reported Spotting dot bugs in VR

[mytai01]

Any compensation method needs to be optional. If I'm playing single player, which is what I prefer, I don't want to be forced to use an unrealistic system. That's what radar is for! Let servers choose how they want to run.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, mytai01 said:

Any compensation method needs to be optional. If I'm playing single player, which is what I prefer, I don't want to be forced to use an unrealistic system. That's what radar is for!

The thing is, the compensation method is what makes it realistic. Same with the radar, except it's not there to compensate for anything. It's its own system. Granted, to hear some speak, you'd almost expect them to suddenly want their radars to be granted supernatural powers because they bought extra hardware for that purpose.

And if there was a server option to force anything, it would have to be to force the new system on rather than let players fall back on the nonsensical and unrealistic old system, or worse yet, one where there is no restriction on target spotting range at all. Ultimately, we'll all end up with the same system anyway so providing a server option is a bit of a waste.

[draconus]

22 hours ago, Tippis said:

Yeah, I think that's where the aggravation sets in: sure, higher res = more detail, but dots are dots. They should have no detail. They should just be seen or not (or some gradient inbetween where they fade into the background). And they should go away the same no matter what.

Now you're making sense but...

Dots can and should have detail - color and brightness based on target aspect, skin, light and reflections*. There's no reason to make them resized (4 pix box) on different resolutions or screen sizes. If the calculation make it bigger then it's no longer a dot - back to far lod model.

They should go away at the simulated limit of human best vision but that also has to take target size, aspect, skin, light and reflections* into considerarion. Single glint on an aircraft invisible for naked eye otherwise can dig it out from the sky from tens of miles away.

Now if you have high fov and low resolution the same dot should not be shown at the same distance as with lower fov or higher res - that's obvious.

btw: Any cheating accusations allegedly giving me any advantage are wrongly targeted - I have 1080p monitor and 2K VR.

*add atmospheric conditions to that of course

Edited May 19, 2024 by draconus

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Now you're making sense but...

Dots can and should have detail - color and brightness based on target aspect, skin, light and reflections*. There's no reason to make them resized (4 pix box) on different resolutions or screen sizes. If the calculation make it bigger then it's no longer a dot - back to far lod model.

There's a very good reason to have them larger, and it's the reason we have arrived at where we are. In fact, there are several. Some of this you'll know, obviously, but I like to be thorough.

The first is to make them equitable and resolution-independent. If someone sees the target at a given size at a given distance, everyone should see the target at that size at that distance. If it goes beyond the point where it can no longer be represented as an entire single pixel, it needs to fade out and at some point, it just needs to go away, again for everyone. The problem here becomes one of lowest common denominator. Arguably, yes, at higher resolution “the smallest” thing should still be a single pixel that fades out over distance, but the problem is that this visibility needs to be replicated the same at the lower resolution. So we need to figure out a rock-solid way of representing a single high-res pixel as an equally visible low-res subpixel. On top of this, on the high-res end, as that single pixel approaches the limit of visibility, it also needs to go into subpixel territory, effectively fading it into the background… and then we still need to figure out a way to reliably translate that back to the lowres realm, where it now a sub-subpixel, double-faded into the background. The results will start to diverge very quickly, and that's no good.

It is probably possible to experimentally figure out a good parametrisation for a fading curve based on resolution and range and maybe throw in some of that lighting and glinting and variable target size as well. That would be really neat, but it also risks being completely wasted effort.

