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

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

According to your profile you're 60 something, weren't flight sims in the 60's a plastic cutout of the plane over the top of a rolling bit of printed canvas? 

Oh I didn’t play video games back then  

But I can relate to having old guy eyesight. Hey it’s your responsibility to treat this. The Devs aren’t your eye doctor.

Edited November 4, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Why485]

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Notice the line to the right of the altitude readout on the HUD.  That is 25nm, or 29 real miles.  You can clearly see the B-52 (top), F-16 (middle) and F-15 (bottom).  See the line of them to the right of the HUD's right "strut" for lack of a better word, the one where you can still see all 3 but only the B-52 is incredibly blatant?  That is 30nm, or 35 real miles.  You should not be seeing an F-16 35 miles away.  And all of these are NOSE ON!

There is a bug right now where when dots are in front of clouds, and this includes the 2D cirrus clouds in your screenshot, dots are visible beyond ranges they should be. There are bugs. They should be fixed. I don't think anybody here is defending this saying that's the way it should be.

This entire system is WIP! I don't think they're perfect right now. Yes, the things you are talking about are problems! The config option to turn them off should work since it's a WIP feature that's still buggy and VR users in particular would benefit from one. This is the first pass, and there is a lot to improve. I've already written at length my own thoughts about what I think should be improved much earlier in the thread.

I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, but nobody is asking for giant dots 30 miles away. This is a step in the right direction, but it still needs tweaking and improvement. Frankly, in my opinion, I don't even think dots are the right approach here. There are many industry proven techniques (as in for real training simulations not just games like DCS) related to this very real problem, but I've been warned every time I talk about them because using outside examples is against forum rules.

Even in the "worst case" where a pixel dot approach is kept, there are many ways in which it can be improved to get something that is not just more consistent across hardware, but also works at the ranges necessary, and behaves in a realistic way to match the "performance" of the eye in real life. The current implementation is not set in stone.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Why485

[James DeSouza]

45 minutes ago, Why485 said:

There is a bug right now where when dots are in front of clouds, and this includes the 2D cirrus clouds in your screenshot, dots are visible beyond ranges they should be. There are bugs. They should be fixed. I don't think anybody here is defending this saying that's the way it should be.

In front of clouds, this claim used to be behind clouds.  

Funny though how it's just one excuse after another....  Also a couple of the dots aren't even in front of clouds.

As for no one is asking.  I am just hallucinating all of the people saying this update was an improvement then?

 

I knew what reaction I was going to get as I had already seen others get it, and yet I still wasted my time getting the screen grabs.  What a goddamn oaf I am lmfao.

Edited November 4, 2023 by James DeSouza

[Tippis]

12 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

As for no one is asking.  I am just hallucinating all of the people saying this update was an improvement then?

It is an improvement. Tiny clusters of 1–4 pixels total, already well faded into the background at 10nm, is far better than the old system where people would show how planes were visible at 50nm and used this to claim that, because of this, spotting was fine and everyone should just git gud.

Here's the tricky bit that you need to get your head around:

Seeing this improvement is not the same thing as asking for giant dots at 30nm, because they are not seeing giant dots at 30nm.

You may be seeing that, and if you do, it would be quite constructive of you if you could provide a bit of data on your setup to figure out why that is. Different setups yield different results. People are seeing different things, no matter how much you want to ignore that fact. Where I see 1–2×2 aliased pixels, as shown earlier; you seem to be seeing somewhere between 2×2 and 3×3 clusters (although the compression makes it hard to tell — PNG is your friend) with little to no aliasing at twice that distance, and Simultaneous says he sees 4×4 clusters out to 2–3 times the distance. Oh, and btw, spotting dots are occluded by clouds over here, just to annoy you even further.

If everyone was seeing everything the same, this thread wouldn't exist, nor would this happen:

(And yes, I understand that GIF will forcibly remove some of the nuances in contrast, but it's mostly blue and the differences are clear enough anyway.)

Clearly, the system is capable of delivering results that would make you happy. They just aren't giving them to you. That is not the same thing as giving a bad result to everyone, nor does it equate to anyone asking for a bad result.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Tippis

[rob10]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Here's the tricky bit that you need to get your head around:

Seeing this improvement is not the same thing as asking for giant dots at 30nm, because they are not seeing giant dots at 30nm.

THIS!!!!!!!!!

[Why485]

14 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

In front of clouds, this claim used to be behind clouds.

