Aircraft Visibility

[NineLine]

It has turned out this way a bit, sorry. I hope it won't discourage you to carry on with the messages :)

 

Yes and no... I see why ED isnt eager to engage in discussions that often... if people dont hear their opinion repeated back at them they get quite bent out of shape. I just ask not to get locked onto one thing so hard... tunnel vision... just because X sim does something doesnt mean its the best and only option here...

 

So long story short... I will probably question the message before I hand it out next time... its a double edge sword, you guys want answers, but you only want the answers that you agree with ;)

 

Anyways I dont want to turn this into a big discussion about that... so lets just leave it at that.

[Cali]

Maybe everyone should wait til EDGE comes out and see what it looks like then. We know it's been an issue for years, what is waiting a few more months going to hurt? Sith, it's not only the answer we want, people want some issues fixed and not covered up.

[NineLine]

and not covered up.

 

Seriously you guys are driving me to drink.... more.

[HellToupee]

If you are in the middle of a dogfight and you havent spotted the enemy yet it probably wont really matter what you have going for you...

 

 

That is not the problem, problem is even if you know where to look its an absolute POS because to see any detail on an aircraft even at close ranges you have to zoom right in which is essentially like playing looking through a straw.

 

Changing FOV changes the LOD of the target noticably often resulting in a jarring transistions with great variance in visability, take a ka-50 with blade tip lights on, zoomed out its pixels with very bright glowing pixels, zoom in a bit and it practically vanishes when it transistions to a model as the lights are not at all bright.

[Mar]

How can you judge distance with smart scaling? Your judgement will always be off because you naturally compare your knowledge of the size of the object up close with how it looks right now. For example in BMS, I can't tell how fast I'm coming in to the tanker because the tanker increases in size very slowly up until I close to a certain distance, after which it blows up like a balloon and I slam into it. This can be adjusted with smoother scaling, but it will still be difficult to judge closure. On top of that, who wants to see an F-16 with a wingspan twice as wide as a taxiway sitting on an airfield?

 

Personally, I believe that the best thing to do is creating an advanced label system. Not the same as seeing the object I know, and probably still won't let you tell the aspect, but see above. With the way things are now, if you can't see the target's aspect at full zoom then it won't do you any good at the distance you're at from it anyway.

 

Labels would also allow you to see the target at the right distance no matter your monitor resolution.

 

Labels overlap and get confusing, but if the targets are that close together you can zoom in and see all of them at once anyway. If you don't have time to point your eyeball and hit the zoom then you're gonna be dead pretty soon anyway if you don't get out of there.

 

Just some things to think about. Either way I hope something is done about it. It doesn't help that I have bad eyesight either. :sad_2:

[Scrim]

The smart scaling in BMS is very intuitive. I've never had an issue judging the distance to a plane from virtually any angle.

 

A plane twice the width of the runway just doesn't happen with the smart scaling in BMS. Seriously, I've never ever seen an F-16 look like that.

[Kuky]

I don't think smart scaling is the solution, I think better light reflation properties are the right way to solve this issue... textures are now being done with specular layers, and that makes them reflect more or less light, I think ED should use the same technique to add these light reflection properties into textures of LOD's (or LOD's themselves, I don't know how they do it, but you get the idea)

 

I can tell you that in EDGE it is bit easier to see targets now... right now in release version the textures just blend in too easy, and it's because terrain behind it has same light reflection "property" as the aircraft itself... so when colors are similar (which is why they use camo patern in the first place) they just blend in too well.

 

Same thing is when there are shadows, same as more light reflection, they create high contrast with background (which are not in shadow) and it makes them easier to spot... EDGE is also being slowly changed to have I think all objects in game create shadow (buildings, terrain/hills) and it makes things more realistic visually.

 

The only problem I still see it far LOD's, they don't seem to have specular in them yet.

[airdoc]

I don't think smart scaling is the solution, I think better light reflation properties are the right way to solve this issue... textures are now being done with specular layers, and that makes them reflect more or less light, I think ED should use the same technique to add these light reflection properties into textures of LOD's (or LOD's themselves, I don't know how they do it, but you get the idea)

 

I can tell you that in EDGE it is bit easier to see targets now... right now in release version the textures just blend in too easy, and it's because terrain behind it has same light reflection "property" as the aircraft itself... so when colors are similar (which is why they use camo patern in the first place) they just blend in too well.

 

+1

 

It seems that the 2 most important parameters in aircraft detection are target size and level of contrast. For a given size, the influence of contrast is so profound, that it can alter the detection range by a factor of X2-X3.

