Aircraft Visibility

[Angel101]

oh really... so all this camouflage patters are for nothing? We better tell military to stop bothering doing it :music_whistling:

Well I understand that camouflage helps but doesn't turn the plane invisible because is painted in the exact colour and light conditions on the moment to be observed.

[Wolf Rider]

Invisible no... blend in -> yes

[gavagai]

oh really... so all this camouflage patters are for nothing? We better tell military to stop bothering doing it :music_whistling:

 

Rhetorical questions.:glare:

 

In the wider context he said:

 

you can't get an aircraft to be the same precise shade or texture as the forest below it in a way that makes it utterly disappear, AND it's relative motion seems to stand out quite a bit more IMHO (yes, in the civilian world most aircraft are not camouflaged but I watched some that are, and it doesn't really make a difference IMHO, at least to tracking the contact - the best way to disappear is with a light shade of grey when viewed from below or co-alt, and surprise surprise, that's what most modern airforces use!)

 

Because he is speaking from experience we should listen a bit before we try to tear him down.

 

Also, in the natural world disruptive shading patterns are an adaption for hiding while motionless. You can even see the difference in the same family of animal: sharks. Sharks that are always on the move have classic countershading where the dorsal side is dark and the ventral side is light. However, some sharks that lie motionless on the ocean floor have a disruptive camouflaging pattern, e.g. leopard sharks, horn sharks. Evolution doesn't make this crap up. That is why it makes much more sense for tanks and helicopters to employ disruptive camouflage but not aircraft.:thumbup:

[Godpeed]

Just like hunting,look for movement.

[airdoc]

there have been many threads about this subject, and as far as my understanding of it goes, it is a real and major issue, particularly for WW2 planes.

 

If people with larger monitors and resolution don't have a problem with it (which i highly doubt, most probably just have a better time coping but still face a problem) then this doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done for the majority of players who use 1080p and smaller than 27 inch monitors. The FOV that was mentioned above simply doesn't work for my settings. I need to have a wider FOV so that i can check my instruments while flying and also be able to see parts of the fuselage and the terrain at the same time so that i retain situational awareness.

 

And please, let's stop reciting the "it's hard to spot targets IRL as well" argument all the time. Unless someone comes up with convincing quantifiable data about target spotting in real life vs DCS, then it's just a guess. Only experienced RL pilots who play DCS could possibly answer this question with some credibility, and even then, there is still a subjective factor involved. Hard data for this issue are generally hard to find, and the best that I 've been able to come up with is this :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119885&highlight=research+visibility

 

 

Hopefully we 'll see some kind of fix to it soon enough in DCS.

[ARM505]

oh really... so all this camouflage patters are for nothing? We better tell military to stop bothering doing it

 

(yes, in the civilian world most aircraft are not camouflaged but I watched some that are, and it doesn't really make a difference IMHO, at least to tracking the contact - the best way to disappear is with a light shade of grey when viewed from below or co-alt, and surprise surprise, that's what most modern airforces use!)

 

Do I really need to quote my original statement? :)

 

I used to play airsoft a little bit (kind of like paintball, shooting each other with little pellet guns), and quite a few people tried the whole 'sniper ghillie suit' thing, clearly after playing too much COD - the thing is, unless you stopped to take material from the area you were playing in (ie epic colour matching), AND made a very, very strong effort to find a good position, AND made absolutely no movement at all, these guys would get spotted easily.

 

Aircraft can hide in clouds and the sun of course, but they're always moving and they simply cannot be painted in a way that always blends in (even shadows will make them stand out more) - in my experience the camo is never good enough to make you lose the contact when tracking it already, but I will admit it's possible to make it slightly (very slightly!) harder to aquire in the first place. But my actual, original point still stands: The colour blending in real life is simply not nearly as easy as it is in DCS, or indeed any computer screen based sim.

 

It's again, just my humble opinion, but I do have some experience of it IRL. Just yesterday I was trying to find a Dash 8 (I think, not close enough to ID) off to my 3 o'clock at about 7 miles (NM), co-alt, and it took a few seconds - once I had him, it was easy to see, but it does take some staring - in DCS.......don't know if it would be as easy.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ARM505

[ericoh]

Also in real life it depends on the conditions and situation....

 

Of course, but im not good enought to code a dynamic label system. :D

 

It would be awesome if they could dissapear behind clouds and objects.

[sonic]

What would be nice for all type of customer is a label that is sentisitive to cockpit, clouds and terrain.

[Wolf Rider]

 

~

 

I need to have a wider FOV so that i can check my instruments while flying and also be able to see parts of the fuselage and the terrain at the same time so that i retain situational awareness.

 

~

 

 

 

is, the major part of the "problem"

 

 

 

What would be nice for all type of customer is a label that is sensititive to cockpit, clouds and terrain.

