Labels Aren't Cheating!

[Puddlemonkey]

Hi,

 

I had a play around with the labels because I was finding it impossible to spot objects, especially aircraft.

 

I edited labels.lua so that a black dot is placed over distant objects. This grows with the object as they get closer. I made it black for both sides so you still need to id the objects and work out which ones are the enemy. Bblack doesn't generally show up against the interior of the cockpit so it only helps you to see those objects through the windows.

 

I figured this isn't cheating as it is overcoming the limitations of a simulator - objects are easier to spot in real life.

 

Anyway, here is what I came up with and it has made the sim a lot more playable for me:

 

AirFormat = {}

AirFormat[1000] = ""

AirFormat[2000] = "o"

AirFormat[5000] = "*"

AirFormat[15000] = "'"

GroundFormat = {}

GroundFormat[1000] = ""

GroundFormat[2000] = "*"

GroundFormat[5000] = "o"

GroundFormat[8000] = "'"

NavyFormat = {}

WeaponFormat = {}

WeaponFormat[2000] = "o"

-- Colors in {red, green, blue} format, volume from 0 up to 255

ColorAliesSide = {0, 0, 0}

ColorEnemiesSide = {0, 0, 0}

[TurboHog]

Maybe real-world pilots should also cheat to overcome the real-life limitation of dying :music_whistling:

 

But seriously I don't think it's neccesary. We as pc pilots have more advantages than real-world pilots do. Besides, after spending many hours on the DCS battlefield I am well able to spot targets. It just takes time to spot enemies, just like in real life. When units are close you can see tracers that will lead to the enemy position.

 

Have to admit though that I use f5 alot in multiplayer for spotting planes. Also, labels are off in most servers.

Edited February 13, 2012 by TurboHog

[winz]

We as pc pilots have more advantages than real-world pilots do.

We also have lots of disadvantages.

Scenery sterility, graphical engine limitations, monitors limits (finite size of pixel, limited brightness) non-existing communication with other units, unrealistic mission scenarios.... just to name a few.

 

Don't get me wrong, object are hard to spot IRL, be the pilot can use methods we can't - secondary indications like tracks, beeing talked on by other unit, reflection from metal hull, natural eye ability to catch moving object, even if small...

[jiblet]

Maybe real-world pilots should also cheat to overcome the real-life limitation of dying :music_whistling:

 

But seriously I don't think it's neccesary. We as pc pilots have more advantages than real-world pilots do. Besides, after spending many hours on the DCS battlefield I am well able to spot targets. It just takes time to spot enemies, just like in real life. When units are close you can see tracers that will lead to the enemy position.

 

Have to admit though that I use f5 alot in multiplayer for spotting planes. Also, labels are off in most servers.

 

Bully for you, aren't you simply amazing!

I, on the other hand, think this is a fantastic idea given the realities of pixel density and the distance I have to sit from my screen, along with the balance of not wanting to 'cheat' with massive obvious labels, so thanks!

[Trichter]

Falcon BMS has a similar option. It`s called "smart scaling". Distant objects are larger than near. So it`s easier to spot them.

[PeterP]

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

[effte]

Objects are a lot easier to spot IRL, when you can see them. Hence, reduced visibility labels are a great idea and one I'll try out ASAP. Thank you, Puddle!

 

The IRL consequence is, however, that the objects which you wish to spot do not tend to be left out in the open, so you'll only see them when they are on the move.

 

Ideally, we'd have visual aids to spot only objects which are on the move or which we have spotted already, in which case they are indeed easier to pick out IRL than in-game (especially considering the vastly limited SA in-game). The latter is kinda hard to pull off though, until we can hook DCS into our brains... and I'm not really sure I even want that to happen. :)

 

Cheers,

Fred

[NineLine]

This seems like a cool thing, even if its just another transition from full on labels to none at all, I will have to try it out. Thanks!

[july865]

objects are easier to spot in real life.

the military spends billions to not have this happen. so i disagree.

but good job.

[jiblet]

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

 

I disagree with both of your points.

[213]

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

 

that's nice. do you honestly think they'll go out and buy a new monitor just to use 3840 resolution?

