Visibility: 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

You are wanting ED to adopt graphic techniques from almost 20 years ago. I very much doubt any developer would do something like that.

 

 

And its age makes it less relevant how? Techniques such as MSAA are just as old if not older... should we stop using these because of how 'old' they are.

 

The future of these sims is much more sophisticated, realistic and beautiful looking. That’s what is expected in today’s market. And the competition is out there.

 

?

 

For your own sake you just need to adapt yourself to today’s world. Expecting ED to go backwards to past solutions isn’t reasonable. Much of this problem is your own making, adapt yourself to the game because the game isn’t going to change just for you.

 

????

And its age makes it less relevant how?

Because the display technology used in 2003 is just obsolete by today’s standards. Were there VR headsets in 2003 like are available today? Any 50” 8K TVs? What happens when VR evolves to have even higher resolutions? Or monitors? You would see the out-of-scale objects clearly and it would look stupid.

The technique of today is towards larger screens, higher resolutions, better rendering etc. not just making the aircraft bigger. PCs in 2003 weren’t capable of realistic or sophisticated rendering.

The reason you have difficulty in this sim is because you won’t adapt yourself to how it works.

Because the display technology used in 2003 is just obsolete by today’s standards.

[/Quote]

no their not:

"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."

 

No you wouldn't because, as I keep explaining to you, the difference you're imagining between now and then is almost completely in your head. Again, the detail level they offered back then is pretty much exactly the same as it is now or in many cases actually worse — hell, in the case of the TV, it's worse than what we had in 1993, never mind 2003.

 

To wit:

• 3840×2160 @ 60" — 73ppi (this is your precious TV)

• 3440×1440 @ 35" — 107ppi

• 2560×1440 @ 27" — 109ppi

• 1920×1080 @ 24" — 92ppi

• 1920×1440 @ 21" — 114ppi (this is 2003)

• 1024×720 @ 15" — 84ppi (this is 1993)

 

Now, give this argument a rest because if you continue to make this false claim in spite of everything that has been told you, you will only manage to demonstrate a deep-seated ignorance and absolute unwillingness to understand how reality works.

 

 

Were there VR headsets in 2003 like are available today?

 

And we can't adapt scaling for new tech why?

 

You would see the out-of-scale objects clearly and it would look stupid.

 

And you would know how, considering you refuse to even A) read the paper, B) use the smart scaling demo, or C) play a game that uses some kind of scaling.

 

The technique of today is towards larger screens, higher resolutions, better rendering etc. not just making the aircraft bigger. PCs in 2003 weren’t capable of realistic or sophisticated rendering.

The reason you have difficulty in this sim is because you won’t adapt yourself to how it works.

ok boomer

Here’s why the Serfoss solution is out of date, explained by his own summary

 

“The Solution. Somehow the visual projection systems used to present target aircraft need to be improved or the targets themselves need to be modified so that detail can be discriminated at more realistic distances. Some of the smaller details of the plane visible in real-world conditions, can not be seen in the simulator. Pilots use these details to help determine what the target aircraft is doing and then react appropriately. As will be discussed later, better projectors, or specialized projectors that only display a high-definition target, were not viewed as viable solutions at the time of this study. Therefore, with no simple or cost-effective means of improving the projection system, modifying the targets in the current system seemed to be the most feasible option. The solution chosen here involves artificially enlarging the size of the simulated target to make the necessary cues more visible.”

 

What he’s saying here is that projectors with sufficiently high-definition were not viable at the time of this study (in 2003) so he chose to artificially enlarge the targets.

Today such high definition displays are commonplace and it is possible in DCS to see enough detail of the target aircraft without enlarging them like Serfoss proposed. His was a solution driven by the hardware of his era. It doesn’t apply today.

