Today's patch added the entire shaders folder to IC, effectively blocking every quality of life mod that accessed that folder

[Daemoc]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Most monitor users fly with high fov thus inflicting visibility problems on themselves

 

 

1 hour ago, Extranajero said:

Getting the view zoomed all the way out is the only way to pick up other aircraft at "long" range due to the way the DCS visual system works on flat screens.
 

 

This is honestly my biggest issue with the entire dot mechanic. Your monitor resolution has a direct impact on your visual distance of an object. Once an object can no longer be rendered because of your monitors pixel density, they switch to the dot to compensate. That transition period between the dot an model though, the object just seems to vanish. Then you spend the next few minutes zooming out to find the dot, then zooming in to find the model.

I don't know what the fix is to be honest, but the way the dot works now is not ideal.

If I could force the basic black "label dots" that were occluded by geometry, distance and clouds I would be happy though.

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Because it's wrong and unrealistic. That you can't easily see or know where the enemy is is realistic and it's part of the simulation.

Actually, I think BMS uses an open source scaling system that was developed for military simulators? Even they, with their high field of views and resolution, had issues with spotting, so they use scaling to replicate IRL detection distances.

And the low visibility on a flat PC screen is wrose, its clearly not realistic. The tiny field of view, how everything looks small, low resolution/aliasing artifacts, even in VR lacking depths perception to identify stuff, etc. The unrealistic effect of reflections/dirt/scratches/etc on the canopy makes it only worse.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Most monitor users fly with high fov thus inflicting visibility problems on themselves

Idk why you write that like an accusation?

And it doesnt even make sense, becuase its either high FOV, or disorienting tunnel vision. Visibility is never as good in reality.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Temetre

[silverdevil]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Most monitor users fly with high fov thus inflicting visibility problems on themselves, so it can't be even close to comparable to RL. Yes, we lack additional effects like sun glints, but let's add these to objects, not awful and incorrect scale changes.

 

i saw a post on another forum where a user (u/Why485) created a video of how dots look in different resolutions.

https://preview.redd.it/afxnyt865m0b1.gif?width=487&format=mp4&v=enabled&s=836f5649d77a9057c04fa7d41ba10c5c9759aaa2

@draconus is spot on with his comment. i got a new widescreen a few years ago and while the resolution is better, the visibility of objects is difficult. i realize that this thread is essentially about MP.... i play on SP because i do not have a lot of time and thus really suck. i do not think it is fair for a human player to face AI that obviously does not have the same issues with situational awareness. and using dots is kinda sucky too. it makes a blob over the other AC and i cannot see what the AC is really doing.

Edited May 23, 2023 by silverdevil

[draconus]

19 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Idk why you write that like an accusation?

Becuase they come and make it an argument while they really shouldn't see anything in this setting in some cases. Take a high res picture of the view outside with distant aircraft in the sky. Now view it on your monitor - this is as good as it can get. You can only zoom in/out, but please, no artificial black dots or selective size changes. Let's see how ED deals with it.

[SharpeXB]

After so many years of these debates I don’t think there’s a solution to this. Although this mod seems like it may be a good method, it’s not going to stop these complaints. It seems some people simply can’t see the other aircraft in these games no matter what.

[Temetre]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb draconus:

Becuase they come and make it an argument while they really shouldn't see anything in this setting in some cases. Take a high res picture of the view outside with distant aircraft in the sky. Now view it on your monitor - this is as good as it can get. You can only zoom in/out, but please, no artificial black dots or selective size changes. Let's see how ED deals with it.

Im saying theres no point making this personal and emotional, that only weakens any argument. 

I find this topic genuinely interesting, so I do wann ask why "should" that be the standard? Because I dont think its actually realistic what youre saying:

 

My monitor doesnt reflect reality at all. My screen suffers from rasterized resolution, aliasing, pixels, graphical and rendering limitations, its small and flat. The contrast and brightness is extremely low compared to reality. Dynamic range is incredibly limited compared to eyes that automatically adapt.

