Jump to content

Better spotting (resolution and anti-aliasing independent)


Inf

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The problem with sprites is if they are even 3 pixels, which was the minimum size before, they’re too big. That size for a distant target is gigantic.

 

On 1080p, sure. On 1440p, 3px is still pretty damn hard to see. On 4k, 3px is still smaller than 1px on 1080.

This has to be adjusted for resolution, we should not be counting pixels here, it has to be relative to the resolution.

 

Here's a video somebody made, it's from 4 years ago, so it may be bit different today, but it shows the issue well:
 



TL-DW: viggen is clearly visible from 50+km on 1080p, but the same viggen was intermittently spotted at 9km on 1440p.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

On 1080p, sure. On 1440p, 3px is still pretty damn hard to see. On 4k, 3px is still smaller than 1px on 1080.

This has to be adjusted for resolution, we should not be counting pixels here, it has to be relative to the resolution.

Right, but then players would just lower their resolution to get bigger blobs on the screen and we would be back to encouraging lower resolution. Any “pixel sized” solution is going to have this dilemma. 


Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Right, but then players would just lower their resolution to get bigger blobs

If they lower their resolution, they get less pixels, don't they.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, do you think this should not get fixed?

First of all, it's not just the pixel size that's the problem, it's that AA washes it out, plus there are some other bugs that make the pixel intermittently disappear in certain ranges and zoom levels.

Only then we'll see how much effect the pixel density actually has.

As it is now, it's just unusable for me. All you have to do to win dogfight against me is to merge at mach 1 - after quarter turn, you just won't exist on my screen even if I was staring straight at you.

I can do some tests later today, but if it's anything like that video - 55km visual range in 1080p vs 9km visual range in 1440p, then I really fail to see how somebody could defend this state of things.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

If they lower their resolution, they get less pixels, don't they.

Right, less pixels but larger ones. So the pixel-sized sprites will appear bigger. That’s the problem right now with a 1 pixel sized dot and would be made worse with sprites as they’d be even more pixels. 

22 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, do you think this should not get fixed?

Of course I would like this to be better but I’m just not sure what the solution would be.

25 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

55km visual range in 1080p vs 9km visual range in 1440p, then I really fail to see how somebody could defend this state of things.

Agree this isn’t ideal. But sprites would (and did) make this even worse

  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Agree this isn’t ideal. But sprites would (and did) make this even worse

Worse for who?

For me, the current state of things is neither realistic, nor playable. Hard to see how this could get any worse. Well, maybe it could if I got a 4k display.

With properly sized sprites for different resolutions, zooms and distances the issue of "too big" of an airplane should not be a thing.

 

There's an alternative option: let's just temporarily put a 9km hard limit on render distance for anybody, including 1080p players, so that it's fair for two weeks.

Everybody will hate it, nobody will be able to dogfight, the stream of complaints will possibly crash the dcs forum, but you'll see the issue getting resolved pretty damn quick.


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

Worse for who?

“Worse” as far as realism is concerned. Because if you can just see targets with your eye at egregious range is sorta defeats the purpose of having radar. I’m not sure if you had the chance to try the sprite “model enlargement” when it was introduced a few years ago but it was pretty ridiculous.

Yes it was also player adjustable but that introduces the problem in multiplayer where it just becomes a divisive setting. Most all servers had it turned off.

15 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

With properly sized sprites for different resolutions, zooms and distances the issue of "too big" of an airplane should not be a thing.

I don’t think this is possible. Again a player could easily exploit this by changing their resolution and/or it would penalize higher resolutions or pixel density settings. 

17 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

Well, maybe it could if I got a 4k display.

I have a 4K screen and honestly DCS seems pretty normal or believable to me in this regard. I don’t see targets at ridiculous ranges but I can pick them up actually quite far away if I look hard enough. Kinda like reality. Seeing small distant aircraft is actually not easy IRL. I think games with their icons and such have led people to think this should be easier than it really would be. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because if you can just see targets with your eye at egregious range is sorta defeats the purpose of having radar.