 

More from Serfoss:

“Better Projectors. An obvious solution to the lack of detail problem would be to simply use a display with better resolution. However, currently this wasn't a practical option because projection technology hasn't reached the necessary level yet. Current state-of-the-art systems still lack the level of detail needed and there is little promise of a technological solution to this problem within the next few years (Pierce, 2002). As of 2002, Barco's 808 projectors represented near-leading edge flight simulation display technology (Miller, 2002). However, they still only provided resolutions roughly equal to 20/40 visual acuity. This is more than adequate for training most flight tasks but fails to provide the air combat target information that a pilot can only gather at the threshold of their 20/20, or better, vision.”

 

This was the projector he referred to as “state-of-the-art”

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

A 67” 1200x1600 rear projection screen, displaying sources from VHS video!

This is totally obsolete today.

 

Then he goes on to talk about cost. Why this is relevant when the simulator in question is training pilots to fly aircraft that cost 100x as much?

Why would you propose training Air Force pilots on home personal computer grade screens?

To save money?

That doesn’t make sense and the idea of changing the target aircraft size is nuts for real training.

 

This paper was done “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy”

Which seems like complete nonsense. How is the subject related to philosophy?

 

So the conclusions in it are driven by the technology/costs of the time. That just isn’t applicable today. You can buy a screen with 4x the resolution of what he cites there for less money than a game console.

You are wanting ED to adopt graphic techniques from almost 20 years ago.

This is incorrect in two different ways: this is not a graphic technique and it is not 20 years old. Even if it were, developers are using techniques for computer graphics that are closing in on 50 years old, simply because they work.

 

The future of these sims is much more sophisticated, realistic and beautiful looking.

…aaaaand again, this is one of the many ways in which they can be made much more realistic and sophisticated: by not just applying naive trigonometric formula and think that this yields and accurate result, but by starting to simulate the cognitive processes involved in perception. More sims out there start to delve into these methodologies and they will become more and more prevalent as we move forward. The only ones not doing it are various arcade games because they don't particularly care about the attention to detail and research that goes into these kinds of simulations.

 

Because the display technology used in 2003 is just obsolete by today’s standards.

The display technology (CRTs) may be obsolete, but that does nothing for the simulations of perception because they are compensating for the exact same shortcomings in rendering now as back then. This has nothing to do with size or resolution (although the latter is one where modern screens are still lagging behind the screens of old, so that's not a factor in any supposed obsolescence anyway). It has to do with how we perceive things that even modern monitors simply cannot reproduce — things that occur in our heads, not on the screen.

 

You would see the out-of-scale objects clearly and it would look stupid.

No, you would not, and you have consistently failed to offer any shred of evidence to that even if it did, it would look stupid. Your problem remains that you have no idea what it looks like or how it would be displayed at any given resolution. You can actually test this for yourself, but you refuse to.

 

 

 

What he’s saying here is that projectors with sufficiently high-definition were not viable at the time of this study (in 2003) so he chose to artificially enlarge the targets.

Unfortunately, as has been proven to you conclusively, higher-definition displays are not available today, and most likely will not be in the foreseeable future. In fact, at the moment we're in the middle of yet another introduction of new displays that even further reduces the image resolution, making a methodology to even out the wide gamut of displays that much more necessary.

 

No amount of foot-stomping or ignoring reality will make this fact go away.

 

Then he goes on to talk about cost. Why this is relevant when the simulator in question is training pilots to fly aircraft that cost 100x as much?

Because cost is always a factor.

 

This paper was done “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy”

Which seems like complete nonsense. How is the subject related to philosophy?

I'm sorry but this is just embarrassing. I know you hate to do any kind of research or reading, but you really really really need to look up what a PhD entails. You've put your foot in your mouth on very silly things before (like the reality of how displays work) but come on, this is bordering on the ridiculous. Not just because of how ignorant it is but also because of how irrelevant it is.

This paper was done “Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy”

Which seems like complete nonsense. How is the subject related to philosophy?

 

This has been explained to you on other forums so please...

This has been explained to you on other forums so please...

So that’s just his bio. The conclusions in the paper are nuts for any real training and driven by the low tech displays of the time. Why cap such a high level series of accomplishments with a paper on video games?