Because on top of that, there's the problem that we now have high-res displays that can show finer detail than the eye can resolve. It's a problem because this means that the single pixel on the high-res screen might actually represent a level of detail that our simulated pilot should not be able to see, and not just what the player can. In the other big thread on the topic, I have some calculations to show how shockingly quickly and easily we get to that point on modern systems. So realistically, when we are at the very edge of visibility, the target may actually still have to be rendered as larger than a single pixel on some displays. If we go into the single-pixel or sub-pixel domain, we are already breaking the simulation and offering unrealistic visibility. At those resolutions, the target needs to start fading into the background when it's still an entire block of pixels on the screen. So having this neat function that translates a high-res pixel into a low-res subpixel doesn't matter — the high-res screen should still show the target as a block, and that block is very likely to be about single-pixel sized on the low-res display. The translation only needs to happen at a point where neither display should be showing anything anyway. We still need to figure out what size high-res dot is equivalent to a lonely low-res pixel, but probably not the other way around. And the less said about what happens when we throw variable zoom into the mix, the better.

A second/third/howeveryouwanttocountthem problem is one of physical setup and screen distance. This one is trickier to generalise, but is essentially why we have these big VR blocks. It is the out-of-game version of where the display can show too fine detail: how large a single or a blob of pixels are to me as a player will obviously vary not jut with the resolution but with the distance from the screen. If I completely rearrange my desk and move some of these darned sim peripherals out of the way, I can pixel-peep single pixels all day while barely looking (indeed, that's part of what I do all day). But if I move it back give more rooms to all the toys, the exact same screen is now “retina”, to use that loathsome advertising term — the individual pixels are below what my eye can resolve. VR goes in the opposite direction: since the screen is right up against the eye, the pixels are inherently huge… well, relative to the screen resolution at least, and from a perceptual standpoint. To combat this you add more resolution and/or supersampling (i.e. virtually more resolution) and get into the whole subpixel detail disscussion again.

The question then becomes one of, should this be our reference point? That the goal is to make it 1px on a “normal” VR screen, and then we extrapolate the equivalent sizes in pancake mode from there? Or do we try to translate from some kind of normalised pancake target size into the VR realm and hope we get it right? Maybe that parametrisation function will come in handy after all…? What we certainly shouldn't do — and probably the reason why this thread exists — is to assume that a VR resolution is the same as a pancake resolution, and so we apply the same dot size on both. There's a pretty significant difference in having 2k vertical pixels an inch away from your eye, and having it 40 inches away. And of course, then we could get into a whole technical debate about the feasibility of also adjusting for monitor distance, but omg, the headache of trying to figure out, not just how far away the player sits (without cheating) but also adjusting for “should I sit at 90cm or 75? You know what, 84.3 seems about perfect… on and then I adjust my zoom cruve”.

And then (I've lose count now) there's the issue of what should happen at that very edge of visibility. And I'm talking about what the pilot is capable of seeing here, not rendering visibility. At some point, the target needs to start blending into the background. Much sooner than many would expect, but at the same time much later than some would suggest. And let me just be clear here: I'm not saying that the current dots are good at this — targets are still far too visible, far too far out — but it's a massive improvement over the old system and for that reason alone any notion of going back is laughable. But as mentioned, this may still be at a point where the target is — or at least could be, given its size on the screen — still rendered as a full 3D model. How do you fade out a 3D model in a  good way? We don't want pop-in (or pop-out, which is arguably even more distracting). We want something that can be faded out easily, reliably, and equitably on all displays at all resolutions. Something that covers up the transition from no perceivable colour difference from the background to clearly visible, but unidentifiable blob, to fully rendered 3D model, and which can (at least in some kind of fantastical dream world) be colour-matched to how that 3D model will appear when it takes over. And what something will be is a dot – maybe even a dot that isn't just a single pixel.

Preferably, yes, that dot should be coloured in a way to represent… well… colour, and aspect and size and and lighting and a hole bunch of other things, but that's unfortunately a luxury compared to the basic functionality of covering up the range segment where the target becomes visible, but doesn't suddenly pop in because its “minimum visible size” actually turns out to be a whole bunch of pixels.

 

…and then, of course, there's another transition that needs to happen that dots most definitely aren't a solution for, but that's a separate discussion. This is just to illustrate that they are indeed needed as a solution, and that they may indeed have to be much larger than a single pixel. Oh, and that we shouldn't naively think that we can treat VR as if it were pancake, because duh. But everyone agrees on that last point.