In reality, I have a huge FOV, hence everything feels massively bigger and easier to spot. I have almost 180 degree peripheral vision to give orientation. My eyes focus on the distance, so anything on the canopy is near invisible. A sense of depths allows me to easier pick up targets. 

Even in VR visibility its far inferior to reality, but it still brings many little details you use in reality: Like you can much easier get a feel in what relation to your aircraft other aircraft are, and in what direction they move, and even how you move. Its way easier to track enemies wihtout constantly looking at them. And I dont need to look as much because I got a sense of space. Even after playing flight sims for a long time, I find it hard to spot enemies in DCS often. But even on my first flights in VR, I intuitively could track myself and enemies better than on flat screens. And thats with the blurry vision of a VR headset,.

 

Like theres a million things that make spotting on PC screens harder than in reality. And mind, when I refered the "scaling system" of simulators or BMS, that actually changes visibility to levels that are reported from IRL studies. As said, AFAIK thats literally a system written for military simulators. Obviously such a system isnt perfect either, but its a compromise, because youll always have problems.

Having dots reflecting reflecting realistic distances would be anothre possibility, but that makes identification and visual hints harder.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Temetre

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Extranajero said:

In DCS we don't have any way for a WW2 aircraft to taxi safely unless there is access to the F2 or F4 views.

Agree here. Don’t most servers have your F10 map location shown for this reason? As for being able to taxi safely, players in the other WWII game seem to taxi just fine without external views. Knowing where you are on the airbase is still a problem though. 
External views are a big cheat though in the combat. I can see why they’re restricted. 

5 hours ago, Temetre said:

Visibility in reality is way better than in DCS without dots. Even VR is easier, despite the low resolution.

Yeah but it’s not as easy as having labels. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

51 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Actually, I think BMS uses an open source scaling system that was developed for military simulators? Even they, with their high field of views and resolution, had issues with spotting, so they use scaling to replicate IRL detection distances.

The trouble is this scaling method (developed for a particular out of date screen technology) applied a huge factor, something like 2x at 3 miles. In DCS you’d see these giant sized planes on the deck of a carrier. It would look ridiculous. 

[Temetre]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb SharpeXB:

The trouble is this scaling method (developed for a particular out of date screen technology) applied a huge factor, something like 2x at 3 miles. In DCS you’d see these giant sized planes on the deck of a carrier. It would look ridiculous. 

I wouldnt be surprised if the "out of date" screen tech was still better than our tiny PC screens. Military sims tend to have way bigger FOV, even back in the day. They also care more about replicating real combat rather than looking silly.^^

Either way, Im not saying that scaling is perfect or the only solution, but wanted to clarify just how bad spotting on PC screens is, and how even military simulators used scaling techniques. Gotta arrive at that understanding to talk about what a good compromise would be.

vor 25 Minuten schrieb SharpeXB:

Yeah but it’s not as easy as having labels. 

Yup. Frankly, I like neither how easy dots can make planes to spot on distance, or how they are unaffected by light, how they shine through cockpit and clouds, etc.

But I also dislike a lot how easy it is to lose sight of enemy planes. Sometimes planes turn around and their bright top becomes 4 white pixels in front of white clouds. Dynamic lighting makes it near impossible to see, and the main way to spot them is by watching for the flicker of aliasing artifacts. Aliasing and rendering issues also make it way harder to identify enemies, shapes become blurred and less distinct.

Which is really kinda silly. Thats why I would like a solution thats closer to reality, something inbetween. One that feels natural enough, but at least mirrors IRL spotting capabilities in some way.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Temetre

[Extranajero]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Agree here. Don’t most servers have your F10 map location shown for this reason? As for being able to taxi safely, players in the other WWII game seem to taxi just fine without external views. Knowing where you are on the airbase is still a problem though. 
External views are a big cheat though in the combat. I can see why they’re restricted. 

 

 

I feel like a world weary demon, once again summoned from hell by a black magician - what is it that thou wishest, mortal ?