And if you can't see the targets at all, that sorta defeats the purpose of playing this game.

Do you understand that I just can not do dogfighting with the current rendering? The game is unplayable, the Combat in Digital Combat Simulator just isn't implemented for my display, it fails to deliver, it refuses to work, it does not simulate the thing it's supposed to simulate.

 

The current rendering system does not allow for modern day dogfight on 1440p monitor with antialiasing.
 

I'm saying that the airplanes as they render now, they render too small on 1440p, and your counter is that they used to be way too big, therefore the current size is fine.

Then don't render it as huge at egregious range, render it as appropriately sized sprites at appropriate distance!

 

It's really not rocket science!

 

 

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think this is possible.

 

So, you agree that rendering the airplane too small is possible, that's what's happening today. Rendering the plane too large is also possible, that's what used to be the case when DCS had sprites.

 

But despite airplanes having the ability to be too large and too small, your belief is that having them in between is impossible? Why would that be?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

The current rendering system does not allow for modern day dogfight on 1440p monitor with antialiasing.

I get the impression that most players do not have this much trouble seeing targets realistically within what would be normal visual range. The topic has been discussed to death on these forums and honesty the furor seems to have died off. Meaning DCS must be kinda going in the right direction. 
Using a 4K screen should theoretically put me at a disadvantage compared to 1440p yet I can see WVR contacts fantastically well. I can make out their features to ID them or determine their aspect and so on. 
Some of the trouble you’re having may come from gameplay method such as not using the zoom view or realizing that DCS default FOV is really rather wide making everything very small. This requires some practice to get fluent with or adjusting it for your display and such. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to read that I am not alone with my gripes on aircraft spotting in DCS. I have a real life PPL and things, both air and ground, are much easier to spot in real life. In the game, spotting things is unrealistically difficult and I really hope that we can have an elegant solution to this problem implemented sooner rather than later.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

the furor seems to have died off

So, either it magically fixed itself without anybody doing anything about it, or the users who just weren't being listened to for years possible either dropped their resolution, or moved on from WVR combat or moved on from DCS period.

People aren't going to sit around and complain forever only to be ignored and accused of having skill issues.

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can see WVR contacts fantastically well

You see targets 10 miles away?

Ok, either you're an exception, or this issue possibly doesn't affect 4k as much as it was predicted, or something else is at play.

 

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Some of the trouble you’re having may come from gameplay method such as not using the zoom view or realizing that DCS default FOV is really rather wide

 

No, it's not a skill issue, the thing does not render!!!

 

The problem we're having in this discussion is that you just straight up don't believe me.

 

I'll take some screenshots in the evening and see what's the limit in 1440p.

 


 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

I am happy to read that I am not alone with my gripes on aircraft spotting in DCS. I have a real life PPL and things, both air and ground, are much easier to spot in real life. In the game, spotting things is unrealistically difficult and I really hope that we can have an elegant solution to this problem implemented sooner rather than later.

Don't hold your breath, this has been broken for years, and with the current sentiment of pure denial, it doesn't seem to be moving anywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

You see targets 10 miles away?

I can see modern fighter sized aircraft sometimes out to 15 mi but just barely. And I’d have to know right where to look and the conditions such as contrast and such is a factor. That’s how it would be in reality. You could not expect to see something like that easily IRL. There are studies of this stuff I’m sure somebody can post if this goes on long enough. The realistic range is a lot shorter than players seem to think it is. A high aspect, nose-on MiG-21 for example is just a fast moving speck. Unless you knew right where to look in reality you’d never see it until it was very close. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

What distance does it become a single pixel?

Can you see a single pixel on 4k?

In 4K it would be a single pixel at such a range you’d no longer be able to see it IRL. At 15mi they’re already several pixels in size. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In 4K it would be a single pixel at such a range you’d no longer be able to see it IRL. At 15mi they’re already several pixels in size. 

I strongly believe that the size/pixel size is not the real issue here, but more likely, things like steadiness of vision, contrast, pixel-soup, depth-perception/parallax etc. … in short optical properties that suffer, when emulated on a display with finite colors and resolution. 