 

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Any cheating accusations allegedly giving me any advantage are wrongly targeted - I have 1080p monitor and 2K VR.

Oh, don't worry, they're not aimed at you. There is a very specific segment of wishy-washy posters who are adamantly against any improvement to the game, and especially to spotting, and especially especially when they realise that those spotting improvement would make them lose their artificial advantages.

Once upon a time, they said that spotting should not be addressed because there was no problem — after all, they could see targets at 50nm and therefore, any complaint about the spotting system making targets hard to see was invalid and any and all improvements were unnecessary. Then they realised that others had a different advantage: that closer in, they could see the target much more easily because of how the spotting system interacted with lower resolution. Suddenly, the previously perfectly working system was broken beyond repair and needed to go. Then they realised that the new system didn't do away with the other guy's advantage — it just made it universal so everyone saw larger targets, and their old absurd-distance advantage had been removed. Now they shifted foot again and suddenly the old system had make a return, or better yet, make an even newer one that would return to them that advantage, but with unlimited range.

All retention of their advantage and removal of the other guy's equal advantage in the name of “realism”, of course.

There's a reason why I can only laugh at the utter lack of logical consistency and blatant desire to cheat emanating from this particular segment. You can actually articulate a rational argument, even if I don't fully agree with where it leads you.

Edited May 19, 2024 by Tippis

[mytai01]

I prefer the old LOD method. It's better not to see anything till it's within a few miles, than to see things 20 miles away. That is a ridiculous situation.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I prefer the old LOD method. It's better not to see anything till it's within a few miles, than to see things 20 miles away. That is a ridiculous situation.

How old are we speaking? Because the old method let you see things 50 miles away, and the old old method was only slightly better than that but not better than what we have now.

[draconus]

21 hours ago, Tippis said:

There's a very good reason to have them larger, and it's the reason we have arrived at where we are. In fact, there are several.

None of them convince me. There will never be consent to resizing "dots" or any fake dots for that matter. It's simply impossible to make it fair for everyone with so many display devices and types, varying fov and eye-to-screen distance.

I don't really think limiting the far visbility is even needed at all since it's self limiting by our eyes. If you reach "retina" limit on any display you won't see anything beyond anyway. Even if someone uses such a setting that allows to see more you can't forbid it anyway beacause everyone has the same options.

You can't stop the development of new displays and cripple game graphics just because someone there keeps playing on HD monitor.

Edited May 20, 2024 by draconus

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

It's simply impossible to make it fair for everyone with so many display devices and types, varying fov and eye-to-screen distance.

It's not impossible. It's just very very hard, especially if you want to add in other parameters.

But being very very hard isn't a good reason to just throw up your hands and do nothing. An attempt at an equitable solution is better than leaving it laughably exploitable.

6 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't really think limiting the far visbility is even needed at all since it's self limiting by our eyes.

It's only self-limiting if your physical setup makes it so, and if you don't adjust your settings. But more to the point, it isn't self-limiting in the simulation unless you actively put that limit in. The hardware is now more than capable of exceeding those limits so you need to make sure to tell it not to.

6 hours ago, draconus said:

You can't stop the development of new displays and cripple game graphics just because someone there keeps playing on HD monitor.

Of course not, but you have to adjust your simulation to match, so that it doesn't create an unrealistic result. That is the end goal here, after all: as accurate a simulation as possible. The development of new displays and graphics card and CPUs and storage solutions to feed more and more detail at long and longer distances means we now can't just rely on trigonometry to decide how small or large a target should appear. It means we must also start simulating the wetware sensor system that actually interprets all that trigonometry into something we can see.

