Jump to content

Better spotting (resolution and anti-aliasing independent)


Inf

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JCTherik said:

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.

Watch some gameplay or tutorial videos. It’s not necessary to zoom in so much when looking at such a close target. TrackIR can be adjusted as well. 

2 hours ago, JCTherik said:

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.

Well this is a PC game, not reality. Something you just have to deal with.

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

15 minutes ago, cfrag said:

The question therefore is: where to draw the line between "true realism" and "game realism"

That's the age old question. I personally think that rather than trying to recreate reality, we should strive to recreate professional training simulators - ie. instant respawn should definitely continue to be a thing, and players should be hopefully learning similar skills as in real simulators, and required skills that are only specific to the hardware limitations of simulators should be minimized.

That's my opinion. If majority of people have differing opinion of what realistic means I guess I'll just have to live with this and probably stick to aerobatics, cause I don't see a thing, especially not when high up and looking down.

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this is a PC game, not reality. Something you just have to deal with.

Well, we could bring it closer to reality by making realistically difficult to see the planes, instead of trying to match the trigonometry of the apparent sizes of objects.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

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.

I don't disagree with your points, but as universal and important as zoom is in a flight sim, I'd rather ditch it in favor of something else. Ideally I would want a realistic FoV at all times while also being able to see objects at the correct distance and in realistic detail. I think we have room for options besides zoom.

3 hours ago, draconus said:

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.

We can, and should, also ask for additional or better tools if they come along, or if people think of them. In fact I'd consider that part of accepting hardware shortcomings - that a sim may not work totally 1:1 with reality, as long as the resulting experience tries to emulate 1:1 reality, when technical limitations are present.

41 minutes ago, cfrag said:

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.

Yes, somethings can be difficult to simulate. People may come up with many approaches on how to overcome the difficulty, but they probably all have their own strengths and flaws. Asking which is best or trying to force only one solution can be counterproductive in this situation as the answer may even be massively subjective.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

That's my opinion. If majority of people have differing opinion of what realistic means I guess I'll just have to live with this and probably stick to aerobatics, cause I don't see a thing, especially not when high up and looking down.

The funny thing is you just said in your other post that you can actually see stuff. Then you say that you “can’t” when dogfighting. Situational awareness is a skill. It’s something real fighter pilots need to train at and be taught. Same in the game here. Try watching some replays of your action and realize how you missed seeing things. You’ll be surprised. In many cases that “invisible” bandit was actually visible, you just lost track of them etc. 

50 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Ideally I would want a realistic FoV at all times while also being able to see objects at the correct distance and in realistic detail. I think we have room for options besides zoom.

You realize a “realistic” FOV would actually be very narrow, something like 20d. So what your asking isn’t really feasible. Seeing distant targets in a wide FOV necessitates making them artificially gigantic. Which was the problem with the old “model engorgement” 

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

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The funny thing is you just said in your other post that you can actually see stuff.

I can see stuff if I pause the game and look where I think they should be, at 7k feet, still image, no trackir. If I start panning the screen - as trackir would, with less than maximum zoom, 5 miles is probably about an optimistic maximum, even at altitude. Over terrain, more like 1 mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

5 miles is probably about an optimistic maximum, even at altitude. Over terrain, more like 1 mile.

You realize that’s actually realistic. Seeing very distant contacts is only possible under good conditions and knowing where to look etc. simply spotting something up is a product of ability, skill, luck etc. 

  • 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

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

You realize a “realistic” FOV would actually be very narrow, something like 20d. So what your asking isn’t really feasible. Seeing distant targets in a wide FOV necessitates making them artificially gigantic. Which was the problem with the old “model engorgement” 

I can see beyond 20 degrees, so not really, and you're not even taking monitor size into account. Enlarged models are a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for more realistic spotting, so I don't really care if the model sizes aren't technically correct.

  • Like 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Enlarged models are a perfectly acceptable tradeoff for more realistic spotting, so I don't really care if the model sizes aren't technically correct.

Well ED apparently disagrees because that idea was scrapped. Turns out most players did actually care about model sizes. 

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

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Well ED apparently disagrees because that idea was scrapped. Turns out most players did actually care about model sizes. 

OK, and the concept was good enough that it or something similar is being requested again.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I can see beyond 20 degrees, so not really, and you're not even taking monitor size into account.

If “realistic” means seeing everything on your screen at its actual angular size, for the typical monitor that would mean zooming in quite a bit. Far more narrow than would be comfortable for a flight sim. Racing sim players actually do this because it affects their perception of speed but the resulting FOV is too narrow for a game like this. Plus they’re probably using triple screens. 

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

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

OK, and the concept was good enough that it or something similar is being requested again.

Not by most people. I wouldn’t expect ED to revisit the idea. It was boondoggle.

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, JCTherik said:

Ok, put the model engorgement on a slider, like the FOV.

It had a couple of size options originally, but yeah more control like a slider would be a nice improvement. With so many resolutions, monitor sizes, etc, I think just having 2-3 size options wasn't enough.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JCTherik said:

Ok, put the model engorgement on a slider, like the FOV.

