Aircraft Visibility

[Buckeye]

I think everyone can agree that something needs to be done, it just needs to be done right. No labels or dots, no massive upscaling, etc. Simple enough, right? :wink:

[NineLine]

I think everyone can agree that something needs to be done, it just needs to be done right. No labels or dots, no massive upscaling, etc. Simple enough, right? :wink:

 

Yes, and even though I conveyed a message from ED earlier in the thread, and people didnt agree with it, it doesnt mean they arent watching or listening...

[Bushmanni]

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.

 

I have played BMS and it seemed to have ridiculously good visibility at long ranges but that might have been due to more narrow FOV at max zoom compared to DCS. I was able to visually ID aircrafts dogfighting beyond AMRAAM max range to determine which one was the enemy. In BMS you rarely lose a dot against city backdrop as cities are just a fuzzy texture where sharp edged plane stands out well. Otherwise I didn't feel any practical difference between BMS and DCS in visibility of targets. I do take advantage of the zoom to the fullest in DCS though as I have it in a slider on HOTAS. As a disclaimer it's over a year when I last tried BMS.

 

It's perfectly realistic to look through a straw to scan for targets as that's what it effectively is when you try to scan for a target that's more than few miles out. If there's any kind of visual helper applied to counter low resolution and large FOV, it should be applied gradually so that the full effect is restricted to a small area at the center. Losing sight of the enemy is realistic and it can be avoided in DCS if you keep sight of him like you should.

 

Dynamically colored dots that consider shadows, lighting, overall directional color, reflections and distance would be good to have in DCS.

[MacEwan]

Yes, and even though I conveyed a message from ED earlier in the thread, and people didnt agree with it, it doesnt mean they arent watching or listening...

 

I don't think it's about people not agreeing with the message. It's just that most people want ED to reconsider their position on smart scaling. We've seen it work well in many other sims. In my opinion DCS is the best sim available, it just falls short in a couple key aspects, smart scaling being one of them.

[NineLine]

I don't think it's about people not agreeing with the message. It's just that most people want ED to reconsider their position on smart scaling. We've seen it work well in many other sims. In my opinion DCS is the best sim available, it just falls short in a couple key aspects, smart scaling being one of them.

 

Understood... but this is like the dynamic campaign thing for me... sure I would like to see ED to do a DC, but I want an ED DC, not a rehashed one from an old sim... same thing applies here... I want better, not settle for the same.

[Buckeye]

Yes, and even though I conveyed a message from ED earlier in the thread, and people didnt agree with it, it doesnt mean they arent watching or listening...

 

Agreed and understood. I think a lot of the posters recently have made a valid point that the outcry from the customer base will only grow stronger once the WW2 modules release (compounded by the F-86 that is now out) as they rely purely on WVR visual tracking ability. I assume ED's intention is to gain market share of the WW2 community by releasing DCS: 1942 and once they see [what I presume will be] a lot of new adopters turned off by the lack of ability to keep tally of their enemies, they will get the hint. ED has shown in the past that they listen to their customers and make things right (and in some cases the opposite), so it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. I am confident they will do what is necessary.

[MacEwan]

Understood... but this is like the dynamic campaign thing for me... sure I would like to see ED to do a DC, but I want an ED DC, not a rehashed one from an old sim... same thing applies here... I want better, not settle for the same.

 

100% agree with that. I want ED to do their own thing and do what's best for DCS. That's the #1 reason I'm excited for EDGE, I'm hoping that spotting will become more realistic with higher graphical fidelity and things like glints of light from distant aircrafts.

[Buckeye]

Understood... but this is like the dynamic campaign thing for me... sure I would like to see ED to do a DC, but I want an ED DC, not a rehashed one from an old sim... same thing applies here... I want better, not settle for the same.