There was a bug some versions ago where they rendered behind the clouds. That bug was fixed. Now, the implementation has completely changed and there is a new bug that needs to be fixed. This isn't hard to understand.

14 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

I am just hallucinating all of the people saying this update was an improvement then?

Yes, it is an improvement over the dots that were implemented in 1.5.5. It obviously still has issues, but it works okay already and there are many, myself included, who are just happy to see that some progress is being made on this front for the first time in 7 years. And no, don't tell me that the 1.5.5 dots were fine just because they were there for a long time. I made a whole mod in exasperation to explain the problems with the old dots, and I was never happy with them even when they were first introduced.

I'm sorry, but you have consistently misrepresented everybody's opinions, ignored what people have told you over and over again, and I'm not going to keep going in circles with you. We are both clearly wasting each other's time so you'll be happy to know that this is the last time I respond to you.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Why485

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Why485 said:

Yes, it is an improvement over the dots that were implemented in 1.5.5. It obviously still has issues,

2.9 is hardly an improvement. If a player is running 1440p 4K or VR in 2.8 what they experience is very good visibility without seeing any giant blocks or dots. Essentially 2.8 in high res is what the game looks like without dots and it’s quite good and realistic. Introducing any dots at all in 1.5.5 was a mistake and the best solution is probably to get rid of any dots like DCS was prior to any of this stuff. And if that’s not sufficient visibility for some there’s always the dot label option. 

[Tippis]

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

2.9 is hardly an improvement. If a player is running 1440p 4K or VR in 2.8 what they experience is very good visibility without seeing any giant blocks or dots.

That is a massive improvement. Especially since the range at which they get “very good visibility” is much shorter than it used to be.

56 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Essentially 2.8 in high res is what the game looks like without dots and it’s quite good and realistic.

LMAO no. For one, 2.8 had dots. Just not this type, and they were not realistic — far too visible at longer ranges, not visible enough at shorter, and with zero parity between different hardware setups. They were bad in every way conceivable at once.

58 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Introducing any dots at all in 1.5.5 was a mistake and the best solution is probably to get rid of any dots like DCS was prior to any of this stuff.

You realise, of course, that the reason the old dots were introduced was to replace an earlier and arguably even worse system. It was also a form of dots — just not a very good one. And remember, you have vociferously argued that the old dots were good. That the new dots are good. You are now pivoting to some dots you weren't even aware of were good. You need to make up your mind and actually hold an opinion other than “nuh-uh!”, preferably one where you actually know what you're talking about and stick to that opinion.

The only fixed point in your long history of arguing against improvements to DCS is that, if someone likes it and it improves the game in some way, you are against it.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

And if that’s not sufficient visibility for some there’s always the dot label option.

The problem with those is that they're not actually a solution the problem at hand. In fact, they take just about every every problem and amplify them in, especially in the areas where you like to draw your arguments the most: parity between players and realism. You demonstrated amply that you don't even fully understand what they are and what they look like, so to suggest that they solve a problem you also don't understand is quite… silly.

[Buzz313th]

18 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Except users aren't seeing different things.  It's just the way the game works

I was referring to VR users seeing dots larger than one pixel and 2d screen users seeing dots at one pixel.  

[James DeSouza]

7 hours ago, rob10 said:

THIS!!!!!!!!!

I posted a picture of giant dots my friend, as have a bunch of other people.  Everyone sees them because that is the way the game works.  They're not earth shatteringly titanic like they are in VR, but they're still giant.  You should not be seeing a nose on F-16 at 35 miles.

You just shouldn't.  There's no other way to put it.  Making all of the contradictory excuses you want doesn't change that you should not be seeing a nose on F-16 at 35 miles.  As much as I was joking about "large building territory" earlier that is actually an understatement of the scale of the objects you are seeing.  A single pixel on a 4k monitor at 78 FOV represents an object 7000 feet in size.  The aircraft are showing up as 2x2 blocks, or an object 14,000 feet x 14,000 feet.  14 Gerald Fords lined end to end.  I don't know about you but an entire fleet of aircraft carriers is something I class as "giant".  Even 1 pixel at 10 miles is ridiculous.

