reported Glass cockpit layer doesn't enable to see anything outside.... Stand Still Part 2, 3, 4,...

[OLD CROW]

 Nowadays... "that" new glass tech still not being implemented. Also is more annoying than ever after 1 and a half years from the closure of the original thread and nothing has changed in no one WW2 warbirds. This full opacity layer is unreal and 200% put you out of immersiveness. We all know spotting in DCS WW2 is "special" but these kind of details make it even more "special". Flying in the mustang is like if you were all time in an eternal 06:00 am London Foggy day inside your cockpit (a bird cage model would be better than our bubble canopy), and the worst of it is when you feel it in an overcast map, in a scattered sky in summer time, at dawn, at dusk, no matters what is your relative possition respect Sun (light incidence) or in the FOV zoom level you are, etc,etc.,etc.,... ad infinitum. Meanwhile we're waiting this new tech implementation..... Could it be possible in any near future update to get any kind of interim official (*)solution? Just fadding the oppacity of the dds file in the ingame default textures file (as simple as that), please?

(*) I said official before anyone would come and tell me there's a mod that works pretty well for him/her/it. I'm looking for an universal solution for all WW2 DCS users not for a local mend for a few.

 

null

[OLD CROW]

Can someone from the inside explain to me what purpose there is in making improvements in terms of FPS if all that work is then diluted or lost with details like these, which, in my opinion, could be resolved in 30 minutes of effective work? And we've been dragging this along for years. This is nonsense. Quality of life improvements don't have to be monumental tasks like implementing DLSS or SSS or "reshade" style filters... most of the time, final user quality of life improvements come from simple details and solutions, like reducing the opacity of a layer or even removing it, as it has abundantly proven over time to be USELESS or to have the opposite effect of what it was conceived for: it doesn't provide more immersion, it makes you want to quit the game and not return for a long time.

Just because we don't have the Beta Testers label doesn't mean we don't dedicate time to the game, and in the end, the time we dedicate to this is meant to be enjoyable. Not being unable to see your wingman well at just 15 meters from your tail or a B-17 at less than 150 meters is not immersive, and it is 180 degrees and far from reflecting reality. In Warbirds, the building of own situational awareness is very different from what you can have in a fourth-generation fighter with MFDs, TGP's, RWR, Datalinks, AWACS, where you put your head into the screens of your cockpit and see the outside through them even better than through the plexiglass hatch. You cannot, and should not, be so purist about details like the reflection (or lack thereof) on the plexiglass hatch if you are not able to distinguish a moving object like a bandit from the static background, as both are flat and made up of pixels,. Therefore, the approach to addressing issues in a simulator should be different from how aerospace engineers tackle them in the real environment. IRL engineers developed plexiglass hatches (bubble canopies) due pilot reports, so they improved what they initially had. Why here do not happens the same? Here one can put any complain in the "works as intended"/"historically reliable" bag. Also get the help of the "silent minority" because they annoy to read complain posts from other users in the only place final user have to feedback ED or third parties (quite nuts BTW). 

So please take a breath also a break from monumental tasks and check back all those simple details that can really improve the immersiveness and BTW the final user ingame experience. 

After all these past years I wonder what Testers have really tested once the systems of the model works in a "proper" way. Ok the model works... , but in which situations? Hopping on a Spitfire, starting it, take off, do a pleasent trip thru London or Paris, don't get me wrong, it's OK... if we were in MFS2020, but we're in DCS where "C" means Combat, so it means I can do anything more than having a pleasent trip thru Dover and the Northern french coast and think that the most challenging task here is landing a big nosed A/C with a narrow undercarrirage with a big P-factor and a heavy crossed wind on short final... with the plexiglass hatch fully opened cause is the only way of seeing something out there...

The concept of combat encompasses many processes within the program and can be quite complex, but this can be improved not only through FPS and equipment performance enhancements. In my opinion, Multi-threading did more in that aspect than DLSS because we all have multi-core CPUs, but not everyone has an Nvidia GPU in general, or an NVIDIA 40XX GPU specifically to run the game in VR, where FPS rate is critical. However, the way of seeing something outside the cockpit textures is the same for ALL users who have a flat screen, Track IR, multi-screen setup, or VR.

