resolved New spotting is great / New spotting is overcooked feedback thread

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Nope. Lower resolutions created bigger splotches out to the edge of VWR, because there was a limit to how small they could be. Higher resolutions, by virtue of the same problem, got smaller splotches at the same range, which got lost in the background noise, but on the other hand had pixel planes show up at insane distances because, at that higher resolution, they had not yet hit the limit for how small they could be. You demonstrated this yourself in old posts arguing that there was no problem.

The fact that you could see them that far was the problem. The fact that you could and others couldn't was why you thought it wasn't one.

Not the type we have now, no. It is quite literally a 2.9 headline feature.

Again, you're confusing the “smallest drawable airplane splodge” with the massive improvement the spotting dots (re)introduce.

 

There were definitely dots used in 2.8 according to this mod which I think is what started ED on this current solution. Anyone including myself who was using higher resolutions was penalized in the older game. As far as seeing very distant objects that’s alway going to be possible since DCS doesn’t stop modeling them far away. In 4K you are though looking for a single 4K pixel which is realistically nearly impossible to see. That much hasn’t changed in 2.9 either. Only I can probably pick them out even easier now.

”This mod aims to address two specific issues with the current implementation of contact dots in DCS:

1. Dot size is always one pixel, which means smaller dots at higher resolutions, and that the lower your resolution, the easier it is to find contacts.
2. Dots are rendered too far. As long as an objects model is not culled, it will get a dot drawn on it. DCS' draw distances can go out to >40 miles, making it possible to see the dots of an aircraft before even your radar can pick it up.”

 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

There were definitely dots used in 2.8 according to this mod

You are still confusing spotting dots — what we have now — with the smallest drawable airplane splodge (contact dots), which is what we had before and what the mod (i.e. not something the game actually had in and of itself) fiddles with.

I can't believe I have to go down this road with you once again, but

READ
WHAT
YOU
ARE
RESPONDING
TO

No. The spotting dots are new. They are a headline feature of 2.9.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Anyone including myself who was using higher resolutions was penalized in the older game.

…at certain ranges. At other ranges, you were given an advantage because of how culling worked. The “woe is me” victim card won't work here because you also had an advantage. You even (accidentally) crowed about it in previous discussions by showing how far you could see things, and therefore, spotting was working as intended.

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

As far as seeing very distant objects that’s alway going to be possible since DCS doesn’t stop modeling them far away.

Funny thing: that's not always going to be possible because DCS can decide to stop modelling beyond visual range. It's an option this whole rigmarole opens up for. It's why this is a huge step forward for realism. Neat, huh?

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You are still confusing spotting dots — what we have now — with the smallest drawable airplane splodge (contact dots), which is what we had before and what the mod (i.e. not something the game actually had in and of itself) fiddles with.

I can't believe I have to go down this road with you once again, but

READ
WHAT
YOU
ARE
RESPONDING
TO

No. The spotting dots are new. They are a headline feature of 2.9.

…at certain ranges. At other ranges, you were given an advantage because of how culling worked. The “woe is me” victim card won't work here because you also had an advantage. You even (accidentally) crowed about it in previous discussions by showing how far you could see things, and therefore, spotting was working as intended.

Funny thing: that's not always going to be possible because DCS can decide to stop modelling beyond visual range. It's an option this whole rigmarole opens up for. It's why this is a huge step forward for realism. Neat, huh?

I don’t know why you feel like going on and on about this. I actually think 2.9 is ok. For me. Others maybe no so much but it’s still a WIP. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

I don’t know why you feel like going on and on about this.

Mainly because you seem to be confused what it is we're discussing. And in a thread where we're supposed to give pros and cons of the new system, it is rather important that you know what it is and how it differs from what came before it.

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Mainly because you seem to be confused what it is we're discussing. And in a thread where we're supposed to give pros and cons of the new system, it is rather important that you know what it is and how it differs from what came before it.

Whether you call these things “dots” or “airplane splodges” they’re effectively doing the same thing. With similar issues. If a single 1080x1920 sized pixel is the smallest they can practically be, that may still be too large for distant objects or in VR where 1 pixel is apparently gigantic. So we will have to see how this gets solved.

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Whether you call these things “dots” or “airplane splodges” they’re effectively doing the same thing.

No. They're doing a very different thing, specifically because they are intended to solve the issue the old minimal sizes created.

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

f a single 1080x1920 sized pixel is the smallest they can practically be, that may still be too large for distant objects or in VR where 1 pixel is apparently gigantic.

It's not gigantic, nor is that the smallest they can be. Rather, a standard 1080p size is a reasonable benchmark that the other resolutions should probably converge towards. At the moment, they aren't there, so in VR, they're too big. In high-res pancake, they're reasonable, but still has some range issues. At 1080p, funnily enough, they're also too big. But unlike in the previous case, the different scenarios can now be tweaked to meet the same goal.