Anyway, that's exactly what they don't have on the " super realism historical hardcore, I'm a real fighter pilot, honest " servers. No external views usually goes right along with not having the users aircraft shown on the map. You can use F10, zoom in and get an idea of the fields layout, but you still won't know where you are on it. It's more of an issue with modern bases with complex layouts.

There's an option to restrict the user to only being able to view his own aircraft with F2, but that rarely gets used for some reason. I don't really know how a third person view is going to help anyone during combat, I'd find it completely disorienting, which is the reason I've never flown an RC plane. I think it just gets seen as a problem because everyone associates it with arcade games.

Players in that other WWII sim-lite run into friendly aircraft on the ground that are completely visible to them, let alone ones that aren't you should see it sometime, it's a clown show
The other, other WWII sim-lite doesn't ever have more than 3 people in MP at any time, so it's a lot less of an issue there

[BIGNEWY]

Folks 

please treat everyone with respect. 

 

The team are testing a spotting tweak at the moment, when we have news we will let you all know. 

thanks

[Why485]

5 hours ago, Extranajero said:

It's a demonstrable fact that being completely zoomed out increases your visibility range versus an air target. Try it on a monitor.
I don't know why it's that way, but it is.

Zooming out causes the lower detail LODs to appear when physically closer to the camera. Conversely, zooming in can cause the dot to disappear because the model is big enough on the screen that the LOD system tells the dot not to render. Zooming out can also reduce the visual clutter, and make the dots appear to be bigger on the screen, since they are always a constant size.

[Why485]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I wouldnt be surprised if the "out of date" screen tech was still better than our tiny PC screens. Military sims tend to have way bigger FOV, even back in the day. They also care more about replicating real combat rather than looking silly.^^

To quote the oft-cited paper directly:

Quote

The problem facing modern flight simulators when they try to simulate this scenario is that, despite recent gains in fidelity, they are unable to provide the necessary resolution to accurately represent enemy aircraft at realistic ranges. For example, the fine details of an aircraft seen flying in the real world typically are not visible in the simulator at the same simulated distances. Pilots use these details to help determine things like the pitch, bank and heading of the target aircraft. It can be argued that for pilots to receive realistic training on how to tactically maneuver in these situations, they need to have a simulated enemy that gives them real-world information at real-world ranges. Not having this information until the enemy is much closer can change how the pilot maneuvers and almost certainly affects the outcome of that maneuver compared to what it would have been had the enemy’s orientation been better assessed at a more realistic distance.

It's not lost on me that the paper is dated. However, the concepts and data presented in it are still sound. For some reason, people have it in their head that the provided solutions can only be applied literally with no changes at all. They can be changed! Other community members have improved on the formulae set down in the original paper, and these formulae can always be tweaked to taste and for the average modern display.

Frankly I find it baffling that this is a controversial viewpoint. DCS and its staff maintain the unique position in the genre and industry of essentially ignoring this issue for many, many years, with the only respite being the briefly lived impostor era. They were an imperfect (though entirely fixable) solution that was tried but then quickly removed for reasons that to this day have never been made clear. Their removal was never even mentioned in the patch notes.

As small as it is, I am thankful that for the first time since then, ED seems to be acknowledging that there might be a problem. I am nervous about whatever they might consider a solution, especially given the extremely opinionated comments of a prominent and lead developer of the sim. Either way, I am looking forward to seeing (or not) the results of whatever work is in progress.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Why485

[silverdevil]

@Why485 - i personally thank you for taking the time for your GIF you created and posted on Reddit. i really thought most of my spotting issue was me and my eyes.

i think we all should not get mired in the debate and understand that, while there seems to be disagreement, everyone wants the issue to improve.

[Extranajero]

1 hour ago, Why485 said:

I am nervous about whatever they might consider a solution

 

After over 10 years of being a customer of theirs - who has bought maybe 90% of the modules and maps, I've now reached the point where if ED told me the sky was blue I'd go outside and look up to make sure.
I have no confidence remaining in their good faith or motivation to make core improvements.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Why485 said:

However, the concepts and data presented in it are still sound.

