Spotting Distance... again - Page 23 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-20-2019, 01:47 AM   #221
chihirobelmo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NineLine View Post
Adding an option to make aircraft easy to spot in all situations would be a pretty heavy knock on realism, and then why not just turn on labels. Has to be a happy medium across all the various setups and configs downloading and playing DCS. Invoking a 20+ year old game doesn't get us anywhere, neither does other arcadish games... again, some things need work still, many are reported, work is being done, but we have to try and balance it all.

Anyways, not picking on you or anyone in particular, but you have to be more reasonable with your complaints as well, overselling the issues is just as damaging as underselling it, and there is a little of both going on in this thread.
Hi Nineline,

Labels make aircraft easy to spot in all situations, but Serfoss Magnification does not.
Plane size continues to decrease by distance. It's just not got small rapidly as without scaling. Therefore spotting possibility decreases by distance, and becomes invisible at a certain distance. Decreasing contrast against background should play for 3d model, but labels don't.

It's not coming from 20+ year old game but coming from 2003 study used 1600 * 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels resolution for there research. It's not that different to today's standard 1920 * 1080 = 2,273,600 pixels resolution.

Maybe it works to good for 1440p or 4k monitor, I understand it will not fit for multiplayer balance, but I'd like to have it as an option for single-player or just closed multiplayer server so that it helps 1080p monitor user.

Another thing Serfoss scaling helps is a smaller monitor user. 24inch monitor user might see things 1:2 scaled but 42-inch monitor might see things 1:1 scale. magnifying 3.0nm object 2 times helps 24-inch monitor user.

So Serfoss Scaling is not as arcadish as label but just helps low res / small monitor user. user can enable or disable option considering their setup.

Yes it will not balance open public multiplayer server but I wish ED consider singleplayer and closed multiplayer server.

regards,
chihirobelmo is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 01:48 AM   #222
zhukov032186
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 1,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippis View Post
Wags says otherwise.

Are you saying that his claim is incorrect?

Right. Because you don't like the discussion of a feature you, by your own admission, do not understand, means they should make a rule against it. Makes sense.



A bug that means I can trivially inject graphics changes (think ReShade) to effectively give me infinite-range, perfect-detection radar (and presumably IRST and EO tracking) is pretty darn urgent. It is an issue at all ranges, and it has nothing to do with doing anything “wonky” to 3D models. Quite the opposite. Solving it would allow for “wonkiness” (read: balancing, normalisation, better simulation) to be applied to those models.

Note that I'm not saying they should make RCS more complicated (although that would be fun too). I'm saying it must be decoupled from the rendering pipeline.

I'm going to stop you right there. You don't get it. You should probably heed NineLine's advice and stop with the condescension, mmmkay?
No, I get it. I just think you folks are insisting on a ridiculous ''feature'' for all the wrong reasons and are trumping up exaggerated claims. As soon as people start talking about balancing hardware I want to vomit.

When I start cussing you out, harshly insulting you, etc, you can complain. People not liking my being moderately abrasive attitude isn't my concern @@ By any standards, particularly on the internet, I'm pretty tame. But then, I'm not dreadfully thin skinned, either


Also, lol @ the ''science says'' you sound like Alex Jones now =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighthawk2174 View Post
Agreed, i'm still of the opinion DCS visibility is not correct.
Actually, the ''problem'' is that it IS correct, as in 100% to scale. Which ia causing problems for some forumites that can't seem to figure out the solution =) These guys are asking for training wheels based on a white paper written 15 years ago.
__________________
Zhukov attacks *FORUM USER* with Legendary Trollsword!
*FORUM USER* Constitution save roll.... Fail!
*FORUM USER* afflicted with ''Hurt Feelz'', -1 Concentration for two rounds

Last edited by zhukov032186; 03-20-2019 at 01:55 AM.
zhukov032186 is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:00 AM   #223
SharpeXB
Senior Member
 
