Better spotting (resolution and anti-aliasing independent)

[trevoC]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

Agreed

[cfrag]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The reason they didn’t work in the past is still the same reason they wouldn’t be a good solution now.

I believe that that is not what @upyr1 said nor intended. If we can work past (eliminate) or around the reason why it did not the first time, it may work on the second or third attempt. Just like with heavier than air flying devices   - it may work eventually if we use different approaches. 

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, trevoC said:

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.

I know however the issue is what is the best method to render distant objects. Multiple methods might work. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by upyr1

[trevoC]

37 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I know however the issue is what is the best method to render distant objects. Multiple methods might work. 

 

Best for whom? Thats the problem.

[upyr1]

13 minutes ago, trevoC said:

Best for whom? Thats the problem.

 

I  don't know which is why I said multiple approaches might work- as it needs to scale but not take up crazy resources 

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

 

I am trying to figure out if you didn't read the second part or simply failed to grasp the whole post, either one is possible. The second part I wrote the following

23 hours ago, upyr1 said:

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.

 

I hope I can break things down in a way that you can understand. Reading the posts the basic problem with sprites in 2.0 is that they were too big and the problem with the current system is it is too small when running DCS had higher resolutions. While you might be right sprite technology hasn't changed, you still have to account for changes in other technology.

For starters, what resolution did most people play DCS at back when 2.0 came out and what resolution do they play at right now?

Next, why were the sprites too big back then?

and lastly, if we are using higher resolutions than back then how will the sprites look at these newer resolutions?

I admit I don't know the answer to either of these questions. What I do though know is that before shooting down the idea of bringing back sprites, it is vital to understand why they didn't work as well as why did they consider using them in the first place.

So there are three main reasons I could see that caused the sprites to fail.

• Sprites weren't properly implemented and they could be fixed but ED decided not to do so. 
• Sprites didn't work well with the technology of the day and might work with modern technology. 
• the problem was inherent with sprites and they will never work in DCS.

I don't pretend I know why they failed I also don't pretend to know the best solution. The best I can do is speculate 

 

 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

...how will the sprites look at these newer resolutions?

They will be wrong, always, at whatever resolution and the whole concept was only applicable to some niche old a2a "sim", it'd introduce errors for modern realistic graphic engine.

Unless all players use the same hardware in the same way there will never be equality in visibilty.

If there are any problems with current rendering they'll have to be reported in the proper subforum.

[upyr1]

17 minutes ago, draconus said:

They will be wrong, always, at whatever resolution and the whole concept was only applicable to some niche old a2a "sim", it'd introduce errors for modern realistic graphic engine.

Would you mind explaining why they will always be wrong for a modern sim?

I never said that sprites would be the right choice for DCS I simply said you can't eliminate them without knowing the reason that they failed. Was it something inherent with sprites that could never be fixed or something else ? I simply don't know if you know then please explain the issue?

 

17 minutes ago, draconus said:

Unless all players use the same hardware in the same way there will never be equality in visibilty.

True there is no perfect answer. However the question is what is the best answer? The question is what will make things visible at at realistic ranges for the most players with minimal effort on the part of Eagle ?

I don't know the answer and even if I knew it today it doesn't mean I will know it tomorrow. Perhaps the best answer is multiple choices perhahps not. I don't know. 

17 minutes ago, draconus said:

If there are any problems with current rendering they'll have to be reported in the proper subforum.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

On 3/17/2023 at 8:50 AM, upyr1 said:

So if the failure was something inherent with Sprites that cannot be fixed, then it would be a bad idea.

Indeed this is the case. The reason they were not a good solution is inherent in the whole idea. Did you have DCS back when they were tried? The problem with a sprite is that it’s pixel-sized so it will represent itself at different sizes on different screen resolutions. As the topic title says, a resolution independent solution is ideal. So sprites aren’t the solution. 

8 hours ago, cfrag said:

If we can work past (eliminate) or around the reason why it did not the first time, it may work on the second or third attempt.

Again the reason they weren’t a good solution is inherent in the whole concept. Did you ever try them?

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

For starters, what resolution did most people play DCS at back when 2.0 came out and what resolution do they play at right now?

Just about the same thing we have now. Maybe a slightly higher number of 4K displays.

I don’t think VR was as prevalent back when the sprites were tried. Since VR uses larger pixel density settings, that would reduce the size of the sprites, penalizing higher values. So sprites are an even worse solution today. 

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Next, why were the sprites too big back then?

Simple. Even a single pixel for a distant target is actually gigantic. Let alone using 3-12 like the old system. 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Indeed this is the case. The reason they were not a good solution is inherent in the whole idea. Did you have DCS back when they were tried? The problem with a sprite is that it’s pixel-sized so it will represent itself at different sizes on different screen resolutions. As the topic title says, a resolution independent solution is ideal. So sprites aren’t the solution. 

 

 

 

 I just know people in this thread were saying they were too big back then and some people were suggesting them. As stated I am going from a position of ignorance about sprites however I do know screen resolutions have increased so I could see the proponents suggesting them expecting the reduced space between the pixels would result in sprites working out. I just wanted the opponents to spell out the problem.

