in review Spotting dot bugs in VR

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

Distant aircraft will have to reach the point where it's only 1 pixel.

Does the DCS engine always render a 3D model at 1 pixel no matter now far away or small it is?

Edited May 29 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, mytai01 said:

I've never seen aircraft at infinite range. I don't know what you're talking about.

That's because the current spotting system ensures that it doesn't happen. If you just let the 3D model do its thing, like you suggest, there would be no limit to how far out aircraft could or would be rendered, so the range at which you'd be able to spot those planes would be completely disconnected from any sense or semblance of realism. Iwould only be your graphics setup rather than any part of the simulation that said that, actually, planes can be seen just fine from across the entire map. Or worse, you wouldn't be able to spot them at those ranges, but they will be able to spot you just fine. Essentially the problem we had with the old system, except your suggestion just changes the unequal dot for an unequal 3D model. The end result is the same, and we'd be right back where we started where the spotting system has to be revamped.

This is a VR discussion, yes, but what is rendered in VR relates to and has to consider what is shown on monitors, or VR will end up with some serious disadvantages (or advantages, which is just as bad).

35 minutes ago, draconus said:

This is a non-issue. Distant aircraft will have to reach the point where it's only 1 pixel. Further out it will fade out.

And without dots, there is no way to control that point, equalise it across hardware, and make that single dot of an equitable visibility. We are already at the point where our displays can (and will) render details that the pilot should not be able to see. That needs to go. In addition, this ability differs with settings and hardware. That also needs to go.

If realism is a core goal, what the hardware is able to generate is no longer a viable limit. We must introduce and enforce artificial ones. If equitability is a core goal, we must not let higher-resolution displays show targets before they can show up on lower-resolution ones. We must introduce and enforce artificial sizes. In both cases, we end up having to make sure a single dot is rendered at some given distance, in many cases long before it is actually 1px large on the screen, and we have to make sure that single dot fades into the background in a controllable way.

What better way is there to display a single dot with its size and colour tied to strict in-game parameters, than to have a dot-based system that use in-game parameters to dictate its colour and size rather than some arbitrary out-of-game factors?

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Does the DCS engine always render a 3D model at 1 pixel no matter now far away or small it is?

Are you serious with this question?!

Edited May 29 by Tippis

[mytai01]

As soon as aircraft get close enough and the dot disappears, you can't see the fighter sized aircraft until they get closer still. My experience has been before the dots take over, I couldn't see anything that was any further than where the dot system took over. So, I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about. I've been involved with this sim since Su-27! I never saw LOD only aircraft at infinite distance.

Edited May 29 by mytai01

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

If you just let the 3D model do its thing, like you suggest, there would be no limit to how far out aircraft could or would be rendered...

In what universe? A few miles and the fighter becomes 1 pixel, then it'd be gone, but no, even bigger artificial dot label shows up for another few miles. Unrealistic and immersion breaking.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Does the DCS engine always render a 3D model at 1 pixel no matter now far away or small it is?

Didn't test all cases but some buildings can disappear before becoming 1 pixel size.

[mytai01]

26 minutes ago, draconus said:

In what universe? A few miles and the fighter becomes 1 pixel, then it'd be gone, but no, even bigger artificial dot label shows up for another few miles. Unrealistic and immersion breaking.

Didn't test all cases but some buildings can disappear before becoming 1 pixel size.

This is how ridiculous the dots are: I'm flying around looking for a tomcat that isn't being detected by my radar, or AWACS, or RWR. I look over my shoulder and see a big calorically challenged DOT that turns out to be over 15 miles away. This is a totally impossible situation in real life, but what do I know? I've only been a tower controller for 35 years...

[Tippis]

49 minutes ago, draconus said:

In what universe?

Our current one. I have only shown it about a bajillion times, but fine, I'll demonstrate it again.

If I zoom in to a 20° FoV, the frustrum covers 349.1 mils. On my display, that angle is rendered using 3440 pixels. Each pixel thus covers 0.1 mils. For the wingspan of an F-16 (just under 10m) to be less than 0.1 mils and therefore only cover one pixel, that plane would have to be 100km (54nm) out. That is quite a lot more than “a few miles” and an order of magnitude beyond what most semi-qualified guesstimates suggest should be reasonable. It's even more than what the old spotting dot system allowed for, and that was already ridiculous.

And that's on my modest hardware. For others, it could be even farther. Or much much shorter. All three cases are bad because none of them are the same. Even if by pure accident, someone gets a proper and sane spotting distance limit on their system, that limit only applies to them and their accidental realism puts them at a severe disadvantage and others throwing money at the problem would be at a severe advantage.

49 minutes ago, draconus said:

but no, even bigger artificial dot label shows up for another few miles. Unrealistic and immersion breaking.