 

:thumbup:

Edited August 18, 2014 by Wolf Rider

[airdoc]

is, the major part of the "problem"

 

So, are you advocating that there is no issue in spotting for you? (presuming that we are talking about ww2 planes and pvp encounters)

[zaelu]

I heard many times before statements of personal experience of seeing aircrafts in the air. But none were from combat pilots that had real engagements or at least training engagements with high stakes in the game.

 

Also

 

I know from history that most... MOST... of airkills in WW2 aerial engagements were made without the killed even noticing the killer.

 

So not seeing in conditions of stress, overload, discomfort (they were not flying from the office chair in the bedroom with the hot coffee on the table), bad Plexiglas, was a norm... a norm!

 

Now

 

Many desktop pilots (such as myself) have a better view on they own capability and think they have been better. I... long time ago had the same struggle with visibility in IL-2 asking for labels or improvements in this aspect and my friends and squad mates even laugh about it and are still laughing when we remember it at our meets. I renounced my vanity and accepted my foes that killed me because I didn't spot them or I could not follow them on the skies good enough as better than me and moved on.

 

In my opinion there is nothing that can be done to make targets more visible on a 1080 screen than either using icons/labels (even reduced as is possible in DCS) or porking the entire rendering system with some gimmick from an old game.

 

I personally am against porking the game. Yes is hard to see but is easier to fly. A good trade.

Edited August 18, 2014 by zaelu

[doveman]

It's all very well using dots/labels in SP but most, if not all, servers don't allow this. So there's probably a lot of people for whom MP is not an option and ED really need to try a find a solution to help the MP aspect grow and thrive.

[HellToupee]

Many desktop pilots (such as myself) have a better view on they own capability and think they have been better. I... long time ago had the same struggle with visibility in IL-2 asking for labels or improvements in this aspect and my friends and squad mates even laugh about it and are still laughing when we remember it at our meets. I renounced my vanity and accepted my foes that killed me because I didn't spot them or I could not follow them on the skies good enough as better than me and moved on.

 

In my opinion there is nothing that can be done to make targets more visible on a 1080 screen than either using icons/labels (even reduced as is possible in DCS) or porking the entire rendering system with some gimmick from an old game.

 

Il2 had better icon and dot system configurable by the server, i myself never had any issues spotting in il2 and you could do it at normal FOV, in DCS it feels pointless even trying at normal FOV. Usually we just had friendly icons only with player name, so comms on a public server wasnt a confusing mess.

 

Thing is i can actually spot targets at really long range, i have much harder time seeing the people closer in, older games systems to account for the limitations of playing through a monitor and that has not changed.

[zaelu]

IL2 used a system of LODs that had draw backs. Features of an airplane were exaggerated in some LODs (like the landing gear on Stukas, Radiators on Emil, Wing shapes, etc so the silhouette would be better recognized but that made the image look worse. Also the LODs were not in crescendo size... Some of the far LODs were bigger than closer ones and that made the plane pop in and out when closing in... again visually ugly.

 

EDs rendering is more about fidelity and making such LODs like in IL-2 will be unpleasant for a 2014 game.

 

The DOT system because it was a 2D shape had big draw back in cheating and exploiting area as one could set the resolution low or AA low and get better view.

 

IMHO the viewing system problems can always be helped by a better situation awareness that comes with exercise. Knowing were most probably a target will be, were it will go, what can do, can't not do and how it may look are things that narrow the "zone" to scan and improve detection and tracking and this come with exercise within DCS graphic engine limits. Also working in pairs and on comms helps a lot.

 

Many times reviewing the track can help see what you did not see during a dogfight mission. You may observe then that the target was there but you just didn't spot it. And this improves by exercise.

[Bucic]

Apart from label parameter recommendations this thread has close to no substance. Mere opinions expressed with confidence in a sauce of humble testimonials of how situation awareness training can negate the issue.

 

Do yourself a favor and read these threads instead

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110718&highlight=visibility

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101143

 

IIRC the second one even includes real world study on the subject.

 

And for the record, anyone implying that any smart scaling implementation just has to be outright flawed is ridiculous.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Bucic

[Bucic]

Do I really need to quote my original statement? :)

.

Apparently you do. Many people think they can just put on any white material to conceal against snow.

Thank you for your posts. Rep inbound.

[Falcon_S]

How I "see":

-Normal

 

-Zoom

 

...with "High Settings", GeForce GTX 550ti, Monitor res: 1400x1050

Edited August 19, 2014 by Falcon_S

[kazereal]

All this talk about making "dots more visible" contradicts the aim of bringing realistic simulations to consumers. There are limits to what you can achieve on home computers and tiny screens.

 

I mean, 3D rendering calculates how object appears on perspective and distance. If the object is far enough it will be smaller than a single pixel on your computer screen. There's no way to project that visibly into your screen, no matter what coloring or reflectivity is used.

 

Keeping rendering method same only things you can do are increasing resolution (more and smaller pixels) and increasing monitor size. Both require you to spend money on better monitor or a video projector. And aiming for 4K resolutions need more GPU power as well..

