Trees are way too big and it's killing the sense of speed at low altitude

[Mars Exulte]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:20 PM, SharpeXB said:

 Now, now, if these guys were going outside very much they wouldn't be on the forums.

[Temetre]

I think its pretty obvious that the tree size in DCS is slanting towards the bigger end, probably for performance reasons. There are basically no small trees.

And maybe its "just" 50% higher than average fully grown tree, but it seems decidedly so.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, Temetre said:

There are basically no small trees.

There are both small trees, medium trees, big trees, bushes and grass, you name it, even cactus.

[Temetre]

Ill note tho, while trees are imo on the big side, its not enough to kill immersion in VR. At worst its a bit misleading about scale, but thats not too big of a deal, especially considering almost everyone has to lower vegetation density/detail for VR anyway. Optimized vegetation is a good thing for VR.

vor 40 Minuten schrieb draconus:

There are both small trees, medium trees, big trees, bushes and grass, you name it, even cactus.

Fair, I shouldve mentioned I was talking about Caucasus examples, which is ofc more limited in tech. Almost only big trees, and they are just a bit too large for the average big tree in reality. Syria is much more detailed and varied in this regard.

And thats ofc completely reasonable for performance reasons, and because everything on a 2D screens looks much smaller than in reality anyway. 

Tho I feel on the Syria map the average tree probably should be smaller than what it is too, considering the climates? Admittedly Im not too familiar with the regions flora tho. But eg flying over the region in Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies on satellite imagery, that creates a way more dense and detailed forestation and environment. Northern Israel is way more green, with an unbelievable amount of little forrest, green areas and hedges. It feels way "bigger" as a landmass.

Thats not to downplay the maps acchievement in DCS, I love it and most PCs couldnt handle more anyway, just for the comparision with reality.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

31 minutes ago, Temetre said:

because everything on a 2D screens looks much smaller than in reality anyway

That depends on your fov, monitor size and seating distance, right?

And no, I don't lower any vegetation settings for VR.

[average_pilot]

36 minutes ago, Temetre said:

and because everything on a 2D screens looks much smaller than in reality anyway. 

Definitely. I know of another modern simulator that has huge sun and moon discs so that they look epic on the monitor, but in VR feels a bit like flying in a alien planet. 

[Temetre]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb draconus:

That depends on your fov, monitor size and seating distance, right?

Yup, its not impossible. And you actually get the correct size in VR. 

On a flat screen, it becomes difficult. Youd need something like a >150 inch screen size 120 degree curved monitor around your head, at 1m distance, just to replicate realistic VR scaling. Military simulators actually do that sometimes, with much bigger projected screens in a circle around the cockpit.

But if you got a 24 inch screen 80cm away from your head, you'd need to reduce FOV to 30 degrees horizontal or so to be realistic scale. Which would be kinda unusable, in FPS many people can get motion sick when FOV is below 90 on screens like that.

 

 

Its actually an interesting topic, thats why in FPS games the scaling is always off, even in sims like ARMA. Walkable tents in ARMA have like 5m high scaling, which would be insanely big in reality. But on a screen it needs to be that big just to not feel tiny and claustrophobic.

vor 36 Minuten schrieb draconus:

And no, I don't lower any vegetation settings for VR.

Well, thats good for you, but not everyone has that luxury^^

I was just saying that to make clear im not taking shots at ED/map devs for making IMO oversized trees.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb average_pilot:

Definitely. I know of another modern simulator that has huge sun and moon discs so that they look epic on the monitor, but in VR feels a bit like flying in a alien planet. 

Yes, VR is amazing at how it really conveys how "off" scaling is on 2D screens. Ive learned that first by looking at the Unreal 1 editor, noticing that halways were like 6-8m high compared to my player model.

Even in VR games where you can move, I noticed that scaling is still bigger than in reality. Presumably to support the clunky stick-movement and interactions. Otherwise you'd just get stuck everywhere and get a claustrophobic feel.

Game worlds and simulations are still heavily limited by technology, both on screens and in VR. But then again I dont just wanna be negative, flight sims especially can be an amazing experience despite all the problems 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Temetre said:

But on a screen it needs to be that big just to not feel tiny and claustrophobic.

No, it needs not, that's 3D design error, if we want to talk about realistic scenes and simulation. Same case as @average_pilot mentioned.

