Aircraft Visibility

[Eddie]

Which misses the point of a system such as "smart scaling".

 

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.

 

The distances each object should be visible from is another discussion and set of design considerations. What we have in the sim now, could well be spot on, but the point is it is not agnostic towards the players hardware.

 

Artificially increasing LOD sizes and/or summarily increasing visibility distances is not what this is about.

[Bucic]

Ok, it was brought up with ED and this is their official response:

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.

Hold on a second. This doesn't make sense to me. At all. Basically the quote says '[currently in DCS target angular size is not as it should be] and we can't fix this because [currently in DCS target angular size is not as it should be]'.

 

As Eddie said - target angular size should be correct and the only advantage high res users should have is the actual detail of the target. Go physics all you want but please don't say it can't be solved because of resolution differences among the users because then you say 'ED is unable to convert angular size to linear size'.

 

I'm not having a go at you Sith. It's just hardcore simulators evolve and gather a number of certain brand of users and you can't just dismiss a feature request/bug with, well, anything solid.

 

PS. Also we should discuss pixel density/dot sizes not resolution.

PS2. This info can be acquired from a decade old displays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_display_identification_data

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bucic

[SkateZilla]

Which misses the point of a system such as "smart scaling".

 

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.

 

The distances each object should be visible from is another discussion and set of design considerations. What we have in the sim now, could well be spot on, but the point is it is not agnostic towards the players hardware.

 

Artificially increasing LOD sizes and/or summarily increasing visibility distances is not what this is about.

 

Wouldnt this pretty much be Sub-Pixel Rendering?

 

Objects have a Set View Distance, ie 15 NM

 

 

 

So regardless of Resolution or FoV, if the Object is smaller than 1 PX within the visibility distance, the engine puts a dot there anyway. once the object is larger than 1 px normal rendering takes over.

 

 

[Eddie]

Yep, sub pixel rendering is one of the ways you could implement "smart scaling". Other software has used systems where things start as a single pixel and then increase in pixel count as they get closer depending on the screen resolution in use, to help even things out a bit more between high and low resolution users. i.e. it means all player will be able to tell the aspect etc of an aircraft at about the same distance, regardless of hardware, but of course that is a bit more complex.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Eddie

[airdoc]

For me the problem with visibility in DCS is not just at max range. It 's about close range too. For some reason, other aircraft are very hard to spot and very easy to lose. Using zoom for this function seems not only unrealistic but hard to implement (for the player) as well. With high zoom situational awareness is lost.

 

 

Team Fusion implemented aircraft reflections in CLOD and it helped a lot.

 

EDIT : i should add that DCS has up to now been focusing on modern jets, with radar capabilities and missile fights. Now that DCS WW2 is coming, the visibility issue will probably come in the highlight once again, since the type of engagement and dogfight is based much more on the player's ability to spot targets.

Edited July 30, 2014 by airdoc

[Bushmanni]

I think angular visibility in DCS is pretty much like it should. I can see targets far out (>10nm) if I know where they are and I might lose a bandit at 3nm distance if he is below horizon against cluttered background. There's some discussion in Shaw's Fighter Combat- Tactics and Maneuvering about impact of visibility and it seems to hold true in DCS pretty well. You do have to use zoom to get correct results and according to Sithspawns quote from ED thats how it's designed to work. Personally I like this approach as it provides realistic results with just raw math. This approach could be problematic with Rift though as variable FOV might not be possible and in that case something needs to be done.

 

I do have to say that sometimes it seems like contrast between bandit and ground/sky is less than it should due to shadows not being rendered correctly due to LOD or sky color is too dark. The contrast issue is problematic especially when the bandit is just a single pixel. Anti collision lights, after burner flames, sun reflections and flares are also less visible than you would expect as they are not rendered when the pixel size gets too small / LOD changes even if they would be clearly visible in real life. For example distant stars angular size is miniscule but still they can be seen well with naked eye because stars are immensely bright (lots of Candelas) objects. Similarly small anticollision/nav light can be seen much farther than similar sized white blob due to its brightness but currently they both seem pretty much equally visible in DCS. I hope ED would improve sub pixel rendering and visibility of bright light sources.

[Scrim]

Wow, they really don't seem to understand how smart scaling works. So their response was "zoom in", or what? That's a horrible concept, how am I supposed to see instruments, any of my surroundings, or quickly adjust the zoom level in the middle of a dogfight?

 

Seriously, this will not work with WW2 planes. End of story. I doubt anyone will be tempted to jump over to DCS when they've finished the WW2 project if they can't even see their opponents. If the current system had actually been realistic, I'd have needed a telescope to see the planes at Waddington this year.

[NineLine]

Wow, they really don't seem to understand how smart scaling works. So their response was "zoom in", or what? That's a horrible concept, how am I supposed to see instruments, any of my surroundings, or quickly adjust the zoom level in the middle of a dogfight?

 

Seriously, this will not work with WW2 planes. End of story. I doubt anyone will be tempted to jump over to DCS when they've finished the WW2 project if they can't even see their opponents. If the current system had actually been realistic, I'd have needed a telescope to see the planes at Waddington this year.

 

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...

[Scrim]

See, the thing is I have to zoom in, because otherwise I can't see if that plane that is just a mile away is a Sabre or a MiG. How about you not try to turn everything I write into something you can insult me with?

[SkateZilla]

I've had a nice experience with the Modded Labels, so All I see is the Red/Blue Dots.

[NineLine]

See, the thing is I have to zoom in, because otherwise I can't see if that plane that is just a mile away is a Sabre or a MiG. How about you not try to turn everything I write into something you can insult me with?

 

How was that an insult? I just suggested that if you are already in a dogfight and didnt have sight of your enemy you were in big trouble... goes for anyone, not just you... I explained the Sabre/MiG thing in the other thread...

[Dejjvid]

Oh please. Why are the moderators behaving like they did in the infamous Ka-50-patch-collective-change thread?

 

As we have stated earlier, and now have proof of (ED's quoted answer) is that you don't know what we are asking. We are asking for a smart scaling system similar to BMS (the only good thing about BMS). There's no difference between resolutions in BMS. The engine only show the aircraft a tiny bit bigger then "it should have", and when it comes closer it will gradually "scale down" again. The sole purpose is to compensate for the fact that we are staring on to screens.

[NineLine]

Please dont make this about moderators, we are allowed to have opinions as well. I am sorry you dont like ED's answer, there is nothing I can do for you there.

 

Oh please. Why are the moderators behaving like they did in the infamous Ka-50-patch-collective-change thread?

 

As we have stated earlier, and now have proof of (ED's quoted answer) is that you don't know what we are asking. We are asking for a smart scaling system similar to BMS (the only good thing about BMS). There's no difference between resolutions in BMS. The engine only show the aircraft a tiny bit bigger then "it should have", and when it comes closer it will gradually "scale down" again. The sole purpose is to compensate for the fact that we are staring on to screens.

[Scrim]

I've had a nice experience with the Modded Labels, so All I see is the Red/Blue Dots.

 

I've tried that. Well, not blue or red dots, but the black ones. I like them, because they do a lot for realism, and since they are in contrast to the aluminum of the MiG-15s, they don't obscure them a lot either. But it's not perfect, as it doesn't help you see in what direction things are traveling. E.g. if you're inverted and see a MiG say 2000 feet below you, you'd see if he was executing a semi shallow climb, or flying straight. Even with the help of this mod, you don't see that, especially not with such small planes as Sabres and MiG-15s.

[SkateZilla]

I've tried that. Well, not blue or red dots, but the black ones. I like them, because they do a lot for realism, and since they are in contrast to the aluminum of the MiG-15s, they don't obscure them a lot either. But it's not perfect, as it doesn't help you see in what direction things are traveling. E.g. if you're inverted and see a MiG say 2000 feet below you, you'd see if he was executing a semi shallow climb, or flying straight. Even with the help of this mod, you don't see that, especially not with such small planes as Sabres and MiG-15s.

 

Where's the black dot one?

[MacEwan]

Smart scaling is one of my most wanted features. It's common knowledge that spotting IRL is much easier than in game, and not only spotting but being able to identify aircraft. It's pretty mind boggling as to why the devs wouldn't implement some type of smart scaling.

 

The answer quoted by Sith in a previous post (unless I misunderstood it) basically said that smart scaling will allow people with higher resolution to spot objects better than people with lower resolutions, that's why we don't have smart scaling. But doesn't that happen without smart scaling anyways? People with higher resolutions can already see things better than others, I thought smart scaling is supposed to balance that out while allowing people to spot objects at realistic distances.

 

Edit: I was secretly hoping EDGE would introduce some smart scaling but that is yet to be seen.

Edited July 30, 2014 by MacEwan

[Bucic]

How was that an insult? I just suggested that if you are already in a dogfight and didnt have sight of your enemy you were in big trouble... goes for anyone, not just you... I explained the Sabre/MiG thing in the other thread...

