reported Spotting dot bugs in VR

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, draconus said:

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

Can you offer a good idea for how to replicate the (very necessary) functionality and not make it inherently exploitable?

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

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

Because they are labels. They’re labels for people who don’t want to admit they’re using labels

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Because they are labels.

Not in any sense of the word, nor in any of the functionality, no.

[JCTherik]

On 5/18/2024 at 9:31 PM, SharpeXB said:

The problem is that video games, particularly older ones, through the use of dots and labels and such have convinced players for decades that aircraft should be easily seen at great distances. Because seeing the enemy planes in a video game is “fun”. If a sim tried to actually have realistic visibility where you struggled to see something 3-5 miles away they’d howl. 

 

You've been saying this twice a week, but the only thing people here keep howling about is when one group of people see airplanes at vastly different distances than another group.

We all agree that we want a realistic spotting that is independent of hardware, no advantage for low res, only eye candy and immersion advantage for high spec, with as few game-ish tricks as possible.

We just can't seem to agree on how to do it.

Here is the full list of requirements:

 

1. Spotting realistic

2. Spotting fair

That's it. The devil's in the details. It may be more productive if we all stop accusing each other of trying to score advantage for ourselves, because this is a genuinely hard problem to solve.

 

We can talk about the specific parameters and specific implementatios of spotting systems.

Parameters:

1. What airplane are we using as an example

2. What distances should the airplane fully stop rendering on all hardware

3. What distance should it be reliably visible as a dot on all hardware

4. How does aspect and colour and environment affect points 2. and 3.

5. What distance should aspect and model be readable

6. How far should glints be visible

 

And independently of those, we can talk about specific spotting implementations:

 

1. LOD

2. Dots vs no dots

3. Scaling?

4. Labels

5. Glints? (pretty please)

 

 

Here's my opinion:

 

1. First, I don't care about the exact distances, make an airliner completely disappear past 3 miles for all I care, plenty of pilots and ATCs here know better than me. But whatever the distance we choose, make it disappear for everybody equally.

2. It should depend on aspect and airframe shape and size. So, if we're using dots, the dot visibility should adjust to aspect.

3. The dot should fade out relatively quickly, none of those 10 mile long gradual fadeouts we have now. (still, it's better than the 40 mile slow fadeout we used to have) The dot should either be bleeding obvious on all hardware or non-existent on all hardware, for the sake of fairness. For example, go from full size dot spawn to limit of dot rendering within 2 miles or so, to minimize hardware differences.

4. Dot should never be easier to see than the 3D model. That's just bad.

5. Low dot visibility distance absolutely ruins fun for WW2, so please, add in glints and reflections based on sun-bandit-eyeball angle and bandit aspect. The values for those reflection angles can be easily precalculated from full scale models using Blender or something, to minimize performance hit. We are currently abusing dots for what should be glint-only distances.

6. Please, please, PLEASE, add proper scaling, at least between 0.5-2.5 miles. Put it on a hotkey toggle to keep the screenshot folk happy. But things like aspect, vapour trails or missile smoke should be equally visible by everyone in dogfights.

For those who are religiously opposed to scaling, please consider that a sufficiently advanced dot system is indistinguishable from scaling.

7. Dots and glints should ALWAYS be exempted from anti-aliasing or DLSS, and perhaps LOD models too. Antialiasing is needed to stop the terrain from looking like a pile of glitter that a bandit gets lost in. But enabling anti aliasing makes the bandit turn to glitter instead. D'oh.

 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, JCTherik said:

Dot should never be easier to see than the 3D model. That's just bad.

And there’s the problem. If the dot is harder to see (smaller?) than the aircraft there’s no point in having them. If the dot is easier to see (bigger?) then it’s not realistic. So the right solution would be to just get rid of spotting dots entirely. Dots are already available as labels anyways. 

4 hours ago, JCTherik said:

Please, please, PLEASE, add proper scaling, at least between 0.5-2.5 miles

No! We don’t want players forced to choose between seeing an ugly game and having an advantage. Aircraft at this range are easy to see in DCS so this just isn’t needed. 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, JCTherik said:

It should depend on aspect and airframe shape and size. So, if we're using dots, the dot visibility should adjust to aspect.

There’s already a method in the game that conveys airframe aspect, shape, size, color etc. The model. Dots aren’t needed to show this nor can they. 

4 hours ago, JCTherik said:

Dots and glints should ALWAYS be exempted from anti-aliasing or DLSS, and perhaps LOD models too.

AA is needed to smooth out the image. Honestly aircraft models can look pretty awful without it. Jaggies will be visible on all the straight surfaces like wing edges or profiles and actually cause them to vanish at certain resolutions or settings. 

[Tippis]

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And there’s the problem

So, provide a solution. Don't just whinge and dig your heels in and demand the return of an infinitely worse solution. Provide the data and feedback needed to make the problem go away.

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No! We don’t want players forced to choose between seeing an ugly game and having an advantage

They won't be. In fact, it shouldn't even be a choice. It should just be equal, to everyone. Again, this was the problem with the old system, where you could choose to have an advantage. Worse still, you could pay to have an advantage. It was truly an abomination, and the new systems, for all the work that still needs to go into it, has rightfully gotten rid of it.

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Aircraft at this range are easy to see in DCS

Maybe …to you. On your setup. That is not as good of an argument as you wish it to be. In fact, it harkens back to exactly why we had to get rid of the old system — it was also fine on your system, and you demonstrated this by seeing how easy targets were to see. Unfortunately, you did this at ranges where they should have been impossible to see so you only defeated your own argument.

But more to the point, at that range the issue to solve isn't one of seeing the aircraft, but of aspect identification. That is exactly what scaling is intended to solve. You are confusing the issue with something wholly unrelated, and are essentially demanding that a workable, realistic, and equitable solution should not be put into place because “it's fine for you”. But you and your system are both irrelevant, and your one argument against this solution that you have explicitly admitted you don't understand, to a problem you have admitted you don't know anything about, is just unfounded guesswork because you have also admitted you have never seen it in action. It's pure argument from incredulity: because you believe it can't possibly be good — having no actual experience with it — it therefore must actually be bad, and must therefore not be used to solve the one problem it is exceedingly good at solving.

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s already a method in the game that conveys airframe aspect, shape, size, color etc. The model. Dots aren’t needed to show this nor can they. 

Not at the sizes we're talking about here. So you got that one backwards. The model isn't needed here and is indeed a huge waste of rendering time to use just to create a single speck, especially when the dot that needs to be there can do it instead. Additionally, funnily enough, if you want it to be the model that reports all that, then we're in a range band where we should be using scaling to correctly convey those cues. So now you're in favour of that in spite of your protestations. Oops.

Oh, and since you don't even play in VR, your wish for a system where out-of-game factors are the only thing that determine spotting distances and in-close aspect and target recognition isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Tippis

[mytai01]

I finally looked at the dots on a monitor and see what some of the problem is. On a high def monitor, the dots are very small single pixel dots (although sill ridiculous). In VR, the grey dots are huge! They look more like grey fuzzy balls several pixels in size. Perhaps 10x bigger than in 2D monitor mode. I hope this helps clear the confusion. I'm a pure VR player, and would never even bother with DCS on a monitor anymore. VR is the only way to play DCS.

[Tippis]

11 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I finally looked at the dots on a monitor and see what some of the problem is. On a high def monitor, the dots are very small single pixel dots (although sill ridiculous). In VR, the grey dots are huge! They look more like grey fuzzy balls several pixels in size. Perhaps 10x bigger than in 2D monitor mode. I hope this helps clear the confusion.

That's not the point of confusion, really. The fact that it works like this is pretty much well understood and at the heart of the discussion of how to make the dots VR-adapted, most likely by realising that the game is being played in VR and using a different resolution scaling factor than you'd get in pancake. It's not necessarily the dot that is 10x larger — you get multi-pixel dots in 2D as well — it's the visual size of the pixels is that much larger so the dot itself should be smaller to compensate. After all, this kind of compensation between higher and lower resolutions is part of what the dot is supposed to solve. Adding a similar compensation for larger or smaller visual size of pixels should be pretty obvious.

