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

[Midair]

Yes I know, but for us they are ED voices and the only team members we can contact for any request. And for the moment I though their responses very insulting from a customer point of view. The management decide to impose something to everyone even if we don't want it because it breaks the immersion for us. We just want to choose if we use it or not period.

[MAXsenna]

Yes I know, but for us they are ED voices and the only team members we can contact for any request. And for the moment I though their responses very insulting from a customer point of view. The management decide to impose something to everyone even if we don't want it because it breaks the immersion for us. We just want to choose if we use it or not period.

Have you considered things can get lost in translation and that your understanding of the English language might lack a little? You actually come off as rude. Are you aware?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

ED on the spotting issue in VR:

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, chichowalker said:

That kind of screenshot shows perfectly that is a fucking square putting in front of models

Of course it has to look like that because if the dot was smaller than the model there’d be no point in using them. That’s why spotting dots don’t make any sense. At least a dot label floats over the aircraft and doesn’t hide it. 

1 hour ago, Midair said:

he says is this option will be impose to everyone

Apparently it’s only forced on for VR players. That doesn’t seem fair. 

[BIGNEWY]

59 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

@NineLine and @BIGNEWY are forum moderators. And I wouldn't say they have ignored anything. They have convey what's been decided from the devs/management. Maybe they can't say if they're equally frustrated or not.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

We are both associate producers and community managers, we have been passing on lots of feedback from here and many other places around the community. We should see some tweaks coming in the next patch but you will need to be patient as always. 

thank you 

[MAXsenna]

We are both associate producers and community managers, we have been passing on lots of feedback from here and many other places around the community. We should see some tweaks coming in the next patch but you will need to be patient as always. 
thank you 

Thanks! I knew you didn't ignore us.
Forgot about the producers part!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Tippis]

47 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Of course it has to look like that because if the dot was smaller than the model there’d be no point in using them.

Eh, no. The point of using a dot instead of the model is that the model can't be guaranteed to be of a particular size. Using both is largely pointless because if it's just a dot, you don't need the model; if it's large enough to not be a dot, you don't need the dot. It's not that the dot doesn't make sense — it's that your assumed use case and application is nonsensical.

50 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

At least a dot label floats over the aircraft and doesn’t hide it. 

Dot labels should cover the aircraft. If yours have been adjusted to not do so, then that's the label maker's fault and you can adjust it back to be in the right position (or pick a different dot symbol that is properly centred).

[draconus]

41 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We should see some tweaks coming in the next patch but you will need to be patient as always. 

Thanks, there's some hope then.

[Talisman_VR]

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

ED on the spotting issue in VR:

I signed in especially to like this, lol.  

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Robi Hobby]

Because of this Spotting Dot bug in VR, I have not bought the Kola & Iraq Map.  

If I see Black Squares in VR again after the Next update, DCS World will be over for me. 

[SharpeXB]

Both of these screenshots (from a 2160x3840 monitor) have the Spotting Dots turned on. One has Dot Labels turned on, the other does not. I challenge you to tell the difference. Also explain why one of these is a server-enforced mission setting but the other is not. From my perspective the Spotting Dots make no sense because they basically duplicate the dot labels but aren't a gameplay aid or mission setting. Therefore, they are just an exploit online and, in some instances, like in VR are egregiously large.

Edited October 25, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Both of these screenshots (from a 2160x3840 monitor) have the Spotting Dots turned on.

1. Don't play in portrait mode. That's not how your eyes are situated.
2. Don't use jpeg — it removes the detail we're looking for and creates artifacts that hide the very thing you're trying to show.

Since you revealed that your dot labels are misaligned, the difference is obvious if you know what to look for.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Also explain why one of these is a server-enforced mission setting but the other is not.

This has been explained in full: because one is a UI option, and the other is part of the simulation You can enforce the former much like you can some other UI elements such as the BDA indicator. You can't enforce the other, much like you can't turn off explosions.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

From my perspective the Spotting Dots make no sense because they basically duplicate the dot labels but aren't a gameplay aid or mission setting.

Your “perspective” is objectively wrong. It's not even a perspective. It's an incorrect assumption based on a refusal to understand the purpose of the features you're discussing. Just because the two convey related information does not mean they're duplicates of each other. Explosions do not duplicate the BDA window.

By very definition, they cannot be an exploit. It wasn't an exploit when you were able to spot targets at 40nm either. It was just silly and as such, the new system had to be put into place to curb that excess and unrealism. Just because it's in a bad place for you right now doesn't mean people who temporarily get an advantage over you (and the number of people who do can be counted on the toes on one of your hands) doesn't mean they always will or that there is any cheating going on. You're just on the other side of the fence from where you want to be in this iteration phase. That is a you problem, not a game problem.

