reported Spotting dot bugs in VR

[draconus]

2 hours ago, mosshunt said:

Why not make the dot size a user setting?

There shouldn't be "dots" at all and rendered pixels shouldn't be user controlled. It's a simulation, not some game for everybody to easily spot others.

[RedeyeStorm]

26 minutes ago, draconus said:

There shouldn't be "dots" at all and rendered pixels shouldn't be user controlled. It's a simulation, not some game for everybody to easily spot others.

And wrong again. It’s a game people should have fun! If I am not mistaken you @draconus play mostly MP am I right?

[YoYo]

10 minutes ago, RedeyeStorm said:

 It’s a game people should have fun

Not fun only, but realism, as far as it possible. For the fun only it could be other games pretending to be a "simulator".

[draconus]

25 minutes ago, RedeyeStorm said:

And wrong again. It’s a game people should have fun! If I am not mistaken you @draconus play mostly MP am I right?

I do have fun when it's realistic, when I face challenges real pilots are faced with. I play SP mostly.

[Parabe11um]

Spotting felt pretty good in VR pre this patch, a tad bit too good, but the current iteration feels quite limited and at the moment I would rate DCS unplayable in terms of MP PVP for me (I only play WW2 and early to mid CW so visual spotting is the main tool).

 

Running a Crystal (so pretty high res), dots are pretty useless right now and contacts are only visible once they fully render anyways. This has made it less than fun to play DCS and critically doesn't strike me as realistic (4-6 NM of spotting fighter to fighter is reported in most papers the US military has regarding AC spotting).

 

I appreciate ED trying to tweak spotting, but with major changes I would prefer an option to select prior versions. For example, I would like to go back to pre patch spotting so I can see anything beyond min range till 1 NMs. People have such different hardware and software set ups that what looks good for one person, looks awful for another (not to mention different goals).

 

We had old vs. improved spotting, so I don't see why we can't have old vs improved spotting vs improved spotting v2.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Parabe11um

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Parabe11um said:

We had old vs. improved spotting, so I don't see why we can't have old vs improved spotting vs improved spotting v2.

In current system its a lot easier to find someting in the air or on the ground, than vs this old system (so "improved spotting v2"). The first relese of "improved spotting v1" was a joke. For VR I also advise to use OpenXR Toolkit with sharpness option enabled, helps a lot, also experiments with contrast can make blacks appear clearer. Also dont use DLSS or DLAA (this is not a benchmark for target spotting).

Recently I saw statistics and analysis of air combat from WWII, on the Western Front, how surprised I was to see that the average distance of a fighter's sighting by a fighter was 1.5 nm! Meanwhile in DCS I see targets at 7+ miles and more.

Edited July 31, 2024 by YoYo

[josef]

56 minutes ago, Parabe11um said:

Spotting felt pretty good in VR pre this patch, a tad bit too good, but the current iteration feels quite limited and at the moment I would rate DCS unplayable in terms of MP PVP for me (I only play WW2 and early to mid CW so visual spotting is the main tool).

 

Yes, version 2.9.5 is much better.
Recently online PVP,No longer is there the joy of close visual fight, any target can only be searched for by relying on radar.

5 minutes ago, YoYo said:

In current system its a lot easier to find someting in the air or on the ground, than vs this old system (so "improved spotting v2"). The first relese of "improved spotting v1" was a joke. For VR I also advise to use OpenXR Toolkit with sharpness option enabled, helps a lot, also experiments with contrast can make blacks appear clearer.

 

Not at all, my teammates with VR agree that it's much harder to spot aerial targets now than it used to be.
There's no defense for that.

[RedeyeStorm]

I have been experimenting with the improved spotting on/off but I can’t tell the difference. Granted may be my bad eyesight but if given a choice I would choose the previous version of 2.9.5. Do agree with the criticism on that but now I am blind and have to cheat with F5 to have any fun at all. 
 

This is my personal opinion and not going to change.

[YoYo]

I recommend that familiarize yourself with the analysis regarding detection: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA241347.pdf

 

[Parabe11um]

5 hours ago, YoYo said:

In current system its a lot easier to find someting in the air or on the ground, than vs this old system (so "improved spotting v2"). The first relese of "improved spotting v1" was a joke. For VR I also advise to use OpenXR Toolkit with sharpness option enabled, helps a lot, also experiments with contrast can make blacks appear clearer. Also dont use DLSS or DLAA (this is not a benchmark for target spotting).

