Jump to content

Tippis

Members
  • Posts

    2528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Tippis

  1. How is it silly? You have never once managed to offer an actual argument for that stance. Possibly because, by your own admission, you have never actually read the research or bothered to understand what it even is or how it works. No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations No. That is not how it works. Read the paper and look at the implementations I understand that you will once again go on one of your catastrophically ignorant and uninformed posting sprees about this topic but it would really help if you — just once — had actually read the paper, looked at any of the examples, understood its intent and end goals, and/or seen it in action in any of its multiple implementations. But since you actively, deliberately, expressly and obstinately refuse to do any of that, it will be fun to see what kind of laughably nonsensical fantasies you come up with this time to fill in the gaps (i.e. everything) in your understanding of the topic. If you want to disprove the usefulness and applicability of smart scaling, there is exactly one thing you should focus on: post your research. Or someone else's research. Anything, really, that has the same empirical and mathematical basis, and as many tests of different implementations, but which conclusively show that it doesn't work for some reason. Do that, and you might have a point. You won't, so you don't.
  2. In the far distant future when we all have retina-level resolution VR goggles, sure. And even then, it might have its UX use cases where it's still necessary. But until then, it needs to stick around to get around the fact that we are viewing the world through monitors with arbitrary resolutions that sit at an arbitrary distance away from the player's eyes.
  3. Lol. No. You see, in the real world, eyes don't have zoom or variable FoV. In fact, those two are the biggest problems when it comes to making sims replicate real world visual acuity because on the one hand they're needed to overcome the inherent limitations of a very tiny view frustrum, but on the other hand, they open up for the game showing far far more than it ever should. The problem isn't with players or their “understanding” of zoom (except in the cases where they claim that this is in any way, shape, or form realistic which is just laughably ignorant) — it's in how you have to counteract the zoom functionality when dealing with far-away stuff. Object scaling is actually by far the best way of dealing with that because it gives you a mechanism to not make ships be too big when zoomed in and at the same time not too small when zoomed out. Real world visual acuity can only be replicated by having hard caps on rendering distance — and far lower ones than people who zoom a lot will want to have. The problem, then, becomes one of pop-in: how do you make sure that someone that is at max zoom doesn't go from seeing nothing to seeing A HUGE MASSIVE SPLODGE as a contact crosses over that visibility threshold? Non-linear scaling is one way. Drawing the model even later and covering up the transition with some kind of dot is another. Either way, zoom is a complication; it's an accommodation to technical limits; it is something that has be compensated for to maintain proper replication. The best case would be if zoom didn't even exist as a function, but we're not there yet in terms of display tech.
  4. Ok, that makes a bit more sense. Lost functionality is always tricky since it occasionally went a way for a good or technically complex reason. On the one hand, it makes sense that “pause” is “pause” and that controls don't really work, but on the other hand, some of them do work still so I wonder if it's somehow linked to how the camera exists in the world. If it's treated like some kind of pseudo-vehicle that, like everything else, can't be interacted with during pause (and the manual camera slewing is simply explicitly set apart from that), then it would probably be tricky to get it back. On the other hand, since we know for a fact that even the full pause isn't… well… fully pausing everything, it would indeed be neat to get some of that non-world-interaction back. I wonder how much work it would be to make a clearer distinction between “pause”, maybe as a sort of world-scale (rather than just player-scale) active pause, and a full on freeze that truly only allows for camera manipulation. So basically, +1, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's trickier to get back than it seems.
  5. Without dots, it goes both ways. One the one hand, you are able to see airplanes at unreasonable distances because of how naive the distance rendering is. Even if you zoom out, the renderer seems to really dislike not showing things that are smaller than a pixel so if you're good at pixel peeping, they show up anyway. And when zoomed in, it just goes by pure trigonometry to decide that something should appear too big at distances where the planes should just not show up at all. There is no (sensible) upper limit to how far out the models are drawn. On the other hand, you are able to lose planes at distances where you should reasonably see them, or where they show up clearly at lower resolutions. It's that awkward cross-over distance where they are no longer just tiny dots on the screen, but are now fully rendered aircraft with (single-digit-pixel) details, which means that colouring starts to matter, and they get lost in the general noise of the background. FoV obviously matters here, but almost the opposite way: if you compress the contact into a smaller cluster of pixels, it often comes out more sharply than if you zoom in… or at least if you only zoom in half-way (ie you maintain a 1:1 scale). Fully zoomed, they obviously show up more clearly again, but are harder to track because of the inherent jitteriness of those higher zoom levels. It is consistently inconsistent and nonsensically counter-intuitive. The biggest promise of all of the spotting dots is that they make it possible that all of that goes away.