Just because your display system can accurately render a CE2 at 50nm doesn't mean it should. Because you can't see a CE2 at 50nm. Instead, that processing oomph should, or at least could, be spent on increasing the accuracy of that simulation — maybe adding in all that glare and contrast and all that fun stuff. Giving your pilot superhuman vision just because the hardware allows it completely removes any pretence of being a simulation. Imagine suddenly giving the F-5 an 250nm 360° AWACS radar and over-the-shoulder launched datalinked Phoenix missiles. You could — our hardware allows for it — but it would be wrong because that is not a capability the platform has. The virtual pilot is no different. It needs to be accurately simulated too.

[Talisman_VR]

It is all very bad at the moment with the dot spotting and the awful fuzzy grey cubes seen from miles away for air and ground objects.  I have DCS for multiplayer activity in VR and this awful spotting dot issue is the main thing that puts me right off DCS.  

No chance not to be seen when flying tactically in my Huey on the Enigma Cold War Server for example.  I just have to accept that I stand out like a beacon to some enemy and it is no fun at all.

It is very frustrating that this issue is not being resolved with urgency.  Makes me feel as a customer that the developers don't care.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Talisman_VR

[SharpeXB]

49 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

It is very frustrating that this issue is not being resolved with urgency.  Makes me feel as a customer that the developers don't care.

I think this is low on their priorities since DCS is mostly a single player game. They never really seem to appreciate that the game can be exploited online in this and probably so many other ways. In fact prior to this update it was possible for players to simply hack or mod the dots entirely. Who knows what sort of mischief was going on? And currently since both v 2.8 and 2.9 can be selected at will and not enforced by mission settings the exploitation continues  Games which are more multiplayer focused clamp down on this sort of thing but it just doesn’t seem to be a priority here.

[Talisman_VR]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I think this is low on their priorities since DCS is mostly a single player game. They never really seem to appreciate that the game can be exploited online in this and probably so many other ways. In fact prior to this update it was possible for players to simply hack or mod the dots entirely. Who knows what sort of mischief was going on? And currently since both v 2.8 and 2.9 can be selected at will and not enforced by mission settings the exploitation continues  Games which are more multiplayer focused clamp down on this sort of thing but it just doesn’t seem to be a priority here.

A great shame.  Thank you for responding.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[mytai01]

I only fly in VR, HP G2. I see grey dots 20 miles away (airplanes, parachutes, and ground vehicles). It's completely ridiculous. There's no such thing as camouflage. every object is a obvious grey dot for 20 miles. Just go after the grey dots and you'll never miss! The only question is if it's a good guy or a bad guy. You don't even need radar or IFF. Just point at the dot and shoot in flood mode or bulldog. It's ridiculous...

[Tippis]

4 hours ago, Talisman_VR said:

No chance not to be seen when flying tactically in my Huey on the Enigma Cold War Server for example.  I just have to accept that I stand out like a beacon to some enemy and it is no fun at all.

Look at the bright side: at least you are under no illusion that you can't be seen just because you can't see them. If you stand out like a beacon then so do they, as opposed to the olden days, where you would stand out like a beacon but they didn't.

[Talisman_VR]

17 hours ago, Tippis said:

Look at the bright side: at least you are under no illusion that you can't be seen just because you can't see them. If you stand out like a beacon then so do they, as opposed to the olden days, where you would stand out like a beacon but they didn't.

I don't think you understand.  They don't stand out like a beacon to me because I absolutely hate the immersion breaking totally unreal and weird looking other world false dot option and choose to compete with it turned off!!

At the moment I am forced to make a choice of either totally immersion breaking awful, unreal weird looking alien visuals with the dot modification option turned on or turn it off and suffer a competitive disadvantage in MP against some players who take tactical advantage of the unreal awful fuzzy big grey alien looking cubes that can be seen from many miles away (like a big radar blob on a screen).  

So you see Tippis there is absolutely no bright side at all!

I hope you and DCS can just understand this please!

Happy landings,

Talisman

18 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I only fly in VR, HP G2. I see grey dots 20 miles away (airplanes, parachutes, and ground vehicles). It's completely ridiculous. There's no such thing as camouflage. every object is a obvious grey dot for 20 miles. Just go after the grey dots and you'll never miss! The only question is if it's a good guy or a bad guy. You don't even need radar or IFF. Just point at the dot and shoot in flood mode or bulldog. It's ridiculous...

