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

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

I'm impressed you figured that all out...  Kudos..  But at head on, the aircraft, your F16 example might be rendered at 1.5 pixels wide due to the wingspan, the height would be a fraction of a pixel at the fuselage and much smaller for the wing height.  How do you represent that when all you can render is one pixel, or two pixels?  If you use one pixel, then the aircraft is more spottable because the dimensions are square 1x1 pixel, versus 1.5 x 0.2 pixels.  There is more surface area to the players POV.   

 

Its a complex problem to solve especially with so many user variables.

It is. It'll always end up as becoming a matter of shading an dealing with anti-aliasing the second you start dealing with sub-pixel details. Doubly so if you also want to do the intuitively right thing of shading the dot based on the colour of the airframe… and the less said about the headache of adding in active lights on top of that, the better.

I think my main point is more that, given those numbers and given all the parameters that you maybe should take into account, and given the whole sub-pixel problem in general, when it comes out looking like this (well… apart from being scaled up 20× to clearly see the individual pixels) for a target that is ~50% larger (an F-15) on a display that's 35% larger (ultrawide), that seems pretty darn good for a first stab:

…but of course, that's on my hardware and settings, and even setting aside the obvious exaggerations some bandy about, that's obviously not what everyone's seeing. On the parametric curve/surface/n-space manifold between people leaving nose prints on 60" TVs and people having a wall-mounted 1080p display on the opposite wall to where they're sitting, they've managed almost nail my position perfectly.

 

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

he point being even in 2.8 it’s possible to stretch the realistic detection range. It doesn’t need to be exaggerated like it is in 2.9. 

You understand that the detection range is reduced in 2.9, yes? That this was the right direction compared to the lack of limits we had before.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Tippis

[Buzz313th]

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It is. It'll always end up as becoming a matter of shading an dealing with anti-aliasing the second you start dealing with sub-pixel details. Doubly so if you also want to do the intuitively right thing of shading the dot based on the colour of the airframe… and the less said about the headache of adding in active lights on top of that, the better.

I think my main point is more that, given those numbers and given all the parameters that you maybe should take into account, and given the whole sub-pixel problem in general, when it comes out looking like this (well… apart from being scaled up 20× to clearly see the individual pixels) for a target that is ~50% larger (an F-15) on a display that's 35% larger (ultrawide), that seems pretty darn good for a first stab:

…but of course, that's on my hardware and settings, and even setting aside the obvious exaggerations some bandy about, that's obviously not what everyone's seeing.

 

You understand that the detection range is reduced in 2.9, yes? That this was the right direction compared to the lack of limits we had before.

Good post..

What happens if you just turn off all Anti Aliasing and super sampling/scaling and just go 1 to 1 render resolution to device.  Does that uncomplicate things a little?  Do you get a sharp pixel at max range?

 

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Buzz313th said:

Good post..

What happens if you just turn off all Anti Aliasing and super sampling/scaling and just go 1 to 1 render resolution to device.  Does that uncomplicate things a little?  Do you get a sharp pixel at max range?

 

The first thing that happens is that I go “eww” the the mere thought

I'll have to experiment. But even before that, it depends on what you mean by “uncomplicate” — it certainly reduces the range of possible outcomes. But it also becomes more complex in the sense that you ultimately want that fuzziness because that's the only way to hint at details that are smaller than a pixel. Cutting out that creates complications in a different direction.

[virgo47]

Has anyone noticed that gates in training missions have spotting dots as well? Is it a feature or a bug? I think it's a bit distractive - and actually doesn't help with spotting the gate against the sun/bright clouds anyway. I guess the gate is just another plane for DCS.

[Buzz313th]

25 minutes ago, Tippis said:

The first thing that happens is that I go “eww” the the mere thought

I'll have to experiment. But even before that, it depends on what you mean by “uncomplicate” — it certainly reduces the range of possible outcomes. But it also becomes more complex in the sense that you ultimately want that fuzziness because that's the only way to hint at details that are smaller than a pixel. Cutting out that creates complications in a different direction.