You have general problem with dealing with 3D graphics on the monitors it seems, judging from your comments, no offence, maybe it's just your take on it. It's not like monitors have some scaling problem - they have not - it's usually it's the game design to show the world the best it can be done on the small screens, esp. when the fov is fixed. In simulators you have a choice of the fov - but only the real fov (when angular sizes of the objects you watch on the screen are matching real world sizes) can give you distortion free window into the virtual world, valid only for one eye, mind you. Depending on your hardware and setup it can be plyable or not. In my case it was perfectly usable with 27", pretty close to me, ~60 degrees fov with TrackIR. YMMV

Of course VR is great with its real fov and binocular vision but it comes with the price of lower performance and resolution, always behind 2D.

The vegetation settings are also a choices everyone can make - do you love fps more than trees and grass? I choose vegetation all over the scene.

[Temetre]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb draconus:

In my case it was perfectly usable with 27", pretty close to me, ~60 degrees fov with TrackIR. YMMV

No, the science doesnt varry with "mileage". For 60 horizontal FOV to be realistically scaled, you would have to sit 30cm away from your screen. Otherwise things look smaller than in reality, its that simple. 

Either way, I have explained it to you a few times now, the geometry and tech is objective. If you dont wanna accept it, thats your issue. But itll remove you from any serious discussion about the topic. Not that I mind at this point.

Zitat

You have general problem with dealing with 3D graphics on the monitors it seems

And thats just pathetic, reacting to facts with personal attacks.

Not that it would make you look any better otherwise; but Ive written purely about the objective science behind vision, screens and scale, there was nothing personal in there to even attack. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

For 60 horizontal FOV to be realistically scaled, you would have to sit 30cm away from your screen.

You've mistaken horizontal fov for vertical fov.

https://dinex86.github.io/FOV-Calculator/

[SharpeXB]

Changing FOV affects your perception of speed. That’s what you’re seeing. It has nothing to do with trees which are no doubt the right size. How many of you actually fly low IRL over Syria to know what feels right anyways?

[Hiob]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

No, the science doesnt varry with "mileage". For 60 horizontal FOV to be realistically scaled, you would have to sit 30cm away from your screen. Otherwise things look smaller than in reality, its that simple. 

 

 

nope. It's pretty simple math. 60° is roughly the "correct"  FOV when the distance to your monitor is the same as its width. For most monitors that is more than 30 cm ....

(To be perfectly precise - for a single point observer, it would be 53°. Taken into account that we are binocular, 60° is pretty good approximation).

I put "correct" in quotes because that is purely from a mathematical point of view. It doesn't take personal preferences in account. But it gives a perspective on how much a three digit pov may warp the scales.

Edit: Some corrections after I referred my old calculations. For the interested: The math is 2*arctan(0,5).

Edited May 24, 2023 by Hiob

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

60° is the "correct"  FOV when the distance to your monitor is the same as its width.

Only correct if you measure distance to the corners.

[Hiob]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

Only correct if you measure distance to the corners.

Yes, correct. That is why I corrected it as above. I messed up tan and sin. However, as mentioned above - when you do the proper math for width = distance you end up with a FOV of ~53° and when you take the width of your eyes into account you will come closer to 60 again. Regardless. Even a nitpicker like myself finds that impractical (I use 80-85 mostly). But it is certainly not 30cm like claimed above.

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Hiob:

nope. It's pretty simple math. 60° is roughly the "correct"  FOV when the distance to your monitor is the same as its width. For most monitors that is more than 30 cm ....

(To be perfectly precise - for a single point observer, it would be 53°. Taken into account that we are binocular, 60° is pretty good approximation).

I put "correct" in quotes because that is purely from a mathematical point of view. It doesn't take personal preferences in account. But it gives a perspective on how much a three digit pov may warp the scales.

Edit: Some corrections after I referred my old calculations. For the interested: The math is 2*arctan(0,5).

edit: (yeah I missed the point here^^)

Maybe my numbers werent completely accurate, but youre just using different numbers and say its "wrong" because they obviously lead to a different result. Distance from screen varries, but it certainly should be furtehr than width. Most recommendations Ive seen are ~80cm or so.

So using this calculator, 27 inch, 80cm, 16:9:

https://www.fov-calculator.com/en/

Thats 42 horizontal, 24 vertical. Close enough.

If you go super close to the screen, maybe 50cm, then its 62 degrees horizontal, 37 vertical. But good luck using a FOV that low in a dogfight and keep situational awareness, youre having tunnel vision.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Temetre

[Hiob]

9 minutes ago, Temetre said:

 

Maybe my numbers werent completely accurate, but youre just using different numbers and say its "wrong" because they obviously lead to a different result. Distance from screen varries, but it certainly should be furtehr than width. Most recommendations Ive seen are ~80cm or so.

