New visibility model

It's my understanding the higher the resolution, the harder to see. A one pixel aircraft on my 27'' screen is four times the size of a one pixel aircraft on YOUR 27'' screen. There's a limit to what anybody can do about the reality we're chasing pixels.

 

And what a real pilot can see is irrelevant in this context, as mentioned above. Even if that were not the case, you know how everything looks smaller in games when they're actually to scale (Arma, DCS, etc)? That's because of the narrow field of fov on a small screen directly in front of you. You're literally watching people (yourself) fly jets on a TV in front of you. Your sense of scale and perspective is totally f'ed up as a result, as you would expect.

 

That said, while difficult, I've managed to track my wingman after breaking to engage ground targets, and kept close enough track of him that when he broke off I followed him out of the AO. It's difficult, but far from impossible.

 

Conversely, I used to fly with a guy in War Thunder years ago that would routinely lose track of me while in close formation, like 'Ok, I'm turning right.'' two seconds later he's like 'I lost you' @@

 

 

In this context, the WHAT and HOW you're looking matter a lot.

 

First, make use of the tools at your disposal. Zoom needs to be readily accessible on the fly. Some people don't like that because ''MUH IMMERZION'', irrelevant, as already established this ain't real life and we're operating with handicaps that don't exist in RL. Additionally, objects have render cutoff ranges, they have to or the game would be unplayable, as a result you can zoom and see objects that are theoretically within visual but outside render. Lastly zooming turns one pixel into several, increasing odds of you noticing it. Choosing to disregard this tool is a personal choice, but akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, zoom is unrealistic but so are the view ranges. Do you want to be blind and unrealistic, or see the other guy and be unrealistic? There is no solution that is not ALSO unrealistic.

 

Secondly, most people move their eyes around too much. You're searching for a pixel in a pixel stack, let your eyes linger and watch for traces of movement or out of place colors or distortions. Try to keep track of your orientation as well so you know which directions you should be watching in first place so you don't waste time diligently searching for stuff that isn't there.

 

 

 

The only solution to this is 220' FoV, 10k+ headsets, then you'll have proper scale and visual fidelity. Until then, there is no perfect solution, they all are flawed with varying levels of suckitude.

Fantastic response!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@David

First time I read anything like that was a couple years ago when I briefly tried BoS. They had a dev blog series around the same time, one of which was about visibility, because they were getting tired of people arguing about this very topic :p In that case they were citing studies regarding B-17s and fighters at various ranges, but very similar results, though the B-17 was identifiable as four engine at a fair distance (especially in a conspicuous swarm), but still vastly closer than people were claiming.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

Some form of scaling is recommended for flight simulators in this paper.

That looks interesting, will read!

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

Some form of scaling is recommended for flight simulators in this paper.

Quick look thanks for sharing, this is for close in dog fighting perception, wonder how it would be compare now to todays screen resolutions?

https://www.barco.com/en/product/barcographics-808s--iris

The problem with distance scaling is that it makes it hard to determine distance and clossure. It could be worth trying if just enlarging all A/C permanently when viewed from the pit would seem weird. On the ground it would be weird indeed, but maybe ok once airborne..?

it's dynamic scaling they're talking about, ie more at a distance so you see a plane more fully in detail, tapering off as you get closer. At relatively close range there is no scaling. it's not that bad, really, I just dispute the 'necessity' of it

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

 

Some form of scaling is recommended for flight simulators in this paper.

That was written in 2003 in the era of low res CRT monitors.

And again, DCS cannot scale it’s 3D models, see Wags video linked earlier, so this is a moot point.

That was written in 2003 in the era of low res CRT monitors.

And again, DCS cannot scale it’s 3D models, see Wags video linked earlier, so this is a moot point.

Yes, written in 2003 and I quote:

"Does the potential application of this technique disappear as technology erases the

display resolution hurdle? Arguably, the answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future."

"Therefore, until even the least expensive, most portable displays can provide more detailthan the human eye needs, this type of visual performance-enhancing method should be

useful."

That was written in 2003 in the era of low res CRT monitors.

And again, DCS cannot scale it’s 3D models, see Wags video linked earlier, so this is a moot point.

Smart scale has nothing to do with CRT monitors, it's about the size of objects. As long as you have objects displayed smaller than real-life size, you need a fix for getting it back to it's actual real-life size.

Smart scale has nothing to do with CRT monitors, it's about the size of objects. As long as you have objects displayed smaller than real-life size, you need a fix for getting it back to it's actual real-life size.

Again this is moot because DCS cannot use smart scaling according to Wags. Watch the video.

Again this is moot because DCS cannot use smart scaling according to Wags. Watch the video.

 

The fact that ED doesn't have the skill to do it doesn't mean it's not how you display objects at real-life sizes in conventional monitors.