 

"Oh but it just needs a little tweaking".  No, you are always going to have the same issue no matter what, all you are going to do is have the same issue at a different severity.  For example an F-16 at 10 miles on a 1080 screen with 78 FOV.  Each pixel there is a 7 foot object.  What part of a nose on F-16 is a 7 feet cube?  None of it (fuselage comes close though).  Now at that point there's a vague argument to be made that you should still see the single pixel because there's parts of the plane that are greater than that in specific axis and also that the human eye can determine that, but ultimately even that is artificial and ugly, never mind stretching out to 30+ miles.

Actually had a brainfart here because I am flustered that this awful system is going to be railroaded through, actual 1080 10 mile pixels are 4 feet squared, so ~15 miles is about the limit of visibility an F-16 sized target should present at.

 

And the only leg people have to stand on is "oh but it is realistic because in an ideal situation at an optometrists you can just about make out 30 minutes of arc (or whatever), but you aren't looking at an optometrists chart.  And that is why in actual reality fighter pilots have trouble finding and maintaining visual on their own wingmen, never mind on targets 30 miles out.

Edited November 4, 2023 by James DeSouza
Brainfart.

[Gunjam]

I am happy for ED to finally have implemented a renewed attempt at improving spotting. I am back playing again now, since this has been a big frustration for me, especially in PvP where the player who ran 1080p had the best spotting, at the cost of making the game look bad visually.

As Why485 and others have already touched on more eloquently than I:

1. It's clear that this first implementation has issues.

2. The people with goggles on their heads seem to be affected the most.

3. It's a big shame that the disable option of this new feature doesn't seem to be working for those who want to use it, and I'm sure there would be far fewer posts here if it worked. But hey, this is the latest open beta, people are free to play the stable version if they don't have the patience to wait for a fix.

Overall, I'm happy about the new spotting. I find it to be a big improvement from past version. I am looking forward for future iterations and improvements.

On another note, I wish the moderators were a bit more present as some people seem to treat this thread/forum as their personal blog.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Gunjam
Paragraphing

[Tippis]

41 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

I posted a picture of giant dots my friend, as have a bunch of other people.  Everyone sees them because that is the way the game works.

And another bunch of people have posted pictures without giant dots. So not everyone sees them, because that's how the game works: it depends on your hardware and software setup and config.

41 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

They're not earth shatteringly titanic like they are in VR, but they're still giant. 

2×2 pixels, half of which are aliased into the background, is not “giant”.

41 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

You should not be seeing a nose on F-16 at 35 miles.

Good news: with the appropriate setup, you don't. You might, with your setup, but that is you — not everyone. Stop generalising your experience to people who aren't you and who demonstrably and clearly don't get the same results you do. Instead, if you want to not see nose-on F-16s at 35nm, try figuring out what settings you're using that makes them appear that way. Experiment. Be useful. Stop whining. And stop exaggerating massively…

 

41 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

A single pixel on a 4k monitor at 78 FOV represents an object 7000 feet in size. 

78° = 1.361 radians.
On a 4k monitor, 1px = (1.361 / 3840 = 0.000354 = ) 0.354 mils.
For 0.354 mils to represent 7,000', the distance to that object must be (7000 / 0.000354 = ) 19,774,011' or 3254 nmi — over 6000 km; one seventh the circumference of the Earth; almost twice the diameter of the Moon. Distances of this scale are not represented or present in DCS.

So no. No it does not.

Your maths is off by TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE! That's how massively and catastrophically nonsensical and unreliable your claims are.

That one 0.354 mil pixel (on a 4k display) at 10nm = (18,520 × 0.000354 = ) 6.56316 meters. An F-16 would thus be 1.5px wide; just under 1px high; 2.5px long.
On a standard 1080p display, the simple solution is to just notice that it's half the linear resolution so that's your scale factor, but lets run though it from the start anyway: the same 78° (still 1.361 radians) comes out as 0.709 mils per pixel; at 10nm, that means (18,520 × 0.000709 = ) 13.13142 meters. An F-16 would be 0.7px wide; about 0.5px high; just over 1px long.

In both cases, entirely visible, if aliased — doubly so in the 1080p case. At no point is it 7 feet / 2.1 meters, so who knows where on earth you pulled that number from… but hey, at least it's roughly the same order of magnitude so that's an improvement, I guess?

 

41 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

And the only leg people have to stand on is "oh but it is realistic because in an ideal situation at an optometrists you can just about make out 30 minutes of arc (or whatever), but you aren't looking at an optometrists chart.

You can, of course, provide numerous examples of people saying this, proving that it's not just one more of your inane strawmen, I hope?