  6. Have you tried reading what people write? Because it becomes quite clear then. It's reasonable because it provides much more realistic view distances than before. It's reasonable because it is much less resolution-dependent than before. It is reasonable because it is much more subtle than before where needed, and much more pronounced before where needed. It is reasonable because it creates a foundation for an infinitely more equitable solution across different hardware and software setups than before. And let's not forget that you said it was good. No, they really won't. Partly because graphics settings matter. Partly because display type matter. Partly because physical setup matter. Not many will play in portrait mode, for instance… Not everyone sees the “giant black cubes” you complain about. And your posts show that neither do you. This is objectively false.
  7. Because it's the first roll-out and it has yet to be tweaked. Fortunately, even in this early state, it makes sure that there is the absolute minimum of information given beyond 10nm — just a hint that something is there. By 5 miles, there should also be very little information unless we are talking about very large aircraft. The rest might as well just be a tiny dot, which is what they're represented as at the moment. The "tiny:ness" is subject to the same tweaks as before, and it's about spot on for high-res displays. e: Oh and, I'm not sure people are having trouble with flat screens. If anything, it seems like pancake mode makes these spotting dots work wonderfully, and it's more when you move to other displays that issues arise. There are some hints that TVs are causing problems too, which seems natural since modern ones have a nasty tendency to over-process the image signal to amp up saturation and contrast because it "looks good" for certain types of media. For games, though, you really need to turn all that junk off to make the colours appear correctly and something as detail- and (lack-of-)contrast reliant as spotting dots would be extra susceptible to over-processing.
  8. Sure there is. But you know what there isn't in real life? Eye pixels. Because we don't use screens to look out through the window (and if we did for whatever reason, then yes, there would indeed be tiny featureless pixel blobs, same as in the game).
  9. The main point of the dots is to hide the fact that there is nothing being modelled behind it for the simple reason that there shouldn't be. At the ranges where the dot should be active, any kind of modelling will be reduced to the same four pixels and thus offer no information anyway, meaning all the processing can be skipped and you save a couple of milliseconds on your frametime. Remember, they're spotting dots – not identification dots or figuring out aspect dots. That shouldn't happen until much further in. The problem before was that the ranges for some of that were stretched out far too long (which parts it happened to depended on your setup, but it was far too long for everyone in one way or another). By having these dots, DCS can now hide the transition from showing you a model that you can identify and track to having nothing at all with a featureless dot and make that seamlessly fade away. The loss of information can happen much sooner and much more realistically, and with a bit of tweaking look good in the process. The loss of information is a good thing. Because it is how it should be. Not because people like it that way – it should be that way because people dislike not having information that they shouldn't have anyway.
  10. And you're your basing this strawman on.... what, exactly? Don't extrapolate other people's opinions from your own. Lolno. For one, they're hellalot more realistic and consistent than the dot labels are even able to be.
  11. It's a bit unclear what you feel is missing. The new cinematic camera can do a lot of what you had to do manually with the F11 camera before, and of course, the free cam itself is still around (with proper WASD controls and even a “sprint” button to move around really quickly). The old controls still work, but have become a bit more complex with the new options they've added. Are you looking for specifically a speed matching function so you don't have to fiddle with the mouse wheel to stay in place? Is it the ability to look off-axis (without using headtracking, which sort of provides that by default)? Or is it the behaviour while the game is fully and/or active paused that you want changed?
  12. The goal isn't really to make it fair and balanced, as such, but to make it less a product of your hardware, because ultimately, if it was possible to make the display system a complete non-factor. Spotting being entirely a matter of player skill — being able to see things properly with their own eyes — rather than due to the hardware they're using would be the most realistic outcome. It's part of the simulation: not just the planes, but the pilots flying them who should be seeing the same thing and therefore that's what ideally should be presented to the player. Now, it will obviously be impossible to make your display and settings be 100% irrelevant, but any move in that direction is still a move towards better realism and towards that simulation of perception you (and many others) are dreaming of. Player acuity isn't really a part of what they're trying to deal with here — that would require very different mechanics and be part of the player display settings anyway. To an extent, the ability to modify dot labels could be seen as that, but that's not really a feature they're advertising. It's not about taking the player out of the equation, but about making the hardware factor as invisible as possible. Sure, why not? The setting is there exactly for that reason, and whether it defaults to on or off is more of a customer-statistics choice if anything. Now, the reason it isn't on by default for most of them is probably because the assumption is that most players will have more complex controllers.