Well I ask because I do not run any AA while in VR.  I do this to get more clarity since I'm running a raster of 4k x 2256 and with AA, things in the distance feel a bit too fuzzy.  Plus, with AA I would almost completely lose sight of aircraft that render in from the dot to the model as they get closer.

Edit..

Just did a test in VR with the new DLSS AA.  It looks good and I did not lose sight of an approaching aircraft in a head on aspect during the transition from dot to render.  But, it takes a bit of performance away and the difference is minimal.  Where I don't want to give up if I use AA is the clarity of the MFD without AA on.

 

Cheers

Edited November 2, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

28 minutes ago, virgo47 said:

Has anyone noticed that gates in training missions have spotting dots as well? Is it a feature or a bug? I think it's a bit distractive - and actually doesn't help with spotting the gate against the sun/bright clouds anyway. I guess the gate is just another plane for DCS.

It might be that spot dots are there for any mission object.  And I assume gates are just another object?  I do know that the dots are there for all static and ground vehicles.  I also noticed that the dots appear at different ranges for different objects.

[dehowie]

Glad to finally have the ability to see something in DCS after years of frustration. Having been back in BMS its system is still from a desk sim situation superior but at least i can see something now..definite step in the right direction.

[James DeSouza]

21 hours ago, Why485 said:

Please stop with this strawmanning. It's incredibly counter-productive to this entire conversation. 2.9 has issues, and it's important to point them out, but characterizing anybody who doesn't see the same thing you do as a cartoon character of your creation is not helping.

Everybody involved wants what's most realistic. This is a complex problem that is only made more difficult by the wide variety of hardware involved. Not everybody is seeing the same things, and that's part of the problem here. It's important to show screenshots of the problems and what hardware you're viewing it on because the biggest issues right now are these discrepancies, especially when it comes to VR.

 

Wait, so you are saying that I am strawmanning when all I am doing is describing the actual game, which has been displayed in screenshots multiple times in this thread, whereas a guy going "Oh hey when an F-16 is perfectly planform to you at 10 miles it is just about twice the absolute minimum possible angular resolution your eyes are capable of in a perfect hypothetical ergo it's perfectly reasonable for a nose on F-16 at 30 miles to be a giant black square."

Anyway on to the actual meat of your post, no not everyone wants what is most realistic as if they did there would be no one defending this awful update.  And even just from a conceptual level generally people do not want what is most realistic, the whole Jeff and Gazelle super missiles (which were actually just realistic missiles) thing is an obvious example from this game alone.  Just that the idea of turning your multiple thousand dollar "sim" into space invaders is a very odd idea.  Legitimately the only people saying positive things about this situation are happy that they can now easily spot everything, and the thing is that in reality you can't perfectly spot everything, the F-16 (and the F-5) are renowned for being basically invisible due to being tiny for example.  They aren't applauding the update for realism, they're applauding the update for turning on the dot labels and so letting them see things they couldn't otherwise have.  This is not realism.  Visual spotting is the hardest part of air combat.  Giant black blocks remove this.

Anyway no it is not a VR vs Flatscreen thing, as multiple screenshots have already shown.  This system is also awful in flatscreen (it's just the dots label system), it's just less awful.

 

Now all of us pointing out what an absolute <profanity>show this is just want an option to remove it, since some people like it obviously.  We don't really care that it'll put us at a disadvantage vs people who will effectively have cheats on.  But even this you see people in this thread arguing against, because if it is a toggle then it might become etiquette on some servers to toggle it off (or might even be forced, like labels).  Which gets into the basic dynamic that it seems as if everyone who says this update is good are just doing so as it gives them an excuse to functionally have the dot labels on all of the time.

Edited November 3, 2023 by James DeSouza

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Wait, so you are saying that I am strawmanning when all I am doing is describing the actual game, which has been displayed in screenshots multiple times in this thread, whereas a guy going "Oh hey when an F-16 is perfectly planform to you at 10 miles it is just about twice the absolute minimum possible angular resolution your eyes are capable of in a perfect hypothetical ergo it's perfectly reasonable for a nose on F-16 at 30 miles to be a giant black square."

Yes. Because that last bit in bold is not something that anyone has actually said. That your strawman right there.

15 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Anyway on to the actual meat of your post, no not everyone wants what is most realistic as if they did there would be no one defending this awful update

Actually, most people want what's most realistic, and that's why some are defending this update that massively improves how spotting works. And even if it didn't, there would be ample reason to defend the update on simple basis that ED are now addressing an area of the game that has been in dire need of adjustment for many many years — just having a system in place is a step forward almost irrespective of the first-run outcome.

18 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Just that the idea of turning your multiple thousand dollar "sim" into space invaders is a very odd idea. 

It's so odd that it hasn't even been raised so far. Well, other than as some kind of strawman that is.
At no point has any intent in that direction been implied and no point has anything of the kind been proposed or argued for.

19 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Legitimately the only people saying positive things about this situation are happy that they can now easily spot everything, and the thing is that in reality you can't perfectly spot everything, the F-16 (and the F-5) are renowned for being basically invisible due to being tiny for example.

Not very legitimately no. For instance, I'm saying positive things and the reason why is that I'm happy I now can't easily spot everything. Instead, unlike before, I have to resort to pretty large aircraft to make them appear at longer distances, and even then, they're well faded into the background. I'm applauding this update because it is no longer the horrible and clunky (and massively exploitable) solution of dot labels, but rather something that shows promise as far as already providing far more realistic visibility and which can be tweaked towards an equitable solution for a wider range of display systems.

Visual spotting is the hardest part of air combat, and no longer having black dots doing the job for you and showing up at absurd ranges is a step in the right direction.

 

26 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Now all of us pointing out what an absolute <profanity>show this is just want an option to remove it, since some people like it obviously. 

There is. If it's not working for you, post a bug report. But don't come into the feedback thread and try to pretend that this is a solution that works differently for different people, and for some it's doing exactly what it should. And that's very clearly and explicitly and demonstrably not the same as dot labels.

[Buzz313th]

3 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Anyway no it is not a VR vs Flatscreen thing, as multiple screenshots have already shown.  This system is also awful in flatscreen (it's just the dots label system), it's just less awful.

I will continue to back up my opinion that the "Some" of the dissimilar views about this topic are 100% due to the rendering differences between a flat screen and a VR HMD. 

As I stated before, I use both methods. 

On my 1440 52" flatscreen the unlabeled spotting dot is one pixel.  I still believe it is too dark and has too much contrast and is too easy to spot.  But, it is miles better than what I see in my VR HMD which is a relatively very large black square that is hard too miss even if you are trying to ignore it.  

The fact that different users are seeing different things is the first issue that needs to be resolved before we can have an intelligent and productive conversation on the topic.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Buzz313th

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Now all of us pointing out what an absolute <profanity>show this is just want an option to remove it, since some people like it obviously.  We don't really care that it'll put us at a disadvantage vs people who will effectively have cheats on.

I don’t think many people want to be forced to run an ugly game in order not to be at a disadvantage. We already have that now. 

3 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

because if it is a toggle then it might become etiquette on some servers to toggle it off (or might even be forced, like labels). 

I don’t think the base visibility should be a server/mission setting because we already have this option in the form of dot labels. 

47 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

The fact that different users are seeing different things is the first issue that needs to be resolved before we can have an intelligent and productive conversation on the topic.

Different people will see differently even if you gave them identical hardware. Because people have different abilities.  That’s really an intangible thing and can’t really be accounted for in the system. Some people will always have trouble with this or have unrealistic expectations. It’s not possible to account for all that. 

47 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

On my 1440 52" flatscreen the unlabeled spotting dot is one pixel and is small enough that it is hard to acquire.  I still believe it is too dark and has too much contrast and is too easy to spot.  But, it is miles better than what I see in my VR HMD which is a relatively very large black square that is hard too miss even if you are trying to ignore it.

Do you attribute this to the fact that VR means simply looking at larger pixels?

Edited November 3, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think many people want to be forced to run an ugly game in order not to be at a disadvantage. We already have that now. 

It certainly was what we had before, and you were quite adamant that this was a good thing and that spotting should not be improved in any way. Until you learned that the advantage you had (that others didn't) was counterbalanced by an advantage they had (that you didn't). Suddenly, the game had to be changed to remove their advantage.

Also, understand that you can always be forced like that. It's part of the controls mission-makers (and to a lesser extent server managers) have over their creation. Nothing is likely to change that.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think the base visibility should be a server/mission setting because we already have this option in the form of dot labels. 

Sort of. What we have now is something that can be forced four ways over, with the latest setting being a bit unclear as to who's the ultimate authority. In particular when it comes to the application of custom labels via the mission file…

The fundamentally good thing with this change is that it is finally an attempt to achieve what you describe. It is not likely to ever fully get there because the possible combination of parameter is just too large to fully account for all of them. But unlike before, some semblance of reasonable parity is at least achievable.

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Different people will see differently even if you gave them identical hardware.

That's not the “seeing different things” we're talking about though. The topic at hand is the input given by what shows up on different people's screens, and why we get all these different results depending on the hardware and software and settings involved. How those results are then seen by the user is a wholly different topic for another time. But ultimately, it is entirely possible to have a constructive discussion about what should be the gold standard — what should show up everywhere.

Oh, and actually, the different abilities of the user can be accounted for. For one, that's why games have all these settings. For another, it's quite entirely possible to create a guide for how to set up your workspace and default zoom levels to match, at which point there would even be an equal baseline for those who followed those principles.

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Do you attribute this to the fact that VR means simply looking at larger pixels?

It's also a matter of other graphics settings, where VR users often run with slightly less demanding ones to compensate for the inherent extra oomph needed to continuously render two separate frames at resolutions that equal (and occasionally even exceed) what the pancake use case involves. It also depends on whether either of the two displays run any kind of AA and/or scaling, and where in the pipeline it happens — VR oversampling and pixel density settings will yield different results, even when everything in the game is set to the same. And now we have the ability to further muddle the picture with scaling settings for normal screen use as well.

Depending on how that scaling is handled, it may enhance contrast levels just as well as it may reduce them. So it's not as simple as just being closer to the individual pixels.

[Buzz313th]

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Do you attribute this to the fact that VR means simply looking at larger pixels?

I'm not 100% sure TBH as I don't know enough about the rendering mechanics of VR.  With that being said though, It looks to me that there is something going on with the rendering of VR that is making the spotting dot bigger in VR than one single pixel.    But it is true, that when in VR, the players POV is physically much closer to the raster than when sitting feet away from a flat screen in 2d.  This would make pixels look bigger.  But like I said, it feels like the dot in VR is bigger than one pixel, at least on my quest 3 at ~4700x2528.

 

And to add to this, in 2.8, the dot was much smaller in VR than it is now in 2.9, so it kinda backs up my assumption that in 2.9, the dot is bigger than a single pixel in VR.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

23 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It's also a matter of other graphics settings, where VR users often run with slightly less demanding ones to compensate for the inherent extra oomph needed to continuously render two separate frames at resolutions that equal (and occasionally even exceed) what the pancake use case involves. It also depends on whether either of the two displays run any kind of AA and/or scaling, and where in the pipeline it happens — VR oversampling and pixel density settings will yield different results, even when everything in the game is set to the same. And now we have the ability to further muddle the picture with scaling settings for normal screen use as well.

Depending on how that scaling is handled, it may enhance contrast levels just as well as it may reduce them. So it's not as simple as just being closer to the individual pixels.

Good point.  I have been playing around with different settings to see what kind of changes occur and I'm not seeing any huge differences in VR.  The dot relatively remains much larger and much more obvious in the Q3 than the flat screen at comparable resolutions.  I thought adding AA in VR would help blend the dot into the background better, but it really doesn't make a huge difference.  Dropping Q3 resolution doesn't change the relative dot size, just makes it fuzzy.  Increasing Q3 resolution makes the dot sharper and still doesn't change the size.  Haven't tried scaling yet.  I'm going to guess here that ED is applying a multiplier to the dot size in VR to potentially help people who in 2.8 were having problems seeing the spotting dot in VR on different headsets. 

If the goal is to adopt a gold standard, I think it should be established first on a 2d screen and then once it gets close, then they can adapt that to VR.  Trying to make it work for both situations at the same time this early in the effort to get it right will just muddy the waters at this point.    

Edited November 3, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

27 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Depending on how that scaling is handled, it may enhance contrast levels just as well as it may reduce them. So it's not as simple as just being closer to the individual pixels.

I have done a few tests with the new sharpening slider in game and it has no effect on dot size, but does increase global scene contrast on all the textures as you turn up the sharpening and it makes the dot easier to spot.

My baseline setting for VR is a sharpening of 0.6 which is an added 60% from default values.  This is obviously contributing to my opinion that the dot has too much contrast against the background.

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Dropping Q3 resolution doesn't change the relative dot size, just makes it fuzzy.  Increasing Q3 resolution makes the dot sharper and still doesn't change the size.

It seems the goal with the new system was that changing resolutions doesn’t affect the dot size. Whereas in 2.8 it was possible to produce a larger dot by dropping your resolution. That at least is an accomplishment. But the dots are still too big. Likely the best solution would be to just stop using dots all. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Likely the best solution would be to just stop using dots all. 

Yes, but not for the reason you suspect.

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It seems the goal with the new system was that changing resolutions doesn’t affect the dot size. Whereas in 2.8 it was possible to produce a larger dot by dropping your resolution. That at least is an accomplishment. But the dots are still too big. Likely the best solution would be to just stop using dots all. 

If they didn't use dots, then they would just need to render the model when they believe that the visibility range was correct?  Can you render something that might be smaller than a pixel?  And if so, don't you just get a single pixel?

 

By the way, just finished an A10C mission at night.  With NVG on I can spot armor out to ~10-12 miles as a rendered black square.  It is obvious, requires no real searching and is many times easier to spot than if I use the IR TGP to search.  As I close the distance, I lose visual at roughly 5 miles when the dot disappears and is replaced by the model. I don't regain visual under the NVG until about ~2 miles when the model is relatively large enough to distinguish from the ground. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Buzz313th

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

If they didn't use dots, then they would just need to render the model when they believe the the visibility range was correct?  Can you render something that might be smaller than a pixel?  And if so, don't you just get a single pixel?

This must be possible otherwise you’d see every bullet you shoot in 1080p as a giant dot. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

This must be possible otherwise you’d see every bullet you shoot in 1080p as a giant dot. 

You're assuming the game renders individual bullets.

[Simultaneous]

@Tippis sorry didn’t check back here for a while.

To answer your question, I am on Pimax 8K X, pixel density 1.0, DLAA, no other scaling or AA etc. 

what I see is large, very dark grey (or maybe black) squares on any object - aircraft or ground targets - way out at 20 or 30 miles at least (been trying different things to get some accuracy in this but not had much time lately). When I say large squares, I mean like at least 16 pixels. Basically a single soldier on the ground, amongst trees, is bigger than a power station at the same range. The squares are being rendered further out than buildings, or at least are bigger than the biggest buildings at long ranges like this. So if I am approaching a town, I see large black squares for all the ground targets, bigger than and before I can see any buildings in the town.

In the sky a helicopter at 30 miles is a square bigger than it would be at 1 mile. When targets get to I think about 10 miles the square disappears and they get rendered accurately. 
Honestly it’s absolutely horrible. 
It is also kinda game breaking as I don’t have to search for anything - until it gets closer than 10 miles and I lose it when the square disappears and have to reset my brain to look for something different. This is effectively labels on. Which I have never used. It’s actually really putting me off flying at all.

Personally if you or others want it then cool, I really don’t care how you use the game. But for me it’s completely ruining the realism and immersion, as well as making searching for targets completely pointless. I have huge labels rendered further out than ground objects, buildings and trees.