SharpeXB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 1,774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chihirobelmo View Post
again, serfoss research was made by BARCO 808 monitor which has 1600 * 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels resolution which is not so different to 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels and the answer was they still need to enlarge models 2.0 times at 3.0nm. It is also working in a certain 20 years old but up to date until 2019 sim which is commonly played with 1920*1080 to 3840*2160 resolution monitor. No one actually playing it complained things look awkward.
I can’t read that because it’s too utterly boring but I can’t fathom how it’s related to, a game. Today. On today’s displays and VR headsets.
This isn’t a purely technical mil sim trainer. It’s a game that has to look nice and immersive.
Seeing targets at 2x their size at such close distance looks horrible. You claim people playing that other game don’t complain about it but you aren’t getting the opinion of anyone who would just quit and never play something that awful looking.
Taking the scale of the target out of context with its surroundings is just ridiculous. No current game would implement something like that.
The phenomenon that determines the size of distant objects isn’t “science” I believe this is considered “art”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
__________________
Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5
SharpeXB is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:02 AM   #224
solus
Member
 
solus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 145
Default

IMHO, the spotting distance in DCS is terrible and its a real damnation of this game.

1) You can't compare the real life visability and in-game visability directly.

No matter how advanced the graphics in PC game, no matter how high is resolution, the computer simulation on flat screen is a pale shadow of reality.

The colors, light, details, fov etc. ect. - they are on entirely different levels. Its obvious, that our eyes suited to percieve the reality very well, while they are not evolved to watch PC screen.

Judging from my experience as a common civil flights passenger, I can definitely tell that in real life I can see much much better and at much much far distances.

2) Those who dig into plastics models should know the common rule for painting: if you use absolutely the same color for plastic model as for the real life model, it wont look realistic. To make it as in real life you should use the lighter tones, because of the scaling and the way our perception works.

The same applies for DCS: even if you use the same scaling as in real life it would be unrealistic. You can't simply apply the scaling of real life to the scaling of PC screen. This is much more complicated task than it seems.

3) I guess there are some in-build restrictions and problems with the game engine that prevent EA from making visability better. Thus they claim it is OK.

4) Don't hope for the change, just use markers (e.g. I use simplified dot markers that help to uplift the targets).
__________________
Извините за внимание
solus is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:05 AM   #225
nighthawk2174
Junior Member
 
nighthawk2174's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solus View Post
4) Don't hope for the change, just use markers (e.g. I use simplified dot markers that help to uplift the targets).
Yup this is what I and my community do it's such a big help especially if you take time to tune the label opacities at different ranges
nighthawk2174 is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:29 AM   #226
chihirobelmo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 75
Default

Good point SharpeXB.

You want DCS to look nice and immersive. I choose looks "awful "(I don't feel that awful though) but realistic in spotting range and identify orientation. That's why you are not for Serfoss idea but I am for. That's just it.
chihirobelmo is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:57 AM   #227
Canada_Moose
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpeXB View Post
I can’t read that because it’s too utterly boring but I can’t fathom how it’s related to, a game. Today. On today’s displays and VR headsets.
This isn’t a purely technical mil sim trainer. It’s a game that has to look nice and immersive.
Seeing targets at 2x their size at such close distance looks horrible. You claim people playing that other game don’t complain about it but you aren’t getting the opinion of anyone who would just quit and never play something that awful looking.
Taking the scale of the target out of context with its surroundings is just ridiculous. No current game would implement something like that.
The phenomenon that determines the size of distant objects isn’t “science” I believe this is considered “art”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
You haven't read it because it's 'boring'? WTF?

If you actually read it you will see that all of your points are adequately addressed and also that increased resolution of monitors in the future would not impact the findings significantly.

Nobody is suggesting that targets at close range should be rendered at 2x the size. Look at the graphs supplied in the paper.

How in hell can you be so ignorant to dismiss the technical paper if you haven't even read it? Is it because you don't understand it?

So 'smart scaling' doesn't work in DCS. Fine. Doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist or should be ignored either.
Canada_Moose is offline  
Old 03-20-2019, 03:11 AM   #228
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 23,088
Default

K' you guys are just fighting with each other and all I see is a bunch of reported posts from this thread, so I figure you guys got all your opinion out, and no need to keep fighting about who is right.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:35 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.