Edited March 18, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Just about the same thing we have now. Maybe a slightly higher number of 4K displays.

 

 

Mind telling me where you got your stats about the monitor resolutions? Also, I will point out that you just stated the reason people are advocating for the old system. Next you actually have brought up the reason people are adovaciting for sprites in your posts in your first post you say that 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Even a single pixel for a distant target is actually gigantic. Let alone using 3-12 like the old system. 

 

Now in your second you state

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Since VR uses larger pixel density settings, that would reduce the size of the sprites, penalizing higher values. So sprites are an even worse solution today. 

 

 

The people advocating for sprites think that displaying that was too big because of pixel count might look right had a higher pixel density. 

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

 I just know people in this thread were saying they were too big back then and some people were suggesting them. As stated I am going from a position of ignorance about sprites however I do know screen resolutions have increased so I could see the proponents suggesting them expecting the reduced space between the pixels would result in sprites working out. I just wanted the opponents to spell out the problem.

 

The “Model Enlargement” feature worked by placing a sprite over the 3D model when it dropped below a certain size. The sprite was a 2D image of the aircraft shown at 3, 8 or 12 pixels corresponding to Small Medium or Large setting IIRC. You can see the problem here already in that 12 pixels at 1080p is gigantic whereas 3 pixels at 2160p is quite small. What was discovered was that any size of sprite made distant targets extremely visible, making a truck the size of a skyscraper for example. The system could be gamed by players to the point that radar was unnecessary.

There really isn’t any way that this could be made to work fairly or realistically. The ability for players to choose a size has to be there since people all have different screens yet allowing players to choose the size of their opponents in multiplayer clearly isn’t fair. Servers would have to just disable the feature. 

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Mind telling me where you got your stats about the monitor resolutions?

Just a best guess. Typical monitor resolutions have remained similar form many years ie typically 1080, 1440 or 2160p. ED actually did a poll on this years ago. Maybe it’s still on here somewhere. I’m sure they can tell from game telemetry what players are actually using. It doesn’t matter much because any visibility system should work fairly for all players no matter the mix. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

. You can see the problem here already in that 12 pixels at 1080p is gigantic whereas 3 pixels at 2160p is quite small.

This is why I think scaling ultimately has to be based on your settings. 12 pixels at 1080 might be huge but 12 pixels at 4k might look right and 3 pixels at 1080 might look right as well. So whatever is used IMHO needs to figure out the proper pixel count for your resolution 

[draconus]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

So whatever is used IMHO needs to figure out the proper pixel count for your resolution 

The engine already does that. It takes your resolution and fov and decides how many pixels are needed to draw the object with proper angular size.

Scaling otoh would make the object larger than it should be in the name of gaming but we already have labels for that.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

This is why I think scaling ultimately has to be based on your settings. 12 pixels at 1080 might be huge but 12 pixels at 4k might look right and 3 pixels at 1080 might look right as well. So whatever is used IMHO needs to figure out the proper pixel count for your resolution 

But then the system can just be exploited by changing your resolution. That method also encourages players to actually turn their resolution down. You shouldn’t have to make the game look terrible in order to be competitive. 

[trevoC]

even 1 pixel is too big. It garners an advantage for those running lower resolutions.

Imagine (exaggerated for effect) a 50" screen running at 720p... apple sized pixels... you can see a fighter as soon as it appears.

On the flip side if you are running super high res 8k, you can't even see a single pixel.

This makes those who are playing competitively who are running a lower res monitor have an advantage.

On the flip side if you just render aircraft at proper distances, those with higher resolution monitors in theory have an advantage, but I believe its the better system as although a single pixel on a low res monitor is less pixels than 4 pixels on a monitor with double the res, if the monitors are the same size the viewable aircraft is the same size.

But then of course those running larger monitors have an advantage over those running smaller monitors.

There is NO SOLUTION as long as players are buying different hardware.

Its the whole idea behind homologation in motorsports for instance.

There is no way around this unless you have standard hardware which would be ridiculous.

Like everything else in this world (including all games as you can gain an advantage with buying better hardware), people can gain an advantage with purchasing better hardware.

IMO, eff FAIR. Make the sim realistic (no sprites, proper render distance and they appear when they appear). If you are focused on some advantage for MP, then go nuts. I'm focused on a realistic experience and know that as in real life, some advantages will exist for some.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, trevoC said:

Like everything else in this world (including all games as you can gain an advantage with buying better hardware), people can gain an advantage with purchasing better hardware.

It’s more logical that the game should favor better hardware than the reverse though. 

[SMH]

34 minutes ago, trevoC said:

even 1 pixel is too big. It garners an advantage for those running lower resolutions.

Imagine (exaggerated for effect) a 50" screen running at 720p... apple sized pixels... you can see a fighter as soon as it appears.

On the flip side if you are running super high res 8k, you can't even see a single pixel.

This makes those who are playing competitively who are running a lower res monitor have an advantage.