The conclusions in the paper are nuts for any real training and driven by the low tech displays of the time.

Prove it.

Present your evidence, or you will once and for all tacitly (or even explicitly) admit that there does not exist a single viable argument in favour of your position.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Tippis

He has a phd in "Industrial Engineering-Human Systems" not philosophy.... Like I have no words for the level of purposeful ignorance displayed. And it wasn't about video games it was about high tech (and often quite expensive) training tools for pilots and how to make it better...

 

Prove it.

 

+1

no their not:

"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."

That resolution in 2002 was “state of the art” and expensive.

1080p today is commonplace. And not “state of the art”

The point is, he states that he decided on enlargement of the target aircraft due to the cost of such displays at the time.

Today’s state of the art projector/display for something like the F-35, we can only fathom what technology is available for that. I doubt that such a simulator today resorts to scaling. I doubt Serfoss scaling was ever used in any real simulator.

Edited December 4, 2019 by SharpeXB

He has a phd in "Industrial Engineering-Human Systems" not philosophy.... Like I have no words for the level of purposeful ignorance displayed. And it wasn't about video games it was about high tech (and often quite expensive) training tools for pilots and how to make it better...

 

 

 

+1

He mentions video games as a use for his idea several times in the paper.

It was actually used in a video game.

Proof it was ever used in a real simulator?

Just the model as that's what we care about and should put our computing power towards.

 

There are just too many reference points to let such rendering errors to pass. Real world objects like the sun or anything on the ground is one thing, the other is HUD, its symbols and totally screwed gun funnel which is based on aircraft angular sizes!

 

Why can't we have constant spotting across the board?

 

Just not possible due to different hardware, setup and graphics settings. Even if those were equal you'd have to add different skill, room lighting and personal eye vision level into play. All of this can make huge difference hence some people have trouble but refuse to take advice. They insist on DCS changes instead.

 

Changes are need but these will hopefully be the ones for better rendering and new effects Nineline mentioned.

That resolution in 2002 was “state of the art” and expensive.

Incorrect.

You still have not offered any proof in favour of your position.

 

He mentions video games as a use for his idea several times in the paper.

…and yet, it was not about video games, as you'll note if you actually read the explicit stated aims, goals, methodology, and empirics of the thesis.

 

 

 

Just not possible due to different hardware, setup and graphics settings.

That's the great thing: this methodology can help in reducing the effect of those differences, making the whole thing more equitable for all users (or perhaps more accurately, the same methodology could and would be used to solve both issues). Ideally, the only thing that would make any difference is the distance from the screen, but as mentioned, that can be compensated for as well.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Tippis

And its age makes it less relevant how?

The way that Serfoss is out of date today is that it just looks terrible. People in 2003 era simulators didn’t care that everything looked terrible. Everything in 2003 era games looked terrible anyways so why would anyone care about enlarged aircraft? But today graphics are so realistic it’s impossible to imagine a sim today, with such sophisticated graphics adopting something from the era of terrible looking games. It’s just not going to happen.

 

And smart scaling is not vital to playing DCS. It’s certainly possible to play without it.

The way that Serfoss is out of date today is that it just looks terrible.

You have been asked to prove this time and time again. You have always failed. We can safely conclude that no, it would not.

 

And smart scaling is not vital to playing DCS. It’s certainly possible to play without it.

And?

it is also possible to play DCS without any kind of joysticks or pedals or even without a monitor. Is that an argument for not implementing support for those.

The way that Serfoss is out of date today is that it just looks terrible. People in 2003 era simulators didn’t care that everything looked terrible[/Quote]

 

No it doesn't and if you'd actually try the smart scaling demo you'd realize this.

 

 

with such sophisticated graphics adopting something from the era of terrible looking games. It’s just not going to happen.

[/Quote]

 

??? So we shouldn't use anything from a game because "it looked terrible"???

 

 

And smart scaling is not vital to playing DCS. It’s certainly possible to play without it.