If smart scaling is difficult to implement due to coding restrictions, then i think that similar results could be achieved by manipulating the aircraft colours in a way that optimal contrast is achieved.

 

In published research in simulators, the pilot's ability to spot contacts was mostly related to their inherent contrast sensitivity, so maybe with EDGE and some additional tweaks the issue could be addressed :

 

 

Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots' performance in aircraft simulators.

Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982 Jan;59(1):105-9.

 

Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekule R, Harp SA.

Abstract

 

Contrast sensitivity was found to be better than visual acuity for predicting a pilot's ability to detect a small, semi-isolated, air-to-ground target. Eleven instructor pilots had their acuity measured by both conventional and contrast sensitivity methods. Scotopic contract sensitivity showed the highest correlation with slant detection range (0.83). Conventionally determined visual acuity proved to be a poor predictor of a pilot's ability to detect a small low contrast target.

 

 

link : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title%20Word&term=Contrast%20sensitivity%20predicts%20pilots%27%20performance%20in%20aircraft%20simulators

 

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by airdoc

[gavagai]

The smart scaling in BMS is very intuitive. I've never had an issue judging the distance to a plane from virtually any angle.

 

A plane twice the width of the runway just doesn't happen with the smart scaling in BMS. Seriously, I've never ever seen an F-16 look like that.

 

+1

 

Smart Scaling FTW.:thumbup:

[westr]

IL2 cod with the tf mods works pretty well for me whatever effects have been implemented, I can spot targets reasonably well without labels. I'm sure the ED guys will work on things in the future.

[Djent33]

If you to add more contrast to the units by adding shadows and secular maps and then assuming that such contrast is added to all the other surroundings it could add to even more workload to the moving pilot who tries to process the visual picture. Camouflage of nets and brunches can make it look like just like another tree until one sees a line of tracks left on an open terrain.

 

Super-zoom Smart-zoom it is what it is, nice feature but I’d rather prefer to limit the ZOOM range altogether from the cockpit view and see the zooming of cockpit independent from external view. When we fly we don’t use x-50 binoculars, we use TIR or neck for FOV looking around.

You know.. zoomed in to look at the gauge and saw a lake 10 times its size.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Djent33

[sorcer3r]

The smart scaling in BMS is very intuitive. I've never had an issue judging the distance to a plane from virtually any angle.

 

A plane twice the width of the runway just doesn't happen with the smart scaling in BMS. Seriously, I've never ever seen an F-16 look like that.

 

+1

Maybe there is no perfect solution but smart scaling doesn't kill immersion (like labels).

Hopefully ED does not miss the opportunity to implement such a feature with EDGE...

[Bushmanni]

It should be noted that human vision is sharp only in a very narrow angle (about 3 degrees). If you have a smart scaling or label system that gives a spotting ability of central vision to whole FOV we get unrealistically good ability to see and spot targets. Any kind of spotting aid should consider acuity gradient of the visual field. Current zooming method does simulate this though in a rather cumbersome way. If you want to spot a hard to see target you need to scan the area where the target is with your central vision in order to spot it. Too good spotting aid will make realistic sneak attacks impossible or at least too hard which is not good either. I don't want people to spot my plane as a dot (or something else) from 10nm out with no effort to scanning as that would be completely unrealistic.

[Scrim]

And again, that is just not how smart scaling works. It doesn't give you eagle vision, just normal human vision.

[Mar]

It should be noted that human vision is sharp only in a very narrow angle (about 3 degrees). If you have a smart scaling or label system that gives a spotting ability of central vision to whole FOV we get unrealistically good ability to see and spot targets. Any kind of spotting aid should consider acuity gradient of the visual field. Current zooming method does simulate this though in a rather cumbersome way. If you want to spot a hard to see target you need to scan the area where the target is with your central vision in order to spot it. Too good spotting aid will make realistic sneak attacks impossible or at least too hard which is not good either. I don't want people to spot my plane as a dot (or something else) from 10nm out with no effort to scanning as that would be completely unrealistic.

 

Actually, you missed the fact that our brains do not have HDMI ports. We are not trying to replace our physical eyes, just trying to create an image for us to look at.

 

I understand the concern about immersion. Immersion is fun, but for people like me too much immersion can be a bad thing. I need to remain aware of my surroundings because things come up. But this is not mainly why I prefer labels.

 

As I said before, I have poor eyesight and require very thick glasses. I do get eyestrain sometimes while playing, especially when trying to scan for enemies that might be trying to ambush me.