[SharpeXB]

I can hardly believe my eyes, so I had to run that test again, this time with Spotting Dots Off (or set to v2.8). Now the dot labels are distinctly visible, but you can see they totally look like the spotting dots above. I'm curious for an explanation of why both features are needed. One is a gameplay aid that's controlled in mission and the other purports to be a realistic spotting system. Yet they appear exactly the same. Plus the spotting dots are drawn over aircraft which are otherwise visible and therefore unnecessary.  

Edited October 26, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Branimir76]

On 10/23/2024 at 10:55 PM, Tippis said:

Are you quite sure you're not actually seeing a label?

Im quite sure I NEVER use labels in DCS.

[Bounti30]

12 hours ago, Tippis said:

Just because it's in a bad place for you right now doesn't mean people who temporarily get an advantage over you (and the number of people who do can be counted on the toes on one of your hands) doesn't mean they always will or that there is any cheating going on. You're just on the other side of the fence from where you want to be in this iteration phase. That is a you problem, not a game problem.

I have read many of your posts and I don't understand why you seem to think that users are not satisfied with the new spotting dots 
only because they would lose an advantage over others. nothing could be further from the truth. 

There are those who fly solo, those who fly in squadrons only among themselves. 
Those who fly in multiplayer and are looking for something other than maximum Fornite-style kills.
Don't be reductive in your comments, for me who is in the first category and who likes to fly in the evening after work, currently DCS is terrible.

[Tippis]

10 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

I have read many of your posts and I don't understand why you seem to think that users are not satisfied with the new spotting dots 
only because they would lose an advantage over others. nothing could be further from the truth. 

I don't think “users” are of that opinion. I know for a fact that Sharpe is of that opinion. I know this because there's a lot of history behind his objection to this particular improvement to DCS (he is always against improvements to DCS — there's a lot of history there as well), in that he was perfectly fine with the old system that let him see targets from outrageous distances where others couldn't see him, and he expressly thought that they should just git gud (or git gudder equpment). But when the exact same system was proven to give advantages over him to other players, it was suddenly the worst thing imaginable and needed to be fixed immediately. The people who gained that (well know, but not by him) advantage were all of a sudden horrible cheaters who used an “exploit” to beat him in PvP (this was never proven), whereas when he used his advantage given by the exact same system, it was all natural and normal and as it should be.

Since then, he has vacillated wildly as to what he thinks about the spotting dots. Whenever he believes that they have solved his old vexation and robbed others of their advantage, it is good. Whenever he understands that the advantage (or just plain parity) is there, it is bad. And all the while, he's begging for the return of a system where he gets a clear and unambiguous advantage over other players.

His entire line of reasoning and rationale for his complaining about (and occasionally praising) the system is “I used to have an artificial advantage over others, I want it back, and also they should have their advantage over me artificially removed”. This is him, and no-one else (or… well… a few more, but they have learned not to expose themselves as clearly) — definitely not all users who aren't satisfied. Hell, I'm not satisfied, because the dots can still be a whole lot better (and supplemented by other systems). I just recognise that it has solved a lot of issues with the old system, and robbing Sharpe of his favourite unfair advantage is icing on the cake.

 

10 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

Don't be reductive in your comments, for me who is in the first category and who likes to fly in the evening after work, currently DCS is terrible.

Don't apply comments directed at others to yourself. Problem solved.

And if it does apply to you, my comment isn't reductive. Problem still solved.

If you actually read many of my posts, you will find a number of different categories that you may find yourself in. You'd know that I don't think people complain “only because” of some perceived loss of advantage. If you want to speak about reductive arguments, look no further than your own claim.

Edited October 26, 2024 by Tippis

[Tippis]

20 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I'm curious for an explanation of why both features are needed.

It has been explained in full. Try reading.

Also, try looking at your own images, the differences are glaring, without even going into the whole issue of your choice of jpeg over png. You should probably also try to create reproducible results, rather than images that suggest wildly different zoom levels and/or ranges, making it anyone's guess why things are bigger or smaller.

Let's see if you can spot the problem with using these examples of yours for comparative purposes. They've all been cut out with the same margin and enlarged 4x without interpolation to show the details in… well… detail.

Spoiler

There are a couple of things in this supposed same setup, other than dots and labels on and off, that you need to explain…

Edited October 26, 2024 by Tippis

[freehand]

36 minutes ago, Tippis said:

I don't think “users” are of that opinion. I know for a fact that Sharpe is of that opinion. I know this because there's a lot of history behind his objection to this particular improvement to DCS (he is always against improvements to DCS — there's a lot of history there as well), in that he was perfectly fine with the old system that let him see targets from outrageous distances where others couldn't see him, and he expressly thought that they should just git gud (or git gudder equpment). But when the exact same system was proven to give advantages over him to other players, it was suddenly the worst thing imaginable and needed to be fixed immediately. The people who gained that (well know, but not by him) advantage were all of a sudden horrible cheaters who used an “exploit” to beat him in PvP (this was never proven), whereas when he used his advantage given by the exact same system, it was all natural and normal and as it should be.