Edited November 4, 2023 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

Just because something might mathematically qualify as “visible” doesn’t justify showing it with a giant icon. Barely visible IRL should equate to barely visible in the sim. 

[James DeSouza]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just because something might mathematically qualify as “visible” doesn’t justify showing it with a giant icon. Barely visible IRL should equate to barely visible in the sim. 

And mathematics does not also describe human vision because there's extra steps.  That phantom pilot seeing spotting it at 8 miles as an achievement for example, the phantom belches out clouds of smoke, is (essentially) the size of an F-15, is in a location where the guy already knows it is going to be, the guy has 20/10 vision, he still sees it as an achievement to spot it planform at 8 miles.

 

Meanwhile in this game 35 mile nose on F-16s is met with both "This is fine" and also "Your images are lies and you are a liar!" at he same time.  Lunacy.

 

And hell there's even a guy posting "definitive proof" images to disprove it which themselves have big ass blocks on them, which I guess he didn't see?  Which is why the blocks aren't a problem to him?  (Though I suppose I should add, I don't think he said what distance they're at so I don't know if they're particularly egregious).

  

On 11/1/2023 at 10:42 PM, Tippis said:

I mean look at this, there's a string of them above the tower, one of them is even a really dark blue spot in the middle of a cloud (which is so obvious I am kind of suspicious it might be a bug).  But that is "people showing pictures of them not having it".

Edited November 5, 2023 by James DeSouza

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

And mathematics does not also describe human vision because there's extra steps.  That phantom pilot seeing spotting it at 8 miles as an achievement for example, the phantom belches out clouds of smoke, is (essentially) the size of an F-15, is in a location where the guy already knows it is going to be, the guy has 20/10 vision, he still sees it as an achievement to spot it planform at 8 miles.

 

Meanwhile in this game 35 mile nose on F-16s is met with both "This is fine" and also "Your images are lies and you are a liar!" at he same time.  Lunacy.

 

And hell there's even a guy posting "definitive proof" images to disprove it which themselves have big ass blocks on them, which I guess he didn't see?  Which is why the blocks aren't a problem to him?  (Though I suppose I should add, I don't think he said what distance they're at so I don't know if they're particularly egregious).

 

Dots are taking every object that might barely be visible with great difficulty and making them easily visible. That’s not realistic at all. No matter how much this might get tweaked the fundamental idea is flawed. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by SharpeXB

[rfxcasey]

Personally, I think the main focus should be on providing the same visibility distance and spotting potential for all players regardless of VR use or their screen resolution.  If a medium sized fighter is only visible up to X number of miles in real life, it should only be visible up to X miles in DCS. No one should get a spotting advantage/disadvantage. You're never going to please everyone but establish a baseline based on the average person or pilot's spotting distance and then work on implementing and enforcing it across all of DCS. In VR I can spot planes with no issues, on a 3440x1440 monitor, I still can't see jack squat.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by rfxcasey

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Just because something might mathematically qualify as “visible” doesn’t justify showing it with a giant icon.

Good news: no-one is saying that it does.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s not realistic at all. No matter how much this might get tweaked the fundamental idea is flawed. 

Just the fact that it's vastly more realistic than previous iteration and that it very obviously can be tweaked to become even more so, belies this notion.

The 50nm plane spotting you were so proud of with the earlier dots, and which you used to illustrate that actually spotting was fine, are not coming back. Just because the tweaks have now made it more realistic doesn't mean that it's flawed or that it can't be tweaked even further so you see even less.

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Meanwhile in this game 35 mile nose on F-16s is met with both "This is fine" and also "Your images are lies and you are a liar!" at he same time.  Lunacy.

No-one is saying that either.

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

I mean look at this, there's a string of them above the tower, one of them is even a really dark blue spot in the middle of a cloud (which is so obvious I am kind of suspicious it might be a bug).  But that is "people showing pictures of them not having it".

No. That is me posting a picture where they appear at a reasonable size and density for the size and distance their at. It matches the maths pretty much as it should, but that there's a margin of error depending on the actual FoV of the camera.

The notion that it's not having it is just some strawman you invented and not something that I actually said. I can't help noticing that you chose not to include the description since doing so would immediately expose your silly little lie. So let's repeat what I said it shows:

“This is what it looks like at 10nm — nothing huge, nothing particularly dark (they appear a bit sooner but very faint and at 10nm is where they start to stick out against the background properly). I'm not sure exactly what FoV the F12 camera is supposed to have, but if it's in the 70° range, the 1.5–2.5px width of the spotting dots is pretty much spot on, and the range is about right as far as how faded in they should be.”

