Isnt zooming on the HUD kind of cheating?

[Dominoes]

Sorry if this has already been posted:

 

Using the zoom feature actually simulates better what a pilot would see due to the way the FOV works in game. Depending on your monitor setup, your screen is likely to only take up about 40 degrees of your field of view. Using this cramped of a FOV (zoom level) in game all the time is not practical, since it would be like looking through a straw. Alternating between a practical (high FOV, low zoom) view and a realistic (low FOV, high zoom) one using zoom is important when straffing or identifying targets. Screen resolution is also a factor.

[Depth]

 

With the human eye being in the 300-500 megapixel range I think we can assume that we need a workaround for our 2D monitors. 1920 x 1080 = roughly 2.07 megapixels.

 

As said, zooming vastly decreases field of view, so if you feel like it is cheating, don't do it.

[EtherealN]

Talking about "megapixels" for the human eye is just wrong and confused in the first place. Same source: "Curiously - as a counterpoint to this - most people cannot distinguish the difference in quality between a 300dpi and a 150dpi photo when printed at 6x4", when viewed at normal viewing distances."

[Speed]

Talking about "megapixels" for the human eye is just wrong and confused in the first place. Same source: "Curiously - as a counterpoint to this - most people cannot distinguish the difference in quality between a 300dpi and a 150dpi photo when printed at 6x4", when viewed at normal viewing distances."

 

Yes, you can't talk about megapixels and the human eye. It doesn't work that way. Our central area of vision is highly detailed, but only a few degrees across. We possess a pretty good short term visual memory that helps to fill in the blanks, however.

 

My rule of thumb is that the best human eyes can resolve details about 1 arc minute across (1') - that is 1/60 of a degree. 20/20 vision probably has a resolution of like 1.5' or 2'.

 

So the point is, in the simulation, we need to magnify to the point where we can at least achieve this resolution of the game world with our own eyes.

 

Let’s just take ONE example- assuming you have good enough vision and are sitting close enough to your computer to resolve each pixel on your monitor, and that ED’s LODs and graphics engine exactly reproduces how a scene would look except for the limitations caused by sampling (it doesn’t), then a 1920 monitor where the horizontal span is 40 virtual degrees means that each pixel spans 1.25 arc minutes of the virtual world ( (40 degrees/1920 pixels)*60 arcminutes per degree = 1.25’). However, this is actually under-sampling if your goal is to produce 1.25' resolution. Applying the Nyquist criterion, then at this zoom level, the widest angular spacing that can be resolved will be 2*1.25’, or 2.5’. This is worse than what someone with 20/20 vision can do. Suddenly, the default max zoom level of 20 degrees looks pretty good, huh? (not sure which dimension this is applied to, however).

 

I don’t have enough time to go into the mechanics of the other factors- How far are YOU sitting away from your monitor? How good is YOUR vision? How good are ED’s LODs for this object?- this is a rather old topic and I get tired of discussing and defending zoom.

 

In the end, zooming in all the way on the HUD isn't unrealistic at all. In fact, not using zoom at all is VERY unrealistic- when you don’t use zoom, it’s like you’re simulating someone who is nearly legally blind flying an A-10. Furthermore, the times that I have flow with pilots who admit to not using zoom- not a single one has been any good at A-10- I have to find all the targets for them.

 

And furthermore, with a small edit of the game’s Lua files, you can simulate binoculars by allowing yourself to zoom in even further. Real A-10 pilots carry binoculars.

 

So, if you want to simulate what would happen if a legally blind pilot flew an A-10, and you want to suck at the game, then don't use zoom. However, if you want to have a more realistic simulation, and you want to not suck a the game, then use zoom. Your choice. I don't think it's a very hard one ;)

Edited March 28, 2012 by Speed

[GGTharos]

You're flying with the wrong people.

 

In the end, zooming in all the way on the HUD isn't unrealistic at all. In fact, not using zoom at all is VERY unrealistic- when you don’t use zoom, it’s like you’re simulating someone who is nearly legally blind flying an A-10. Furthermore, the times that I have flow with pilots who admit to not using zoom- not a single one has been any good at A-10- I have to find all the targets for them.

