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

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

No, because all the above issues have been toned down significantly and it's now actually a workable basis to create a sensible and modern spotting simulation.

No, it's not. The blobs are unrealistically big, ugly and visible from unrealistic ranges like over 20nmi for a fighter head on. Then it becomes tiny dot at 1.5nmi and it starts to look realistic up to a close up. This is a regression, not improvement and even ED said that's what they did.

You think all of us complaining about targets too big now are MP cheaters? Take off your tin foil hat please. I'm playing SP, very rarely MP and I beg for this handicap - make my targets smaller (realistic). Let them disappear much earlier.

Edited October 16, 2024 by draconus

[Parkour]

If you are so worried about cheaters, make it a Server/Mission setting that enforces them to be ON. Done.

Otherwise, let the user choose to turn them OFF or ON as they like. For now, my entire squad has moved on from DCS, most playing IL-2 - which doesn't have this issue.

The only reason I keep posting about this is due to the HUNDREDS of dollars I have invest in this game.  I do not want BIG BLACK SQUARES covering the aircraft when I fly single player or with my squad against the AI.  It's just insane this is even an issue. Has anyone from Eagle Dynamics actually played other flight sims to see how targets appear?  It's unbelievable this is even a discussion.

I just want to play single player - I don't care about multiplayer, exploits, cheaters or anything else. For those that do, demand a server setting. For the rest of us, get rid of spotting dots.

[=475FG= Dawger]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I honestly think this is a big part of the problem. Yeah this will creep up on you as you get older one day you’ll wonder why you can’t read your phone. 

What dope is going to fly without corrective lenses if needed?

This is just more proof you don’t have a clue. 
 

In VR, the most common vision problem associated with age, presbyopia, disappears. 
 

On a flat screen, you can just sit farther away, wear glasses or adjust resolution. Or all three. 
 

 

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

What dope is going to fly without corrective lenses if needed?

Plenty apparently  Or their correction isn’t very good or out of date etc.

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

In VR, the most common vision problem associated with age, presbyopia, disappears. 

VR is like not wearing your glasses it’s so blurry

46 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

On a flat screen, you can just sit farther away, wear glasses or adjust resolution. Or all three.

But that would mean a bigger screen which some people can’t or won’t use. Personally that’s my solution. IMO eyeglasses are a poor solution compared to contact lenses. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

2 hours ago, Parkour said:

If you are so worried about cheaters, make it a Server/Mission setting that enforces them to be ON. Done.

I respectfully disagree. There's no need, and I have issues about pandering to the illogical just because they're the squeaky wheel when it's not necessary, and honestly - I don't think this setting will apease them anyway - because I seriously doubt it's really about cheating, but something else.

At present, the dots are 100% of the size that ED has set them to be. Allowing a player to turn them OFF, (or otherwise reduce them anywhere from 0% to 100%) has no bearing on cheating at all, because by changing the setting away from 100% to lower, you're actually creating a handicap for yourself more than anything else. Changing the size of dots would only be allowing cheating if they allowed them beyond 100% of what ED has set. That doesn't mean ED shouldn't still work at it so it's correct for all - but while they're 'working at it' - the option to reduce, or turn off should definitely bet there for all, SP or MP. 

So, I don't buy the complaints about cheaters because there's zero logic in it. It's not about cheating.  Allowing an option to turn dots off wasn't a cheating problem until ED took it away, and now it would be considered a form of cheating for those who's dots do show up as big blobs? Give me a break. If people were worried about cheating, they'd be wanting the option for dots to be turned off because at present these big dots are giving the people who don't want them a bigger cheating advantage than others. I see the objections to allowing people control to turn off or reduce being more about jealousy covered up - that some people have VR or better systems than others and it's about getting a kick out of seeing problems remain for those people that otherwise don't affect the complainer so they can feel better about themselves than it is about cheating.  And as such - I don't think ED needs to be working on unnecessary options that won't satisfy the complainers anyway. It'd be a waste all round.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Dangerzone

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

No, it's not. The blobs are unrealistically big, ugly and visible from unrealistic ranges like over 20nmi for a fighter head on.

And that's an improvement over the blobs being unrealistically bigger, just as ugly, and visible from over 40nm… and unevenly applied just to make all of that worse.

If they ended up looking sensible for you, then that was pure happenstance and does not mean that they were working properly.