No way to do justice to reality.

  • Like 2

"Muß ich denn jedes Mal, wenn ich sauge oder saugblase den Schlauchstecker in die Schlauchnut schieben?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JCTherik said:

What distance does it become a single pixel?

Can you see a single pixel on 4k?

The answer isn't a simple yes or no.

It would depend on the screen size.

I can't see a single pixel on 4k on my 27" at work at a regular distance. (don't think I can at home either on a 30"), but that aside its only a matter of size until I can.... How big? I don't know, but I'm guessing you could on a 50" if you were sitting on top of it.

I can however see a single 4k pixel on a 27" up close so its not quite eye resolution at 4k. I'm guessing 8k would solve that as I can just make them out at 4k.

I think it will be a while before we're 8k gaming en masse though, especially in VR which is just handling 2k at the moment. 8k VR will be the grail. I've already pre-ordered my 22'nd gen Intel and 90090 ti

When the 3d model gets clipped to a single pixel, couldn't they just calculate how many extra pixels (4 in a square or 16 for 8k) to display?

I understand (as a developer) why the sprite would be difficult to calculate size based on distance.


Edited by trevoC
  • Like 1

AMD 7900x3D | Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero | 64GB DC DDR5 6400 Ram | MSI Suprim RTX 4090 Liquid X | 2 x Kingston Fury 4TB Gen4 NVME | Corsair HX1500i PSU | NZXT H7 Flow | Liquid Cooled CPU & GPU | HP Reverb G2 | LG 48" 4K OLED | Winwing HOTAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

What distance does it become a single pixel?

Can you see a single pixel on 4k?

This is the Hornet BVR 8v8 mission. I could actually start seeing the bandits at almost 30 miles as single 4K pixels but they are literally just dust specks, not something you could hope to find without the shoot cue on them and they're all in a group too which makes that easier. At about 16 miles they become distinct enough that I could look away and still require them if they're like this guy moving against the clouds and diving showing me the top-down view, I can see his wings and make out his aspect. Admittedly I'm looking at the best display available today, a 48" 4K OLED 😁 the results from an LCD would be similar but of course not as good as this. But the point is that they do render.

Screen_221027_125110.jpg

Screen_221027_125118.jpg

  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I did some test and to my surprise, it's actually visible much more than I expected.

This is absolute perfect conditions, blue skies above sea, 7k altitude, 34 inch 1440p OLED monitor.

So, to my surprise, yes, they do actually render up to 27 miles, didn't test more.

 

I have 12 airplanes, distances are about:

1
1.7
3.1
5.8
8.5
11.2
14
16.6
19.37
22
24.8
27.5

 

Everything done with a paused game, still image, no trackIR, using mouse to change view, knowing exactly where they are.

 

Max zoom, eyeballs 10cm off the screen:

I could find all lof them.

The last 3 are extremely, extremely hard to spot, I have to give my eyes a few seconds to adjust to the brightness differences, and like faint stars, I can not look at them directly.

Max zoom, regular viewing distance from monitor:

I can see 14 miles when directly looking, and some sprinkles past it that I can only see in periferal vision, but not when looking at them directly.

With a lesser but still very high zoom, roughly hud sized

I can clearly see 3 miles with a faint dot on 5.8 miles.

With zoom in such a way that I see bottom of MFDs and top of the HUD in F16:

1.7 miles, very faint dot on 3.1

Full zoom-out:

Dot on 1 mile, faint dot on 1.7 mile.

I had to crop the images due to the size limit.

The first is full zoom, the third one is zoomed to the HUD size, the second one is zoomed so that I see both the MFDs and the HUD.

 

So, in a realistic scenario, I could zoom in as far as seeing both MDFs and a hud. Anything past that, the TrackIR becomes too sensitive and jittery, and I won't see anything.

Which means, my effective spotting distance would be about 3 miles, in perfect visual conditions, I could perhaps just about get some glimpses of a dot.