No. Unified spotting dots show up for less than half of that. If dot labels bother you, redefine them or turn them off.

The spotting dots also need to be dialled back — I have never stated otherwise — but they are massively better than relying on the unlimited range that pure trigonometry and the 3D model would inherently provide. We can also discuss what the proper size for the dot should be, but then we immediately have to figure out what should be the benchmark — the lowest common denominator — that can be reliably and equitably the target for all displays irrespective of their resolutions. It is quite obvious that the VR one is bonkers, but that doesn't really help us answer the question of which one isn't? Which one should be picked as the standard?

If you want to argue that we should do away with zoom, then I wish you the best of luck on that debate. If you want to argue that I can't see that single pixel anyway on my display then, sure. With my current setup you're actually correct. There's just one problem: I can move the display closer, or just lean in, and the problem immediately comes back. And if you want to argue that, screw all that trigonometry noise — just put a rendering cap in, then fine. That would indeed work for limiting how far out you can see other planes. But realise that this means they will pop in at, oh, let's say 5nm and be about 1 mil, or in my case 10 pixels wide. It won't exactly be subtle.

1 hour ago, mytai01 said:

So, I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about. I've been involved with this sim since Su-27! I never saw LOD only aircraft at infinite distance.

I'm talking about what would happen if we didn't use a dot system to put a hard cap on how far out a contact would be rendered on modern hardware. You've never seen it because it's not done that way, and for very good reasons. You didn't have to worry about it in the olden days because the hardware couldn't display it anyway, and in many cases there was a hard cap on rendering contacts, and the same hardware limitations made sure you couldn't see the pop-in. Much.

11 minutes ago, mytai01 said:

This is how ridiculous the dots are: I'm flying around looking for a tomcat that isn't being detected by my radar, or AWACS, or RWR. I look over my shoulder and see a big calorically challenged DOT that turns out to be over 15 miles away.

Would you prefer it were three times that number? Because if we remove the cap and the dot, and only rely on the model, that's what you'll get. Well, not in VR, obviously, but that is sort of the problem. You wouldn't get it but others would. You would have to rely on radar, AWACS and RWR, but others wouldn't.

Edited May 29 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Didn't test all cases but some buildings can disappear before becoming 1 pixel size.

Yeah some terrain objects like buildings or such can pop in and out. I thought I saw an attempt to explain the spotting dilemma that the aircraft models can never appear less than a pixel. That must be wrong. So if there were no artificial dots the 3D models would indeed be free to vanish from view like they should. Can’t see what’s wrong about that. 

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

So if there were no artificial dots the 3D models would indeed be free to vanish from view like they should. Can’t see what’s wrong about that. 

What's wrong is the assumption that they'd vanish from view “like they should”.

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Tippis said:

If dot labels bother you, redefine them or turn them off.

I can't - that's why the thread exists! I mean the dot system: Off. I never use labels.

[YoYo]

22 minutes ago, draconus said:

I can't - that's why the thread exists! I mean the dot system: Off. I never use labels.

The same, also its not the topic about labels. Labels are only good for beginner users who are learning .

[draconus]

39 minutes ago, YoYo said:

The same, also its not the topic about labels. Labels are only good for beginner users who are learning .

I called it label because that's what it is. It's no longer a dot when it spills over several pixels.

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I called it label because that's what it is. It's no longer a dot when it spills over several pixels.

Got it! Full agree . I'm very curious when there will finally be any improvement in this matter.

We have had W.I.P. from more than half a year and basically there was only a small change that did nothing at all (any news @BIGNEWY about it?).

This topic already has 10 pages of elaboration (and almost everyone basically agrees that the current VR system is a disaster), it has been going on since October 2023 and there is no end in sight.

We're still waiting for a fix .

Edited May 30 by YoYo

[BIGNEWY]

We are in a review process currently, overall the dots system is improved on the older system, however I believe there is room for improvement for VR.

thank you 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

I called it label because that's what it is. It's no longer a dot when it spills over several pixels.

And that’s the problem. For very distant targets even one pixel is too large at low resolutions and the solution was to just give higher resolutions multiple pixels. The dots just appear even larger in VR because the screen is closer to your eyes, like putting your nose right up to a monitor.

Edited May 30 by SharpeXB

[mytai01]

13 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are in a review process currently, overall the dots system is improved on the older system, however I believe there is room for improvement for VR.

thank you 

I'm fine with the whole system going away if the LOD doesn't create giant airplanes at distance.

[KoN]

15 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are in a review process currently, overall the dots system is improved on the older system, however I believe there is room for improvement for VR.

thank you 

What does that actually mean. ? . 

Are you testing a new spotting system. ? 

Or .....? 

[Longiron]

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are in a review process currently, overall the dots system is improved on the older system, however I believe there is room for improvement for VR.

thank you 

I found the dots a great improvement in VR, but as they drop away the change in the object you are trying to follow is almost impossible to track.