6 hours ago, draconus said:

This is a regression, not improvement and even ED said that's what they did.

No, this is tweaking. It will go back and forth until some kind of (hopefully) sensible equilibrium is reached. But it will invariably be vastly better than the insanity of the old dots. Actual regression would be to go back to that nonsense and to reintroduce all the exploits that those allowed.

6 hours ago, draconus said:

You think all of us complaining about targets too big now are MP cheaters?

No, I know for a fact that some who are complaining about dots as a mechanism want to go back to the olden days where they had no real upper limit to their spotting range and could lord it over the peons who, for whatever reason, did not see targets as far out as they did. I know this because they accidentally said as much when trying to argue that the old system was fine and dandy and actually super-realistic. Somehow. These are the people who were horrified to learn that some of those peons had an easier time closer in due to how the rendering was affected by resolution, and they made the smallness of their own dots a core component of what they deemed “realistic” (again, remember, along with their 40nm visibility). Funnily enough, it was those attempts to first prove it was fine and then prove it was “unfair” (as soon as others had advantages as well), that really pushed the issue over the edge and showed that spotting had to be fixed. Quite contrary to what they were hoping for.

It has nothing to do with some people feeling the current iteration being too big — it has to do with some other people using the opportunity where that complaint aligns with their own wishes to go back to unlimited-range dots for them, and invisible dots for everyone else. They are pretty much explicitly out to exploit such artificial and nonsensical advantages, but they do not constitute “all” complainers. They just ride on the wave of a larger group who may have a valid complaint, but they do so for very different reasons.

 

The only problem with the complaint that they're too big, when offered by players who are just looking to have a good game, is that there is very little constructive input as to what size would be “right”, then, if the current ones are not. And in particular, the question needs to be, what size is “right” that is also the same across as many display systems as possible.

[SharpeXB]

10 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

At present, the dots are 100% of the size that ED has set them to be. Allowing a player to turn them OFF, (or otherwise reduce them anywhere from 0% to 100%) has no bearing on cheating at all, because by changing the setting away from 100% to lower, you're actually creating a handicap for yourself more than anything else.

The problem is to many people the dots are just ugly. And you’d be forced to have them on or be at a disadvantage. I’m sure many people would not be happy with that dilemma. That also assumes the 100% size is reasonable but I think the majority observation is that they’re too big. Plus I doubt they can ever be made to appear at consistent sizes across all resolutions. The better thing to do would be to just combine the features of spotting dots and dot labels into the label option which is already a mission setting. 

13 hours ago, Parkour said:

If you are so worried about cheaters, make it a Server/Mission setting that enforces them to be ON.

Or Off. For the same reason dot labels are a mission setting.

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

And that's an improvement over the blobs being unrealistically bigger, just as ugly, and visible from over 40nm… and unevenly applied just to make all of that worse.

No, because I didn't have blobs before the last update. It was acceptable for me, kinda realistic apart from dot view distance still too good. And it's a regression and only that - "Adjusted appearance of spotting dots in VR to be close to their previous state." And that previous state is what they have dig out from some old implementation where the dots were blobs for some time. The tweaking is said to be WIP but the last update was just a step back.

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

The only problem with the complaint that they're too big, when offered by players who are just looking to have a good game, is that there is very little constructive input as to what size would be “right”, then, if the current ones are not. And in particular, the question needs to be, what size is “right” that is also the same across as many display systems as possible.

It will never be right for everyone - that's impossible. It can only look right (like a dot from miles away, not big blob), have realistic visibility limits (like only a few miles for a fighter head on, then faint out, not visible 20nmi) and follow the simple logic (the farther it gets, the smaller it gets and harder to see, not almost invisible at 1.5nm then sudenly huge blob for the rest 1.5-20nm of range). Adding some realistic glint effects and camouflage dependace would be cherry on a cake.

[TFS]

Would it be possible to just implement a spotting dots slider bar, or high medium or low settings for them? Since the previous update the dots are so intense you can spot units from extremely far away. It's too easy, with them off completely it's much more difficult. Before the previous changes it was still difficult to see units at distance but not unreasonably hard. Now for people with medical issues, this current setup is probably ideal, but even at night in NVG's it's like cheating for me.