 

Actual training simulator use back-projection screens instead of computer monitors to achieve large display sizes to handle the limitations.

Edited August 19, 2014 by kazereal

[zaelu]

Apart from label parameter recommendations this thread has close to no substance. Mere opinions expressed with confidence in a sauce of humble testimonials of how situation awareness training can negate the issue.

 

Labels can negate this issue. Ironic humor, which is to be appreciate, maybe not. :P Acuity in viewing a monitor which has different rendering methods and tweaks I think becomes less relevant than capacity of training the eye... since the expression "trained eye".

 

 

Any IL-2 pilot had problems detecting and tracking targets at first and then by practice he became more proficient. If the targets are rendered in DCS but are less visible it means to me more training is required even if not the same result is achieved a better than the start point is for sure. As I said an acceptable (to me) sacrifice for now for better graphics.

[Falcon_S]

...If the targets are rendered in DCS but are less visible it means to me more training is required...

 

It's not about training, but momentum presentation of object (show at least few pixels). What I can to practice here? The only thing that I can practice is to pop a bit, couple of miles away.

 

I just want to say, if it's time (linked to visibility range) to show an object, then so be it and I'll find him.

 

Maybe I`m wrong but should not it be to see Su27 (15m wingspan) at 4-5km?

[Bucic]

Labels can negate this issue. Ironic humor, which is to be appreciate, maybe not. :P Acuity in viewing a monitor which has different rendering methods and tweaks I think becomes less relevant than capacity of training the eye... since the expression "trained eye".

 

 

Any IL-2 pilot had problems detecting and tracking targets at first and then by practice he became more proficient. If the targets are rendered in DCS but are less visible it means to me more training is required even if not the same result is achieved a better than the start point is for sure. As I said an acceptable (to me) sacrifice for now for better graphics.

OK, to simplify and cut the bull of this thread. This thread does not contain a single valid argument pro the notion [1] that detections distance in DCS is roughly correct. This thread also does not contain a single valid argument against [2] smart scaling as a method. As an example a statement 'sim adept ability to detect targets improves with training' is NOT a valid argument with regard to neither [1] nor [2]. Unless by some f£#£ up logic.

 

To me this thread looks like a container for blokes who don't even intend to make a slightest effort to read up on the subject.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Bucic

[zaelu]

Well you can see here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668746&postcount=12 that the DCS is showing the targets but bigger resolution is required.

 

And this is with targets on the clear sky. With them over terrain...

 

OK, to simplify and cut the bull of this thread. This thread does not contain a single valid argument pro the notion [1] that detections distance in DCS is roughly correct. This thread also does not contain a single valid argument against [2] smart scaling as a method. As an example a statement 'sim adept ability to detect targets improves with training' is NOT a valid argument with regard to neither [1] nor [2]. Unless by some f£#£ up logic.

 

This is the original first post in this thread

 

Back when I was flying the Huey or the Warthog, the visibility of distant planes wasn't that important. Now that I've got the Dora, priorities changed quite a lot and I find myself having a very hard time spotting enemy planes so I would like to improve my visibility distance. What are the optimal settings to maximize the dot draw distance? I have a 21.5" monitor running 1920x1080 native resolution. I've also included a screenshot of my current graphical settings in DCS. Is there any way I can improve the visibility?

 

Those 1 and 2 point you mention are not clearly stated there so maybe that's why they are not touched by solid arguments.

 

As you can see in the quoted link above from the thread you also linked PeterP screenshot shows a fairly decent representation of objects rendering by distance and so their detection. As for Smart scaling... I did not played BMS but how this smart scaling described looks like the LODs system in IL-2 to me for which I brough some arguments above... being merely opinions about aesthetics...

Edited August 19, 2014 by zaelu

[Bucic]

Well you can see here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668746&postcount=12 that the DCS is showing the targets but bigger resolution is required.

 

And this is with targets on the clear sky. With them over terrain...

Finally something. From the thread I've linked BTW. see? This thread didn't have to be such an opinionated dump with posts by guys who don't see a difference between screen size and resolution, not to mention pixel density.

[159th_Viper]

This thread didn't have to be such an opinionated dump.....

 

Yes, it takes two to tango.....

 

 

In any event, back to SIM:

 

Here's a quick comparison between my default resolution (3440x1440) and a reasonable default in this day and age I would have thought (1920x1080).

 

Target in view is a F-15 with B-52 at 5km:

 

Default View

 

 

 

Default Zoom View of HUD

 

 

 

Default Zoom View Right

 

 

 

 

Good or Bad?

Edited August 19, 2014 by 159th_Viper
Typo

[ericoh]

If anyone still thinks labels are "unrealistic" please read my post:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2145082&postcount=204

 

There is resolutions where it is unfair AND unrealistic to not have labels... Because aircraft simply dissapear earlier.

 

As long as there is nothing better then the current labels this is the next best thing to "realism".