No, the “confusion” is rather between the two positions of “we should fix the dots so they take the display system into account” and “we should remove dots so that planes are rendered at infinite range if you pay enough cash for it”. A bit unfair a characterisation, perhaps, but ultimately, that is what the latter side is effectively campaigning for.

[draconus]

37 minutes ago, Tippis said:

...”we should remove dots so that planes are rendered at infinite range if you pay enough cash for it”. A bit unfair a characterisation, perhaps, but ultimately, that is what the latter side is effectively campaigning for.

I see only you talking about it.

And multiple pixel dots? Failure.

[Tippis]

59 minutes ago, draconus said:

I see only you talking about it.

That should worry you. The rest are talking about it — they just don't want to acknowledge the consequence of what they're asking for.

59 minutes ago, draconus said:

And multiple pixel dots?

Yup. Only way to equitable compensate for different resolutions. And it works. Success, until someone can figure out something better. Do you have any suggestions?

[Why485]

On 5/22/2024 at 6:45 AM, JCTherik said:

For those who are religiously opposed to scaling, please consider that a sufficiently advanced dot system is indistinguishable from scaling.

I'll add one more to this. A sufficiently well executed visibility and spotting system is completely transparent to the player. One of my favorite conversations on this subject was somebody who was vehemently opposed to any kind of visibility system in any game because it's "unrealistic", claiming that IL-2 46 never used anything and they could see just fine back then, so why should we do anything now?

The irony is that IL-2 used a combination of dots and scaled LOD models to aid in distant visibility, and it worked so well that said player never noticed it was doing anything at all. Achieving realistic results that match empirical data (of which much has been supplied throughout this thread) in a transparent way is the ideal.

There are many approaches to this problem but frankly I don't think ED is interested in what we, or anybody else, thinks. Their methodology has always been to invent a new wheel because existing wheels are never good enough. This is a well studied problem, with many known and proven solutions, which have been discussed at length for many years. At this point, I don't think what anything anybody says on this topic (especially in English) matters. They already have their superior solution planned, and are only waiting on some free time, our passion, and our support, to implement said solution. 

Edited May 28, 2024 by Why485

[mytai01]

Get rid of the dot system! Use your radar, AWACS, and RWR to help you find targets. That's how it's really done anyway. If you can't find them using all of that, then it's realistic. You're not supposed to know where threats are. Only your sensors can help you find them. Your eyes are useless until your close enough to dogfight. That's what realistic is. Scrap the whole ridiculous system. The easiest fix is to scrap it. If that makes people upset, then go play War Thunder!

[KoN]

5 hours ago, mytai01 said:

Get rid of the dot system! Use your radar, AWACS, and RWR to help you find targets. That's how it's really done anyway. If you can't find them using all of that, then it's realistic. You're not supposed to know where threats are. Only your sensors can help you find them. Your eyes are useless until your close enough to dogfight. That's what realistic is. Scrap the whole ridiculous system. The easiest fix is to scrap it. If that makes people upset, then go play War Thunder!

What system would be used . Let's say ED scap this dot system as you are asking , what's in its place . 

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, mytai01 said:

Get rid of the dot system! Use your radar, AWACS, and RWR to help you find targets. That's how it's really done anyway.

They're also completely separate and largely irrelevant to the thing that dots are meant to represent in simulation.

If you want to get rid of the dot system, you first need to come up with a better idea for how to represent what they're meant to show. Getting rid of dots without any replacement would have the exact opposite effect to what you're asking for. If you want the level of unrealism a dotless spotting system would create, go play Afterburner Climax.

Edited May 28, 2024 by Tippis

[KoN]

IMHO I think the answer will come when vulkan arrives . 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, KoN said:

What system would be used . Let's say ED scap this dot system as you are asking , what's in its place . 

The 3D model. What else? I don’t see a reason why the game needs to enhance the model with dots. There is currently no true way to turn them off. However on a 4K monitor when you select Spotting Dots: Off you are effectively seeing what the game looks like without dots since they are just a single 4K pixel and nearly invisible. It seems perfectly realistic. You cannot easily see aircraft at egregious ranges but you can make them out in a way that corresponds to reality. 