 

Bottom line is, I do need artificial help to see things in game. Maybe it will be different with EDGE, I don't know. I hope a labels system can be made so that some pressure can come off of me and my eyes, and I can enjoy the game more.

 

 

P.S. I hope that nothing I said or say seems insulting. I am quite blunt at times and other times very sarcastic. So if I do sound insulting, I apologize.

[gavagai]

Shhhh, he probably hasn't tried it. I forgot that Falcon had smart scaling until recently. It doesn't make it easy to spot contacts, it just makes it possible. When I began flying DCS I thought something must be wrong with my settings because an aircraft only 2 clicks away was rendered with 2 pixels on my 1920x1080 display with the default FoV.

[NineLine]

I get what you are saying, and I think the labels system could be improved as well, I have seen better labels systems, so there is room for improvements, you shouldnt be forced to run without labels or a system that would make you not enjoy the sim as much.

 

Same goes with Smart Scaling that might be out there in older sims, I hope if ED looks at it they make a more advanced system... I dont want a wad of black dots representing a grey aircraft... otherwise I might as well turn labels on.

 

Actually, you missed the fact that our brains do not have HDMI ports. We are not trying to replace our physical eyes, just trying to create an image for us to look at.

 

I understand the concern about immersion. Immersion is fun, but for people like me too much immersion can be a bad thing. I need to remain aware of my surroundings because things come up. But this is not mainly why I prefer labels.

 

As I said before, I have poor eyesight and require very thick glasses. I do get eyestrain sometimes while playing, especially when trying to scan for enemies that might be trying to ambush me.

 

Bottom line is, I do need artificial help to see things in game. Maybe it will be different with EDGE, I don't know. I hope a labels system can be made so that some pressure can come off of me and my eyes, and I can enjoy the game more.

 

 

P.S. I hope that nothing I said or say seems insulting. I am quite blunt at times and other times very sarcastic. So if I do sound insulting, I apologize.

[gavagai]

Sith, you havent played Falcon BMS, have you? Black dots are from Il-2 1946 and Cliffs.

[NineLine]

I wasnt trying to reference any other sim, only pointing out that if ED does something I want to see them advance it more... not go with a tired old solution... sure you can pull ideas from other sims...

 

And I have played BMS plenty... not lately... but enough.

[gavagai]

Sorry, I had go ask because your comment seemed to suggest that smart scaling causes chunky dots on the horizon, but it certainly does not.

[NineLine]

Sorry, I had go ask because your comment seemed to suggest that smart scaling causes chunky dots on the horizon, but it certainly does not.

 

 

I was over generalizing so sorry for being a little misleading... I think even War Thunder uses some form of Smart Scaling... I would like to see a dynamic coloured dot, if a 109 has a multi-colour scheme, I want that to be considered... belly might be grey so if he is showing me his gut that is the colour I should be seeing... but also take into account for any lights, smoke, reflections... etc...

 

Remember as well, things are vastly improving with lighting and shadows.... so maybe the ground is in shadows behind him, but he is in the sun... maybe that helps spotting and the dots/pixels show that, but if he enters those same shadows... the dot darkens and he is harder to see...

Edited August 1, 2014 by NineLine

[gavagai]

I will agree that there are more possibilities as larger monitors with higher resolutions become more mainstream and affordable.

[MacEwan]

I agree that ED should create a method of smart scaling that will best benefit the sim, but we definitely do need some sort of smart scaling. Especially now with the WWII module in the works and other airframes without radar (Sabre) it is important to have smart scaling in order to have realistic WVR air battles. It's just not realistic to be forced to zoom in and scan the sky through a straw in order to see an object in the distance.

[NineLine]

I agree that ED should create a method of smart scaling that will best benefit the sim, but we definitely do need some sort of smart scaling. Especially now with the WWII module in the works and other airframes without radar (Sabre) it is important to have smart scaling in order to have realistic WVR air battles. It's just not realistic to be forced to zoom in and scan the sky through a straw in order to see an object in the distance.

 

 

Has to be balanced for sure... I dont want unrealistic spotting either... I dont want to negate any advantages these aircraft are designed for/with otherwise you might as well plop a black dot on them and be done with it...

[Python]

Do high resolution monitors make much difference with regards to being able to spot aircraft in DCS? Mine is 27" and 144HZ, but only 1920x1080, I'm wondering if it would be worth biting the bucket and buying a new one. I've only had this one 5 minutes but feel like I made a mistake buying it..