 

3 miles is just about the distance of 2 airplanes in a 2-circle. If there's a cloud, terrain, or the TrackIR moves in an unexpected way, I lose sight.

 

image.png

image.png

image.png


Edited by JCTherik
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just setup a webcam to monitor your face.

When you squint your eyes have an eye tracker zoom into the portion of the screen you are looking at, the more you squint, the more zoom.

see... easy. 🙂

  • Like 2

AMD 7900x3D | Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero | 64GB DC DDR5 6400 Ram | MSI Suprim RTX 4090 Liquid X | 2 x Kingston Fury 4TB Gen4 NVME | Corsair HX1500i PSU | NZXT H7 Flow | Liquid Cooled CPU & GPU | HP Reverb G2 | LG 48" 4K OLED | Winwing HOTAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, Orwell said:

So is sitting in a dark room with a Track IR on your head. 

   We're not in real aircraft, but the game is intended to represent them.

On 10/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, Orwell said:

"Unrealistic" is such a silly thing to say.

  You're in the wrong community with that approach, tbh. Striving for realism is indeed the objective of a simulation.

On 10/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, Orwell said:

IRL, you can SEE aircraft at large distances.

  You can here, too.

On 10/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, Orwell said:

In game, you cannot.

  Yes, you can, by using the tools available to you which exist specifically to compensate for these shortcomings.

On 10/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, Orwell said:

So the GAME is already "Unrealistic."

  So clearly because it's not real life, we just throw the whole exercise out the window, Jesus @@

 

  People create their own issues 90% of the time by being inflexible. Your 24'' monitor three feet in front of you, zoomed out so you can see the majority of your cockpit, is not representative of what you would see in real life. All bs aside, you need to adjust your field of view for the task at hand. If your fiddling with your cockpit instruments, lamding, etc you need to be zoomed out for more visibility and more instrumentation. When you're scanning the horizon for distant contacts, you don't need to be able to see your feet while doing so, so adjust your FoV to something more ''realistic'' scalewise and suddenly you'll notice everything is, shockingly, easier to see. This isn't ''cheating'' it's not ''unrealistic'' it's shifting from a fisheyed high fov for convenience to a more appropriate one representative of what you'd actually see. Failure to make use of this tool which has existed in every sim since the early 90's is unintuitive, obstinate, and backwards, but not indicative of a failure of the game engine.

That said, things to improve visibility, contrast, and LoDs are always welcome (and many of the most glaring issues are related to improper LoDs) but people act like this is some impossible hurdle and blaming their monitor resolution is among the most asinine nonsense to ever wander across a gaming forum.

  • Like 2

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Black_Dynamite said:

I have a real life PPL and things, both air and ground, are much easier to spot in real life. In the game, spotting things is unrealistically difficult...

Did you at least give your monitor a chance to display the same object sizes as IRL?

It is always the same - users blaming the game on visibility problems while displaying whole cockpit in a frame in front of them, expecting the same visuals as IRL with over 180 degrees view. Either accept hardware shortcomings or use the available tools like zoom and labels.

Additional effects are welcome but it also won't be a game changer - you can't rely on a single glint once a while exactly where you're looking.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, draconus said:

Either accept hardware shortcomings or use the available tools like zoom and labels.

Ok, tell me how do I zoom in and keep track of the enemy in merge? The more you zoom in, the more jiggly the trackir is,  and past a certain point, it's not possible to keep track of moving target while you're yourself maneuvering.

I guess we're just plain not getting anywhere in this discussion, WVR will still continue to be unplayable for most people who will either leave or do the ridiculous thing and buy a 1080p monitor, add reshade and drop their graphics, so that antialiasing isn't bluring out the pixels.

 

Or, I use, as you suggest, labels.

Wait, what are those labels you're talking about? Have you ever seen labels in real life? I thought you want realism.