So. Did I specify a range? Yes, so if you had bothered to read what you're commenting, you would have not been so confused. Did I say they weren't there? No, that something you made up. What I said that they actually appear sooner than the moment the picture captures — meaning the picture shows the dots after they have appeared. It is not “so obvious it might be a bug” — it is so obvious that it seems to be working pretty close to what's intended and what's sensible. 2×2 pixels is not a “big ass block” by any stretch, and is if anything a bit smaller than one might expect. If you're going to misrepresent what people are saying, it helps if you don't link to them explicitly not saying whatever dribble you falsely try to attribute to them.

If you want to argue my points, argue my points, and do it to my face. If you're going to fail at maths and reading, go do it somewhere else.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, rfxcasey said:

Personally, I think the main focus should be on providing the same visibility distance and spotting potential for all players regardless of VR use or their screen resolution.  If a medium sized fighter is only visible up to X number of miles in real life, it should only be visible up to X miles in DCS. No one should get a spotting advantage/disadvantage. You're never going to please everyone but establish a baseline based on the average person or pilots spotting distance and then work on implementing and enforcing it across all of DCS. In VR I can spot planes with no issues, on a 3440x1440 monitor, I still can't see jack squat.

This is easy to accomplish. Just get rid of the artificial dots. What you’re left with then is a 3D model that represents the same size and shape to everyone regardless of their resolution. Solved. When you use 2.8 in 4K this is what you see, since the dots are nearly invisible. It looks gorgeous and is believably realistic.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Not going to lie, it's pretty shameful what you just did.

 Prove you wrong? No, that's not very shameful at all.

If you're going to make a claim, check it first. If you get absurd results, double-check them. It is not my job to figure out and fix your mathematical blunders — that's all up to you. And when it falls into a pattern of you repeatedly misrepresenting or misstating facts, then it's quite natural to add this latest gaffe to the pile and see the larger trend.

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

(as a 2x2 object would still be 150 feet)

…and as demonstrated, smaller objects basically disappear at that range. If they don't for you, then be constructive: try to figure out what it is about your setup or your settings that make them appear anyway for you. Don't assume that it happens for everyone.

2 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Seriously you guys who are ruining the game could have just played with the dot labels on.  This update is just the dot labels. 

Why would we? Spotting dots do all the things dot labels do not: they disappear properly at range. They're occluded by and fade into the environment. They're (imperfectly, but at least attempt to be) resolution-independent. Just because your settings aren't producing results you don't like doesn't mean anyone else is ruining the game. The only one doing that to you is you by refusing to contribute and be constructive, and instead hoping that sniping and misrepresenting other people's opinions will help your case.

 

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This is easy to accomplish. Just get rid of the artificial dots. What you’re left with then is a 3D model that represents the same size and shape to everyone regardless of their resolution. Solved.

Funny thing: that doesn't actually solve the problem (but may cause some performance issues). What happens when you do that is pretty much what we had before: where people with low resolutions see the planes better than they should; where people with high resolutions see them farther than they should. Neither is realistic and neither is sensible or equitable.

It might have worked if zoom didn't exist and if everyone's desk setup was standardised. But neither of those two will happen, so that's not a workable solution. It's also not a very realistic one, funnily enough, since it doesn't account for the many factors beyond simple geometry that goes into the cognitive process of perception. For your solution to work, it would have to incorporate the science that you have very adamantly deemed impossible and utterly ruinous to implement…

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tippis

[James DeSouza]

2 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Personally, I think the main focus should be on providing the same visibility distance and spotting potential for all players regardless of VR use or their screen resolution.  If a medium sized fighter is only visible up to X number of miles in real life, it should only be visible up to X miles in DCS. No one should get a spotting advantage/disadvantage. You're never going to please everyone but establish a baseline based on the average person or pilots spotting distance and then work on implementing and enforcing it across all of DCS. In VR I can spot planes with no issues, on a 3440x1440 monitor, I still can't see jack squat.