  13. It's called "first iteration of a system". It needs tweaking, and as such it needs input to get the tweaking right. This is not a matter of a superior attitude but about explaining how you'll be better off offering constructive input rather than digging your heels in and demanding to go back to a worse system. The one about the previous system offering a level playing field, you mean? The problem is that it didn't. it just offered a system that was unequal in every every direction and often in a way that was completely counter-intuitive (like getting benefits from having a worse system and downgrading your graphics). Now, if you weren't familiar with those flaws, then I suppose that might have felt like something better but in actual fact, you were worse off for not having noticed the advantages others gained towards you. Now that you've ended up on the side that accidentally gains advantages with this new system, you obviously want those to be gone, and that's admirable. But going back to where others gained them without anyone being able to do anything about it is not really a way forwards. Continuing to improve and tweak this new system is. This is why I'm asking for your actual, constructive, input. Unfortunately, this means that your problem is less likely to be addressed. That is your choice of course, but it is an unfortunate one if you truly want there to be a fair and equitable system.
  14. That is the solution you've clamouring to get away from ever since you learned that under the old system, other people had an advantage over you than what you had over them. Coincidentally, we had spotting dots before -- they were just worse than the current ones in a number of ways.
  15. That's just repetition — it doesn't answer the question. You're overgeneralising from your own experience. What you have at the moment may be absolutely dire for you. There is no “we“ in any of that, because we do not have that experience — I and many others with me have seen immense improvements with the new system, and you have to include that into the “we” equation. You may have a fiasco, but we certainly don't given those improvements. And since those improvements are there, it is indeed the way to. It just has a bit further to go before you see similar improvements on your end. Between resignation and not doing anything and having some kind of improvement, the latter is the way to go and that is the road we're now on. Just because you and some others are plagued with smudgy black squares doesn't mean that everyone is. Digging your heels in because the first iteration isn't working for you will just mean that your (lack of) input isn't taken into consideration moving forward and whatever is causing your issues won't be addressed. So, for starters, what kind of display are you playing on? At what resolution and with what kind of scaling and AA settings?
  16. They already did that with the old system. That's part of why it has to go. The new one will reduce that ability.
  17. In what way? Before this, you were able to spot aircraft at absolutely impossible ranges. That is being remedied with this new system. You would also get wildly varying, and very counter-intuitive, results depending on resolution — e.g. lower resolutions could see things more easily. That is also within the scope of being remedied by the new system. It was unrealistic, backwards, and very silly in every way. The new one is in the process of being tweaked, which is in and of itself an improvement even if the current result for you isn't the best for you. But that is not universal. Hardly, since it is a step along the progress to a vastly improved spotting system that the game has been in dire need of for close to a decade.
  18. It varies with the player and their setup, and as such needs to be handled like any other graphics option. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the server enforces disadvantages on some players and enforces advantages on others, which is arguably the worst outcome possible. It would be like the server deciding that, no, you can't play in 4K or in VR because you might (and it is might, not will) see things others will not. If it is left to the player, it just becomes a matter of whether you believe others gain something from it and if you feel you need to get something to “compensate”. Not everyone sees these “large black smudgy squares” you're talking about. Others see very tiny, heavily aliased dots that fade in and out smoothly as the contact becomes more or less visible. That is as intended. They're meant for spotting, not identification — you do that much further in, when the dots are no longer in play.
  19. …and thus your entire complaint is about a problem that doesn't actually exist. If liveries already aren't included in IC, then it's already not a problem. If they are already included in IC, then it's already not a problem. Either way, it's already not a problem. You're imaging an issue that doesn't actually exist, and it is not an argument against making it possible for users to choose how much space they want to waste on texture bloat. There's no difference. If the solution works for one, it inherently works for the other and it simply becomes a matter of what livery you choose for your plane. If you pick one where you know that the other players might not see it — custom or official or otherwise — then that's on you. Your choice does not turn others into cheaters or exploiters. It wouldn't be required in MP for the same reason as why it already isn't required in MP. The game already has a graceful fallback for when some other player's livery doesn't exist locally on your system. And yes, it would be counterproductive to just make an uninstaller — the better solution is to make an installer. Which already exists. It's called the module manager, which handles the whole business of downloading optional content. Again, inventing a problem that is already solved. The issue you envision doesn't exist because the game doesn't work that way. No more than forcing downloads on people just because others are allegedly worried about cheating (for which a solution already exists if it ever was demonstrated to be a problem, which has yet to happen).
