, upload the image/s here that demonstrate the level of detail/surface light you are expecting at known distances of course so that we can compare that to what we are actually seeing in game.

Because so far, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of this happening. I am not saying that it isn't happening, I just haven't seen it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

🤣🤣🤣 Please, don't you be a fool here. I had a GTX1080 until 4-5 months ago, I now have a RTX3080Ti and it only makes a difference in the number you see in the top left FPS counter, the rest of it is everything the exact very same. If you think that makes a difference in spotting you're being a fooled foolish fool all the way long and back. Capisce? 😉

About your statement of WWII guys "training" with black silhouettes, again don't be the foolish fool you already shown yourself to be, that has nothing, zero, anything, to do with what you actually see in the air, but with ease of printing in the 30's, or perhaps you expected 8K resolution digital photos in full colour when they didn't even know what many enemy aircraft looked like?? You're really naive if you think so.

BTW, I'm talking about own RL experience. Apparently you all look for game like features all of the time, but I've seen it in RL, and that's in General Aviation, hence mostly white painted small aircraft and you don't see a damn thing (150% visual acuity here :music_whistling:) until they are really close to you. Nobody told me, I've seen it, 1 mile, 2 miles target in front of you? You don't see it, you just don't, you won'tsee a target either airborne or grounded from the distances you pretend to see them. In playstation games? Of course, that happens, IRL it just doesn't and DCS is all about REALISM.

Servers are empty because you spoiled kiddoes want it all easy and already done for you, but that's not how RL works. Contacts disappear!!! Guess what?? They do IRL 🤣, I've seen it also, I spotted once 4 Mirage F1s in close diamond formation from an airliner, 500ft below us, 90º heading from us, air superiority grey painted (F1M they were), and guess what? You spot them and a second later they are literally gone, you don't see a damn thing, but I still have 150% visual acuity, remember? what do you think other people would have seen there? Easily told, nothing at all, you wouldn't even spot them in the first place 😉. That's how Real Life works, and DCS does a pretty good job in resembling how real life works. You don't like real life? Must be a bug or something 😅.

 

Yes like i said 1080 or 3090 its all the same . Glad you agree with my statement . And the only difference is FPS .  

Your Quote About your statement of WWII guys "training" with black silhouettes, again don't be the foolish fool you already shown yourself to be, that has nothing, zero, anything, to do with what you actually see in the air, Wrong answer WWII gunners and pilots trained on black silhouettes . To ID friend or foe . And this still goes on today .

How did you know that they were F1 Mirages . Could you tell by their shape or maybe their black silhouettes . And of course they were there one minute gone the next , maybe speed has some thing to do with it . LOL . 

Don't own a PlayStation . 

Next time PM me . And ill tell you my background . lol . 

Nice rant by the way . 

Also look here . 

 

R.jpg

s-l1600 (1).jpg


Edited by KoN
  • Like 1

Gigabyte - X570 UD ~ Ryzen - 5600X @ 4.7 - Pulse - RX-6800 -  XPG 32:GB @ 3200 - VKB - Gunfighter 4 - STECs - Throttle - Crosswinds Rudders - Trackir 5 .

I'm a dot . Pico Nero 3 link VR . @ 4k

Win 11 Pro 64Bit .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, KoN said:

Yes like i said 1080 or 3090 its all the same . Glad you agree with my statement . And the only difference is FPS .  

Your Quote About your statement of WWII guys "training" with black silhouettes, again don't be the foolish fool you already shown yourself to be, that has nothing, zero, anything, to do with what you actually see in the air, Wrong answer WWII gunners and pilots trained on black silhouettes . To ID friend or foe . And this still goes on today .

How did you know that they were F1 Mirages . Could you tell by their shape or maybe their black silhouettes . And of course they were there one minute gone the next , maybe speed has some thing to do with it . LOL . 

Don't own a PlayStation . 

Next time PM me . And ill tell you my background . lol . 

Nice rant by the way . 

Also look here . 

 

R.jpg

s-l1600 (1).jpg

 

I'm really glad you shared this. Thanks.

Like I said before, I am not trying to tell you or even suggest what your experience in DCS is.

I would not argue, and understand that you feel there is a problem with being able to reliably spot aircraft. Clearly you are experiencing it, so it is real. My contribution here is meant more to try and help. And it seems to me that it is at least possible some of the problem might be resulting from a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the information.

