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

[Phil C6]

On 11/24/2024 at 6:22 PM, SharpeXB said:

I don’t know what sort of solution could work for VR because bottom line is that it doesn’t have enough resolution to equal real world 20/20 eyesight. Therefore some level of zoom view will be necessary for the same reason it is on a monitor. And yes I get it that this is probably much more awkward or disorienting in VR. 
This person seems to do a very good job in VR and you can see this zoom view being utilized without apparent difficulty. 

”Smart Scaling” isn’t workable in DCS for two primary reasons:
- The first is that it simply will look ugly. Like the screenshot below. Players would be forced to look at scenes like this or be at a disadvantage in multiplayer.

- Secondly there is absolutely no way for the devs to determine what level of this is realistic or practical. And leaving it up to the player as a setting means it would just be exploited online.

”Smart scaling” is hardly a “best practice” afaik it’s only used in one other game. The universal solution for this dilemma in flight sims is the zoom view. It’s not meant to simulate binoculars, it’s meant to make up for the small size and low resolutions inherent to displays  

Hi I'm not for or against Smart Scalling but from remember smart scalling isn't as your screenshot, it must be apply to each 3d objects not only your plane, so objects are bigger proportionnaly to the distance (the prob is more when you use gun at range, smart scalling make think pipper is on target but in reallity not always because the target is smaller).
Have you already try a simulator using it? don't know if it's smart scalling but Tacview use auto zoom on 3d objects and it's usefull no?
It seems professionnal sim use it

Best regards

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Phil C6 said:

Hi I'm not for or against Smart Scalling but from remember smart scalling isn't as your screenshot, it must be apply to each 3d objects not only your plane

The screenshot is just an example to show the scaling effect on that one aircraft indicated. The others are unscaled for comparison. I don’t imagine smart scaling would be applied to the aircraft carrier, so you can see the problem that introduces.

Edited December 3, 2024 by SharpeXB

[buceador]

On 11/24/2024 at 7:59 PM, SharpeXB said:

And the world is full of real pilots who don’t seem to understand computer games.

And the winner of the most unsubstantiated and arrogantly misguided conclusion is...

[SharpeXB]

50 minutes ago, buceador said:

And the winner of the most unsubstantiated and arrogantly misguided conclusion is...

View systems in computer games have nothing to do real piloting. There are many aspects of these games that honestly seem to confuse real world pilots. Like the difference between driving your RL car vs driving one in a racing sim.

Edited December 3, 2024 by SharpeXB

[buceador]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

View systems in computer games

By that you mean VR and 2D screens?  As a RL (GA) pilot I can only comment on my own experience, which is that the view from the cockpit in a modern sim is similar to the view from a RL AC (in general), probably the biggest difference visually concerns that which @Richrach  has said about seeing other aircraft.

But to state that:

" the world is full of real pilots who don’t seem to understand computer games."

Is incredibly condescending.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, buceador said:

By that you mean VR and 2D screens?  As a RL (GA) pilot I can only comment on my own experience, which is that the view from the cockpit in a modern sim is similar to the view from a RL AC (in general), probably the biggest difference visually concerns that which @Richrach  has said about seeing other aircraft.

But to state that:

" the world is full of real pilots who don’t seem to understand computer games."

Is incredibly condescending.

Again what you’re taking about are the resolution and FOV issues of 3D computer games. That has nothing to do with real world piloting and in fact could be understood by anyone sitting in the cockpit of a car. It’s not something a real pilot brings any expertise to understanding. Being a “real pilot” doesn’t automatically confer expertise on every subject. And nearly everyone in the world has flown in an airplane and looked out the window. Such experience is not limited to “real pilots” it’s something nearly everyone can relate to.

In this topic the “real pilot” OP doesn’t seem to understand that the history or issues surrounding their supposedly “simple” solution.

Edited December 3, 2024 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

On 11/24/2024 at 9:51 AM, Richrach said:

It is my strongest suggestion all the DCS programmers actually go flying and see what the real world looks like

Speaking of condescending statements… 

Stuff like this implies that the Devs don’t have any real pilots on their team or have even seen or flown in an airplane

[buceador]

37 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Being a “real pilot” doesn’t automatically confer expertise on every subject.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it did?

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, buceador said:

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it did?

It’s going on here… My comment was in response to the idea that a “real pilot” is beyond reproach about issues in computer games that have nothing to do with real piloting. 

Edited December 3, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Phil C6]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The screenshot is just an example to show the scaling effect on that one aircraft indicated. The others are unscaled for comparison. I don’t imagine smart scaling would be applied to the aircraft carrier, so you can see the problem that introduces.