Aren't they kind of like sprites? Yes they are, except they are implemented badly, they have text and color and they are visible even when the airplane is under me. How about a greyscale dot as a label that disappears if I don't have a line of sight?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JCTherik I can tell you that before I went VR I used fixed fov around 60 degrees with 27" FullHD monitor and custom trackIR to have something resembling real fov (real objects sizes). It's probably unacceptable view for most pilots but it worked for me very well and there was no problem following targets while maneuvering, which is a skill of its own, mind you, not at all natural. VR makes tracking and seeing much better even when quality is awful compared to monitors.

Thousands of users fight in DCS every day so I don't know where do you get your "unplayable for most" from. And no, rarely 1080p w/o AA these days.

By labels I meant either full ones if you wish or the black dots only. They are visible through the cockpit, I know, but that's not a topic of this thread. You're not interested in realism anyway so why does it bugs you?

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, draconus said:

You're not interested in realism anyway

I'm very much interested in realism, it's just a difference of what we're considering realism to be.

Your approach is that it should be realistic in terms of process. Turn your head around by tilting your head a little and let trackIR amplify that movement. Then focus into a distance by moving the zoom slider.

 

None of this is realistic, but it is simulating a real world process.

 

What I'm interested in is a realism of difficulty. In real world, I don't need to focus into a distance to catch a glimpse of an airplane that's 3 miles away. I don't need to fight trackir jitter, I don't need to tilt my entire head to follow the airplane, and the airplane isn't made out of a tiny pixel that's jumping from position to position 60 or 144 times per second. In real world, people are using their actual eyeballs to track an actual object, and as multiple people here report and as common sense would suggest, it is much easier to do this in real world than in DCS.

Therefore, for me, DCS is not realistic in terms of experience.

And I'd argue that DCS is going more for the realism of difficulty, not the realism of process. An example of this would be key bindings. In the real airplane, you cannot keybind a switch into a convenient position. Why is it allowed in DCS then? Why aren't we moving every single switch including the throttle, stick and pedals with our mouse only? That's because we want a realism of difficulty, not realism of process.

 


Edited by JCTherik
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JCTherik said:

I'm very much interested in realism, it's just a difference of what we're considering realism to be.

I believe that's such a good point - and too seldom discussed. We all attach our own meaning/interpretation to words like 'realism', and (worse) we also assume this definition to be correct. Worst, we expect that everyone else uses that same definition. Since we rarely ensure that everyone agrees to the meaning that we ourselves attach to terms, we often engage in spirited, yet ultimately pointless debates.

I think that being enthusiastic DCS players (being in this forum has a strong pre-selection bias) I can safely assert that the majority here is interested in a high level of "realism". However, being a pastime, everyone also understands implicitly that we mean realism as it applies to DCS; it must not go too far: for example, it would be very realistic if we had to purchase (at full price) a new model every time that we crashed the last one or got shot down. After all, that's what happens in RL. Nobody (with the possible exception of ED 🙂 ) would want that, so in DCS we gladly disregard significant breaks with reality in exchange for better playability. "Reality" per se and "realism wrt DCS" are quite different beasts; we don't want realism just for the sake of realism.   

The question therefore is: where to draw the line between "true realism" and "game realism" - when we have to choose between playability and realism, which do we prefer? And where we draw that line is quite personal; yet many people (me included) project their own likes/dislikes on the rest of the community; we assume that their preference is the same ours, quite falsely concluding that everyone's definition of "realism" is congruent with our own.

With respect to spotting/visibility of other planes I believe we all are looking for a solution that re-creates reality as closely as possible without negatively impacting playability nor balance. I believe there's a majority consensus that DCS currently does not faithfully re-create reality in this respect. There isn't, however, sufficient agreement to the root cause, much less on how to resolve this (which will have to come from ED). Personally, I have no idea if ED can resolve this; the disparity in technology used across DCS installations is too great: relatively lo-res VR versus Track-IR assisted 4k versus multiple monitors is but one of the many challenges, and it virtually guarantees that any proposed solution will have members of the other factions cry 'foul!'. 

Man, what a great situation to be in! No - seriously. Being able to earnestly engage in such a discussion is a rare privilege and show just how far DCS has come. I don't know how this will be resolved, but I'm looking forward to all proposals!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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