Exactly!  Well said.  This is why I don't understand why DCS appears to be so slow to rectify the problems it has introduced.  Do any DCS developers use their product competitively on MP servers?  Do they understand the problematic and frustrating spotting dot modification issues for some of their customers who do compete on MP servers?

Happy landings,

Talisman

Edited May 21, 2024 by Talisman_VR

[YoYo]

Well said. 

[Tippis]

45 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

I don't think you understand.

I do. I just look at the problem differently.

45 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

They don't stand out like a beacon to me because I absolutely hate the immersion breaking totally unreal and weird looking other world false dot option and choose to compete with it turned off!!

…and this is the actual problem. The one that the new dots are set up to solve. You have now chosen the old issue of targets appearing at utterly ridiculous levels, but only unreliably, and if you use specific settings. This is far more exploitable — deliberately or accidentally — than what we currently have. It is also much less realistic than what we have now. With your choice, are still getting a “false dot option”, just one that is much worse from a simulation perspective. And from a balance perspective. And from a situational awareness perspective (and I don't mean in the sense of “I can see them” but rather, “I have no idea whether they can see me or not because we're not seeing the same thing even though we should”).

What you assume is more immersive is actually a fare falser dot solution, in just about every way, than the new one. You're just used to it and more comfortable with it, that's all.

45 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

So you see Tippis there is absolutely no bright side at all!

Yes there is.

It is more realistic. You may not like how and why it is more realistic, but it is. Unquestionably. Because it much more closely simulates the limitations of the human eye. Not all the way, granted. Hell, maybe not even close to all the way. But still much more closely than what we had before. The old dots were ridiculously false in how far out they would let you spot a target.

It is more equitable. This may not seem important if you only play in SP, but it is. Because it means we are actually simulating a critical component in the whole flying thing: the pilot. Previously, we didn't. We just let people choose their setting how, through that, how superhumanly good their pilot's eyesight was. And it was always superhuman. The old dots were ridiculously false in how differently they portrayed the pilot.

It is more tweakable. This may not seem like it matters, but it does. Because now ED can control, pretty much universally, what players see at specified ranges, whereas previously they had no control. This means it can be further developed and enhanced into an actual spotting system that the game has been lacking for… oh, roughly… ever. The old dots were ridiculously false in how it was a one-size-fits-all solution that actually didn't fit anything.

The only non-bright side is that development seems to be slow and that we're currently stuck with a naive solution that doesn't take into account what kind of display the player is using when figuring out how large the dot should be. I suppose you might want to add the visibility ranges as well, but since those can be tweaked more easily, it's actually a bright side even if the fact that you can't see as far as you could before didn't already make it so.

45 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

I hope you and DCS can just understand this please!

I and DCS have a mutual understanding of what the ‘S’ stands for. It is crucial in understanding why the pilot's limitations can't be left to the player to arbitrarily choose, or their hardware to arbitrarily dictate. It should be a part of the core simulation. Now it is. This can only ever be a good thing.

  

45 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

This is why I don't understand why DCS appears to be so slow to rectify the problems it has introduced.  Do any DCS developers use their product competitively on MP servers?  Do they understand the problematic and frustrating spotting dot modification issues for some of their customers who do compete on MP servers?

Do you understand how problematic and frustrating the old spotting dot solution was in MP, where some people could see targets at well beyond even BVR missile engagement ranges, whereas others couldn't could barely see targets in WVR ranges? And that some people lost their targets when they entered realistic visible ranges, whereas others would suddenly see them clear as day at that range, but not before? And that the old system was wholly decided by hardware and settings, rather than anything that was actually part of the world simulation? Because that was the reality with the old dots. They were horrid, especially in MP. Especially in a competitive setting.