An option to adjust on a slider the intensity, or a high medium or low setting would certainly correct this and tailor it to the player individually. I get that it can create an unfair advantage in PVP, as it is currently, it's too easy, so if I was against someone pvp, I would much prefer the challenge of a less intense dot, and if that person NEEDS the higher intensity dot to play and have fun, then enjoy the satisfaction of killing others without much effort...where's the fun in that?

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, TFS said:

I get that it can create an unfair advantage in PVP

Right. A player controlled setting like that would just end up being an exploit.

[TFS]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. A player controlled setting like that would just end up being an exploit.

What about people in SP or PVE servers... current settings are comically easy. 

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, TFS said:

What about people in SP or PVE servers... current settings are comically easy. 

If it’s a mission setting then a server or player could decide to enable it as well. Same as is done with labels.

[TFS]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it’s a mission setting then a server or player could decide to enable it as well. Same as is done with labels.

Mission setting how though? Slider bar to adjust intensity, or high medium low? If it's straight on/off then it's less than ideal. There has to be a compromise, prior to this update I felt it was fine. Wasn't aggressive in VR. 

Either way is there an overall agreement that the current is too much? I'm reading through and it seems a general dislike for the current spotting. This thread is huge and I'm skimming through to catch up. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by TFS

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

No, because I didn't have blobs before the last update. It was acceptable for me

But you are irrelevant. Your experience is not generalisable. The way it looked to you cannot be a guiding principle on what direction the development must take.

The simple fact of the matter is that they are no smaller for some. And bigger for others, sure. But more importantly: they now tend towards a mean for everyone, with the ultimate goal of being the same size not matter what. If you were used to very very tiny dots before, then this will mean the end result will be bigger. This is a good thing. Similarly, for others, the end result will be smaller and that will be a good thing too.

The simple fact is that they are seen at shorter ranges for some, and longer ranges for others. But again, they now tend towards a shared mean that will actually be more realistic than the 5/40nm split between players that we saw before. This is a good thing. Not just from a balance perspective but from a realism perspective.

And the simple fact is that they can be controlled and tweaked to a much higher degree to make sure both the visibility itself and the range can be brought back into the realm of sensibility and simulation. I will happily agree that they're still a bit too visible a bit too far out, but the beauty is that this can be changed and has already been changed. But its demonstrably closer in and less visible than the old system. It has already proven its capability for improvement — something the old system never showed itself capable of. And again, you are irrelevant (as am I, for that matter) so our personal desire to see it farther out, closer in, smaller, bigger, painted polka-dot pink or whatever doesn't matter. Only the actual data for when they should realistically be seen does.

And that's the point, ultimately. By simple virtue of the new system tending towards a common mean — even if that means they are bigger/smaller/shorter/longer than what we're used to and want to see again — and of the fact that this common goal can be tweaked to match reality, the new system is just inherently better in every way. You may not personally like the way in which it is better, that doesn't really matter, now does it?

6 hours ago, draconus said:

It will never be right for everyone - that's impossible.

Only because “everyone” include people who don't want it to be right for others.

It may not be perfect for everyone, but that's an impossible only because it would have to cater to completely opposed goals and desired outcomes. But it can be good enough for as many as possible. That's where the development is aiming for, and in doing so will improve on parameters that many might not even notice or care about. Perfect must not be the enemy of good, especially not if the individual is what defines “perfect”.

6 hours ago, draconus said:

Adding some realistic glint effects and camouflage dependace would be cherry on a cake.

Sure. And that's part of the iterative process. We just need to get the baseline done first, and the we can go on a new spree of “too big, too small, too close, too far off.” And let's not kid ourselves, that will happen whenever new parameters are added.

It's kind of the defining characteristic of the iterative process. I'm sure you're familiar with this old thing:

Is it too little? Too much? Too whatever? Adjust and try again, and some of those adjustments will overshoot, some will undershoot, some will feel like regression or making things worse. But in the end, they simply set upper an lower bounds for what the next round should work within. We're barely half-way through one of those iterations. Going back to where we started will not improve things.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. A player controlled setting like that would just end up being an exploit.

No, it wouldn't. It could only ever end up as being a self-imposed challenge. Running the game as normal is never actually an exploit, even if you want to paint it as such when others settings differ from yours. By your logic, changing resolution is an exploit. Oh wait, that's exactly the utter nonsense you've been trying to peddle all along.

So no, such a setting wouldn't and couldn't be an exploit. It would just be a setting that you could use an excuse for whenever someone was better than you.