Hi Aircraft carrier isn't a 3d object? why it shouldn't be apply to it?
Have you already try sim with smart scalling enable?
Best regards

Edited December 4, 2024 by Phil C6

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, Phil C6 said:

Hi Aircraft carrier isn't a 3d object? why it shouldn't be apply to it?
Have you already try sim with smart scalling enable?
Best regards

Because it would look obscenely stupid to scale up something as large as the aircraft carrier. What’s next? Should all the airfields, buildings and cities and trees be scaled up as well?
Other games are irrelevant and off topic in these discussions.

Edited December 4, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Phil C6]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Because it would look obscenely stupid to scale up something as large as the aircraft carrier. What’s next? Should all the airfields, buildings and cities and trees be scaled up as well?
Other games are irrelevant and off topic in these discussions.

Why not? smart scalling depends of the distance so what is the prob with that? closer you are, more the scale up is small
From your answer you seem don't know it and never tried, so how can you be sure your conclusion isn't irrelevant too?

Maybe it could help you to have a better idea about what smart scalling is:
https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration

Best regards

Edited December 4, 2024 by Phil C6

[YoYo]

On 11/24/2024 at 4:51 PM, Richrach said:

I have been sorely disappointed with the Phantom F-4E module because I cannot see threat aircraft.  When I cannot even tell the orientation of another aircraft at one mile there is a serious disconnect between reality and the DCS model.  Trying to fix this with a "spotting bug" or dot is silly.

Falcon 3.0 and Falcon 4.0 solved this problem by allowing the user to adjust the size of other units (aircraft and ground units) to user preference.  I found setting the size to x2 on my screens gave nearly the exact same visual presentation as I saw in actual ACM.  Since another sim has solved this problem, what is the reason DCS cannot adapt the same solution?  Is this a pride thing?  Is it a legal issue?  Falcon 4.0 has been gone for decades now.

The issue manifests itself when trying to see vehicles on the ground as well, but it is nowhere near as bad.

My eyes are average, my vision neither excellent nor poor.  When I flew at NSAWC on staff I could see the direction, aspect, and maneuvering of an F-16, F-18, or F-14 at three to four miles routinely, five miles on a bright day.  I will not buy any more modules that focus on air to air until this is fixed because it is so frustrating.

***It is my strongest suggestion all the DCS programmers actually go flying and see what the real world looks like, then make the game match what they saw.***  This does not have to be in fast movers.  One can get the same impressions flying light civil aircraft.  Again, from personal experience, I can see more details of a Cessna or Piper at two miles in real life than I can see a transport/tanker sized aircraft in DCS at one mile.

 

Richrach

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. It's not as simple as you think and you don't take into account all the factors that should be taken into account. Additionally, you write about the slider which is good but only for SP, not MP. What if in multiplayer people start cheating and set the slider to the maximum dot size. I suggest you read this thread, which discusses all the aspects that should be taken into account. Such ideas have been floated around more than once and were quickly banned by other DCS users. Generally, I don't know why a new topic is needed when there are already such ones where there are also slider ideas.

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by YoYo

[BIGNEWY]

threads merged

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, Phil C6 said:

Why not? smart scalling depends of the distance so what is the prob with that? closer you are, more the scale up is small
From your answer you seem don't know it and never tried, so how can you be sure your conclusion isn't irrelevant too?

He doesn't. He only goes by his own fantastical assumptions and dreams because those are better demonstrations of how the thing works than the thing itself, somehow. He even admitted as much when after a long slugfest, it was eventually dragged out of him that he actively refuses to read the research and look into the matter, because once again, he uses fantastical assumptions to fill in the gaps and reading actually looking it up would obviously reveal those assumptions for the nonsense they are.

You will never convince Sharpe that reality doesn't match his fantasies, and as such, any argument based on reality and facts will not work on him.

The general rule is, if Sharpe says something about scaling, it is false. He has no idea what it is, how it works, what it looks like, or what its purpose is. He doesn't want to know. He just knows that he's against it because people suggest it as an improvement to the game, and will invent any number of increasingly absurd falsehoods to “support” that position. As amply demonstrated in this and other (merged) threads, he also doesn't understand how resolutions work, or monitors, or basic trigonometry, or angles… so the same general rule applies there as  well. Just look back a few dozen pages and watch him trying to argue that 4000 is 3000 and 50 is 60, because if they aren't, his attempted argument falls apart.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Tippis

[BIGNEWY]

folks please keep it civil and discuss the spotting in DCS. 

thank you 

[dutchili]

The current implementation works well on the Quest 3 with PD 1.3 and max resolution set in the headset.