 

Conversely a "rehashed dynamic campaign from an old sim" is better than none at all to many of us. It all depends on how you look at it. I (and I presume many others in the DCS community) would take a copy/paste of the BMS DC in a heartbeat and not ask for much more...but I understand ED's desire to do things bigger and better than those before them. I admire that and I think it is what will drive ED and DCS to success. However, there is also a certain balance that needs to be considered and achieved in terms of lead times. When you start to get to the point where you're losing parts of your customer base to others (i.e. BMS, IL2 etc.) for this reason or that, long range plans may need to adapt a bit (at least from a Strategic Planning perspective). This is not to say that I expect ED to drop everything and churn out a DC or scaling in the short term future as I understand that is not realistic, it is more to say that ED may have made some questionable long range planning decisions that have spread themselves a bit too thin to maintain the necessary reaction time to deliver on demands and maintain current market share. All said, I hope ED will realize plenty of profit in the short term from their current near term projects releases that will continue to allow growth in staff headcount to, if necessary, help to dig themselves out of the commitment hole I feel they have dug themselves.

[Bucic]

Conversely a "rehashed dynamic campaign from an old sim" is better than none at all to many of us. It all depends on how you look at it. I (and I presume many others in the DCS community) would take a copy/paste of the BMS DC in a heartbeat and not ask for much more...but I understand ED's desire to do things bigger and better than those before them. I admire that and I think it is what will drive ED and DCS to success. However, there is also a certain balance that needs to be considered and achieved in terms of lead times. When you start to get to the point where you're losing parts of your customer base to others (i.e. BMS, IL2 etc.) for this reason or that, long range plans may need to adapt a bit (at least from a Strategic Planning perspective). This is not to say that I expect ED to drop everything and churn out a DC or scaling in the short term future as I understand that is not realistic, it is more to say that ED may have made some questionable long range planning decisions that have spread themselves a bit too thin to maintain the necessary reaction time to deliver on demands and maintain current market share. All said, I hope ED will realize plenty of profit in the short term from their current near term projects releases that will continue to allow growth in staff headcount to, if necessary, help to dig themselves out of the commitment hole I feel they have dug themselves.

The obvious thing missed then is (I only rephrase your post): you oppose copying an existing solution only if you have something better planned for the near future.

 

I also agree on your observation on ED getting spread thin over the ongoing projects. On the other hand I think ED may be at a point similar to the first turns in the Medieval Total War game :) You invest heavily in rural stuff to the point most of your other endeavors get close to being paralyzed. But if you make it through the following thin turns the income from the developed rural stuff starts pouring like rain. I truly wish this for ED and I don't see a chance of it going a different way, seeing how many HQ modules are to be released until the end of 2014.

 

All in all to what Sith says:

a) 'let's wait for EDGE' - agreed

b) 'it's like that thing with dynamic campaign' - I don't agree (unless SC requires a rewrite of EDGE)

[Wolf Rider]

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.

 

:thumbup:

the real world solution is our peripheral vision (which detects motion) which assists our acuity field (that 3 degree field of sharp focus)... this peripheral vision does not exist on a monitor, so the FoV is widened to attempt to counter that lack, and that is where the problems begin. zooming out/ zooming in/ zooming out/ zooming in, etc, which distorts the image in comparison to the default FoV.

 

 

smart scaling throws the distancing judgement off

 

 

the expensive (partial) solution could be to run 3 monitors and have a 20 degree FoV projecting on each (not treating the 3 monitors as one very wide screen though, with 60 degrees across the lot)

Edited August 1, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[NineLine]

Conversely a "rehashed dynamic campaign from an old sim" is better than none at all to many of us.

 

Not to this customer... and its not like we have no aspects of dynamics in our missions right now.

 

Anyways, thats for another topic.

[Buckeye]

I also agree on your observation on ED getting spread thin over the ongoing projects. On the other hand I think ED may be at a point similar to the first turns in the Medieval Total War game :) You invest heavily in rural stuff to the point most of your other endeavors get close to being paralyzed. But if you make it through the following thin turns the income from the developed rural stuff starts pouring like rain. I truly wish this for ED and I don't see a chance of it going a different way, seeing how many HQ modules are to be released until the end of 2014.

 

I agree with your insight here, and I agree that I believe ED will make it through this trying time of being "spread thin" and come out on top. Sure, they will take their bumps and bruises along the way, but I believe they will deliver on their promises and prevail in the end. When that happens, we should all be in for a hell of a fun ride.