The fact that ED doesn't have the skill to do it doesn't mean it's not how you display objects at real-life sizes in conventional monitors.

Skill has not to do with it. EDGE is a better game engine no doubt than whatever that other sim uses. DCS is too advanced to settle for smart scaling. :music_whistling:

To quote the video “We don’t actually consider that a smart solution”

The fact that ED doesn't have the skill to do it doesn't mean it's not how you display objects at real-life sizes in conventional monitors.

And to be blunt, if somebody thinks "other games" do it better, go play what you prefer. :dunno:

I say we settle this the old fashioned way... sharp sticks, to the death! The Naysayers have superior vision and hand-eye coordination in their favor, possibly also mad skillz. The Smart Scalers have... uh.... prior precedent, and a tepid battlecry of ''Scale it like it's 1995!''

I say we settle this the old fashioned way... sharp sticks, to the death! The Naysayers have superior vision and hand-eye coordination in their favor, possibly also mad skillz. The Smart Scalers have... uh.... prior precedent, and a tepid battlecry of ''Scale it like it's 1995!''

Smart scaling has nothing to do with specific games, it's a solution for rendering objects at real-life size at normal sized monitors, otherwise those monitors will draw them at reduced sizes. It's a simple solution, that has nothing to do with "what year we are in" and "specific games". You can decide that you don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that your monitor is drawing objects smaller than they are in real life.

well... that's a whole new level in 'wasted webspace', I give you that... On the other hand, that's pretty impressive that you went through all the process of building that post, with images and all... props to you!!

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a414893.pdf

 

Some form of scaling is recommended for flight simulators in this paper.

That was written in 2003 in the era of low res CRT monitors.

And again, DCS cannot scale it’s 3D models, see Wags video linked earlier, so this is a moot point.

Yes, written in 2003 and I quote:

 

"Does the potential application of this technique disappear as technology erases the

display resolution hurdle? Arguably, the answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future."

 

"Therefore, until even the least expensive, most portable displays can provide more detailthan the human eye needs, this type of visual performance-enhancing method should be

useful."

Smart scale has nothing to do with CRT monitors, it's about the size of objects. As long as you have objects displayed smaller than real-life size, you need a fix for getting it back to it's actual real-life size.

So how would this study compare now with our basic general consumer technology of today?

Quote

"At 1.36 nmi, the target was 2.2 times closer and thus 2.2 times larger

than it was at 3 nmi. Therefore, to make the simulated target appear the same at 3 nmi as

is does at 1.36 nmi, where desired ‘real world’ performance was found, it merely needs to

be magnified by a factor of 2.2. It has been verified that there is no simulated haze or

other condition in this simulation that would degrade the visibility of the target aircraft as

a function of distance.

Furthermore, the level-of-detail, which can allow the computer to

present less detail on an object when it is further away was set so that the target aircraft

detail was constant at all distances. Therefore, the assumption that a target twice as far

away and twice its original size would appear visually identical to what it did before

holds. This has been verified visually in the simulator, and is an important assumption in

making the distance/size conversions mentioned above.

All subjects had completed a physical within the past year and were verified to have 20/20

or better vision, or were corrected to 20/20 vision with glasses.

It used BARCO 808 projectors to rear-project an image onto frosted glass that was approximately

28 inches from the subject’s eyes. Only the front simulator screen and projector were used.

The visual stimulus was an F-16 aircraft colored similarly to current F-16 aircraft

in the Air Force and the F-16 model"

End Quote

Display compatibility from VHS Video up to 1600 by 1200 pixel workstations

https://www.barco.com/en/product/barcographics-808s--iris

Rear projection / frosted glass / 28 inches from the subject’s eyes /

"It is believed that the use of this magnification model, in the context of the resolution limits of today’s image projectors"

However, they still only provided resolutions roughly equal to 20/40 visual acuity.

Displays today? are equal to 20/XX visual acuity...?? (magnified by a factor of X.X ??)

IPS, AH-IPS, MVA, TN, AHVA

1920 x 1080

2560 x 1440

3840 x 2160

With the current standard screen resolutions, DCS now may only need to...

Quote

"Other target enhancements such as color, shading or other forms of

cueing may also need to be considered to enhance overall performance and to prevent

possible side-effects of too much target magnification."

End Quote

Possible variables that are hard to control the outcomes.

"Corrected to 20/20 vision with glasses" Can your glasses correct for 20/20 vision?

20/20 - Normal vision. Fighter pilot minimum. Required to read the stock quotes in the newspaper, or numbers in the telephone book.

20/40 - Able to pass Driver's License Test in all 50 States. Most printed material is at this level.

20/80 - Able to read alarm clock at 10 feet. News Headlines are this size.

Should DCS account for 20/40 or 20/80 too? Only single player of course, as no one will cheat and take advantage for MP right? (Server Option)

How can DCS adjust for Larger displays and smaller displays with high screen resolution of 3840 x 2160 ? The guy's with 27 inch monitors are always going to be screaming here.