The dots are larger than the actual objects, but would be hard to see given the resolution of the Quest 3 without the dot.
I perceive them as 'ugly', but during dogfighting the compensate nicely for the lack of resolution in the hardware.

It would be great to configure the transition distance (from object to spotting dot) and the size of the dot so everybody can tune it to it's own liking.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Phil C6 said:

Why not? smart scalling depends of the distance so what is the prob with that? closer you are, more the scale up is small

If changing the object or world scale is not a problem for you then why not simply use the bigger fov and have everything bigger and to scale with both background and other objects?

The "smart" scaling is not a solution - it's just a cheat on game geometry with a goal to simulate subjective visual acuity instead of keeping up with correct scale - angles and proportions. It can only help with spotting and aspect recognition within most troublesome ranges around 1-5nm and comes with its own problem - wrong object scale obviously. It is not acceptable but you'll always find this discussion in simulators: Graphics should correctly display angles/scale or have them wrong and simulate subjective acuity instead? Sound should be as real as heard IRL or modified one that accounts for lack of haptic feedback or maybe the one that cater to player comfort more? I always go with first option because I know our hardware and simulation limitations and don't need the sim to artificially compensate for it, making it unrealistic in the process. There are many devices for everyone to choose from to their liking: VR/monitors/projectors, surround sound/headphones, (FFB) HOTAS, pedals, haptic feedback seats, moving platforms, cockpit replicas...

Some high resolution monitors have already reached the point where we won't spot the difference between the pixels and VR will surely get there in coming years, so it's no longer resolution problem. Now the game should only render it correctly and add RL effects, like light glints, shadows, and take actual paint colors into equation. No further acuity "solutions" needed.

Let's take on @Richrach case. Doesn't say which Pimax so let's assume some average modern headset stats:

In this example let's take side view of some big fighter (thus 20m lenght) from 4nm and we should get something like this:

(6px long, zoomed for clarity)

It still allows us to spot it and recognize the direction of flight if it flies against blue sky. AA methods and small resolution differences can alter it but not significantly.

If you don't see anything resembling that in DCS then it should be reported as bug. If it's a spot already - still a bug. If it's a big square instead it's current DCS feature called "spotting dot".

Edited December 4, 2024 by draconus

[PawlaczGMD]

12 minutes ago, draconus said:

If changing the object or world scale is not a problem for you then why not simply use the bigger fov and have everything bigger and to scale with both background and other objects?

The "smart" scaling is not a solution - it's just a cheat on game geometry with a goal to simulate subjective visual acuity instead of keeping up with correct scale - angles and proportions. It can only help with spotting and aspect recognition within most troublesome ranges around 1-5nm and comes with its own problem - wrong object scale obviously. It is not acceptable but you'll always find this discussion in simulators: Graphics should correctly display angles/scale or have them wrong and simulate subjective acuity instead? Sound should be as real as heard IRL or modified one that accounts for lack of haptic feedback or maybe the one that cater to player comfort more? I always go with first option because I know our hardware and simulation limitations and don't need the sim to artificially compensate for it, making it unrealistic in the process. There are many devices for everyone to choose from to their liking: VR/monitors/projectors, surround sound/headphones, (FFB) HOTAS, pedals, haptic feedback seats, moving platforms, cockpit replicas...

Some high resolution monitors have already reached the point where we won't spot the difference between the pixels and VR will surely get there in coming years, so it's no longer resolution problem. Now the game should only render it correctly and add RL effects, like light glints. No further acuity "solutions" needed.

Let's take on @Richrach case. Doesn't say which Pimax so let's assume some average modern headset stats:

In this example let's take side view of some big fighter (thus 20m lenght) from 4nm and we should get something like this:

(6px long, zoomed for clarity)

It still allows us to spot it and recognize the direction of flight if it flies against blue sky. AA methods and small resolution differences can alter it but not significantly.

If you don't see anything resembling that in DCS then it should be reported as bug. If it's a spot already - still a bug. If it's a big square instead it's current DCS feature called "spotting dot".

From a Pimax Crystal user - it currently looks nothing like this. A fighter is virtually invisible from 4 nm. You could maybe spot it as something that looks like a single pixel if you know exactly where to look against clear sky, otherwise forget it. But keep in mind that a single pixel in the Crystal is virtually unresolvable. And there is absolutely no aspect/angle information to be gained at this range.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Phil C6 said:

Why not? smart scalling depends of the distance so what is the prob with that? closer you are, more the scale up is small

Smart Scaling was intended to make very small objects more visible by scaling them up. An aircraft carrier can be easily seen without scaling it. If you want to go the route of just scaling up every object that’s what the zoom view does.