An apparent reason why ED seems to be slow to rectify any problems with the new dots is that there is so much effort being sent on saying “no, give us the old crap one” as opposed to having a constructive discussion on how the new — vastly better — ones should be tweaked to provide sensible visibility across the entire range of devices and resolutions the players use. They can't really act on data that isn't made available to them.

Edited May 21, 2024 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

51 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

This is why I don't understand why DCS appears to be so slow to rectify the problems it has introduced.  Do any DCS developers use their product competitively on MP servers?  Do they understand the problematic and frustrating spotting dot modification issues for some of their customers who do compete on MP servers?

I think the answer to that is that they are such serious sim players themselves it doesn’t occur to them that players will hack and exploit the game. In this and maybe so many other ways. Otherwise it would be a simple matter to just make this a mission/server setting. 
They are also under pressure from gamers who simply want to easily see all the other aircraft regardless of whether it’s realistic or not. 

Edited May 21, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Talisman_VR]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

I do. I just look at the problem differently.

…and this is the actual problem. The one that the new dots are set up to solve. You have now chosen the old issue of targets appearing at utterly ridiculous levels, but only unreliably, and if you use specific settings. This is far more exploitable — deliberately or accidentally — than what we currently have. It is also much less realistic than what we have now. With your choice, are still getting a “false dot option”, just one that is much worse from a simulation perspective. And from a balance perspective. And from a situational awareness perspective (and I don't mean in the sense of “I can see them” but rather, “I have no idea whether they can see me or not because we're not seeing the same thing even though we should”).

What you assume is more immersive is actually a fare falser dot solution, in just about every way, than the new one. You're just used to it and more comfortable with it, that's all.

Yes there is.

It is more realistic. You may not like how and why it is more realistic, but it is. Unquestionably. Because it much more closely simulates the limitations of the human eye. Not all the way, granted. Hell, maybe not even close to all the way. But still much more closely than what we had before. The old dots were ridiculously false in how far out they would let you spot a target.

It is more equitable. This may not seem important if you only play in SP, but it is. Because it means we are actually simulating a critical component in the whole flying thing: the pilot. Previously, we didn't. We just let people choose their setting how, through that, how superhumanly good their pilot's eyesight was. And it was always superhuman. The old dots were ridiculously false in how differently they portrayed the pilot.

It is more tweakable. This may not seem like it matters, but it does. Because now ED can control, pretty much universally, what players see at specified ranges, whereas previously they had no control. This means it can be further developed and enhanced into an actual spotting system that the game has been lacking for… oh, roughly… ever. The old dots were ridiculously false in how it was a one-size-fits-all solution that actually didn't fit anything.

The only non-bright side is that development seems to be slow and that we're currently stuck with a naive solution that doesn't take into account what kind of display the player is using when figuring out how large the dot should be. I suppose you might want to add the visibility ranges as well, but since those can be tweaked more easily, it's actually a bright side even if the fact that you can't see as far as you could before didn't already make it so.

I and DCS have a mutual understanding of what the ‘S’ stands for. It is crucial in understanding why the pilot's limitations can't be left to the player to arbitrarily choose, or their hardware to arbitrarily dictate. It should be a part of the core simulation. Now it is. This can only ever be a good thing.

This sounds like blackwhite (as in 1984) to me.  To me your post comes across as a little crazy and rather obtuse.  But I suppose you must realise that. 

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

This sounds like blackwhite (as in 1984) to me.  To me your post comes across as a little crazy and rather obtuse.  But I suppose you must realise that.

You're not offering much in the way of argumentation, just abuse.

So no, I don't suppose I must do anything of the kind.

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think the answer to that is that they are such serious sim players themselves it doesn’t occur to them that players will hack and exploit the game

The probably do. That's why the old system had to go, with how exploitable and hackable it was, and with how it made it see all other aircraft at absurd ranges, regardless of whether it's realistic or not. That's also probably why they're not bowing to the pressure of gamers who want their old exploits and imbalances back.