I don't understand that historical systematic stubbornness against user demands who simply want to improve their gaming experience and, consequently, dedicate more time to the game. This would mean being happier with what you already have but generating a possibility to acquire more modules and continue to enjoy more and better. Lately, in this forum, I only read complaints, very reasonable ones from those who make them, such as VR users asking to remove the pilots' heads in the Apache, which is also very annoying in the new Hornet pilot model (and not just for VR users), or users who cannot modify the parameters of scripted campaigns because that goes against the campaign creator's intentions, etc., etc. Disclaimers can and should be used to explain that things should be done in a certain way and that doing them differently can break immersion or even fail to achieve the set objectives. However, if the base program allows you the freedom to do whatever you want, it is foolish to insist that it goes against the original idea of the author or "works as intended." It may be "as intended," but it's a bunch of crap that serves no purpose other than to annoy til the total frustration. You can't be so purist about that but then introduce unequal battles over the English Channel between BF109 K-4 AI's (with their downgraded FM-DM) versus Spitfires Mk.IX controlled by humans who can't see anything other than tracers hitting their plane from an sniper AAA AI situated in Berlin. As a human, I can't use a cockpit that allows me to see outside with crystal clarity, but I have to put up with an AI that can see 360 in X, Y, and Z, and even through the clouds, with a reduced flight and damage model for better resource optimization (that's not realistic and could be considered more cheating than having a more transparent canopy in your plane). If the game is a sandbox, it's a sandbox for everyone, and the final user has the final say in the limits, not the internal pipeline of the corporation. 

Sorry, for a moment I went off topic, but everything is interrelated as a cause of final user frustration and the lack of seeing anything more outside cockpit is just another piece in this maze, but for sure one of the easier to fix.... if there is a will to do so.

[NineLine]

Sorry for the delay in seeing this, I will try and recreate some of your examples and kick this can again.

Is the P-51 and Spitfire the worst for you or are there others equally as bad. 

Thanks.

NM, I am on it with some help from GA, he said the updates to the FC3 have some glass issues.

[PawlaczGMD]

IMHO all such effects like cockpit reflections, glare, scratches, should be an option that the player can disable or tune.

There is just such a wide spread of quality and function between them, also depending on whether you're using VR and other graphical settings.

Some of these effects look good and are welcome, and some look really bad, or don't work correctly. A lot of the older modules simply don't hold up graphically, and look outdated, out of place, or their appearance has changed because of core updates in unintended ways.

Off the top of my head, the F-5 cockpit glare makes it impossible to see in VR. Similarly for OP's examples. Glass scratch effects looks bad on many modules, and appears suddenly based on lighting and zoom. In the F-86, if you're facing the light in the wrong way and zoom in, all you see is scratches. 

Ideally these effects would be implemented in a uniform way across modules, I understand the reasons they're not, but if so, give us the option to turn it off. 

If the concern is balance or fairness, people who really want to get rid of this can use a modded cockpit with an invisible canopy anyway. The problem with this is the tedium and effort to make or find these mods. I also want to be able to choose the effects that look good and realistic for my setup on a module by module basis. And with different modules having different effects, it's not "fair" anyway.

 

[YSIAD_RIP]

@NineLine I also feel that a cleaner glass option should be selectable in a Special Options Menu for the planes or in Gameplay settings if possible.

• The nicest MOD I have seen is listed below. Works very nice on everything I tested like the P-51 and Spitfire.
• It does not pass IC but it is what I use when I want better visibility.  It still works when used on the latest Patch. 

 

[PawlaczGMD]

1 hour ago, YSIAD_RIP said:

@NineLine I also feel that a cleaner glass option should be selectable in a Special Options Menu for the planes or in Gameplay settings if possible.

• The nicest MOD I have seen is listed below. Works very nice on everything I tested like the P-51 and Spitfire.
• It does not pass IC but it is what I use when I want better visibility.  It still works when used on the latest Patch. 

 

This looks good, I will check it out! I was not aware you could change this globally. I've only used a clear F-5 glass implemented as a cockpit- but it removes all canopy effects, so it feels like you don't have a canopy at all, which looks wrong in a different way. Shame it doesn't pass IC.

An example of a good canopy with subtle effects that look nice is the Hind. It might just be newer modules in general.

[bephanten]

ed should have a guideline for canopy glass graphics. 

starting with, no effect should hinder total visibility under any condition. i've waited so long for new spitfire cockpit, and the old blinding sunlight reflection has carried over to new cockpit. i don't know, if you're planning to solve these problems with vulkan raytracing. but there is definitly a problem with testing. i would have rejected the new canopy. the effects should be subtle, not in your face.

[NineLine]

I have started reviewing all ED modules and asking for some better consistency and updating of older glass. I can't promise this will be a fast task but I will have everything reported internally that I can monitor and review from time to time. I apologize as I know this is a big issue for a great many of you and in some cases we have made the reflections look good if you are a camera but less so for the human eye (yes I did testing in my Ford Edge).

[MAXsenna]

I have started reviewing all ED modules and asking for some better consistency and updating of older glass. I can't promise this will be a fast task but I will have everything reported internally that I can monitor and review from time to time. I apologize as I know this is a big issue for a great many of you and in some cases we have made the reflections look good if you are a camera but less so for the human eye (yes I did testing in my Ford Edge).

Thank you! Hurrah! Much appreciated!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Hiob]

@NineLine Much appreciated!

Please have a look at the cockpit scratches, too (try to fly into the low standing sun) as mentioned above. They‘re almost as disturbing than the foggy cockpit, but unlike the latter, there is no good solution to help ourselves.

Thank you!