On the flip side if you just render aircraft at proper distances, those with higher resolution monitors in theory have an advantage, but I believe its the better system as although a single pixel on a low res monitor is less pixels than 4 pixels on a monitor with double the res, if the monitors are the same size the viewable aircraft is the same size.

But then of course those running larger monitors have an advantage over those running smaller monitors.

There is NO SOLUTION as long as players are buying different hardware.

Its the whole idea behind homologation in motorsports for instance.

There is no way around this unless you have standard hardware which would be ridiculous.

Like everything else in this world (including all games as you can gain an advantage with buying better hardware), people can gain an advantage with purchasing better hardware.

IMO, eff FAIR. Make the sim realistic (no sprites, proper render distance and they appear when they appear). If you are focused on some advantage for MP, then go nuts. I'm focused on a realistic experience and know that as in real life, some advantages will exist for some.

100% correct. One thing I'd add... while there's no rule you have to do it this way, I'd say that bigger displays should be used to give you a wider FoV, not to unrealistically magnify the scene (though, yes, we can always zoom in when we need to). I go to some effort to standardize the FoVs in all my DCS aircraft (a major pain as you have to edit the SnapViews.lua to do it) and set them to a value so that apparent size matches the apparent size you'd see in reality. (A good quick/rough check for this is hold your fist out in front of you like you're holding a stick. Does it roughly match the size of the virtual pilot's fist? If so you're close. But a bit of measuring and simple trigonometry should get you there as well.)

[trevoC]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s more logical that the game should favor better hardware than the reverse though. 

Agreed, sort of. Not necessarily favor better hardware for the sake of better hardware, but just be realistic and the purchase of better hardware will garner you advantages.

I knew what you meant though, just making it clear.

Creating some type of "fair" system for aircraft viewing distances is the equivalent of capping my frame rates to 20 fps because my 4090 gives me an advantage over another user. Thats insane. I view any type of balance of power for "fairness" just as insane, especially when you have to create a system that makes it less realistic to do so. This isn't competitive COD. Its meant to be a simulator.

If you want fair, play chess. (not directed at you SharpeXB, just a comment)

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This is why I think scaling ultimately has to be based on your settings. 12 pixels at 1080 might be huge but 12 pixels at 4k might look right and 3 pixels at 1080 might look right as well. So whatever is used IMHO needs to figure out the proper pixel count for your resolution 

DCS already does scaling, what you're asking for is scaling that tries to make some things look like they look in the real world while being rendered in a scenario that does not fit actual reality - the result - you get a giant aircraft on some runway when looking at a distance, or huge tanks sitting on the ground etc.

But you say you could scale the ground too?  You're right - use that zoom button

It will fail in many cases; where it has been used IRL it served a very specific purpose while within DCS you'd have to account for all kinds of things.  The only possible solution is very robust VR with everyone using that same very robust VR, aka ... not going to happen.

There are some solutions that could help with certain parts of the visual arena, eg. increasing HDR for fights that occur within 3-5nm but frankly if you believe you can easily spot a viper cruising below your horizon and under a shadow, your expectations are somewhat unrealistic.

DCS does the best it can, and it can't really be made better - at least no one has ever managed to suggest a solution that truly works.

Edited March 19, 2023 by GGTharos

[SharpeXB]

Something DCS could do that would actually make this situation better is HDR support. A wider range of color and contrast would help immensely. All HDTVs today support HDR as well as the majority of new monitors. DCS is actually about the only game I have without HDR. 
One of the problems with the sprite system is that it pretends the size of contacts is the problem. That’s not really it. It’s the lack of color and contrast. In situations of good contrast DCS is very good at showing other aircraft but that diminishes quickly in scenarios like seeing against terrain etc. After all the game is limited to this outdated palette of 16.7 million colors vs the 1 billion that’s the state of the art today. 

[trevoC]

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This is why I think scaling ultimately has to be based on your settings. 12 pixels at 1080 might be huge but 12 pixels at 4k might look right and 3 pixels at 1080 might look right as well. So whatever is used IMHO needs to figure out the proper pixel count for your resolution 

Now the "unfairness" lies in monitor size. 1080p on a 20" vs 1080p on a 50"

Lets stick to rendering the environment as close to reality as possible and let the cards fall where they may.

The only methods of easier detection that I would support is improvements in the sim itself (like HDR) that would in turn help improve this.

I think the first problem is that people don't realize how difficult it is to spot aircraft moving at speed in the sky IRL in the first place. Its why we have systems that prevent mid-air collisions. Because a passenger jet can sneak up on you. If pilots have trouble seeing passenger jets that they are close enough to hit, why are we trying to improve the visibility of an f-16 at 12 miles?

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Something DCS could do that would actually make this situation better is HDR support. A wider range of color and contrast would help immensely. All HDTVs today support HDR as well as the majority of new monitors. DCS is actually about the only game I have without HDR. 

 

More colors and contrast would be nice. No matter what hdr would be nice 

42 minutes ago, trevoC said:

Now the "unfairness" lies in monitor size. 1080p on a 20" vs 1080p on a 50"

Lets stick to rendering the environment as close to reality as possible and let the cards fall where they may.

That's the issue is is if we are spotting things at a realistic range.