Please bring back object size settings!

From what I get from this and as to why ED will not use it, is because of the new missile logic, damage and ballistic penetration modeling that will be implemented.

It's based on the true size of the object, in other words everything would need to scale up for the modeling to work.

40 foot long spamraam missiles:D Now that I would like to see...

According to Wags the DCS engine cannot scale the models without inducing other bad effects like changing the RCS so this is a moot point. See the video linked earlier.

Yes, I saw the video. All I can say is... too bad for DCS...

Thinking about that some more, I wonder why they couldn't have a "dummy" low poly count mesh that's grey in color that expands with adjustable smart scaling options that would be invisible to the rest of the simulation (Missiles) and MP clients.

I'm guessing the menu settings would need to auto adjust based on screen size input, otherwise it wouldn't be fair in MP. Medium size option would need to look the same on 4K and 1080P right? pixel-density

There could also be other reason not to perhaps?

Thinking about that some more, I wonder why they couldn't have a "dummy" low poly count mesh that's grey in color that expands with adjustable smart scaling options that would be invisible to the rest of the simulation (Missiles) and MP clients.

 

I'm guessing the menu settings would need to auto adjust based on screen size input, otherwise it wouldn't be fair in MP. Medium size option would need to look the same on 4K and 1080P right? pixel-density

 

There could also be other reason not to perhaps?

Wouldn’t that mean having to generate 2x the number of 3D models? = performance hit.

I avoid the frustration of enemy sighting by imagining I am using HADI (in-helmet advanced digital imaging system) that allows JTAC to provided me info on the data link system that superimposes geometrics in the general region of the enemy. This rationalizes the labeling system I uses that fades in small transparent rectangles at 10 miles and fades out at 1 mile. Since there is a degree of fantasy involved in sim flying, this attitude fits very nicely into my sim experience.

+1 ; please bring it back !

According to Wags the DCS engine cannot scale the models without inducing other bad effects like changing the RCS so this is a moot point. See the video linked earlier.

I would make a gentleman's wager that Wags' statement was a red herring, or just premature.

If I'm wrong then they need to do something else to fix it. Telling my friends about DCS is like this:

"It's a great flight sim. It has technical accuracy and amazing graphics."

"Can you see other airplanes flying?"

"Errr...no.":doh:

I would make a gentleman's wager that Wags' statement was a red herring, or just premature.

I will wager he knows more about the game engine than we do.

I dont really care how its improved, be it smart scaling, new imposter system whatever. What worries me most is as far as I know this problem has not been acknowledged by ED ( if im wrong plz someone point me to a recent dev post addressing the model visibility) which makes me believe they are either unaware of it or dont see it as an issue that needs attention. And with the hornet so close that thought keeps me awake at night

I have asked through the moderators for an update and NineLine replied that he would take it to ED given the amount of attention the topic is getting on the forum.

I will wager he knows more about the game engine than we do.

He's not saying he doesn't, quite the opposite... Read his comment again...

As a VR user indeed this is hard to spot an enemy. And using labels to see where they are break immersion, which VR is all about :)

Envoyé de mon SM-G955F en utilisant Tapatalk

As a VR user indeed this is hard to spot an enemy. And using labels to see where they are break immersion, which VR is all about :)

 

Envoyé de mon SM-G955F en utilisant Tapatalk

Thats unfortunate. It doesnt break immersion for me at all.From my earlier post.

"I avoid the frustration of enemy sighting by imagining I am using HADI (in-helmet advanced digital imaging system) that allows JTAC to provided me info on the data link system that superimposes geometrics in the general region of the enemy. This rationalizes the labeling system I uses that fades in small transparent rectangles at 10 miles and fades out at 1 mile. Since there is a degree of fantasy involved in sim flying, this attitude fits very nicely into my sim experience."

According to Wags explanation in that video, the old sprite only appeared when the object was far enough to be the size of 1 pixel? In that case it wouldn't solve the problem at all... because the problem is when the object is nearer, in that "phantom zone" that you can't see it. Right now, objects can be seen as the infamous black dot when they're very far, even 60 km away, which is also a problem. If I undrestand it correctly, the old sprites would just replace the current black dots, allowing you to see at unrealistic distances and still not allowing you to see at close distances...

This is all old news and I’m sure you’ve seen this before. But at 1:43 Wags explains why DCS wasn’t going to use “smart scaling”.

 

 

This was three years ago so again, this subject is just dead and buried. Time to move on...

So you are referencing an old video where Wags is demonstrating exactly what we are asking for and why it's so good and telling us this is a dead issue. That feature he is demonstrating at 1:43 in the video no longer exists and that is the problem until they do revamp the scaling problem.

You may be running 4K but I don't think you understand the technicalities of what you're using. A single pixel in 4K is much much smaller than one at lower resolutions. So yes your ability to see objects at a distance is greatly compromised and you are at a huge disadvantage. You may not fly pvp on online servers I'm not sure. If you did you would probably notice the deficiency pretty fast.