[Scrim]

I have played BMS and it seemed to have ridiculously good visibility at long ranges but that might have been due to more narrow FOV at max zoom compared to DCS. I was able to visually ID aircrafts dogfighting beyond AMRAAM max range to determine which one was the enemy. In BMS you rarely lose a dot against city backdrop as cities are just a fuzzy texture where sharp edged plane stands out well. Otherwise I didn't feel any practical difference between BMS and DCS in visibility of targets. I do take advantage of the zoom to the fullest in DCS though as I have it in a slider on HOTAS. As a disclaimer it's over a year when I last tried BMS.

 

If that's how far you saw in BMS, either you played something else, didn't understand the range indicators for the AIM-120s, or something in your copy of BMS had been horribly altered.

 

Last time I played BMS was less than a month ago. When I lock up a target for the AIM-120s, if I'm underneath it and thereby have the sky as a background, it's daylight, and I'm ~4/5 of max range (not loft range, regular range) I might be able to make out a spot where the HUD target marker is telling me it is. I can't make make out any other planes, not even in the same formation, because without the HUD marker it's just impossible to discern anything else.

[VincentLaw]

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.

One of the problems with directly simulating the narrow angle of focus is that the computer has no way of knowing what part of the screen your eyes are looking at. You do not play DCS with your eyes constantly boresighted. The view direction represents head motion, not eye motion, and your eyes naturally have less acuity on the parts of the screen that you are not looking at.

 

Smart scaling is supposed to compensate for the little rectangle with limited resolution that we play through. Generally we play at an unrealistically wide viewing angle when not actively scanning for targets, so we can easily miss targets that we would have noticed in real life. Zooming in when scanning for targets is not a good way of representing limited visual acuity because it very incorrectly chops off our entire peripheral vision.

 

A reasonable solution to account for limited visual acuity would be to scale up less than it would have.

[Wolf Rider]

That's just it though... you don't have peripheral vision in a monitor, unless you are physically surrounded by them. You have an image that you are constantly using your acuity field to look at parts of... you said so yourself. (Acuity is the very narrow field which allows for focus enough to read - look at the centre of a page full of print, A4 size held at arm's length, and see if you can read a line at the very top of that page... without flicking your eyes up even a little bit)

Edited August 2, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[ericoh]

I'm talking about the feature BMS have. When enabled, it scale units so you can spot them more easily. This is to compensate for the fact that you are viewing a 3d enviroment on a 2d screen.

 

imho, it's way too hard to find AIR opponents as it is now, and the player with the lowest resolution has the advantage.

 

Is a similar feature planned for DCS world?

 

EDIT: I'm only suggesting Smart Scaling for air units

 

:thumbup:

 

The "resolution" of the human eye is far superior to most screens we have in use. It is extremly hard to pick up targets, that also has an impact on immersion!

 

Maybe not scaling the unit itself. How about smart labels?

Edited August 2, 2014 by ericoh

[Booger]

Within my remembrance it discussing arose several times.

 

The main problem is that player with different screen resolution can see objects at different distances. The big displays (2560х1600) to allow see more at the same FOV. It is pure physics. But the same issue we can see in the other games.

 

If we artificially increase LOD sizes, having optimized for small displays, but for big displays all the same it will be visible farther.

 

This issue become smoothed over by existence of an adaptive zoom, allowing to narrow a FOV and to see much farther even on small displays.

I too look forward to how things pan out after the addition of EDGE, but based on the provided statement, I can't help but take away from it that it doesn't seem like ED is very receptive of any future implementation of smart scaling at all.

 

I wonder what the response would be if there wasn't a zoom option available at all, yet when the feature was asked for by the community the replied guidance was "lean in closer" or "use reading glasses".

 

It's my guess that the average simmer doesn't have a multi-screen setup, leaving the rest of what they're not directly looking at on their single screen to entertain their peripheral vision. I don't think I'm much of a fan of the idea to have to constantly zoom in and out to see what I should reasonably see with the naked eye. I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a burning desire to constantly see the simulated world through a pair of toilet paper rolls taped to my face, which really is what the response suggests.