[EtherealN]

That's all a lot of hyperbole Speed. ;)

 

In my own experience, what I "see" when flying without zoom fairly closely mirrors what I see when I fly for real. Now of course, my eyesight is only barely "normal" so I don't see as well as most fighter pilots do, but I seldom feel a need to use zoom for anything. I find my targets just fine without it. (Unless I'm flying under the influence, then all bets are off. :P )

 

One of the big deals there though is of course the monitor. Not only monitor size matters, there's also a lot of how the monitor handles colors, response times and so on. So if the hardware and personal preferences demand it, I don't mind if you use a bit of zoom. I just don't see the need myself - I'll scout the targets out with pod and then contact-fly my run. I especially don't like zooming in during an attack run, since this limits my FOV and I need to have head-on-swivel to make sure I don't get nailed by hidden MANPADs, SHORAD or AAA.

Edited March 28, 2012 by EtherealN

[Speed]

That's all a lot of hyperbole Speed. ;)

 

In my own experience, what I "see" when flying without zoom fairly closely mirrors what I see when I fly for real. Now of course, my eyesight is only barely "normal" so I don't see as well as most fighter pilots do, but I seldom feel a need to use zoom for anything. I find my targets just fine without it. (Unless I'm flying under the influence, then all bets are off. :P )

 

One of the big deals there though is of course the monitor. Not only monitor size matters, there's also a lot of how the monitor handles colors, response times and so on. So if the hardware and personal preferences demand it, I don't mind if you use a bit of zoom. I just don't see the need myself - I'll scout the targets out with pod and then contact-fly my run. I especially don't like zooming in during an attack run, since this limits my FOV and I need to have head-on-swivel to make sure I don't get nailed by hidden MANPADs, SHORAD or AAA.

 

So you find all your targets with the targeting pod? I find many of mine with the Mk1 eyeball (maybe 30%). Really depends on the situation though- sometimes, I use only the TGP, and sometimes, I will use almost exclusively the eyeball.

 

Your vision must not be very good though, because math can quite easily prove that if you're not using zoom, then you're not seeing nearly as much as a real pilot would (real AIR FORCE pilots have excellent vision).

 

But if you rely solely on the TGP for acquiring targets, it is true- zoom is much less important.

[EtherealN]

Like I said in the post you replied to - my eyesight is fairly normal. (I wear glasses normally, but only to correct a slight case of astigmatism (at least I think that's the name of the condition in english), I don't use or need them when flying.)

 

The thing with Mk1 eyeball to find targets is that if you are close enough to see them with eyeball, you're also close enough for them to see you by eyeball. I typically scan the target area with TGP from a good distance, and then I know what the situation is and can plan my run accordingly. I definitely do not want to be finding new targets while inside the box - that way lies surprises and with surprises come parachutes. Basically, if you are finding new enemies with at eyeball range, you didn't do your scouting correctly. (Now, if you were flying a TGP-less aircraft you wouldn't have this option, and then things change, obviously. But if you have it, use it.)

 

Also, again, please note what I mentioned about monitors. It's not only about screen size and resolution. :)

[GGTharos]

Real pilots cannot ID a tank if it's more than some 6000' away - you can talk about math all you want, but you haven't actually said anything other than mentioning angular target size ... it's not the only thing that matters. Contrast and shape recognition is a pretty huge deal.

Even OA-10's with binocs were specially cleared (unlike other A-10's) to descend to 5000' AGL to ID their targets. You are seriously overestimating the detectability of a vehicle in terrain.

There are issues that could be improved on, such as the amount of dust raised by a travelling vehicle, as well as the detectability of vehicles on roads or terrain that contrasts significantly with the vehicle's coloring, but generally speaking, finding un-moving, camo-painted targets with Mk1 eyeball from an aircraft beyond some 2-3nm ... forget it. (Note, ranges as best as I can recall from pilot testimony ... it's been a while).

Edited March 28, 2012 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

It's worse ... you're likely in firing range and you've been getting tracked meanwhile.

 

The thing with Mk1 eyeball to find targets is that if you are close enough to see them with eyeball, you're also close enough for them to see you by eyeball.