Hence the initial statement that this is far more realistic and a vast improvement. And it is so because it's not the old simple geometrical solution. And tbh, no matter how it's solved, it is still better, even if — especially if — some people complain that they no longer have their old advantage or if they have suddenly gained a new one. Because that's how you know it's working.

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It's not gigantic, nor is that the smallest they can be.

If they’re smaller than the equivalent of 1080x1920 wouldn’t they be invisible in 1080p?

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If they’re smaller than the equivalent of 1080x1920 wouldn’t they be invisible in 1080p?

No, just fainter. They old ones already worked that… occasionally. That was a different part of the problem.

[Ourorborus]

8 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

That's a good post. The colour of the aircraft, aspect and the lighting are very important points. There's a reason why modern fighter jets are mostly grey with an unreflective paint and with a flat shape, they are very hard to spot (except in high aspect). What you cannot do is show all of the them as the same black dot. 

I took this picture of an airliner a few days ago because I thought of this thread, an E190AR according to flightradar at 35k ft. It was a bit offset so in total probably like 15km away (~9 miles). Despite being high aspect against a monotone background, the wings were invisible. The only reason why it was visible at all was the brightly illuminated, white and highly reflective fuselage. If this had been a military plane, I probably could have barely seen it. Also, this thing is more than 2x longer, 3x wider and 2x higher than the F-16, so a much higher volume in total. 

In DCS this would be a huge black dot right now. 

....and what it would look like in 2.9....

nullnullnull

 

 

Seriously though, the polarising nature of this discussion highlights the need for this to be able to be disabled. While it may be perceived to work on some hardware it clearly breaks the sim on other hardware.

Some individuals value "fun" over over realism. Many of us get our fun from realism, and this absolutely kills it.

So let us be able to disable it!!

It is disappointing the new hot fix does not appear to make the autoexec switch work. This should have been #1 priority.

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Ourorborus said:

Seriously though, the polarising nature of this discussion highlights the need for this to be able to be disabled.

But that won’t work for multiplayer. It would just end up as a divisive setting like the old Model Enlargement was. Whatever solution is arrived at needs to be fair across the board as well as non-hackable and non-exploitable. It needs to be baked into the game and not be user adjustable. So it’s not an easy thing to solve. 

[Ourorborus]

So let the server managers allow/disallow the setting...... I play MP exclusively. We skipped last weeks mission as a direct result of this patch.

 

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Ourorborus said:

So let the server managers allow/disallow the setting...... I play MP exclusively. We skipped last weeks mission as a direct result of this patch.

 

But that’s the problem. Such a setting would divide up the already tiny player base. 
You know your server could always run the Stable version.

[Ourorborus]

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

But that’s the problem. Such a setting would divide up the already tiny player base. 
You know your server could always run the Stable version.

So your solution is to drive anyone who doesn't what super blobs away from openbeta. So they just have to deal with the super blobs in 4 months when it makes it to stable because there was no one left on open beta to point out they are broken?

Hardly the spirit of open beta!

Noone is advocating to remove it entirely.

The function is already supposed to be switchable. But the switch doesn't work. Fixing that switch should have been a priority.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Ourorborus said:

 

So your solution is to drive anyone who doesn't what super blobs away from openbeta. So they just have to deal with the super blobs in 4 months when it makes it to stable because there was no one left on open beta to point out they are broken?

Hardly the spirit of open beta!

Noone is advocating to remove it entirely.

The function is already supposed to be switchable. But the switch doesn't work. Fixing that switch should have been a priority.

No. Just realize the Open Beta is a test version. It’s going to have stuff in it that doesn’t work, like this. So if that bugs you this is why there’s a Stable version. Sometimes OB isn’t the right choice for everyone. There’s no shortage of people willing to use it so I think we are safe as far as testing is concerned. It’s switchable (or supposed to be) now only because it’s a WIP not because that’s the way the final version will probably work. And we don’t know what that will really be yet. This is only a test. 

[Ourorborus]

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No. Just realize the Open Beta is a test version. It’s going to have stuff in it that doesn’t work, like this. So if that bugs you this is why there’s a Stable version. Sometimes OB isn’t the right choice for everyone. There’s no shortage of people willing to use it so I think we are safe as far as testing is concerned. It’s switchable (or supposed to be) now only because it’s a WIP not because that’s the way the final version will probably work. And we don’t know what that will really be yet. This is only a test. 

I think somebody else has already pointed out  ... read what you are responding too.

Noone is complaining about Openbeta.

Many here are pointing out that this "feature" is unrealistic, immersion breaking and a severe step backwards for the game. <---This is open beta feedback!