Should there just be a disclaimer? Screen resolutions @ 4K (3840 x 2160) for Competitive MP, screens are recommended to be 42 inch's and above,

lowering the resolution to 2560 x 1440 will give a more acurate aircraft scale at 2 to 3 miles with 20/20 vision.

Monitor color calibration? Even changed calibration for an advantage if there are "color and shading enhancements".

Once we have 8K and up etc. It's all going to come down eventually to eye sight for Competitive MP and in game options for 20/40 vision.

We are at 3840 x 2160 now, why scale? Is it just to make the "game" easier in "some" simulated graphic instances and guy's with very small 4K monitors and others with bad eye sight?

If ED scaled at all, the very Competitive MP guy's looking for that edge would go out and buy the new 65”, NVIDIA (BFGD) G-SYNC, 4K, 120Hz, HDR.

Well that's what I would do with today's technology for that Competitive edge in MP. For just training purposes, the screen and projector resolutions of today would be fine for "training" it's never going to be 100% fair for Competitive in MP, until we are locked in at 8K+ VR, 210-degree FOV with locked color saturation & brightness etc.

-

Edit: deleted quote, as it was not specifically related

What do you guys think was the "imposters" they tried during the Openalpha and what they do currently, in 2.5 where spotting is way better, than in the early 2.0 release and before?

I mean, it isn't like the spotting is as it was in the old days, where the planes or infantry disappeared, according to calculated results.

ED improved the visibility and spotting to a point where the result is pretty realistic.

It is funny, the same complaining "specialists" propose the same old arguments, yet again, in the vain hope to get an easy way to find their prey, absolutely ignoring the improvements through the new lighting, adjusted dynamic contrast (at least that is what I would call, as it looks like that to me).

So from where I stand, there is already a huge(!) Improvement and by far no "I can't remotely see the planes, we need to "fix" visibility ". I have a far from perfect eyesight, getting old, and it shows, I can still identify and track planes, ground targets and helos at ranges where it was impossible in 1.x.

The fact that I, and definitely a couple people I know from multiplayer can do it, after the improvements where introduced, leaves me with the assumption that either the same complaints over again serve the purpose of covering the fact of being too lazy, or what you want is pointer arrows and red dotmarks like in "other games", which is pretty unlikely to happen.

I personally hope ED can further improve the current engine, especially tracking a plane over ground when its contrast perfectly matches the background in the future, but that is neither "unrealistic" nor "impossible" to anticipate and estimate the course/maneuver of your opponent.

Spotting a plane isn't easy, it never was, even for the trained real life fighter pilot, now and then.

I will agree that finding planes IRL is difficult, but not impossible. Where as in some situations i.e Mig-21, the left wing actually disappears when not that far. The current system ins't perfect and could be improved. I should be able to spot an F-15 2nm away from me no problem, but shouldn't be able to see a missile coming at me from 4nm represented as a black dot on my screen.

To truly make the spotting points equal in size for all users, we would need to account for screen size and seating distance from the screen besides only resolution. The true measure to equal that out would be how many angular minutes/seconds from the user POV a spot point fills and these are the values you'd need to calculate for that.

 

Probably a lot of coding that would not yield that different results from the status quo. Doesn't feel that far off from RL to be honest.

This is taking it to the extreme. People are only asking for appropriate scale with resolution of monitor, such that spotting is fair across monitor size. Just because you might not get 100% equality with this method doesn't mean it's not better than what we currently have.

So that spotting is fair across monitor sizes? How is that any different from anything else :lol: My view distance is at maximum, how you planning on balancing that? Underclocking everyone in a session to the slowest GPU present :megalol:

*wipes eyes* Ah, you 'fairness' guys are great

I will agree that finding planes IRL is difficult, but not impossible. Where as in some situations i.e Mig-21, the left wing actually disappears when not that far. The current system ins't perfect and could be improved. I should be able to spot an F-15 2nm away from me no problem, but shouldn't be able to see a missile coming at me from 4nm represented as a black dot on my screen.

An earlier screenshot proved you can see an F-15 from OVER 5nm, so if you can't see it at 2nm you need to take off those blinders:pilotfly:

Spotting a plane isn't easy, it never was, even for the trained real life fighter pilot, now and then.

Thats true, but i´m not talking about situations that you don´t know where is the plane.

I´m talking about situations that you know exactly where is de plane:

- Open formation in line abreast

- Dogfight, also i saw sometimes how the plane just dissappear...

IWhere as in some situations i.e Mig-21, the left wing actually disappears when not that far. The current system ins't perfect and could be improved. I should be able to spot an F-15 2nm away from me no problem, but shouldn't be able to see a missile coming at me from 4nm represented as a black dot on my screen.

This