Might I suggest the dots fade away and become more transparent and not the abrupt pop we have now.

Edited May 31 by Longiron

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I'm fine with the whole system going away if the LOD doesn't create giant airplanes at distance.

And that's the whole issue: it does. And the distances are too long. And it creates P2W.

5 hours ago, KoN said:

What does that actually mean. ? . 

Are you testing a new spotting system. ? 

Or .....? 

It sounds like they're trying to improve how the system works in VR.

[SharpeXB]

15 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I'm fine with the whole system going away if the LOD doesn't create giant airplanes at distance.

That’s the question. Do the 3D LOD models always appear as a single pixel regardless of the size or distance? I think not because it had been possible for someone to create a “dot mod” using just shader files. The dots that were visible in v2.8 (or now with the current Spotting Dots: Off) aren’t the LODs, they’re just added screen graphics. Also I can’t recall seeing giant aircraft at crazy distances back when I used 1080p and before the Model Enlargement feature started the game down this “spotting dot” method path. If I had to guess I think they tested different sprite sizes with Model Enlargement, then settled on making the sprite 1 pixel in size vs 3-12 and baked it into the game. 
A sensible solution would be to just replace the current dot labels with the spotting dots since they’re essentially the same thing. The only difference between the two is one gets hidden by your aircraft, clouds etc. So just fix that aspect and make dot labels obscured by other objects. It makes no sense in the game to duplicate these features especially when the spotting dots aren’t mission/server controlled for the same reasons that labels are.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s the question. Do the 3D LOD models always appear as a single pixel regardless of the size or distance?

It's not really a question — what would happen is well-established and known.

And no. That would contravene the entire purpose of having 3D models to begin with, much less having different levels of detail on them.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Also I can’t recall seeing giant aircraft at crazy distances back when I used 1080p and before the Model Enlargement feature started the game down this “spotting dot” method path. If I had to guess I think they tested different sprite sizes with Model Enlargement, then settled on making the sprite 1 pixel in size vs 3-12 and baked it into the game.

The reason you don't remember this is because what you're describing never happened.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

A sensible solution would be to just replace the current dot labels with the spotting dots since they’re essentially the same thing.

That would be a pointless, backwards, and pretty darn stupid solution since — aside from being dots — the two are nothing alike and it would in fact make every problem you're complaining about even worse.

Not only would you be able to see them at much longer ranges, the visibility would be entirely a matter of resolution where higher resolutions make them more difficult to spot, they'd be trivially easy to manipulate to give yourself even more unfair advantages, and on top of that there's the fact that one is a UI element rendered on top of the world, whereas the other is a world object and part of the simulation. Every bad thing imaginable at once.

If you believe dot labels are a better solution, just turn them on. Problem solved. Or, well… problem caused, really since the outcome is the exact opposite of what you want (assuming you do not dearly desire having an unfair and unrealistic advantage).

Edited May 31 by Tippis

[YoYo]

I think there have been changes in 2.9.6. 

I don't see that big dot now (however I did only 2 tests with diogfight + A2G attack), I guess things are starting to look good. What do you think?

[falcon_120]

Same here, not only aircraft dots are much smaller; difficult to see past 10ish miles, but they transition to the close in LOD much much better. I have not seen the change from big dot at 20nm and all of a sudden i loose the aircraft at 5-7 miles transitioning to the LOD until i see it again at 3nm. All in all it seems a steps in the realism direction.

[YoYo]

2 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

Same here, not only aircraft dots are much smaller; difficult to see past 10ish miles, but they transition to the close in LOD much much better. I have not seen the change from big dot at 20nm and all of a sudden i loose the aircraft at 5-7 miles transitioning to the LOD until i see it again at 3nm. All in all it seems a steps in the realism direction.

Good, so it wasnt onlu my luck ;). I much prefer the current version to what was there before 2.9.6. Interestingly, there is nothing about it in the Changelog, but the changes are visible, it is also harder to see the object on the ground from a long distance (no longer large black square like was before). Good move!

[draconus]

@YoYo@falcon_120What "improved spotting dots" setting do you use?

[Alves_o_Craque]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

@YoYo@falcon_120What "improved spotting dots" setting do you use?

At the moment it almost doesn't matter. The dot size is the same wheter the setting is off or on. The only difference I noticed is that with it OFF you can see the dot at like 30nm in perfect condicions where as with it ON it will start transparent and slowly become more opaque starting at like 10nm.

Haven't really tested the difference between both in the tansition from dot to model which happens at like 6nm.

But at least for now leaving it off is looking like it will give you the best performance... Guess I'll have to find something new to exploit in PvP

Not having this in the patch notes was a stupid move though.

Edited July 12 by Alves_o_Craque