 

 

I am fairly certain this is what this update is kind of trying to achieve.  Since the spotting dots are 2x2 on 4k and 1x1 on 1080p (or at least seem to be, I can only run 1080 on a 4k screen) which is roughly in line with giving everyone an even spotting "baseline" for lack of a better word.  It's not realistic of course but that seems to be the goal.  I assume it is why VR is a mess too, as not only does every different VR headset have different resolutions but they also apply different transformations to the images to provide the impression of peripheral vision through the lense

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

and as demonstrated, smaller objects basically disappear at that range. If they don't for you, then be constructive: try to figure out what it is about your setup or your settings that make them appear anyway for you. Don't assume that it happens for everyone.

Why would we? Spotting dots do all the things dot labels do not: they disappear properly at range. They're occluded by and fade into the environment. They're (imperfectly, but at least attempt to be) resolution-independent. Just because your settings aren't producing results you don't like doesn't mean anyone else is ruining the game.

 

Except your own screenshot you brought up to try to disprove this shows it to be the case my friend.  It is not something peculiar to me, it is happening to everyone (because it is the way the game is programmed).  That's why all of the excuses are being made.

This isn't sniping, this isn't strawmanning, this isn't misrepresentation.  It is just the way the game is right now.

 

Sorry if I am being petulant by the by, we are both wanting the game to be better even if we have different ideas of it.  Just everything about this update is unrealistic, ugly, and unpleasant and I am worried that they ultimately won't give people the option to disable it which will ruin the game I have spent thousands of dollars on the ability to play with good quality.

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Except your own screenshot you brought up to try to disprove this shows it to be the case my friend. 

Show what to be the case?
That smaller objects disappear at that range? Yes, they show that: a 13m wide airplane is pretty much indistinguishable against the background at 20nm.
That spotting dots disappear properly at range? That too — they most definitely aren't the huge some would suggest, and that same airplane that is all but invisible at 20nm can reasonably be seen at 10nm… subject to your desktop setup and the distance to your monitor.
That they're occluded by the environment? No the images don't show that, but that's because they weren't taken to show that off. I have a batch of screens to show that as well if you want.
That they're not ruining the game? Given how much of an improvement they are over the old dots, I'd say that they are, if anything, improving it.

What you claim is happening to everyone isn't happening to everyone. Your descriptions and what is shown in your screenshots does not match what shows up in mine. That's just how the game works: different settings and setups yield different results. That is indeed the entire purpose of those settings and of the different hardware behind them.

12 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

This isn't sniping, this isn't strawmanning, this isn't misrepresentation.

Of course it is. Setting aside your previous examples of that, you are now misrepresenting what my (and your) images show. You are consistently erecting strawmen because you can't actually argue against what is actually said. You are misrepresenting obvious graphical differences as “excuses.” Rather than trying to be constructive and try to figure out what explains these differences, you ignore them and go after the messenger.

“The way the game is now” is exactly that: different for different people. Because that's how graphics rendering works.

Just because you are seeing different results than I am doesn't mean that this update is unrealistic. It just means that your results from your settings yield something you are not happy with. That is all. Don't extrapolate from there. Don't generalise your experience to be universal, because it is not. For others, the results are far more realistic now than they have been in many many years. If you want to stop being petulant and start being constructive, try to figure out what is causing you to have an unsatisfactory result where others do not.

[James DeSouza]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

What you claim is happening to everyone isn't happening to everyone. Your descriptions and what is shown in your screenshots does not match what shows up in mine.

You never actually explained the set up in the pictures of yours I have seen, but your screenshots absolutely do show obvious spotting dots, same as mine.  No idea what the ranges are or if those ranges would be "appropriate" since as far as I know you never said, but really spotting dots just in general are inappropriate.

Why even post the screenshots if you either A) do not actually know what they include or B) are going to lie about them?

 

  

On 11/2/2023 at 4:29 PM, Tippis said:

What are your graphics settings?

As shown above, they're not black boxes, nor the size of small buildings, nor visible out to 40 miles. This sounds more like you're running some kind of overlay.

e: In fact, I changed my test setup to really fill the sky with them out to 50nm, and the result was… not that.

 

Again.  Incredibly obvious giant blue dot right above the tower (or whatever it is), obvious but less so blue dots to the left of it in the other clouds.  There are at least 5 very visible aircraft in this picture, I have no idea how many there actually are (nor do I trust you to say) but there should be 0 very visible aircraft in this picture.  Hell the really obvious one that is directly up from the tower you do not even need the picture to be full screen to see.  Is the plane there the size of a small country?

Edited November 5, 2023 by James DeSouza
Merge

[Xupicor]

On G2 the dots were huge, blobby and didn't really fade off with the distance in my experience. It was either nothing, big square black blob or again almost nothing as the blob disappeared when the unit got close enough.