[draconus]

Let the numbers speak:

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, TFS said:

Mission setting how though? Slider bar to adjust intensity, or high medium low?

It would have to be a simple On or Off. Accommodating so many settings like Low Med and High isn’t practical. I don’t know if you recall the Model Enlargement feature but part of the problem with that was trying to have those three settings. Honestly even just the On or Off setting is too much to add in addition to dot labels which are essentially the same thing. There aren’t enough servers or players online in this game to allow people so many choices. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Let the numbers speak:

Speak what? Something we (and ED) already know and thus doesn't really matter?

35 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Honestly even just the On or Off setting is too much to add in addition to dot labels which are essentially the same thing. There aren’t enough servers or players online in this game to allow people so many choices. 

You really need to make up your mind. First it needs to be an option, then not. Then it's absolutely necessary to MP and now it's apparently bad for it.

No, a UI option is not the same thing as a simulation option, and if you ever want to see how many of the simulation options are available to be set on a mission level, you just need to open up the ME and poke around. You might also want to reconsider the self-defeating logic in that statement: if there aren't enough servers, then obviously, offering more with different options would be a good thing. If there aren't enough players, then changing what the servers can offer would be a good thing. Either way, allowing player choices is inherently good — you just don't like it that they are allowed to make different choices than you do. That's an unusually laughable stance, even for being you.

[Parkour]

Here are the numbers. YES - I know they don't represent those not using Steam and are using Standalone. Yes, there are more playing Standalone, etc... but, the numbers available don't lie.

After the "Improved" Spotting Dots patch, there is the lowest counter of players playing DCS on Steam than EVER BEFORE. There is a significant drop after the Sept 30th patch with these "Improved" spotting dots. I know, for a FACT, that my entire wing has stopped playing (4 people).

People can say a hotfix is only for crashes, but their player base is crashing and they need to fix this ASAP.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Parkour

[Robi Hobby]

I feel the same way! I won't play DCS World anymore until the Error is fixed.  This also applies to the purchase of Modules, which I stopped immediately. Unfortunately! 

[=475FG= Dawger]

13 minutes ago, Parkour said:

Here are the numbers. YES - I know they don't represent those not using Steam and are using Standalone. Yes, there are more playing Standalone, etc... but, the numbers available don't lie.

After the "Improved" Spotting Dots patch, there is the lowest counter of players playing DCS on Steam than EVER BEFORE. There is a significant drop after the Sept 30th patch with these "Improved" spotting dots. I know, for a FACT, that my entire wing has stopped playing (4 people).

People can say a hotfix is only for crashes, but their player base is crashing and they need to fix this ASAP.

 

Moving modded files to IC is what started this and really has very little to do with this latest patch. I am actually seeing numbers tick up a bit with the (allegedly) huge dots.

[KoN]

22 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I honestly think this is a big part of the problem. Yeah this will creep up on you as you get older one day you’ll wonder why you can’t read your phone. 

Really, what is your game here , there are many references to other flight sims were the player's can seeing targets. So it's not their eye sight more like it's DCS . 

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, KoN said:

Really, what is your game here , there are many references to other flight sims were the player's can seeing targets. So it's not their eye sight more like it's DCS . 

It’s not the only factor but it’s likely a contributing one. I gotta be sure a good portion of DCS players are in this age group. If you haven’t experienced this for yourself… yet, you will.

[KoN]

1 hour ago, Parkour said:

Here are the numbers. YES - I know they don't represent those not using Steam and are using Standalone. Yes, there are more playing Standalone, etc... but, the numbers available don't lie.

After the "Improved" Spotting Dots patch, there is the lowest counter of players playing DCS on Steam than EVER BEFORE. There is a significant drop after the Sept 30th patch with these "Improved" spotting dots. I know, for a FACT, that my entire wing has stopped playing (4 people).

People can say a hotfix is only for crashes, but their player base is crashing and they need to fix this ASAP.

 

DCS slowly on the decline by the looks of it , this not a good sign . 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Parkour said:

After the "Improved" Spotting Dots patch, there is the lowest counter of players playing DCS on Steam than EVER BEFORE.

The improved spotting dots were introduced a year ago. The graph just shows six months. Perhaps take a longer time scale and see what that shows. The spike in May was the release of the F-4

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB