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

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Nearly identical. So much so that debating the difference is rather pointless.

Just because you failed to spot the difference and distinction between to different types of dots doing different thing doesn't mean the difference is pointless.

It merely means that your whinging about how things look rests on false presumptions because you quite simply haven't noticed how they actually look. You know, the thing you're complaining about.

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That is indeed a shot of 2.9 with dot labels off.

Again, that is not what the respective screen shots say.

This is yet another one of those moments where you need to stop, read, take in what is actually written, and think about what it means and how it relates to what you say. Otherwise, you will end up accidentally admitting that you faked the whole thing and that nothing you show can be trusted. Whether this is actually the case or not almost becomes moot at that point. It may not have been your intent to deceive, and you may not have changed anything, but that is what it will look like because you keep contradicting what pictures say.

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Just because you failed to spot the difference and distinction between to different types of dots doing different thing doesn't mean the difference is pointless.

It merely means that your whinging about how things look rests on false presumptions because you quite simply haven't noticed how they actually look. You know, the thing you're complaining about.

Again, that is not what the respective screen shots say.

This is yet another one of those moments where you need to stop, read, take in what is actually written, and think about what it means and how it relates to what you say. Otherwise, you will end up accidentally admitting that you faked the whole thing and that nothing you show can be trusted. Whether this is actually the case or not almost becomes moot at that point. It may not have been your intent to deceive, and you may not have changed anything, but that is what it will look like because you keep contradicting what pictures say.

Well if you are going to imply that I’m lying in my bug report I’ll spare everyone having to deal with more pages of this stuff and put you back on the ignore list. 

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well if you are going to imply that I’m lying in my bug report I’ll spare everyone having to deal with more pages of this stuff and put you back on the ignore list. 

I'm not implying anything.

I'm saying that your screen shots are labelled as showing two versions of the game, and then you come along and state that they show one. Whether this is because you've lost track of what you said and of what the images come from, or whether you made it up one way or another (or both), I can't say. This is why I keep referring back to what the images say and what they show: to get you to clarify where they're from and that you have actually looked at them.

No matter what, you've shown with your images that there is a distinct difference; that the two things do not look the same, in spite of you saying they do; that the limitations you said exist don't actually exist or even apply to at least one (but in reality both) the types we're talking about.

Just because you were hoping to show something else doesn't change the fact that this is what your images show and I'm sorry (lol not really) that they ended up working against you. Your intent — be it accidental, wilful, malicious, naïve or otherwise — is almost besides the point by now. Suck it up as yet another instance of stumbling over yourself because you didn't pay attention to what you were saying and showing.

[SharpeXB]

Here are some more examples in case anything before was unclear and to make sure I got this right. What's amazing is there is almost literally no difference in 2.9 between Dot Labels On or Off, even on a 48" 4K screen with my nose up to it I can barely detect them switching on and off with Shift+F10.

Edited October 28, 2023 by SharpeXB

[James DeSouza]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

That is not actually the only actual solution. The problem you get with what you're suggesting is exactly what we have now: you end up with a very naïve geometric function that results in planes being far too visible far too far out, and with ease of spotting being a function of how bad your settings are — the worse the graphics, the better the spotting.

So having an actual model scale with distance the same way it just always does and not showing it when it is smaller than a pixel has you see models too far out vs having a magical permanent hovering cargo container that is always over the aircraft no matter how small it would actually be on your field of view..?

 

What?!

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If it seems unfair to give expensive hardware an advantage, the opposite is fully illogical. The game shouldn’t actually encourage the use of lower spec gear. That’s counterintuitive. Ideally there’s a solution for everyone though. 

It being unfair doesn't really matter though.  It is unfair, but it is also unavoidable.  There's never a solution for everyone.  For example this awful mechanic which sadly is probably going to stick in the game, even if they give it a toggle off, which on the face of it seems like a solution for everyone, will actually put those who refuse to use it at an incredible and permanent disadvantage.

Edited October 28, 2023 by James DeSouza

[James DeSouza]

nullSorry, but I couldn't help myself.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

nullSorry, but I couldn't help myself.

It quite literally looks like just a dot label forced on. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, James DeSouza said:

So having an actual model scale with distance the same way it just always does and not showing it when it is smaller than a pixel has you see models too far out vs having a magical permanent hovering cargo container that is always over the aircraft no matter how small it would actually be on your field of view..?

What?!

No.

Having an actual model scale with distance the way it always does means that at higher resolutions in particular, it will let you see them too far out, especially with zoom, since you can quite easily arrive at a situation where 0.3 mils (which is where the limit should be) comes out to more than 1 pixel. In fact, you go past that threshold on a 4k screen that shows a pretty sedate 60° FoV, never mind higher zoom levels.

60° = 1.047 rad -> 1.047 rad / 3840px = 0.000272 rad/px or 0.272 mil per pxiel — already 10% better than 20/20l visual acuity.
Whether you as a player actually sees this will then obviously depend on how close you're sitting to your monitor.

This should be compared against a situation where, above a certain distance, airplanes — or perhaps more accurately, specific target sizes — simply aren't rendered. Because they shouldn't be, because you simply can't see them, and it shouldn't matter whether or not your monitor is able to display them. The tricky part then becomes one of how to fade in from that situation to where they're shown at a perceptually accurate size without causing horrible pop-in. The double-tricky part is to make sure this works the same regardless of resolution and display type.

One way of doing that, which these dots opens up for (and it's just that so far — I'm not saying we're there yet), is to stop drawing the aircraft sooner than you otherwise would, and use a separate and distinctly tweakable markers to fade in and expand to the point where regular model rendering can take over. The tweaking needed here comes down to figuring out when the model should no longer be used, and how quickly, and at what ranges, the marker should change its size, alpha and possibly also colouring. Making zoom work sensibly in all of that adds another wrinkle since you might accidentally be zoomed in to the right spot where a marker starts growing at an alarming rate out of nowhere.

Another way to do it, that is arguably more elegant, is to employ a smooth scaling curve that quickly clamps to zero once you reach maximum visible range. It's essentially the same thing, except it always uses the unit model (at some appropriate LoD), and you can more easily counteract zoom effects since it's all in the same function. Unfortunately, ED have historically and quite adamantly stated that they will not go down that route. So that leaves the less elegant solution with a separate marker.

Either way, the important bit is that max-range clamping, and having it apply even with middling-to-high zoom levels. And covering up the potential pop-in in some equitable way.

 

1 hour ago, James DeSouza said:

It being unfair doesn't really matter though.  It is unfair, but it is also unavoidable.  There's never a solution for everyone.

It's not unavoidable. It is tricky — maybe even impossible — to achieve full parity, but at least there's a way to make the extremes… well… less extreme so the differences are smaller by applying this kind of solution to everyone. Some will lose their over-range spotting capabilities. Others will lose their mid-range target size advantage. Others still will just get easier spotting across the board. All of that is good if it brings everyone closer together to seeing roughly the same thing (and more importantly, not seeing things the same way).

 

51 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It quite literally looks like just a dot label forced on. 

Only if you don't look it what's actually in the picture, and ignore the arrows.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Tippis

[James DeSouza]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It quite literally looks like just a dot label forced on. 

That is what it is, that is what I have been saying all along in this thread.  They just forced dot labels on and slightly changed their position offset.  That is all this is.

To be frank the only thing that makes sense to me is that everyone else already figured this out and that everyone who is saying this is a good change just wants to "cheat" with the dot labels on with the excuse that they have no option not to.  I cannot fathom why there isn't a greater negative response otherwise.

Edited October 29, 2023 by James DeSouza

[James DeSouza]

The default DCS FOV is 109 degrees, and it is 109 degrees without being 109 degrees on the human's own field of view.  It won't match up perfectly, but is isn't awful, arbitrary and artificial like forcing the dot labels on is.  People can zoom to get an artificial advantage (assuming they can actually make the pixel out themselves) but at that point it is so minor that it doesn't matter.  No different than the guy having a bunch of extra hats to do more things HOTAS.

Edited October 29, 2023 by James DeSouza

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

That is what it is, that is what I have been saying all along in this thread.  They just forced dot labels on and slightly changed their position offset.

That is all this is.

I didn’t quite realize it at first because until I tested this here I had hardly ever used the dot labels. I wasn’t familiar with what they looked like. Now I know. 

[Why485]

If only there was some kind of way to represent airplanes within visual range, perhaps through some kind of smart system which would keep them visible at expected WVR ranges, but not at further distances. This would allow you to not only match the data with regards to spotting distances, but even identify a plane and estimate its aspect at reported and studied ranges in a popularly cited paper which emphasized the ranges at which aircraft could be identified, and not just spotted. Aircraft at ranges that I have seen for myself at air shows when planes are flying around and completing circuits up to 5 miles wide, staying inside their 5 mile NOTAM radius.

It'd be even crazier if DCS had implemented some kind of system like this before, and then just quietly removed it despite it never being given any time in the oven to work out it's kinks. That definitely didn't happen though, it's just a hypothetical what if.

For real though I think ED being transparent with what their goals even are would go a long way in steering the conversation in a useful direction.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Why485

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, James DeSouza said:

The default DCS FOV is 109 degrees,

Maybe on some VR headset in specific aircraft, but in not in standard pancake mode no.

The default FoVs can be seen in the main install snapviews.lua file (entry 13 for each aircraft), and they tend to be set to somewhere in the 70–85° range, going as low as 60° for some FC3 aircraft. As such, the defaults certainly let your pixels go beyond 20/20 vision on higher-resolution displays, or only require the slightest nudge to get there. Whether it matches up with your real-world field of view will always depend on how you position your screen.

…or if you have modified your views to match your physical setup.

For instance, just picking the first one in the pile (which admittedly is the by now pretty ancient A-10A, and thus not all that representative for how everything works):

	[13] = {--default view
		viewAngle = 75.000000,--FOV
		hAngle	 = 0.000000,
		vAngle	 = -23.000000,
		x_trans	 = 0.360000,
		y_trans	 = -0.041337,
		z_trans	 = 0.000000,
		rollAngle = 0.000000,
	},
	[14] = {--default view VR
		viewAngle = 75.000000,--FOV
		hAngle	 = 0.000000,
		vAngle	 = -23.000000,
		x_trans	 = A_10_VR_x,
		y_trans	 = A_10_VR_y,
		z_trans	 = 0.000000,
		rollAngle = 0.000000,
	},

It's well worth going in and adjusting these to taste so when you sit down, you end up in the right position in the cockpit and with zoom levels that make a bit more sense.

 

1 hour ago, James DeSouza said:

That is what it is, that is what I have been saying all along in this thread.  They just forced dot labels on and slightly changed their position offset.  That is all this is.

To be frank the only thing that makes sense to me is that everyone else already figured this out and that everyone who is saying this is a good change just wants to "cheat" with the dot labels on with the excuse that they have no option not to.  I cannot fathom why there isn't a greater negative response otherwise.

Speaking of defaults, before suggesting that they're the same, let's check the definition for the dot labels and their behaviour:

local function NEUTRAL_DOT(hundred_percent_dist,five_percent_dist,cutoff_dist)
	local res = {
		[500]	= EMPTY,
	}
	local points = (five_percent_dist - hundred_percent_dist)/2000
	local last_x = 0
	for i = 1,points,1 do 
		last_x 		= hundred_percent_dist + (i - 1) * 2000
		local opacity 	= 0.95 * (1 - math.sqrt(last_x/five_percent_dist)) + 0.05
		res[last_x] 	= {"·","CenterCenter",0,opacity,0,2}
	end
	res[last_x + 2000] = EMPTY
	return res
end

local baseNeutralDotColor = {75,75,75} 

This is rendered using Deja Vu LGC Sans at 11pt, with a 100% distance of 1km and a 5% distance of 30km, divided into 2km steps of opacity changes. If you change the dot character, then obviously the dot changes to become larger or smaller or differently shaped.

Now, do the spotting dots behave that way?

As to why people say it's a good change, the reasons have been given earlier: because it's a massive improvement, even by just being a foundation for future functionality, compared to the hugely unrealistic, imbalanced, backwards way of doing it that we had before. I can't think of a good reason why anyone would want to keep that old thing other than that they have become reliant on the advantages — some might even go so far as to say “cheats” — it provided them, and don't want that to go away or don't want others to suddenly be afforded the same kind of advantage.

See how that works?

 

24 minutes ago, Why485 said:

If only there was some kind of way to represent airplanes within visual range, perhaps through some kind of smart system which would keep them visible at expected WVR ranges, but not at further distances. This would allow you to not only match the data with regards to spotting distances, but even identify a plane and estimate its aspect at reported and studied ranges. Ranges that I have seen for myself at air shows when planes are flying around and completing circuits up to 5 miles wide, staying inside their 5 mile NOTAM radius.

It'd be even crazier if DCS had implemented some kind of system like this before, and then just quietly removed it despite it never being given any time in the oven to work out it's kinks.

If only.

But surely, if they ever made such a thing, even using a system that's not fully scientifically backed, they wouldn't make the same mistake twice and end up making a lesser version. Surely…

[James DeSouza]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Maybe on some VR headset in specific aircraft, but in not in standard pancake mode no.

My apologies, you are right about this part.  I just looked at a tutorial about FOVs (it's not something I bother with myself) from a channel that is supposed to be good and they said 109 is the default (they actually complained about it being the default in fact, though this was a year ago so maybe it changed since then?).

 

As for your rambling about the dots.  None of that matters my friend.  A different line of code firing off to create the same effect does not change that it is the same effect.  Is it a giant, visually identical, dark blob that is near or on distant aircraft so you can see their position?  Y/N?

Also you are insinuating that anyone who doesn't like this change is a cheater while this change is quite literally forcing a cheat to be permanently on.  You need to sort yourself out.

[Tippis]

28 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

As for your rambling about the dots.  None of that matters my friend.  A different line of code firing off to create the same effect does not change that it is the same effect.  Is it a giant, visually identical, dark blob that is near or on distant aircraft so you can see their position?  Y/N?

Nope.

One is UI, and its intent is to provide UI-based information. One is a stab at simulating perception, and its intent is to provide visual cuing and to improve party in gameplay. Intent matters. Also, one is a small varying-opacity player-controllable character overlaid on top of various types of units and objects and vastly overblown ranges; the other is a small game controlled unit proxy, replacing units out to more sensible distances.

One is doing is thing as intended. The other is being tweaked as we speak — that is why this thread exists, after all — to achieve a very different result.

28 minutes ago, James DeSouza said:

Also you are insinuating that anyone who doesn't like this change is a cheater while this change is quite literally forcing a cheat to be permanently on.  You need to sort yourself out.

3 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

To be frank the only thing that makes sense to me is that everyone else already figured this out and that everyone who is saying this is a good change just wants to "cheat" with the dot labels on with the excuse that they have no option not to.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so maybe take your own advice.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Tippis

[James DeSouza]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Nope.

One is UI, and its intent is to provide UI-based information. One is a stab at simulating perception, and its intent is to provide visual cuing and to improve party in gameplay. Intent matters. Also, one is a small varying-opacity player-controllable character overlaid on top of various types of units and objects and vastly overblown ranges; the other is a small game controlled unit proxy, replacing units out to more sensible distances.

One is doing is thing as intended. The other is being tweaked as we speak — that is why this thread exists, after all — to achieve a very different result.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so maybe take your own advice.

 

So yes then.  I don't know why you are so incapable of admitting to being wrong :D.

Also the problem wasn't you insinuating cheating, the problem was that your insinuation is nonsensical.

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder to all in this thread, keep the feedback constructive and civil if you want to post here. 

thank you

[Wiggy]

Although the old 2.8 spotting wasn’t perfect, it was better than the new iteration, especially in VR. Also noticed last night every ground target is visible as a large black square from many miles away..  kinda takes the fun out of finding targets.  
Running a Reverb G2. 

[Johan4668]

I think the goal is if you are on 1080 or 4k screen or vr low or hi ppd the dot needs to be the same on the same distance.. 

If we have that the debate can start on how far, plane dot size. 

 

Version 2.8 on 4k or high ppd vr the spotting is hard.

Version 2.9 on 4k or high ppd vr the spotting is so mutch better. 

We are going the right way..

Thanks..

A happy 2.9 flyer..

[nuNce]

24 minutes ago, Johan4668 said:

I think the goal is if you are on 1080 or 4k screen or vr low or hi ppd the dot needs to be the same on the same distance.. 

If we have that the debate can start on how far, plane dot size. 

 

Version 2.8 on 4k or high ppd vr the spotting is hard.

Version 2.9 on 4k or high ppd vr the spotting is so mutch better. 

We are going the right way..

Thanks..

A happy 2.9 flyer..

Agreed. Seems like the biggest issues are related to VR, and it's gonna be just a matter of time before this gets balanced the right way. The opinion of a small minority of very vocal users shouldn't be the benchmark for the whole community regarding spotting issues that have plagued the game for years.

The Improved Spotting Mod poll was a landslide victory in terms of how positively the community viewed the changes, and is way more representative of the positive reception of this new version. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by nuNce

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

So yes then.

No. Hence the answer “no”. It's not difficult.

6 hours ago, James DeSouza said:

Also the problem wasn't you insinuating cheating, the problem was that your insinuation is nonsensical.

No more than yours was. So again, take your own advice.

Just because people find progress in the area of simulation good, and you don't understand why this change qualifies as progress, doesn't mean they all want to “cheat”. What they want is a better game and they see this as providing that. If this opinion confuses you, maybe ask before calling people cheater, hmm…?

[SharpeXB]

In every other realm DCS strives for realism but in this aspect it seems like it’s trying to pander to an audience. The devs don’t ask players to vote on how they think a flight model or system should be. ED just attempts to make the sim match reality. The same logic should apply here. This topic has been around long enough that everyone is familiar with what the data says. To a large extent what I see in 2.8 (running in 4K and thus unable to see the spotting dots) appears to meet that expectation. Perhaps the most realistic result would be achieved by simply getting rid of spotting dots altogether and leave them as a label option, which already exists. There was a time when DCS did not have spotting dots afaik, I can recall playing this game in 1080p back in about 2012-2016 and not seeing distant aircraft at 40+ miles. This excessive low res visibility is the real problem in 2.8 and at least this Beta shows that’s actually solvable. That at least is a step forward. 

[Why485]

3 hours ago, nuNce said:

Agreed. Seems like the biggest issues are related to VR, and it's gonna be just a matter of time before this gets balanced the right way. The opinion of a small minority of very vocal users shouldn't be the benchmark for the whole community regarding spotting issues that have plagued the game for years.

The Improved Spotting Mod poll was a landslide victory in terms of how positively the community viewed the changes, and is way more representative of the positive reception of this new version. 

Definitely. I do get the impression that if it weren't for VR not working well, the changes this patch would have been seen extremely positively. Here's hoping that ED chooses to improve upon this step in the right direction, and doesn't delete it entirely in 6 months.

I said it before, but I think it's worth saying again. ED being transparent with what their goals with these changes are would go a long way in steering the conversation in a useful direction. Right now there's a lot of disagreement and straw mans circulating through this discussion on what the end result should look like.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Why485

[shazam253]

Also from a less heated point:

I fly a Georgian hammer mission today and I was able to make out ground units that were behind trees. After seeing the SPI in the HUD and then slewing the TGP to it, I only see trees. So in my opinion the dots shouldn't do this, but I can see that it requires more computional effort.

As for spotting in general, I'm also using a G2 and have the issue that the dots are larger at a distance than when the airplane starts to be resolved. My proposed solution to this: don't make the dots larger than the aircraft. Also, the rough color should match, not just a dark dot.

I can replicate the issue easily when going to F2 view and zooming out. At some point the aircraft becomes a larger big spot than it was when still resolved. Different LOD settings didn't have an effect. Interestingly enough, in the Syria hot start with the Apache, I can zoom out and see the Apache and F16s as large dots, while the static cargo aircraftb already disappeared.

[Tippis]

40 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In every other realm DCS strives for realism but in this aspect it seems like it’s trying to pander to an audience.

No, in this aspect they're striving for realism by starting to getting rid of the ridiculous and nonsensical spotting limitations and the equally ridiculous ease with which things can be spotted at long distances. If they were pandering to an audience, they'd listen to the people who want those unrealistic advantages to remain.

40 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The same logic should apply here.

It does.

They didn't ask players to vote. They attempt to make the sim match reality. The data says that the spotting distances we used to be able to achieve were ridiculous, and that closer in, it is actually easier to identify cues for what other planes are doing than simple trigonometry would suggest. All of this has been brewing for quite some time, and ED have been quite open about that something needed to, and was going to, be done about it. And here we are — they're starting to shed those unrealistic aspects of spotting and working towards making it match the data more.

40 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Perhaps the most realistic result would be achieved by simply getting rid of spotting dots altogether and leave them as a label option, which already exists

No, that would not be the most realistic result. We already know that because we already have that and it is not realistic. Everyone and anyone without an agenda to protect their precious precious advantages knows this.

You can try your usual “but muh realism” argument here, but you need to realise that in doing so, you are arguing for the thing you are against. Put it to rest because it will not serve you well in your quest to keep DCS from improving.

40 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There was a time when DCS did not have spotting dots afaik, I can recall playing this game in 1080p back in about 2012-2016 and not seeing distant aircraft at 40+ miles.

You recall incorrectly. They were a thing back then — they just went by a different name. Then they briefly went away and were brought gradually brought back in a couple of different ways because of how bad it was without them. Now we're getting a better version — not the best solution out there, because for a while, ED pandered to the audience and made a firm commitment to not go for tried and tested and scientifically backed solutions because some people in the community disliked it for no coherently explained reason.

 

  

15 minutes ago, shazam253 said:

I can replicate the issue easily when going to F2 view and zooming out. At some point the aircraft becomes a larger big spot than it was when still resolved. Different LOD settings didn't have an effect. Interestingly enough, in the Syria hot start with the Apache, I can zoom out and see the Apache and F16s as large dots, while the static cargo aircraftb already disappeared.

Now that you mention it, that's a pretty clever methodology for figuring out sensible upper limits.

Statics and decorations are treated very differently than actual live units, but should for spotting purposes yield very similar results. One problem might occur depending on your graphics settings where decorations are culled sooner because they depend on detail settings that don't apply (at all, or to the same extent) to real units.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Tippis