 

exactly. labels are fine.

[PeterP]

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

Really?! - what a pi......-poor argument!

Why he is posting his opinion in thread that is obviously only made for single screen users and who are happy to have labels -:doh:

 

231 is right!

[Bucic]

Falcon BMS has a similar option. It`s called "smart scaling". Distant objects are larger than near. So it`s easier to spot them.

AFAIK it's not precise description of the Falcon's implementation. Distant objects are larger than it would appear from pure rendering in 3D world to more closely simulate the real world detection distances.

 

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

Disagree. It's not about resolution but rather the display pixel size. If it's less than a minimum size of a dot detectable by human eye the display will not simulate the detection distances properly. Even after matching the display pixel size to less than the mentioned minimum there are other factors related to graphics that can cripple the detecting range simulation, e.g. badly implemented LODs (I've seen distant objects going pale-textured in sims many times).

 

Additionally:

And you call him Kowalski since then? :D

 

On the subject - it's the old realism vs real world replication case again. By replicating RL nuances you don't necessarily improve realism, e.g. in RL a certain level of scratched canopy may not bother a pilot that much but it can make a simulator unplayable. A real pilot has far better ability to "filter out" canopy scratches (accomodation, head movements and so on).

 

A pinup boy of replication that cripples realism is broadly used by game developers: [real pilot's head movement angular limits] = [camera movement angular limits]. Figure out yourself why it's wrong :sly:

 

The real problem is when there is no willingness to actually pursue solutions :P Also it's not that 90's sim devs will sue ED for using their proven solutions. See below. The whole idea of setting real detection ranges for player vs AI scenarios is simply ridiculous. It seems to me that it's nothing like a rationale but rather a bad dogma.

 

* F4 and BoB2 wov devs knew that and used a technique called smart scaling. Il-2 cod devs used that as well, AFAIK.

 

* a dumb global factor

It is trivially simple to multiply every range related formula with a single or two constants. This way you could e.g. easily globally set all visibility ranges of all units to 75% of the ranges determined by default.

 

* randomization and delay

by the reaction of attacked columns I presume ED still doesn't use these neither.

 

In the end the in-game detection distances should be a subject to calibration on per case basis.

[effte]

the military spends billions to not have this happen. so i disagree.

but good job.

 

Check the date again. This is "Valentine's Day", not "Quote Out of Context" day. I'll add the paragraph after the one you quoted, if you don't mind:

 

The IRL consequence is, however, that the objects which you wish to spot do not tend to be left out in the open, so you'll only see them when they are on the move.

 

My above statements take the billions spent on signature reduction into account - and I do have some experience from both ends of that particular stick. The invisibility cloak still is found only in Star Trek or Harry Potter, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view.

 

To date, only one device has been invented which renders something approaching real invisibility. Ironically, in spite of the billions of dollars spent, the basic version is rather cheap (even though more complex and costly applications have been invented, allowing the same work to be undertaken faster or on a grander scale). See below.

 

 

 

 

 

[july865]

effte

i quoted puddlemunkey, not your post.

happy valentines day.

[Depth]

At a horizontal resolution higher than 3840 this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use labels.

The human eye is 130 megapixels and you have two of those so if you become a pilot in real life this really becomes a non-issue and you are not thinking at all to use simulations.

[Speed]

Yes, they are, there are more legitimate and realistic ways to spot targets. But if you use labels in single player, then what do we care. If it brings you more fun, then do it. Certainly single-dot labels are more realistic than color-coded text. And without a track IR or with a real small monitor, you might have a tougher time using the more realistic, non-label-based methods of spotting targets.

[KLR Rico]

I turned the labels off after I got used to the plane and haven't really thought about it a whole lot since then. I do get shot down a lot though... :)

 

Finding the AA in or near a vehicle group isn't usually very difficult, I just have issues with getting tagged by the random strelas or manpads that hide out in the middle of nowhere. Those guys are really sneaky! :P

[SonofEil]

Yes, they are, there are more legitimate and realistic ways to spot targets.

 

I agree with this one in general. By definition, labels are 'cheats".