The problem with that smart scaling demonstration is the it only shows the aircraft examples against blank backgrounds where the awkwardness of making them too large would reveal itself. Like the aircraft carrier example.

Edited December 4, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Smart Scaling was intended to make very small objects more visible by scaling them up.

No.

Smart Scaling was intended to make the aspect of small-to-medium objects more realistically identifiable. It is not a spotting solution — it's a simulation of perception to accurately convey cues used for tracking an already clearly visible target.

Scaling is not about making objects visible — the objects are already visible so that would be pointless. As long as you assume that is about object visibility, you are objectively wrong and any everything that follows from that assumption — all claims, arguments, and options — are incorrect and absolute nonsense.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If you want to go the route of just scaling up every object that’s what the zoom view does.

Zoom does not do what scaling does, nor does scaling do what zoom does. That's why zoom is a separate thing that exists alongside scaling (and why proper scaling algorithms take zoom into account and-counter-scale to remove the effect).

It would help your case if you read up what scaling is and what it does so you don't make such silly mistakes out of sheer ignorance about the topic.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The problem with that smart scaling demonstration is the it only shows the aircraft examples against blank background

…which is exactly how it woks for everything else that isn't a background object. An aircraft carrier is not a background object, and as such would be scaled to match as well — not that you'd be able to notice at the distances where it's really active.

You'd know this if you had any idea what smart scaling is; what it does; what its design intent is; how it works; or… anything about it really.

 

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Graphics should correctly display angles/scale or have them wrong and simulate subjective acuity instead? Sound should be as real as heard IRL or modified one that accounts for lack of haptic feedback or maybe the one that cater to player comfort more?

Graphics in a simulation should obviously… you know… simulate what you see. Otherwise the result is unrealistic by very definition. Why is this even a question?

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Some high resolution monitors have already reached the point where we won't spot the difference between the pixels and VR will surely get there in coming years, so it's no longer resolution problem.

Not quite. It is now becoming a resolution problem in the opposite direction, where naively using “real” angles and scales creates a hugely unrealistic outcome because the game renders — and the display shows — far smaller details than you should be shown. As such, the rendering pipeline can't just throw pixels on the screen where they “should” be according to maths; it has to simulate the limits of perception to not put pixels in where they shouldn't be seen.

Scaling is an increasingly more necessary part of that package unless you want to create jarring transitions from one state to another, with the target popping in and out of different degrees of visibility, and unless you want to introduce harmful differences between different display systems and setups. It is obviously not the only solution, but there is really nothing else that can do the same thing in its particular range band.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Tippis

[SparrowLT]

ITs still broken and i think its the dits dissapearing thing in maps with lots of ground units cause in SP doenst happen

 

Yesterday in Enigma's (now Heatblur) with a guy in CGI in our side guiding me .. 2 MIG.21s ahead hot .. 20nm, 15, 10, 5 .. NOTHING

 

altitude is good.. bearing is good.. CGI calls merge.. i look ALL arround.. NOTHING .. begin turning and popping flares to try to see.., CGI keeps tracking and instructing "they are at your 10" , 9" now.. 7") .. NOTHING ..there is NOTHING arround.. then boom..

 

And why those 21s could see my dot but theirs are invisible? what the hell is wrong with this game

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Graphics in a simulation should obviously… you know… simulate what you see. Otherwise the result is unrealistic by very definition. Why is this even a question?

Ok then, unless you want to simulate gravitational lense, aircraft scale linearly with distance. No place for smart scaling in simulators.

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

It is now becoming a resolution problem in the opposite direction

If the fov is correct (VR) your eyes will become natural limit. For zoom and putting nose at the monitor we can't do much about. Rendering fading away can be easily implemented though. Not a problem currently - majority of people rather complain about not seeing anything or unrealistic squares.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

Yesterday in Enigma's (now Heatblur) with a guy in CGI in our side guiding me .. 2 MIG.21s ahead hot .. 20nm, 15, 10, 5 .. NOTHING

Are you implying that you think you should see a high aspect MiG-21 at 20nm? Or even 5nm which would still be very difficult under some circumstances. 

2 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

And why those 21s could see my dot but theirs are invisible?

Because the system is totally exploitable and unequal in effect. 

[Bounti30]

Has anyone noticed an improvement in VR before I update for nothing?