 

I think Scrim & Eddie said it best...

 

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

 

..The point of such a system as far as design goes, regardless of the specific details of how it is implemented, is that if you should see object X at 10 miles it will always be visible at 10 miles (even if it is rendered as just one pixel) regardless of the players screen resolution or other hardware. In essence someone with a 19 inch 1366x768 monitor is able to see (theoretically at least) the same as someone with a 30 inch 3840x2160 monitor. The player with the 19 inch screen won't see the same detail of course, but they can at least tell something is there.

 

Further...

 

One of the problems with directly simulating the narrow angle of focus is that the computer has no way of knowing what part of the screen your eyes are looking at. You do not play DCS with your eyes constantly boresighted. The view direction represents head motion, not eye motion, and your eyes naturally have less acuity on the parts of the screen that you are not looking at.

 

Exactamundo. If anyone can provide a source to a story regarding a pilot who uses binoculars while dogfighting, I would absolutely love to read about it.

 

Hopefully EDGE will give those folks with smaller monitors a break. If not, I don't think smart scaling (or some improved/equal variant) is an unreasonable request. If it's programmed like how Eddie suggests, I don't understand why it would matter. A "smart scale bubble" will be somewhat of an equalizer. Even though beastly sized screens with cranked up resolution will always have the advantage, smart scaling distance would add some kind of balance where it matters most.

 

In response to labels, I think it's generally a bad idea simply because it feels like cheating, at least to me. If I wasn't watching or someone beat my eyeballs, they deserve to have that advantage as much as I deserve to have the stress from it. If I lose sight, it should be realistically challenging to pick it back up. Movement, colors, glimmer, smoke or even shadow is what should catch my eye, not a streaking black/red/blue dot. Then again, if there was something that made the viewing of other aircraft more realistic, this wouldn't be as much of an attractive option to some as it is now.

 

At this point, I'm just happy for the lack of padlocking (which is by far worse than labels).

[Cali]

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

 

If that's driving you to drinking......I'd hate to see you do my job sometimes. :D

 

Seriously, some of the things people want will never be like it is in real life. The view is one of them, our eyes see so much better then what a monitor shows us right now. The people that cry they want realism...that's a good one, because 90% of them I bet have no clue about how it is to fly a real jet.

[NineLine]

If that's driving you to drinking......I'd hate to see you do my job sometimes. :D

 

Seriously, some of the things people want will never be like it is in real life. The view is one of them, our eyes see so much better then what a monitor shows us right now. The people that cry they want realism...that's a good one, because 90% of them I bet have no clue about how it is to fly a real jet.

 

Well if I got paid for this, It might be more bearable ;) Or at least pay for the beer charges :)

 

Yes, we need to remember that ED does have a few military contacts, not to say it cant be improved, but ED isnt just guessing either...

[Cali]

Well if I got paid for this, It might be more bearable ;) Or at least pay for the beer charges :)

 

Yes, we need to remember that ED does have a few military contacts, not to say it cant be improved, but ED isnt just guessing either...

 

That is true, it would be good if you got paid for it....but you knew how it was when you signed up for it. I don't think they are guessing, they are doing what they can do and the sim looks great.

[Booger]

Seriously, some of the things people want will never be like it is in real life. The view is one of them...

 

Heh. Funny when...

 

...We know it's been an issue for years...

 

Even you identified it as "an issue" and suggest patience, yet now you're suggesting opposition?

 

I'll take one of those beers, thanks :doh:

 

The people that cry they want realism...that's a good one, because 90% of them I bet have no clue about how it is to fly a real jet.

 

I'll do one better and say the percentage is higher than that. Since the actual flying of the jet isn't the topic (it's the visual aspect when you're flying, which a much higher percent CAN say they have "a clue") we'll just forget that one. Instead, I'll offer a much more fitting analogy.