Edited May 28, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The 3D model. What else? I don’t see a reason why the game needs to enhance the model with dots. 

Have you tried reading the meany reasons given and responding to them?

How do you make sure the 3D model is only visible at realistic ranges? How do you avoid pop-in? How do you make sure it is shown equitably across different display types?

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You cannot easily see aircraft at egregious ranges but you can make them out in a way that corresponds to reality. 

This is exactly the problem relying on the 3D model alone causes and that the dots solve.

[mytai01]

16 hours ago, KoN said:

What system would be used . Let's say ED scap this dot system as you are asking , what's in its place . 

I wouldn't put anything in its place. I would just let the LOD run free! There's nothing unrealistic to look out your cockpit and see nothing until the other aircraft is right on top of you. That's the only realistic result.

Edited May 28, 2024 by mytai01

[ricktoberfest]

12 hours ago, Tippis said:

Have you tried reading the meany reasons given and responding to them?

How do you make sure the 3D model is only visible at realistic ranges? How do you avoid pop-in? How do you make sure it is shown equitably across different display types?

This is exactly the problem relying on the 3D model alone causes and that the dots solve.

If you look at his previous posts up thread he believes having a 4k monitor should be an advantage (in spotting) over someone flying in 1080p. This is why I stopped responding. It’s just become trolling at this point. 

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, ricktoberfest said:

If you look at his previous posts up thread he believes having a 4k monitor should be an advantage (in spotting) over someone flying in 1080p.

Higher resolutions are better than lower ones. That’s a simple truth. Why do you think they don’t make 1080p TVs anymore? Making the game favor lower spec hardware is counterintuitive. 

[Tippis]

22 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Making the game favor lower spec hardware is counterintuitive. 

Good thing that they're not doing that, then. In fact, the system you were so much in favour of was doing exactly that, and now you are upset that it's gone.

But more to the point, the game should also not favour high-spec hardware. If you want P2W, go play Warthunder.

[Tippis]

23 hours ago, mytai01 said:

I wouldn't put anything in its place. I would just let the LOD run free! There's nothing unrealistic to look out your cockpit and see nothing until the other aircraft is right on top of you. That's the only realistic result.

Which is why you need to put something in its place and why cannot allow the LoD to run free. If you do, you get the situation we had before where you saw aircraft at potentially infinite range, because that's what the rendering will do if you don't tell it otherwise.

So. Back to the same question: if we don't use dots to hide the transition from a hard cap on rendering distance to where the 3D model can start to be rendered at what is an appropriate size for the distance, what else should we use? Should the 3D model just pop in? Should we add klaxons to try to divert the player's attention from the obvious jarring effect that appears on the screen?

[mytai01]

On 5/28/2024 at 7:33 AM, ricktoberfest said:

If you look at his previous posts up thread he believes having a 4k monitor should be an advantage (in spotting) over someone flying in 1080p. This is why I stopped responding. It’s just become trolling at this point. 

This is a post about VR, not monitors...if anyone wants to talk about monitors then start a new post.

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Which is why you need to put something in its place and why cannot allow the LoD to run free. If you do, you get the situation we had before where you saw aircraft at potentially infinite range, because that's what the rendering will do if you don't tell it otherwise.

So. Back to the same question: if we don't use dots to hide the transition from a hard cap on rendering distance to where the 3D model can start to be rendered at what is an appropriate size for the distance, what else should we use? Should the 3D model just pop in? Should we add klaxons to try to divert the player's attention from the obvious jarring effect that appears on the screen?

I've never seen aircraft at infinite range. I don't know what you're talking about. This is a VR discussion.

Edited May 29, 2024 by mytai01

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

hard cap on rendering distance to where the 3D model can start to be rendered at

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. Even when the HMD resolution gets beyond what our eyes can discern you will simply not be able to notice even if there was some pixel still rendered - just like IRL the light from the aircraft still gets to you but you're unable to see it with bare eyes at further distances.