For example, lets say the silhouetted images you provided were meant to represent the various planes when viewed from 100 meters. A lot of the detail represented by the lines showing flaps and such would likely not be visible at just 300 meters. For certain we are not talking about distances in miles/km here, we are talking about distances measured in meters in terms of loosing that type of detail. 

And the other potential issue I see here are the frustrations that can easily build in this type of situation, especially in situations when our expectations don't match our experience. TBH, I can't say for sure whether there is a problem or not with the way DCS renders objects, but what I can say for sure is that there is nothing unusual for objects to disappear in their background, especially at distance.

You are not alone here, and my advice would be to not underestimate the level of difficulty in developing/improving something like situational awareness. In other words, even if there is a problem with the way DCS renders objects, don't be too hard on yourself. Loosing sight of your enemy is probably one of the greatest fears a fighter pilot has to manage, but it happens all the time.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The issue here as I understand it is not whether you can show what's inside your VR HMD, or the differences in visual perception between 1 and 2 minutes of arc! 

The issue is whether or not DCS is causing the player to loose sight of his opponent because it is rendering surface light incorrectly.

I'm not saying that it does, or it doesn't, but you claiming that a pilot could see a dot from 18 km away and say... it's a Cessna 172 is a fairly hefty load of the stuff coming out the South end of a bull facing North. 

But I think if you want to add anything meaningful to your argument that DCS is preventing WWII players from seeing their opponents, upload the image/s here that demonstrate the level of detail/surface light you are expecting at known distances of course so that we can compare that to what we are actually seeing in game.

Because so far, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence of this happening. I am not saying that it isn't happening, I just haven't seen it yet.

Your reading comprehension is low here. Nowhere do I claim aircraft of any sort can be identified at 18km. Quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KoN said:

Wrong answer WWII gunners and pilots trained on black silhouettes . To ID friend or foe . And this still goes on today .

How did you know that they were F1 Mirages . Could you tell by their shape or maybe their black silhouettes . And of course they were there one minute gone the next , maybe speed has some thing to do with it .

Yeah, they probably did, no pictures, no nothing, but they trained really hard!! I guess that's how they managed to shot down even aircraft that never existed in the first place, like Heinkels 70/100, for instance, or how friendly fire was so common you can actually see it in some gun cams on Youtube and they still sport labels of Bf109s when it's clearly a Spitfire/Hurricane, and so 😅.

I did know they were F1s because I know the model perfectly well as well as many others since I was a child 😉, a luxury they didn't have in the 40's I guess, specially on enemy planes. Besides, what else could it be in Spanish air space? They weren't Hornets, they weren't RF-4Cs (it wasn't yesterday I saw them), they weren't F-5Bs) 🤣. I didn't see a black dot as you think, they were grey but I clearly saw, and I remember, they looked darker grey than expected (I've seen then many times on ground close and personal either, you never think FS36320 or similar is any dark grey colour at all, but at FL370 they do look dark). Yes, speed makes a difference, obviously, but I spot the same many airliners in every travel I make, they don't look darker, or at least that darker, at all, bigger and white mostly of course, but they don't just disappear in front of you like that in the greyish haze horizon makes at that altitude. Remember they were four and speed also make you spot how they move against the ground, but no, in a matter of maybe a couple of seconds you don't see a thing, at all. I easily understood right away why it's called air superiority grey and why they stopped camouflaging fighters, grey is just a perfect camouflage for the environment 🤣 .

Let's put it in this way, in the simulator perspective and environment, have you seen for instance Glowing Sidewinder's dogfight videos where he explains tactics and everything? In that same situation according to my (single with fighters, right 😉) experience you shouldn't even see the other guy before merch at all, but people follow the black spot in the horizon easily, and not very different in video despite YT compression which usually makes it even worst.

My whole point being, sims in general, and even DCS despite some good realism in that for my taste, already eases the spotting compared to real life, yet people still complain about it… You tell me how camouflaged contacts should be, Christmas trees or something? 🤔


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am far from alone in this . Reddit and many many more threads go into detail about the Draw distance and spotting in Close combat with DCS . 

There are two other combat flight sims . Go try them . 

See what you think . 

Anyway its down to ED to make changes . And i feel it wont come . 