We have also pointed out the "feature" is advertised to be able to be turned off. This does not work and needs to be fixed <----- this is open beta feedback!

I have expressed disappointment that the second point has not been fixed in the hotfix. <---- while not direct openbeta feedback it is a valid expression that something that seems so simple to fix was not looked at despite being a major issue for many.

 

There is only person here advocating for a "one size fits all, force it upon everyone because its what I want If you don't like it go to stable" approach...........

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Ourorborus

[KoN]

56 minutes ago, Ourorborus said:

So let the server managers allow/disallow the setting...... I play MP exclusively. We skipped last weeks mission as a direct result of this patch.

 

Why skip missions when you have stable DCS.

This is open beta . ?

Sounds like some of you think you don't have a choice.

Not happy with current spotting then go fly on stable. This is what beta is all about . I don't get why you cancelled your fun time flying just because of this . 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by KoN

[Ourorborus]

20 minutes ago, KoN said:

Why skip missions when you have stable DCS.

This is open beta . ?

Sounds like some of you think you don't have a choice.

Not happy with current spotting then go fly on stable. This is what beta is all about . I don't get why you cancelled your fun time flying just because of this . 

 

 

Because rolling back to stable  for a large server is much more than just ticking a box to change versions.

 

Please dont let this be dragged into a stable vs OB discussion. Everyone here knows why Openbeta exists.

 

Perhaps I could have worded myself better:

....contrary to what was stated before, turning the feature off not only works for Multiplayer, but is in fact is preferable for many who play MP.

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, Ourorborus said:

Noone is complaining about Openbeta.

Sounds like you are actually. Again there’s literally a stable version of this game for you to use if you don’t like dealing with work in progress stuff. 

8 minutes ago, Ourorborus said:

Because rolling back to stable  for a large server is much more than just ticking a box to change versions.

Doesn’t seem so. These same servers will switch versions in the blink of an eye when Stable becomes the latest release and vice versa. 

[Ourorborus]

Sigh..

 

READ

WHAT

YOU

ARE

RESPONDING

TO

 

 

...you just proved my point!

 

 

[MarkP]

im on a reverb G2 and i dislike it alot. It feels like cheating. I can see groundunits from 50nm away, they appear to be WAY too big and noticable. Also there is a threshold when it will switch from the "plane" to the "dot", happens that the 10nm away dot is way bigger then the 1nm away plane.

[metzger]

I stand corrected from my earlier comment. Reverb G2 native res and I can see some huge ugly black dots, not good.

[Scoop]

Same here G2 and not very pretty or realistic

[KoN]

22 hours ago, Ourorborus said:

Because rolling back to stable  for a large server is much more than just ticking a box to change versions.

 

Please dont let this be dragged into a stable vs OB discussion. Everyone here knows why Openbeta exists.

 

Perhaps I could have worded myself better:

....contrary to what was stated before, turning the feature off not only works for Multiplayer, but is in fact is preferable for many who play MP.

Funny all I used hear was I CANT SEE A THING , lol . 

And I'm still hearing it . 

I've been around this simulation since flanker days . Been flying online in squadron for years . 

Now we have choices and still people complain. Lol

Anyway I think it's a good thing . Just needs tweaking. 

[Sixxpack]

Same here all. I have the G2 as well. But we are in the right direction, it just needs to be tweaked a little that's all as I mostly fly on full real servers.

All the best,

Sixxer!

 

[James DeSouza]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:08 PM, nuNce said:

Which means that 10km for a modern fighter which is twice the size of a WWII aircraft is more than fair.

No.  I don't have exact figures but a nice example is that of a British F4 pilot I was listening to, who had above average eyesight, he said the furthest he ever saw a fighter at was 8 miles for a regular phantom and 10 miles for the German F4F phantom and in both cases it was because he saw the engine smoke rather than the aircraft themselves (and the German phantoms apparently smoked more).  And he treated seeing them at this kind of distance as if it was an achievement.  The Phantom is gigantic (same size as an F-15) and spews out smoke, and you're at a best case seeing it (already knowing the rough area it is in) is ~16km.

 

Every fighter I have seen makes a point of how important the radar is even up close.  For instance I was listening to an F16 pilot who said dogfight auto aquisition modes are important in BFM because they put a box around the target that lets you spot them more easily, and F16 dogfight mode only locks to something like 4 miles.  I can't see why that would be if you have giant black blocks floating around which is the current system.  Aircraft are difficult to spot.

 

 

I still don't understand why they added this.  There's been a dots only label option for ages (forever as far as I know) that puts dots over things so you can see them more easily.  It does what this does, it already exists, why make this change?

Edited October 28, 2023 by James DeSouza