Recently I saw statistics and analysis of air combat from WWII, on the Western Front, how surprised I was to see that the average distance of a fighter's sighting by a fighter was 1.5 nm! Meanwhile in DCS I see targets at 7+ miles and more.

 

Have tweaked spotting (my settings were always on line with the above), but it doesn't doesn't make a huge difference (or at least enough to make it workable for me).

Certainly it's harder for me to spot anything now than before (V1 of improved spotting I could spot something like 10-15 NMs and now my average spotting distance is less than 1 nm).

I'm glad that you find spotting better, but it's not been very fun for me. Again though, I feel this is the issue, for you spotting is clearly fine and if you can still spot at 7 NM, it's obv not an issue, but on my setup (Crystal) it isn't working that way at all.

In line with US mil papers I've seen, my testing is to spot an A-4E which should be pretty easy to spot at 3-6 NMs (across several studies and samples, so should be a pretty reliable finding).

Edited July 31, 2024 by Parabe11um

[KoN]

I tested today  on cont 80s server been flying in that for a few months now. Since last patch spotting is completely out of the window for  me now  ,

yes before we had the big black blob , but now I don't see anything and I mean anything not unless on top of me , no point even setting my headset up anymore  .

Even real pilots are saying VR is totally fucked up . So today I went back to 2D , 43" TV. And I could see everything, ground targets and air targets at 6 miles , on call outs it's a completely different environment. 2540 x 1440 upscaled to 2160 res DLAA . 

That says to me that some thing isn't right with DCS and VR.

When in VR in the cockpit is amazing but the outside world is a blurry messed up mess with no positive targets . . Jump into another sim and I see them same targets just fine . 

The WWII server has lost most of its population of late . 

[KoN]

On 7/29/2024 at 5:53 PM, YoYo said:

Not fun only, but realism, as far as it possible. For the fun only it could be other games pretending to be a "simulator".

I disagree with this realistic simulation thing , we are all sat at home in comfort looking at TV monitors or VR headsets . It's not real . I totally understand that you want realism but you just can't have it . 

You have AMD vs Nvidia vs Ryzen vs Intel . TV vs VR . 

If other simulations can get a stable spotting platform why can't DCS.

You have good results in your VR crystal but another's  do not with same headset .. DCS is an old old game engine with hundreds of patches thrown over the top . Personally I would build a new DCS with an  upto date game engine . 

[draconus]

4 hours ago, KoN said:

It's not real . I totally understand that you want realism but you just can't have it .

Of course it's not real. The point is to get as close as possible to real visuals, sounds, aircraft simulation, weapons and all that - this is what distinguish DCS from other sims, where they specifically make aircraft more visible, because most people don't like challenges RL pilot had to cope with. If you prefer that - there are labels or dot labels - that's your kind of fun and no one's going to mock you for that.

4 hours ago, KoN said:

DCS is an old old game engine with hundreds of patches thrown over the top . Personally I would build a new DCS with an  upto date game engine .

I don't know what it has to do with the topic but we'll gladly follow the progress of your project.

[SturmVogel]

@BIGNEWY says they will fix dot and contact visibility at second July patch. After second July patch nothing or worse. Second and first July patch in DCS feels unplayble in this terms.

Edited August 1, 2024 by SturmVogel

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, SturmVogel said:

@BIGNEWY says they will fix dot and contact visibility at second July patch. After second July patch nothing or worse. Second and first July patch in DCS feels unplayble in this terms.

 

Hi, we are still looking at the feedback, it seems to be mixed at the moment, we have passed on all the feedback and all the different opinions to the team. We may see more tweaks in the future. 

thank you 

[josef]

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, we are still looking at the feedback, it seems to be mixed at the moment, we have passed on all the feedback and all the different opinions to the team. We may see more tweaks in the future. 

thank you 

@BIGNEWY In terms of visualization, the current version is really both unplayable and too far from realism, so please fix it!.

 

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, josef said:

@BIGNEWY In terms of visualization, the current version is really both unplayable and too far from realism, so please fix it!.

 

Please, stop trolling this topic about realism. How on earth is it not realistic. Did you bother to read the publication with the analysis of pilot visibility, which I posted a few posts above, since you're talking about reality? I understand that someone can have different settings, use DLSS, DLAA and complain that they have less fun, but the accusation that it's not realistic as it is is completely pointless. Yes, it's clear that it's too far away. 