Edited May 21, 2024 by Tippis

[Talisman_VR]

17 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You're not offering much in the way of argumentation, just abuse.

So no, I don't suppose I must do anything of the kind.

There is no abuse from me and I think you are being rather disingenuous to claim so.  After reading your response to my post I simply decided that it was pointless offering argument to someone who presumes to know better than me what I find immersive and who responds to posts in such an insulting and arrogant fashion.  Try reading your posts and imagining that they are from someone else to you and you might see what I mean.  

Happy landings,

Talisman

Edited May 21, 2024 by Talisman_VR

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

There is no abuse from me

…aside from the whole “crazy and obtuse” and now “arrogant” bit.

14 minutes ago, Talisman_VR said:

After reading your response to my post I simply decided that it was pointless offering argument to someone who presumes to know better than me what I find immersive and who responds to posts in such an insulting and arrogant fashion. 

Good news: no such presumption is made. I am simply explaining how your sense of immersiveness relates to the notion of having a “false dot system”, namely that the one you prefer is just as — and actually in many ways more — “false” than the one you feel is less immersive. I'm not saying that you're not finding it immersive. I'm saying that whether you do or not is not a factor as far as determining which is better from a realism and simulation standpoint.

It may very well be that you feel a bad solution is more immersive than a good one, and that's fine, I suppose. But you need to realise that the end goal is probably more skewed towards a good and more realistic solution than one that satisfies your sense of immersion. Your preferences are not universal, nor are they by necessity the guiding factor in determining what the spotting dot solution should generate.

 

If you want to offer an argument why we should have a system that shows contacts at highly unrealistic (and arbitrary) ranges, then do so. If you want to offer an argument why we should have a system that is inherently unbalanced, then do so. If you want to offer an argument why we should have a system that lets out-of-game factors rather than in-game simulation determine performance, then do so.

Just don't expect “my immersion” to be a particularly convincing one.

Alternatively, offer an argument for a solution: at what ranges should what targets be what size and/or faded into the background to what degree. Discuss solutions for how to achieve that across a multitude of displays and settings so we don't have the current problem of VR being burdened with inappropriate 2D rendering calculations. Then your immersion may end up being served without reverting back to an old and demonstrably bad solution.

Edited May 21, 2024 by Tippis

[YoYo]

Gentlemen, in general there is no point in debating, the current system we have is good but only for 2D, for VR it is completely pointless. Even if the assumptions were good, someone did not test it properly and only thought about a small group of recipients who are not looking for realism, but fun, like in War Thunder.  The system requires changes, the thread is marked as WIP and the only thing left to do is puting pressure on ED to correct it or rework it finally. It's definitely taking too long.

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Gentlemen, in general there is no point in debating, the current system we have is good but only for 2D, for VR it is completely pointless. Even if the assumptions were good, someone did not test it properly and only thought about a small group of recipients who are not looking for realism, but fun, like in War Thunder.  The system requires changes, the thread is marked as WIP and the only thing left to do is puting pressure on ED to correct it or rework it finally. It's definitely taking too long.

Absolutely agreed. Well, maybe apart from the WT bit, since I think the aim has always been one of realism more than anything, but they haven't got it (even nearly) dialled in yet.

Hence why I think what is needed most of all is data — how it appears compared to how it should appear — with a whole bunch parameters taken into account.

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, YoYo said:

Gentlemen, in general there is no point in debating, the current system we have is good but only for 2D

This is indeed the VR section and there’s a separate thread for 2D. But no it’s not all good in 2D either. On a monitor the new spotting dots look almost exactly like the dot labels. And aircraft can easily be seen at unrealistic distances when using them.
And with any display method players can still use the previous 2.8 version by selecting Improved Spotting Dots: Off. So nothing has really changed or been improved in this regard. 

Edited May 21, 2024 by SharpeXB

[draconus]

Dots need to go away. It should be an option like labels are. And so should server owners decide.