  20. Oh the irony… If by “orange” you mean “green camo”. But that's not how liveries work, and especially not how they'd work if it was handled by a livery manager. The whole point is that the player would be able to only have one of the two installed, using less drive space if they so desired. There would be absolutely no need for them to have them both when only one would ever be used and it was up to the player to decide which.
  21. Amortising costs is almost the exact opposite of subscriptions, so…
  22. My standard 2¢ on that matter: asset costs should be amortised over their relevant modules. If they sell a cold-war plane, some reasonable percentage of the price tag should go towards the development of assets for that period. Same with terrains, although that would arguably be more a matter of making regional assets. Not to mention that some of the assets that go into terrains in particular should just be unlocked as static objects at the same time so they can be used to liven things up and create a bit of region-appropriate variation. Paid asset packs will never work properly because of the inherent lock-out they create, and because of how this lock-out reduces the value of the package for mission-makers since it can only ever serve to reduce the audience for their missions. And then the vicious circle starts: few missions = less reason to buy the pack = smaller audience = few missions. There's a reason why they ended up changing their mind on how the Supercarrier and its assets would work for people who didn't own the module.
  23. Not really, no. For one, it's a vanishingly small set of aircraft that don't come in dull grey colours as default. You even managed to get which ones they are wrong. For another, that would be a user error, not a cheat. You pick your skin. Or possibly, if you're doing airquake, the mission-maker picks the skin. Either way, you would know that the skin you picked might not be seen by everyone else, same as if you had picked any other custom skin, so the bonus you get for yourself is not universal. This is already the case. It is already not an issue. It is just you forgetting how skins work and then blaming others for your mistake. …and that's assuming that they deliberately choose to make the all the camo liveries optional, rather than including one or two as default or, as has also been suggested, just having them be lower-resolution. So you're inventing a non-issue based on a presumed implementation that would be inherently stupid, and thus wouldn't be the sensible one to implement to begin with. If this were true, then your complaint is irrelevant anyway since people would already be changing them out to something much more visible than what you pick on your end. Optional downloads can already be handled just fine by IC. It is already not an issue. If you pick a skin that you have installed locally and isn't covered by IC, then see above: it is just you forgetting how skins work and then blaming others for your mistake.
  24. It depends a bit on what different outcomes you want to be possible. If you mean that it should be truly random as to whether the group is activate, then ONCE / NO EVENT > FLAG IS TRUE + RANDOM > GROUP ACTIVATE will be a useful combination, but this may mean that the activation never happens because that's just the way the random die rolls. It is also tricky to dial in the RANDOM value because doing it this way means it's something that will be evaluated every second, and even at low percentages (say 10%), it is likely to happen within the first minute. Even at 1%, it may still happen too quickly for your taste simply because of how often the check happens (in a quick test or three, it happened within 5 minutes every time), so you need to make the trigger a bit more elaborate to slow it down a bit. So even in this simple case, it becomes a question of how soon is too soon, and how much variation do you want? If you want it to be certain that the spawn happens, and want to control the time frame within which it can happen, and just make it random exactly when in that window the group is activated, you're going to need to mix in at least a little bit of Lua scripting to set the random time on mission start and store that activation time in a user flag. The rest can then be done in the mission editor trigger editor by creating a time counter using REPETITIVE ACTION > FLAG INCREASE that ticks up every second, and then check that counter against the random spawn time using ONCE > FLAG IS FLAG > GROUP ACTIVATE to get the group going. …but that's also a bit brittle. With a bit of unlucky timing and/or lag, the check may skip a beat and just run past the “FLAG IS FLAG” moment and then never trigger. This can once again be helped by slowing the counter down a bit to make sure there's more room for the flag check to work properly. Ultimately, to get the most control in terms of minimum and maximum wait times, and being sure that it doesn't bug out, you probably need to resort to a full Lua solution, at least for the randomisation part, although it can still trip a flag that you can use the regular ME trigger logic to catch and activate a group from. So, tl;dr: how certain do you want to be that the random event happens, and how much control do you want over the allowed variation in randomness?
  25. Do you have a good reference for or description of what the different parameters represent? Is it some kind of progression of map size scale factors up to the max distance, or something else?
×
×
  • Create New...