Did you ever try the feature? It had 3 settings, small medium and large. I think they were 3, 8 or 12 pixels, something like that. So part of the problem is that nobody will be able to agree on which setting is realistic or preferred. Of course because that’s just personal taste, hardware etc. But it then divides up multiplayer which is already small and divided. It just isn’t workable in that regard. If there is any solution, it shouldn’t be player-adjustable. For that reason. Otherwise servers will just turn it off. And there aren’t enough players online in this game to give everyone a choice. 

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

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If there is any solution, it shouldn’t be player-adjustable.

But the current solution is already player-adjustable, which is where the problem comes from.

Wanna see better? Just buy a 50 inch 720p screen, put graphics on minimum, add a hefty reshade and disable antialiasing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately no solution will be "fair" for multiplayer as a persons hardware can always dictate an advantage over another.

I think we should be shooting for what is most realistic and let the multiplayer cards fall where they may. Someone with a 105" 16k screen is always going to see an advantage over my 80's era green screen 320x180. Thats just life.

Also... I get 740 fps on my 3090 at 320x180 with 1 color 🙂


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

21 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

But the current solution is already player-adjustable, which is where the problem comes from.

Wanna see better? Just buy a 50 inch 720p screen, put graphics on minimum, add a hefty reshade and disable antialiasing.

 

That’s not really the same thing…

Plus if someone literally changed their settings like that they are simply trading one “advantage” for another. And turning off AA or having low res isn’t really an “advantage” if you ask me. It might seem to help in a limited circumstance but hurts you most anywhere else. 


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

17 hours ago, trevoC said:

Unfortunately no solution will be "fair" for multiplayer as a persons hardware can always dictate an advantage over another.

  That's true, too. Fair only really exists in very specific games designed with that in mind and literally nowhere else in reality.

  • Like 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 1:56 PM, cfrag said:

...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.

It's not about interpretation of realism. Some people don't get simple concept of what is simulation. "If you want realism uninstall DCS if you crash the aircraft" - I hear that argument a lot.

🖥️ 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

1 hour ago, draconus said:

It's not about interpretation of realism. Some people don't get simple concept of what is simulation. "If you want realism uninstall DCS if you crash the aircraft" - I hear that argument a lot.

Indeed - an astute and important observation. IMHO, the issue often is that many people don‘t understand that simulation and realism are near-disjunct sets and that many people believe that they are meaningfully intertwined. They often aren’t. Problems arise when people start to mistake one for the other or grade the quality of a simulation based on how realistic it is. Many people don‘t understand that for most simulations, realism is *not* the defining quality yardstick. Example: the game DCS. Playability is the mark of quality here, realism always plays second fiddle. As obvious as this fact is to anyone who has to sell stuff, it‘s seemingly disputed by many who have purchased it. An interesting conundrum.

 


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

  • 4 months later...

Although im late to the party, i think there is a fundamental difference that makes spotting difficult w trackir. Our eyes move in saccades. And part of that movement is predictive based on what our vestibular system is telling our brain. In trackir, you have to move the eyes Opposite to what we do all the time IRL just so we can see the flat screen. This totally messes up how the brain stitches the images together. And also the eyeball muscles instead of keeping the bogey fixed on the same spot on the retina, now have to keep the eyeball fixed on the screen. As a result you have to constantly engage a new and different part of your retina .  In addition this cockeyed motion often puts the blind spot (the part of the eyebal where the optic nerve enters) right into the trajectory of the bogey. We literally do not see it. Vr avoids this but until recently had its own burdens (poor peripheral focus due to the lenses, screen door,limited resolution)

 

To help tracking we should be able to lock the camera onto the target once we designate it. This lock would eliminate the unnatural eye movement necessary but also would not be unrealistic because we are not changing the rendering 

4930K @ 4.5, 32g ram, TitanPascal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skypickle said:

To help tracking we should be able to lock the camera onto the target once we designate it.

This is what the Padlock command does. Of course it’s not realistic either and you’ll probably find it disabled in MP

The rest of your analysis seems a bit farfetched. Are you a physician or optometrist? What you’re trying to say in so many words is you can’t see the target because it’s moving. That doesn’t make sense because of course you can see moving objects, arguably more easily than still ones. 


Edited by SharpeXB

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 no graphics expert. I do though think we need something that will work with all resolutions.  I can say that the fact sprites failed in the past isn't really a good argument against using them now, however the reason they failed might be a good argument. 

So if the failure was something inherent with Sprites that cannot be fixed, then it would be a bad idea. However that would still leave us with the question how to fix DCS so that things are visible at a realistic distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I am no graphics expert. I do though think we need something that will work with all resolutions.  I can say that the fact sprites failed in the past isn't really a good argument against using them now, however the reason they failed might be a good argument. 

So if the failure was something inherent with Sprites that cannot be fixed, then it would be a bad idea. However that would still leave us with the question how to fix DCS so that things are visible at a realistic distance.

Its not a possible task to make this infinitely fair. One method begets the next and no method will be all-encompassing. You are just going to have to live with that fact.

  • 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

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I can say that the fact sprites failed in the past isn't really a good argument against using them now, however the reason they failed might be a good argument. 

This doesn’t make any sense… you’re contradicting yourself. The reason they didn’t work in the past is still the same reason they wouldn’t be a good solution now. Nothing has changed in this regard. 

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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