On Pimax Crystal (so a higher resolution, higher PPD) the dots seem to look way, way more reasonable. It's actually hard to spot targets again - as it should be. The only thing is the blobs seem to sometimes flicker back up for a fraction of a second, so I might be scanning the sky and not really see much and all of a sudden a black blob (way smaller than on G2, though) pops up and disappears. If I focus on that point I usually see a unit there.

So I guess for 4K thereabouts on flat screen or pretty high resolution VR headsets like Crystal this new spotting isn't too bad (excluding other issues with it that are surely pending to be fixed in about two weeks). For G2 it was pretty nightmarish with big black blobs flying around. The most offending thing, though, was that the depth perception made me think the black blobs were way closer to myself than they really were. That doesn't seem to be the case on Crystal, curiously. Probably something to do with the relative size of them.

 

@James DeSouza can you put a little circle around the dots you see? Because I'm squinting my eyes and I can't see a single airplane on that picture.

Ah, I zoomed in and found them. Geez! If it looked like that on G2 I'd be actually happy, haha.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Xupicor

[Licenceless]

On 10/20/2023 at 12:23 AM, Nascar said:

I'm using a G2 and I thought spotting in VR was perfect previously. The best it has ever been. It was a sharp dot at a distance and now it is totally immersion breaking with a big black square. It's akin to playing with labels on.

I think what they did is making dots bigger overall to help higher resolution aka 4k millioners while also making dots fade away at closer distances then before (at least in the last iteration)
it needs more fine tuning though because lower resolutions are more op in terms of spotting since dots are hella big for them.

On 10/19/2023 at 10:58 PM, SharpeXB said:

The problem was that in 1080p distant aircraft were too visible. So now every res is like 1080p? That seems like a mistake. I’ll have to try it. 

yeah i think what they should have done is the opposite, i think at high res the spotting was actually closer to real life and lower res was op AF/unreallistic

On 10/20/2023 at 1:43 AM, BMO said:

as a user with a 3440x1440 the implementation feels right. not overpowered and definitely better than before

yes, for you it's perfect, the problem is that the change made everybody else (lower resolutions) even more OP then before

On 10/20/2023 at 2:25 AM, Mohamengina said:

Thanks to the devs for adding this in.

The extra situational awareness adds a whole new layer to the game and makes it way more playable.

DCS isn't WT though the focus is to mae SA reallistic, not just better

[Licenceless]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:57 AM, DrSlaughterRex said:

Anyone who says that the dots should have been reduced is thinking in the wrong direction. Dots were nigh impossible to see at 1440p.

The way you saw them before (or actually didn't see) is the way it is supposed to be, the problem was with lower resolutions being ablee to see too much, not the opposite

On 10/20/2023 at 3:04 AM, H7142 said:

This change is absolutely in the right direction.  It puts DCS far closer to WT/BMS/IL2 in terms of their solutions for spotting difficulties.  You have to compensate for the fact that your looking at stuff on a monitor and not with your actual eyes.  The old system was not good and a reversion back to it would be a massive step backwards.

that is exactly what should be avoided, other games help with spotting to provide easier action. DCS isn't an action game, it strifes for realism

On 10/20/2023 at 6:05 AM, MadKreator said:

I’m on a 5120x1440p monitor and I’ve never seen a spotting dot in the years I’ve been playing.  Even now with “improved” spotting dot, theres no dots lol I can see the planes starting to render when they get close, but no dots on every enemy like what I see in VR. Do people on 4K monitors see these mystery dots? 1440p 16:9? I wonder if its just the odd aspect ratio? Right now nothing has changed for me

To be more thorough: 2D @ 5120x1440, all graphics setting on max,  motion blur and DOF off, heat blur low. Sharpening at 1, LOD at 2,( msaax2, x4, DLSS, TAA  had no effect). Labels set to dot neutral.  

This morning I thought maybe I saw a spotting dot but it looked like literally 1 pixel. It could have been the plane starting to render in too, it wasn’t all that far away. I only noticed it because I knew a plane was there. Next to imperceivable if I wasn’t really, really looking hard for it. Nothing even remotely close to the dots I’ve seen in VR ( Quest 2 &3)

 

to be fair normal spotting distance should be around 15 km, and your 5k and other higher res like 4k actually made spotting more realistic, it's the lower resolutions that had it way to good and could spot up to 50km easy