Below is a screen snap taken today . 

Can you see the green flare . ???

Can you see the aircraft that shot that green flare . ???? 

Screen_220501_191803.png

Gigabyte - X570 UD ~ Ryzen - 5600X @ 4.7 - Pulse - RX-6800 -  XPG 32:GB @ 3200 - VKB - Gunfighter 4 - STECs - Throttle - Crosswinds Rudders - Trackir 5 .

I'm a dot . Pico Nero 3 link VR . @ 4k

Win 11 Pro 64Bit .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Your reading comprehension is low here. Nowhere do I claim aircraft of any sort can be identified at 18km. Quite the opposite.

No you didn't, and my reading comprehension is perfectly fine I can assure you of that. My feeling is you are misleading the conversation, and I'm not sure it isn't being done on purpose. In a discussion where there already seems to be a fair bit of confusion/uncertainty, I don't see it as being very helpful.

For example, would the 1/2 meter long bamboo pole in your garden be visible at 2 km, or would you need to bind a bunch together so that the bound object has a 1/2 meter diameter as well? My apologies though if it wasn't intended.

The point is @=475FG= Dawger, I haven't seen anything presented in any of these discussions that supports the notion the LOD of objects is not accurately portrayed over distance. The impression I get from my own in-game experience is that it appears to be accurate. And regarding whether or not DCS is correctly rendering light is a more complex issue, but its being stated as if it is a well proven fact.

I know people have made suggestions on ways that can help/improve the players ability to spot/view their opponents, but that is not proof that the problem is with DCS. And I understand that you see objects disappear while using VR, but other VR users have also stated they aren't having a problem. So while there are obviously issues that seem to vary depending on the person reporting them, I am becoming more and more convinced that at least part of the problem might be a misunderstanding of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Now if you can actually show that DCS is rendering object brightness incorrectly, then I think you might be on to something. Otherwise your simply pointing to the fact that light is implicated in how well an object can be seen at any given distance. I am not saying that you are wrong, or that you can't show it, just pointing to the relevance here.

I don’t think it is “wrong” in the sense of physics - the end result is “wrong” after it is rendered and displayed on a pixelated screen.

Let me explain the way I understand this effect - it is not the absolute truth! Just my educated guess, so grab a fistful of salt.

First, there is the LOD of the 3D model - this is the number of polygons that it is made of. For each polygon a surface brightness is calculated, this may include directed light sources (e.g., Sun) and ambient light. Directed light can produce bright surfaces usually the top side of the plane, while surfaces not in direct sunlight (belly, underwing) can be much darker. There are absorption, reflection and scattering effects that are properties of the surface, but lets not get into this right now.

Now these surfaces are projected onto the screen pixels. If the pixels can resolve the LOD of the 3D model you will get a collection of dark and bright pixels, something that will tend to stand out to the eye. However, if the angular size means that multiple surfaces are projected onto the same screen pixel, the end result will be some weighted average of color and brightness (the exact result depends on methods used) - if you mix bright surfaces with dark ones, they will tend to cancel out and you will end with something similar to the brightness due to just ambient light.

In addition, if the 3D shape fills only a fraction of a screen pixel, this pixel’s brightness will include some weighing with the background - if this contrast is not enhanced by various methods, this effectively chips away pieces of the final visible pixel size of the target.

The case of targets at tiny angular size on the scale of a single pixel is a bit different. To save resources, the LOD of the 3D model is taken down to some minimum. Even with the smaller number of larger surfaces they are still projected onto a single pixel. The end brightness of this pixel will depend mostly on the various methods in use that mix the multiple projections. It seem this often results in a pixel darker than the background. I don’t know why, maybe “sharpen” effects create dark edges and the pixel is full of edges projected onto it?

The end result is that you spot a “dot” size plane, maybe a couple of pixels. If you zoom-in or get closer, object surfaces start to get resolved by the pixels, but just barely so - the mixing yields an average surface brightness that is near the ambient light brightness and the target “fades” - zoom in more and more surfaces are resolved by the pixels and this effect disappears. Zoom out and the target goes back to “dot” stage and is visible again.

So my take on the “disappearing” planes is that it is not due to wrong physics - it is due to rendering effects that are also not wrong. These are just the limits of pixelated screen images, and as such solutions will also be arbitrary in order to achieve a desired user experience rather than some simulated (non existing) physics.