[Speed]

Real pilots cannot ID a tank if it's more than some 6000' away - you can talk about math all you want, but you haven't actually said anything other than mentioning angular target size ... it's not the only thing that matters. Contrast and shape recognition is a pretty huge deal.

Even OA-10's with binocs were specially cleared (unlike other A-10's) to descend to 5000' AGL to ID their targets. You are seriously overestimating the detectability of a vehicle in terrain.

There are issues that could be improved on, such as the amount of dust raised by a travelling vehicle, as well as the detectability of vehicles on roads or terrain that contrasts significantly with the vehicle's coloring, but generally speaking, finding un-moving, camo-painted targets with Mk1 eyeball from an aircraft beyond some 2-3nm ... forget it. (Note, ranges as best as I can recall from pilot testimony ... it's been a while).

 

Actually, I think the problem is more that ED does not do a very good job modeling camouflage yet. We don't have enough ground clutter for targets to get lost in. It's a simple graphics engine limitation. You view this as an excuse to limit the resolution of your eyes to a level that is mathematically proven to be unrealistically bad? I don't. Sometimes, targets are truly against a background where they stand out well (even tanks), and they will be EASILY spotted from more than 6000' away- such as vehicles on roads, out in the middle of fields with no camo, driving, etc.

 

But yes, if the enemy has time to prepare and camouflage themselves in a stationary position- yes, it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to be spotted visually from more than a mile away. Sure. I can agree with that much.

 

A good mission designer with a lot of patience (STP Dragon is very good at this) will still find spots to put targets, however, where they are very well camouflaged, and even with zoom, you'll have to get really close to see them.

[GGTharos]

You know, perfect world modeling in one little aspect will give you crappy modeling in another under some circumstances.

 

You view this as an excuse to limit the resolution of your eyes to a level that is mathematically proven to be unrealistically bad? I don't.

 

And I said that.

 

Sometimes, targets are truly against a background where they stand out well (even tanks), and they will be EASILY spotted from more than 6000' away- such as vehicles on roads, out in the middle of fields with no camo, driving, etc.

 

No preparation time required, just hit the brakes so you're not kicking up dust - so long as your camo matches the environment.

 

But yes, if the enemy has time to prepare and camouflage themselves in a stationary position- yes, it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to be spotted visually from more than a mile away. Sure. I can agree with that much.

[159th_Viper]

No preparation time required, just hit the brakes so you're not kicking up dust - so long as your camo matches the environment.

 

Quite correct - the moment an Infantry battalion stops moving they're invisible, unless you know where to look that is. Even then you are gonna have to get real close.

[Weta43]

 

Photo taken by me, and it's with my crappy cell phone camera, so no miracles, but consider the fact that within this picture is actually a fairly large military installation. (Mechanized Combat school exercise area if I remember right.) I know it's there somewhere, but even at a measly 1000 meters altitude I just couldn't find the IFV's* that I knew had been simulating all out war only half an hour earlier... :)

 

Ground units that don't make any attempt to hide are easy to spot. Ground units that know their stuff and are actively looking to hide are damn near impossible to find.

 

*EDIT: I believe it was IFV's at least - it sounded like mainly HMG and 30mm fire; the 120mm smoothbores have a bit more oomphf to them.

 

Sorry, but this (& arguments generally relying on photos th show things 'can't be seen') completely ignores the structure of the eye, where the fovea (the part you 'look' with) "comprises less than 1% of retinal size but (is more densely packed with receptors so that it) takes up over 50% of the visual cortex in the brain" so if you enlarged the central 1% of that picture to where it took up 50% of the picture (& shrank the rest accordingly), then we'd be able to tell whether or not something was visible at that altitude (visible, not necessarily 'findable')

 

I know it's your job & all, but while I don't fly that often (maybe once a month 737 or airbus @ 10km or 11km & once every couple of months in a cessna & 6km ) when I do I make a point of looking (because of threads like this ) & I can't see how people get to a position that it isn't easier to see things in real life than in DCS (or LO etc).

Real life is wide angle with a built in zoom in the middle. SIMs are one thing or the other...

Edited March 30, 2012 by Weta43