In order for this scaling to work in a game today and look believable and not grotesque, it could only be applied to far off or small aircraft which are nearly dots anyways. Basically like a smart transition between 3D LODs. But applying it anywhere the player can actually see the aircraft out of scale would a no go for most people I’m sure. You wouldn’t want to approach the carrier and watch the aircraft on the deck change size as you come in. 

[Rudel_chw]

45 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

I have no confidence remaining in their good faith or motivation to make core improvements.

I you feel that way, then I can’t understand why you haven’t moved on to a different flight sim.

On my case I’m pretty happy with the improvements we have had recently, like the multi core support, the XR VR, the clouds, the draw objects on the mission editor, the improved night lighting, etc.

[NineLine]

57 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

I have no confidence remaining in their good faith or motivation to make core improvements.

Strange comment after we just released arguably the biggest core improvement in years with Multithreading. Not sure what else we can do to show we are trying to improve the core for the better.

We have submitted the mod for review, we have received the first version that includes some aspects of the mod plus additional variables. 

I submitted the reflection mod for review and suggestions on how to add to the sim, and am waiting on a response to that as well.

Thanks.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Why485 said:

DCS and its staff maintain the unique position in the genre and industry of essentially ignoring this issue for many, many years, with the only respite being the briefly lived impostor era.

Quite contrary, there are just a few individuals that still believe in the model scaling. It was fine for what it was then and their specific goals, not in hi res photorealistic graphic of current simulators.

[Extranajero]

24 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

I you feel that way, then I can’t understand why you haven’t moved on to a different flight sim.

I have, pretty much. I just came back when I found out that Reflected's campaigns were so good, and then did some MP. But I probably won't stay, too many things about the core game disappoint and\or frustrate me. There's no point listing them, they are all the usual things that have been debated for years - but nothing's altered and I doubt it ever will.
 

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb BIGNEWY:

The team are testing a spotting tweak at the moment, when we have news we will let you all know. 

Hell yeah thats dope!

vor 1 Minute schrieb draconus:

Quite contrary, there are just a few individuals that still believe in the model scaling. It was fine for what it was then and their specific goals, not in hi res photorealistic graphic of current simulators.

It has nothing to do with "photorealism", or polygons, or textures. Its about screens and how rendering works, to this day...

[Why485]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Quite contrary, there are just a few individuals that still believe in the model scaling. It was fine for what it was then and their specific goals, not in hi res photorealistic graphic of current simulators.

You are wrong. Not just in the video game world (every other consumer combat flight sim does this), but even in my experience in the simulation industry. I have mentioned this before, but we have had customers specifically ask for features like this because they are aware of the problems and negative training it can cause.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Why485

[SharpeXB]

10 hours ago, Temetre said:

I wouldnt be surprised if the "out of date" screen tech was still better than our tiny PC screens.

It was intended for a 1200x1600 CRT projection screen. Funny that 1200 isn’t too far off from 1080 or 1440 today. The big difference is that home PC games use a zoom view whereas a pro simulator certainly wouldn’t. Pro screens are life sized but desktop screens aren’t. That’s a reason why this system wouldn’t translate so well. And again Serfoss uses large scaling values. A plane 1.5 miles away would get scaled up 2x. That would look absurd in DCS, You’d be coming in the land on a carrier watching the planes resize themselves as you approached. 

[Temetre]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

It was intended for a 1200x1600 CRT projection screen. Funny that 1200 isn’t too far off from 1080 or 1440 today. The big difference is that home PC games use a zoom view whereas a pro simulator certainly wouldn’t. Pro screens are life sized but desktop screens aren’t. That’s a reason why this system wouldn’t translate so well. And again Serfoss uses large scaling values. A plane 1.5 miles away would get scaled up 2x. That would look absurd in DCS, You’d be coming in the land on a carrier watching the planes resize themselves as you approached. 

The projection screen in a simulator was likely also much bigger than a PC screen, which makes things in turn a lot easier to see?

Either way, visibility on a PC screen is really bad compared to reality, thats the point im making.

[Aja]

"added the entire shaders folder to IC" Thats the purpose of integrity check options for server! If the IC dont check everything, why to event actiovate it in the server options?