I apologize for the length.

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KoN said:

I am far from alone in this . Reddit and many many more threads go into detail about the Draw distance and spotting in Close combat with DCS . 

There are two other combat flight sims . Go try them . 

See what you think . 

Anyway its down to ED to make changes . And i feel it wont come . 

Below is a screen snap taken today . 

Can you see the green flare . ???

Can you see the aircraft that shot that green flare . ???? 

Screen_220501_191803.png

Yes I can see the bright point of light from the flare, so that seems to be working as I would expect. I can't tell where, or if there is a plane there, but then as already mentioned, I don't think there is anything unusual there. Can you at least tell us the distance between your plane and the flare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bozon said:

I don’t think it is “wrong” in the sense of physics - the end result is “wrong” after it is rendered and displayed on a pixelated screen.

I was to say, but I forgot among such a quantity of messages, maybe somebody already mentioned it but didn't see. Since it apparently has to do with game engine, and they are rewriting everything for Vulkan, all shaders for sure, right? It might well happen that it definitely changes with the new rendering after all, which at the same time would make a lot more sense than trying to "fix" in the name of playability (not realism, from my POV) the current state of affairs.

 

1 hour ago, KoN said:

There are two other combat flight sims . Go try them

You mean "the other one" where contacts actually really just disappeared 300m away from you for years, perhaps? Yeah, let's try it and compare 😅 .

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally installed Reshade yesterday and fooled around with its settings. At least regarding ground details at distance the achievable effects are very significant.

I have not yet tested this on the spotting of distant planes though, so I can’t asses if this helps regarding the topics of our discussion - the initial tests are promising though.

  • Like 1

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 47 Minuten schrieb Bozon:

I finally installed Reshade yesterday and fooled around with its settings. At least regarding ground details at distance the achievable effects are very significant.

I have not yet tested this on the spotting of distant planes though, so I can’t asses if this helps regarding the topics of our discussion - the initial tests are promising though.

Im playing on an 4k widescreen monitor and also have trouble spotting planes when they are more than 2-3km away from me. Yesterday i played with Reshade and used the "cartoon" option. Now i can spot enemy planes at around 25-40km away. I also went from 2xMSAA to OFF MSAA.

 

If somebody wants i can show some srceenshots for comparison when im home from work.


Edited by ShikariAUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KoN said:

I am far from alone in this . Reddit and many many more threads go into detail about the Draw distance and spotting in Close combat with DCS . 

There are two other combat flight sims . Go try them . 

See what you think . 

Anyway its down to ED to make changes . And i feel it wont come . 

Below is a screen snap taken today . 

Can you see the green flare . ???

Can you see the aircraft that shot that green flare . ???? 

Screen_220501_191803.png

I can see the flare, but not the plane. But judging the distance to the flare, you should't be able to spot the plane at that distance. He is flying lower, and in the shadow of the cloud. 


Edited by Nirvi
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I was to say, but I forgot among such a quantity of messages, maybe somebody already mentioned it but didn't see. Since it apparently has to do with game engine, and they are rewriting everything for Vulkan, all shaders for sure, right? It might well happen that it definitely changes with the new rendering after all, which at the same time would make a lot more sense than trying to "fix" in the name of playability (not realism, from my POV) the current state of affairs.

 

You mean "the other one" where contacts actually really just disappeared 300m away from you for years, perhaps? Yeah, let's try it and compare 😅 .

??

Not sure which one you mean  ,. PM me 

Gigabyte - X570 UD ~ Ryzen - 5600X @ 4.7 - Pulse - RX-6800 -  XPG 32:GB @ 3200 - VKB - Gunfighter 4 - STECs - Throttle - Crosswinds Rudders - Trackir 5 .

I'm a dot . Pico Nero 3 link VR . @ 4k

Win 11 Pro 64Bit .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
On 4/28/2022 at 5:31 AM, KoN said:

The list of bugs is endless for WWII . 

More content coming out yet with no fixes or little input from ED . 

If I remember Flying Legends is a sponsor of DCS warbirds . Correct . 

Do a proper bug report, this is useless. We have been pumping out tones of bug fixes for WWII. Unless you specify a bug with the proper information we can't help you.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...