Since then, he has vacillated wildly as to what he thinks about the spotting dots. Whenever he believes that they have solved his old vexation and robbed others of their advantage, it is good. Whenever he understands that the advantage (or just plain parity) is there, it is bad. And all the while, he's begging for the return of a system where he gets a clear and unambiguous advantage over other players.

His entire line of reasoning and rationale for his complaining about (and occasionally praising) the system is “I used to have an artificial advantage over others, I want it back, and also they should have their advantage over me artificially removed”. This is him, and no-one else (or… well… a few more, but they have learned not to expose themselves as clearly) — definitely not all users who aren't satisfied. Hell, I'm not satisfied, because the dots can still be a whole lot better (and supplemented by other systems). I just recognise that it has solved a lot of issues with the old system, and robbing Sharpe of his favourite unfair advantage is icing on the cake.

 

Don't apply comments directed at others to yourself. Problem solved.

And if it does apply to you, my comment isn't reductive. Problem still solved.

If you actually read many of my posts, you will find a number of different categories that you may find yourself in. You'd know that I don't think people complain “only because” of some perceived loss of advantage. If you want to speak about reductive arguments, look no further than your own claim.

 

What is being said in the above "problem solved" comments & what is with the constant stalking of sharp ?

[KoN]

On 10/24/2024 at 10:36 PM, SharpeXB said:

I hope that’s not an actual screenshot

Looks very familiar in VR . 

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, freehand said:

What is being said in the above "problem solved" comments & what is with the constant stalking of sharp ?

The solved problem is that the comment is not being reductive when applied in a particular instance, and when there the options available are not reduced to just one.

The “constant stalking” is making sure that his constant bad-faith arguments from (wilful) ignorance, misdirections, and self-defeating claims are shown for what they are. He has also been shown to fabricate “proof” on numerous occasions. Again, he has a long history of actively trying to sabotage any attempt at improving the game. In this particular case, he doesn't want dots to be improved to where they work — he wants spotting to return to a known broken state.

I know he claims he has me blocked. I also know that he has claimed this on multiple occasions before and then turned right around and started to argue against what I'm saying. And when that backfired, gone back to claiming he has me blocked. So like with everything else, I take what he says on that particular point with a quarry full of salt.

[Parkour]

Here is how to fix the issue:

1. Hover your cursor over Tippis's icon.
2. Wait for the pop-up menu.
3. Select the Ignore button at the bottom right.
4. Select Update Preferences in the new screen.
5. Select the Gear icon next to the name in the Ignored Users list
6. Select Change Ignored Content
7. Select Posts, Messages, Mentions and Signatures
8. Select Update Preferences

 

Edited October 28, 2024 by Parkour

[Bounti30]

15 hours ago, Parkour said:

Here is how to fix the issue:

1. Hover your cursor over Tippis's icon.
2. Wait for the pop-up menu.
3. Select the Ignore button at the bottom right.

 

 

thanks for the information

[BeerNfrites]

On 10/25/2024 at 4:05 PM, Tippis said:

Dot labels should cover the aircraft. If yours have been adjusted to not do so, then that's the label maker's fault and you can adjust it back to be in the right position (or pick a different dot symbol that is properly centred).

FWIW neutral dot labels don’t cover the plane or ground unit, they are positioned as default above (the might flip to below in some instances) the unit they are labelling. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, BeerNfrites said:

FWIW neutral dot labels don’t cover the plane or ground unit, they are positioned as default above (the might flip to below in some instances) the unit they are labelling. 

If we look at the LEVEL_NEUTRAL_DOT definition, they're placed with the alignment “CenterCenter”, so they should be pretty much right on top.

Of course, there's also the “LEVEL_DOT” (which is a funny name for it doesn't even use dots for most range segments) and those are aligned with the dot_symbol function, which places them as “CenterBottom”, so there's a lot of dot definitions to keep track of.

The labels file is just a mess of different-generation legacy codes and comments for how stuff is defined.

That said, if the dot labels are jumping around even with that specific alignment, we might have another fun bug on our hands. Or, worse, it differs from one upgrade path to another, or from one install to another, so the supposed default appearance actually… isn't. That would explain a horrible amount of things as far as how differently people feel about the dot labels… Brrr…

Edited October 28, 2024 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, BeerNfrites said:

FWIW neutral dot labels don’t cover the plane or ground unit, they are positioned as default above (the might flip to below in some instances) the unit they are labelling. 

Mine in 4K do actually appear to cover the aircraft. These are the default unedited labels