Obviously many others are having this issue as this thread is full of 9 pages of people agreeing that they would like a solution.

According to Wags explanation in that video, the old sprite only appeared when the object was far enough to be the size of 1 pixel? In that case it wouldn't solve the problem at all... because the problem is when the object is nearer, in that "phantom zone" that you can't see it. Right now, objects can be seen as the infamous black dot when they're very far, even 60 km away, which is also a problem. If I undrestand it correctly, the old sprites would just replace the current black dots, allowing you to see at unrealistic distances and still not allowing you to see at close distances...

The old system certainly wasn't perfect by any means. But I believe it was better than what we have now without it as an option.

The old system certainly wasn't perfect by any means. But I believe it was better than what we have now without it as an option.

You mean it was better at letting you see things beyond visual range? Because as I understand it so far, it did nothing within visual range, only beyond, just like the dots that we have now.

It did actually allow for better visibility in close as well. It wasn't perfect but it was something.

Thinking about that some more, I wonder why they couldn't have a "dummy" low poly count mesh that's grey in color that expands with adjustable smart scaling options that would be invisible to the rest of the simulation (Missiles) and MP clients.

 

I'm guessing the menu settings would need to auto adjust based on screen size input, otherwise it wouldn't be fair in MP. Medium size option would need to look the same on 4K and 1080P right? pixel-density

 

There could also be other reason not to perhaps?

Wouldn’t that mean having to generate 2x the number of 3D models? = performance hit.

Not full models, only very low poly grey smart scale models, superimposed over the top when needed that the sim cannot see, so the damage model is not affected. This would scale to suite the device set under the options etc.

Only 124 KB in CAD

Just an idea...

-

So you are referencing an old video where Wags is demonstrating exactly what we are asking for and why it's so good and telling us this is a dead issue. That feature he is demonstrating at 1:43 in the video no longer exists and that is the problem until they do revamp the scaling problem.

Yes it’s an old video from when the Model Enlargement feature was introduced. Lots of people try to ask for this “smart scaling” and the reason I posted that was to point out why Wags says “smart scaling” can’t be used in DCS. This is why they went with the imposters instead. As it turns out those didn’t work either. Plenty of past discussions here on how much they didn’t work. It’s all old news.

^^ They said smart scaling would increase the aircraft's RCS, and in the real world if you increased an object's size you would indeed also increase it's RCS. And the fact that they then opted for 2D sprites instead seems coherent with that.

But this still doesn't make sense to me. It's a software (not real life), and while I'm not an expert, I just know you could make the RCS value in-game whatever you want, despite the size of the aircraft.

^^ They said smart scaling would increase the aircraft's RCS, and in the real world if you increased an object's size you would indeed also increase it's RCS. And the fact that they then opted for 2D sprites instead seems coherent with that.

 

But this still doesn't make sense to me. It's a software (not real life), and while I'm not an expert, I just know you could make the RCS value in-game whatever you want, despite the size of the aircraft.

That's why I was thinking you could just superimposed and scale a very "low poly plane looking thing" that's only for human viewing and not scale the real sim high poly model that would also mess up the damage, ballistic and proximity modelling ED use in sim.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that doesn't make any more sense to me either...

But this still doesn't make sense to me. It's a software (not real life), and while I'm not an expert, I just know you could make the RCS value in-game whatever you want, despite the size of the aircraft.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that doesn't make any more sense to me either...

The easiest way I see most things in DCS are that they ARE based on REAL life, well as closely as mathematically possible with today's Hardware limitations. The radar and ballistic proximity modelling is based on real life and are running algorithms.

If you change the size of the plane the radar algorithms "RCS" in sim would be way wrong, the weapon proximity fusing would also be wrong etc.

If you have a fake Low Ploy model just sit over the top that can scale, without it affecting any of existing underlining algorithms. It's basically what DCS had before, except using the old smart scale system on a small 3D fake model over the top of ED existing tech, so it doesn't affect it. Well it wont even see it because it's not programed to see it like it is for the original aircraft model.

This would not matter if we were only talking about WW2 aircraft, they could smart scale, because the only time you shoot they would never be scaled up when you need to shoot at them. It's the long range AIM-7, AIM-120's and Mavericks etc. They will get to the "enlarged scaled target" and there lies the math problem, an Su-27 with a 45 meter wing span, 3 times the size.

If you have a fake Low Ploy model just sit over the top that can scale, without it affecting any of existing underlining algorithms.

I did understand that. What I meant was: they aren't capable of working on the visible model without messing the RCS, and you hope they're capable of working with 2 different visible models for the same aircraft...

This would not matter if we were only talking about WW2 aircraft, they could smart scale, because the only time you shoot they would never be scaled up when you need to shoot at them. It's the long range AIM-7, AIM-120's and Mavericks etc. They will get to the "enlarged scaled target" and there lies the math problem, an Su-27 with a 45 meter wing span, 3 times the size.

WWII planes are allowed to fly together with modern fighters, so yes, it would matter for all aircraft, including WWII ones.