I just want to be able to turn this off please and folks who want to use it feel free, fill yer boots.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Simultaneous

[James DeSouza]

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think many people want to be forced to run an ugly game in order not to be at a disadvantage. We already have that now.

You will always have an advantage by running an uglier game through greater FPS and less visible clutter (ie foliage).  It is something that is unavoidable.  That being said regarding resolution specifically what counts as running an uglier game to get an advantage?  You have guy A complaining that the spotting dots in 1080p are larger and you have guy B complaining that at 4k the spotting dots are more visible further away.  Seems like no matter what you do you will have an advantage and a disadvantage, because that is how it normally works.

 

4 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

If they didn't use dots, then they would just need to render the model when they believe that the visibility range was correct?  Can you render something that might be smaller than a pixel?  And if so, don't you just get a single pixel?

You can't strictly speaking render something smaller than a pixel (though I think composite might actually be the right term, but as for whether or not it becomes a single pixel at ranges where it is less than a pixel that is entirely down to the programmers.

 

7 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

I will continue to back up my opinion that the "Some" of the dissimilar views about this topic are 100% due to the rendering differences between a flat screen and a VR HMD. 

The fact that different users are seeing different things is the first issue that needs to be resolved before we can have an intelligent and productive conversation on the topic.

Except users aren't seeing different things.  It's just the way the game works.  As pointless as this is going to be as you guys keep ignoring it, here are screenshots at 4k and then another screenshot at 1080.  The first screenshot has labels on so you can see that the ranges are as I say (or at least the first range increment, the spotting dots outdistance the labels :D)

null

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!

null

null

This isn't VR, they'd be the size of small planets in VR, but it's still a massive problem.

 

Oh and I forgot to add, IT'S NOT EVEN ZOOMED.  It's just 78 degrees FOV (couldn't remember what the default is and went with that).

 

Why did it not put the screens where I dragged them in?  Ah well.

Edited November 4, 2023 by James DeSouza

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

You will always have an advantage by running an uglier game through greater FPS and less visible clutter (ie foliage).  It is something that is unavoidable.  That being said regarding resolution specifically what counts as running an uglier game to get an advantage?

Yeah but let’s not add another option to that. Bottom line is again there’s already a user adjustable option of labels. Which this just duplicating. The base game should just get rid of labels and dots and enhancements. 

[SharpeXB]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:02 PM, James DeSouza said:

Flight sims are played by older and less healthy people, both of those tend to have bad eyesight, any attempt to make things easily visible for those with bad eyesight will lead to them being ridiculous to those with good or okay eyesight.  Or at least that'd be my guess.

The issue with this older player base isn’t just their eyesight. (again I’m old with poor eyesight too) It’s the fact that they were reared on these old 90s era flying games played on ancient tiny CRT screens festooned with icons and dots or scaled up aircraft etc to make them playable with that eras tech. Somehow these archaic features got endowed with “realism” convincing players that these must be based upon scientific realism whereas in reality these things are all just video games. That thinking persists into the 21st century where computers and displays are capable of realistic graphics. We still have labels and legacy features in a game which is quite capable of showing you things as they’d actually appear IRL. Look how ludicrous this 1990s “dot” system is when implemented in 2023s VR. Devs are still saddled with catering to this audience. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by SharpeXB

[James DeSouza]

16 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The issue with this older player base isn’t just their eyesight. (again I’m old with poor eyesight too) It’s the fact that they were reared on these old 90s era flying games played on ancient tiny CRT screens festooned with icons and dots or scaled up aircraft etc to make them playable with that eras tech. Somehow these archaic features got endowed with “realism” convincing players that these must be based upon scientific realism whereas in reality these things are all just video games. That thinking persists into the 21st century where computers and displays are capable of realistic graphics. We still have labels and legacy features in a game which is quite capable of showing you things as they’d actually appear IRL. Look how ludicrous this 1990s “dot” system is when implemented in 2023s VR. Devs are still saddled with catering to this audience. 

 

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 double checked, remembered wrong, only a spritely 57.

Edited November 4, 2023 by James DeSouza