8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, we are still looking at the feedback, it seems to be mixed at the moment, we have passed on all the feedback and all the different opinions to the team. We may see more tweaks in the future. 

thank you 

Generally there is nothing to complain about (the benchmark can only be setting with MSAA or without AA). It is much better than Improved spotting v1 (I will call it version 2 now) and better than the old system. If it requires tweak it is definitely worth it, but not in the same way as it was in improved v1.

[Why485]

23 hours ago, YoYo said:

I recommend that familiarize yourself with the analysis regarding detection: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA241347.pdf

This is good, thanks for sharing.

[josef]

21 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Please, stop trolling this topic about realism. How on earth is it not realistic. Did you bother to read the publication with the analysis of pilot visibility, which I posted a few posts above, since you're talking about reality? I understand that someone can have different settings, use DLSS, DLAA and complain that they have less fun, but the accusation that it's not realistic as it is is completely pointless. Yes, it's clear that it's too far away. 

Generally there is nothing to complain about (the benchmark can only be setting with MSAA or without AA). It is much better than Improved spotting v1 (I will call it version 2 now) and better than the old system. If it requires tweak it is definitely worth it, but not in the same way as it was in improved v1.

Please, stop this thread about how the current version is better than the previous one.  You can't see an airplane within a few nautical miles, it's an airplane, not a fly, do you need publications to prove that so many players are blind?

Let alone the setting, how you set it up doesn't really have any effect.

Edited August 1, 2024 by josef

[rob10]

Both sides on this issue need to take a chill pill.  Clearly it's working fine for some in the current version and very poorly for others.  Guess what: in a lot of cases those sides have changed over the course of the tweaking ED has done.  Most rational people are willing to say that it's not ideal yet and still needs tweaking for whichever side is currently not seeing it well, but too often this thread only has people screaming "it's totally broken" or "it's perfect the way it is" with no acknowledgement that both of those statements are true currently and ED needs to work on bridging the divide (which I have full confidence they are trying to do).

[draconus]

25 minutes ago, rob10 said:

both of those statements are true currently and ED needs to work on bridging the divide

You can't make a deal when one side thinks fighters should be easily visible for many miles and others think it's unrealistic.

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, josef said:

Please, stop this thread about how the current version is better than the previous one.  You can't see an airplane within a few nautical miles, it's an airplane, not a fly, do you need publications to prove that so many players are blind?

Let alone the setting, how you set it up doesn't really have any effect.

So let's establish one thing, you are not looking for reality, you are not reading what is written, you are just repeating that you prefer a big dot from v1 right? You also don't want to help yourself. Give me the track with the flight and your DCS settings. The maximum range I see for me is 12.6 miles, so it's not 1 mile.

[Parabe11um]

 

2 hours ago, draconus said:

You can't make a deal when one side thinks fighters should be easily visible for many miles and others think it's unrealistic.

I just want to spot things at 3-7 nautical miles (depending on things like aspect, speed, etc.), which falls well in line with reality.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Parabe11um

[YoYo]

27 minutes ago, Parabe11um said:

I just want to spot things at 3-7 nautical miles (depending on things like aspect, speed, etc.), which falls well in line with reality.

I don't think the LOD of the model between 1-3 and 5 miles has changed at all. It was always the same (before, before after and after). What has changed recently is the replacement of the "big box dot" with a normal but bigger size than in old system. It was on this post:

This is example of improved dot v2, ground target:

The screen is from VR, I can see targets on the ground from 10Km (desert), it's confirmed by a laser marker. I think it works great and the dot is perfect now (even too good ).

Edited August 1, 2024 by YoYo

[Joe1978]

I wish to express my opinion without causing controversy or offense.

As someone with a modest PC, I've experienced significant performance issues afther last update (july). A week ago, I inquired about performance issues here and ended up having to adjust the settings in OpenXR. Yet, my performance remains unsatisfactory (to 35 a 90 fps, stuttering...)

This isn't the first time that I've felt frustrated.; with SA, I purchased a map that turned out to be nearly unusable (Yoyo, you had issues with this map too, if memory serves), and the same has occurred with Afghanistan and the last update. Many of my friends have ceased flying DCS (and purchasing their products) over the past two years due to the increasing difficulty in achieving even decent VR performance (not to mention good or perfect, onñy decent). They are currently engaged with another simulator and are keen to pilot 1950-era jets across a region in Asia.

What does ED offer as a response to VR users? Despite well-meaning proposals, substantial actions that resonate with the virtual reality community appear to be lacking.

Apologies for venting my frustration here.