So using this calculator, 27 inch, 80cm, 16:9:

https://www.fov-calculator.com/en/

Thats 42 horizontal, 24 vertical. Close enough.

If you go super close to the screen, maybe 50cm, then its 62 degrees horizontal, 37 vertical. But good luck using a FOV that low in a dogfight and keep situational awareness, youre having tunnel vision.

 

 

Actually my whole point is - it is not the size of object that affects ones sense of speed but FOV. Unfortunately a "realistic" FOV for a regular 16:9 Monitor is 60° or smaller. Which kills your peripheral view and therefore sense of speed.

However: Calculating the "correct" distance to your monitor based on its width is bonkers. Why? Because why would a good viewing distance change, when I switch from a 16:9 Monitor to a 32:9 Monitor? (which would allow for a bigger fov btw). Double the width but same pixel size and height. Personally I happen to use a pretty big monitor (48") and I sit closer to it than it is wide. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Hiob

[Temetre]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Hiob:

Actually my whole point is - it is not the size of object that affects ones sense of speed but FOV. Unfortunately a "realistic" FOV for a regular 16:9 Monitor is 60° or smaller. Which kills your peripheral view and therefore sense of speed.

However: Calculating the "correct" distance to your monitor based on its width is bonkers.

I totally misunderstood what you were saying. That was a disagreement about my numbers, which were indeed off. Somehow I thought that was a suggestion, which confused me^^

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Hiob:

Why? Because why would a good viewing distance change, when I switch from a 16:9 Monitor to a 32:9 Monitor? (which would allow for a bigger fov btw). Double the width but same pixel size and height. Personally I happen to use a pretty big monitor (48") and I sit closer to it than it is wide. 

 

Agreed. I was going with more normal sizes, since 27 inch was mentioned, assuming 16 by 9. Im sure things differ with 32:9, let alone curved 48 inch screens. Thats where vertical FOV becomes more useful.

[SharpeXB]

Honestly setting this sort of FOV on a screen results in a view that’s just too narrow to be practical for a combat flight sim. Racing sim players do this because perception of speed is obviously important and they’re looking mostly forward or have triple screens. 
This dilemma with the FOV is why we have a variable zoom view. 

[Hiob]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Honestly setting this sort of FOV on a screen results in a view that’s just too narrow to be practical for a combat flight sim. Racing sim players do this because perception of speed is obviously important and they’re looking mostly forward or have triple screens. 
This dilemma with the FOV is why we have a variable zoom view. 

Yep, you‘re right. Sometimes people don’t realize though, how „zoom“, „fov“, world-scale and distortions (like warping bombers when you fly by them with a very large fov) are influenced by each other. Spotting is another topic that it affected by fov…..

So, it is good, that this can be adjusted individually to everybody’s taste, but it also doesn’t hurt to shed some light on how this all works together.

[Munkwolf]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Racing sim players do this because perception of speed is obviously important and they’re looking mostly forward or have triple screens. 

Some.. maybe.. there's a different camp of us that prefers the opposite, to lessen the sense of speed and make it easier to consistently hit brake and turn points  

Edited May 24, 2023 by Munkwolf

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Munkwolf said:

Some.. maybe.. there's a different camp of us that prefers the opposite, to lessen the sense of speed and make it easier to consistently hit brake and turn points  

 

Sure that too. But IMO it results in just this odd narrow FOV that I find to constraining. Especially for flight sims. Even in racing there’s a need to see the apex and around corners. Many of these players don’t even use TrackIR which is just bonkers to me. Back on topic now…

[snowman[FR]]

Trees will still be too big.

[SharpeXB]

12 hours ago, snowman[FR] said:

Trees will still be too big.

First you wording seems wrong, the use of “will still”? This sentence doesn’t make sense on its own. It’s referring to future tense. 
 

Which trees? On what map? Do you have some sort of documentation? Photos etc. 

[snowman[FR]]

Can't you follow a bit, everybody is speaking about caucasus from the start as newer maps are a bit more ok with both small and big trees( just like in real life!).

For documentation, just look the pictures people have provided already, someone even send as proof a real pic where trees are smaller than in dcs despite he was trying to prove they were "correct as is".

I'm french, still will or will still, I think you understand the sentence weird wording or not.