 

It's like the happy sock you use when deployed. Clearly, it's not a real woman, but you would really like it to seem to be as much as possible (even if you're one of the poor unfortunate percentage who lacks the actual personal experience). :)

 

 

Edits to add:

 

"You" was used generally, not "YOU" as a personal dig (which it could be interpreted as).

Edited August 3, 2014 by Booger

[Kuky]

1. The only time where visual problem is an issue is when you are playing against AI, as in MP the guy you are fighting against has exact same issue as you do... so it's always an equal fight (when it comes to spotting targets)

 

2. Lot of people also forget that pilots are picked from the best, and fighter pilots are picked from the best of those. 1/2 people in here are not very young (me included) and their eyesight are not as good as pilot's, so why is everyone expecting to see as good as people with best eyesight?

 

3. Real pilots also account many times that even they sometimes have hard times to pick aircraft they are already in fight with (watch some youtube training video's, sometimes the pilot will lose sight of the aircraft he's already in visual range... and look around to find him again... he doesn't just spot him in an instant)

 

I still think that specular lighting on far LOD's is what's ruining things the most, and I am still very much against any kind of objects scaling as it ruins scale of things, including objects's speed (BMS has this exact issue because they have aircraft scaling, it just looks unnatural)

[Booger]

1. The only time where visual problem is an issue is when you are playing against AI, as in MP the guy you are fighting against has exact same issue as you do... so it's always an equal fight (when it comes to spotting targets)

 

That's only true if we both have the same sized monitors/resolution. The suggestion isn't about trumping things so everyone can see things incredibly far away (which seems to be ED's concern with those with high res settings, and no doubt rightfully so), it's about giving that poor soul with a 20" monitor a (dare I say "realistic") chance to actually see something.

 

2. Lot of people also forget that pilots are picked from the best, and fighter pilots are picked from the best of those. 1/2 people in here are not very young (me included) and their eyesight are not as good as pilot's, so why is everyone expecting to see as good as people with best eyesight?

 

You kind of canceled your first statement (which is kind of irrelevant in a desktop simulator) with your third :huh:.

 

Sorry, #2 is confusing.

 

3. Real pilots also account many times that even they sometimes have hard times to pick aircraft they are already in fight with (watch some youtube training video's, sometimes the pilot will lose sight of the aircraft he's already in visual range... and look around to find him again... he doesn't just spot him in an instant)

 

Agreed, which is why I personally hate labels. In the same breath, I won't dictate how someone else defines "fun" for themselves. If others enjoy labels, more power to them.

 

Though, to be clear. Your last statement suggests that smart scaling somehow gives someone an overwhelming advantage to pick up an opposing aircraft. It really doesn't.

 

I still think that specular lighting on far LOD's is what's ruining things the most, and I am still very much against any kind of objects scaling as it ruins scale of things, including objects's speed (BMS has this exact issue because they have aircraft scaling, it just looks unnatural)

 

I'm sure you're 100% correct about LODs, at least in regards to seeing aircraft relatively close to yours.

 

Some folks suggest the same regarding object's speed, others have posted to the contrary. I don't mean to dismiss your statement on it (which I'm not, I can certainly appreciate it as a valid point), but it really is a simple difference of opinion.

[Kuky]

As with my point 2, if we did have smart scaling it would be no different to not having it, in terms of MP (PvP) flying... both sides are in same boat, with scaling they see easier (both sides) and without it they see harder (both sides again).

 

What scaling does is it ruins the relative speed of scaled objects in non-scaled world... objects with increased size appear to be moving slower in unchanged size environment. I've played BMS and I've used smart scaling and to be honest although it lets you see the aircraft much further out (further then short range missiles range) and I don't like it, aircraft in fight feels to me like they are flying 100-200km/h... it just looks off.

[VincentLaw]

What scaling does is it ruins the relative speed of scaled objects in non-scaled world...

For this reason, I would advocate not scaling targets that are more than a few pixels across. If it is so small that you don't see it, then it is throwing you off as much as the false speed judgement would. It should just help you see that there is a target in a certain direction, and then as you get closer (or zoom in) you should be able to make an accurate speed judgement.