It wasn't an insult. Rather something along the lines of an unsubstantial comment. Hence the stirred feathers.

 

As others have said, the issue is back in the spotlight and won't go away, with the wave of non-BVR newcommers and other companies actually addressing the issue.

[airdoc]

The majority of the online players i know have a _very_ difficult time spotting other aircraft.

 

+1

 

I 've been playing IL2 1946, CLOD, BOS, ROF and DCS.

 

When playing online I am mostly worried about finding contacts. Even at servers that allow the F10 tactical view, although i can see the enemy closing in the map, if the enemy aircraft is below me, it's almost impossible to spot it against the ground. No matter what the distance. I recall an instance where one of my team-mates was in a turning fight in a P51vs another P51 at the deck and was calling for support. I was right above them at 3000ft, and could not spot either one of the aircraft below, even though i knew where they were. I had to hit the deck to see them, so that the background was the sky and not terrain.

 

I don't think that it's my PC or monitor, because i have no trouble with other sims. And most people that i know of, seem to share this concern about DCS.

[NineLine]

Honestly everyone is getting worked up here, and nothing is going to change until after EDGE is out, we need to see what if anything it will bring to the table on the subject...

[SDsc0rch]

strong feelings, sith

 

can't speak for others, only for myself - but this is such a great sim, it just falls down a little bit in this area - sure would like it to be complete..

[NineLine]

Shoot the messenger ;)

[Scrim]

Where's the black dot one?

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/270020/

[Bucic]

strong feelings, sith

 

can't speak for others, only for myself - but this is such a great sim, it just falls down a little bit in this area - sure would like it to be complete..

This!

Same with the damage modeling. The difference? The plan/desire to rework the DM in DCS has been expressed officially, case closed.

 

I think people are getting worked up being afraid of a denial regarding the issue of smart scaling. After all you can't expect an improvement when a dev is not acknowledging the issue. I myself am going to wait for EDGE. It does look promising and it wouldn't surprise me if it fixed some issues as a side effect.

 

Shoot the messenger ;)

It has turned out this way a bit, sorry. I hope it won't discourage you to carry on with the messages :) It's not being expressed often enough how much ED Forums mods being relays between ED team and the users add to the whole experience in my opinion. You seem to be very active in recent months with the messengering so I guess it is expected you may face a higher risk of being bashed by those not content with the messages you carry ;)

[KaspeR32]

Honestly everyone is getting worked up here, and nothing is going to change until after EDGE is out, we need to see what if anything it will bring to the table on the subject...

 

I'm a little confused about this comment. I understand nothing can or will likely be changed with this current engine. (1.2.9)

 

But, what about EDGE? If we never had this conversation, or people weren't showing that it is currently a problem, why would the devs even look at it when creating EDGE?? I mean, I have a feeling once EDGE is released, you're going to use the same line of reasoning then for asking about smart scaling. Or something like "It's a bit late now to ask for such an engine changing feature, you should have asked before EDGE was completed."

 

How ironic would that be, lol.

 

I for one agree with everyone about smart scaling. It really is a pain to spot things. I've done missions where I have an audio cue to "Look to the right, you'll see a pair of Hinds coming up" Only to look right and see nothing. Aren't hinds supposed to be pretty big choppers too?

 

My point is, people should speak up. The Devs should know a feature like this is wanted, and THIS is the chance they have to implement it. Or if they are, maybe just say "Hey, we're looking into it fellas, no promises."

 

+1 for smart scaling or some similar fix.

[NineLine]

I'm a little confused about this comment. I understand nothing can or will likely be changed with this current engine. (1.2.9)

 

But, what about EDGE? If we never had this conversation, or people weren't showing that it is currently a problem, why would the devs even look at it when creating EDGE?? I mean, I have a feeling once EDGE is released, you're going to use the same line of reasoning then for asking about smart scaling. Or something like "It's a bit late now to ask for such an engine changing feature, you should have asked before EDGE was completed."

 

 

The point of the comment is that we dont know how different things will look with EDGE and the new maps... for example, will things be easier to spot with better quality textures for ground textures? With better lighting... etc... Why change now and maybe it doesnt work with EDGE the same.. and they are changing again...

 

I assume EDGE will be improved even after public release... it wont be given to us and that will be it. There are too many unknowns at this point... but one known thing is that things will look quite a bit different so I dont think making a big change now would be wise.

 

SO I stand by that... its find to discuss it if you like, but as per the ED statement, it wont be changed right now... maybe things can be done after EDGE is released, like the reflections someone mentioned... as well as other things...