Also, there seem to be a bunch of people here saying how easy it is to spot targets from the air irl. I'm pretty hawk-eyed and I remember vehicle-sized "targets" (in a non-combat environment) being exceedingly difficult to spot from the front office of a RL airplane. Just like in the sim, you'd have to know precisely where to look if you wanted to find what you were looking for.

 

But if you use labels in single player, then what do we care. If it brings you more fun, then do it. Certainly single-dot labels are more realistic than color-coded text. And without a track IR or with a real small monitor, you might have a tougher time using the more realistic, non-label-based methods of spotting targets.

 

And I agree completely with the rest of it! If it increases your level of fun, by all means, use them!!

[PeterP]

 

 

Disagree. It's not about resolution but rather the display pixel size. If it's less than a minimum size of a dot detectable by human eye the display will not simulate the detection distances properly. Even after matching the display pixel size to less than the mentioned minimum there are other factors related to graphics that can cripple the detecting range simulation, e.g. badly implemented LODs (I've seen distant objects going pale-textured in sims many times).

 

Whatever you say - But I talk from my own experience - and when using 3840x1764 with a FOV of ~100 I have significant better visibility in draw distance than using 1920x1080 at a single monitor.

 

@all

And before we talk this all over again - please have a look at this thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80236

[Bucic]

Whatever you say - But I talk from my own experience - and when using 3840x1764 with a FOV of ~100 I have significant better visibility in draw distance than using 1920x1080 at a single monitor.

Right, higher reaolution is -better-. I don't think I was arguing with this.

[Puddlemonkey]

Wow, looks like I sparked quite a debate.

 

I have a 22" monitor and after about 3K, an enemy aircraft is so small that it does not even show as a single pixel on my screen - it is gone. My wingman is not only able to see a KA-50 at 8K, he somehow knows it's an enemy. He's calling bandits at 12 o'clock and I'm starring at the sky thinking what f***ing bandits? Meanwhile, he's also calling bandits at 6 o'clock - now that really is incredible!

 

When I say objects are easier to spot in real life, I mean I'm pretty damned sure I could spot a helicopter at 3K against a blue sky.

 

I see this more as a way of redressing the balance against the AI.

 

Obviously, in multiplayer, everyone is in the same position so it is more balanced. Well that is exept matey who bought himself a 3000 pixel screen. Much as I would love to get one, my girlfriend has these crazy ideas about having space on the dining table to eat. Jees, she's so old-fashioned!

 

Labels are also a good way of learning - you can tweak the numbers to make it progressively harder as you get better.

 

There are a few good features that DCS could incorporate I think. It could use your resolution setting to adjust objects so that they are always shown. For example, making sure a plane never drops below a pixel until it is genuinely out of sight. Hell, be generous and make it 3 pixels.

 

Another useful feature would be to link a zoom feature with TrackIR so you could zoom right in with the sensitivity and range of movement reduced. I find when I zoom right in with the trackIR in use, it magnifies my head movements too much for it to be practical.

 

Anyway, I'm off to shoot some dots in the sky. :pilotfly:

[Slazi]

Strange that you're having trouble using TrackIR to zoom, even at full zoom I have no problem looking around carefully for things. Consider reducing your TrackIR sensitivity? Setting it up correctly is actually very very important.

 

You might also consider setting up track with a different profile for a zoomed view? I think that might be possible.

[EtherealN]

I'm not so sure I could spot a helicopter at 3K. That is, sometimes I will spot it, sometimes I won't. I've actually had times where I have been loitering around the airport at a couple KM distance since an IFR bird (airliner) was coming in and needs separation, and I couldn't see it until it was landed even though I was listening to it being talked in by the tower.

 

So basically, sometimes you'll see it, sometimes you won't.

[winz]

I had no problem spotting and even identifying the silhouette of both Mi-24 and Mi-8 when they were watching over a NATO meeting we had here. The distance to the convention center was 4km.

The same with planes, I had no problems identifying a Mig-29, and Eurofighter when we were stuck in a traffic jam on our to an airshow, and that was +6km from the airshow.

Just my experience. Eyes are naturally sensitive to movement.