 

I'd consider the ability to actually see the target and be able to tell its orientation vital especially to older jets and props. And even in modern jets, it negatively impacts tactics, a guy I fly with is an absolute monster in BFM/ACM yet he hates doing this in DCS due to such poor visibility. He can't properly fight as he can in other games due to this. So yes you can play it just you have to fly it differently that you should be able to and that you can irl.

??? So we shouldn't use anything from a game because "it looked terrible"???

Yes. Exactly. It’s a terrible looking feature from another game

It’s a terrible looking feature from another game

You have yet to prove the former, and the latter is outright false. Also, why do you keep bringing up other games when you know it's against the rules?

For all the trouble seems it would be easier to turn labels on.

Unfortunately, they're pretty buggy and have been for quite some time, so it's a less than ideal solution. In addition, they don't offer any separation between different types of aircraft so it doesn't actually solve the problem, and if there ever was a candidate for looking terrible in flight, labels are definitely it.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Tippis

So now you need to have different systems for different units? For all the trouble seems it would be easier to turn labels on.

 

Labels have been quite buggy, and the opactity change over distance has been broken for over a year now. Additionally you can see them through clouds and through the cockpit. Finally they don't provide the information scaling does of target orientation. In fact they make being able to tell a targets orientation impossible till the plane is much bigger than the label which is only at very close ranges sub 2 miles. Finally this isn't really an issue for heli's they can have the same scaling all the same. (also is it really that hard to have a off or on "switch" for scaling in the code?)

Labels need updating and more options for sure(I have requested a bunch of options) but I would caution if you think that good spotting and visibility means you can spot and identify from large distances everytime in every situation, there are many accounts of WWII pilots stating they needed to be right up on the tail of a target to ID it friend or foe.

I don't think anyone is asking for that (indeed, one of the issues with spotting right now is that you can see too far under some circumstances), and the way labels make exactly that happen is one of the reasons why they're not a good solution for the spotting issues. I know they keep getting brought up, in part because they already exist, but labels are so much worse in almost every way for solving these issues and fixing them would most likely require far more dev time than something like scaling would.

 

Should labels also get fixed? Yes, please(!) but funnily enough, in the meantime, faster and leaner solutions (interim or permanent) are available.

 

so much more things that need done before we give up and go to scaling.

The thing is, as far as solutions go, it's pretty darn simple to do. Your renderer should already know the distance to the target, and more likely than not, there's already a scaling matrix in there — adding a multiplier to that matrix is done in a heartbeat. It is not some unwieldy and huge blob of complexly interdependent code that would squash or squeeze out other efforts. That is part of the beauty of the methodology…

 

…well, at least not until you want to fully compensate for zoom FoVs and assumed monitor FoVs and all that stuff. :D

Edited December 5, 2019 by Tippis

Labels need updating and more options for sure(I have requested a bunch of options)[/Quote]

 

good but labels are really only an interim solution and are a suboptimal solution.

 

but I would caution if you think that good spotting and visibility means you can spot and identify from large distances everytime in every situation, there are many accounts of WWII pilots stating they needed to be right up on the tail of a target to ID it friend or foe.

 

There is plenty of literature on max spotting ranges, excerpts of which I will post below

 

and as was identified by Sefross its not just max spotting ranges (which are lacking in DCS for high-resolution people (1080 at 4x MSAA is ok) but the ability to pick out features such as the direction the target is going and basic plane-form shapes.

 

 

Many factors go into a good sim solution, for example with WWII right now ground intercept radar/spotters and wingman aids are seriously lacking, wingmen should help in spotting, and give better info.so much more things that need done before we give up and go to scaling... But here is me being a broken record...

 

Well these are all of board aids and would certainly be nice to have but DCS is still fundamentally flawed with both the ranges you can spot at and the ability to discern the orientation of a target. Being able to tell the orientation is a critical ability of normal human vision and in DCS this is very lacking. And it is the big point of scalling to allow this to happen.

ED already tried “scaling” in the form of Model Enlargement. And although that wasn’t exactly the same thing as Smart Scaling, it did draw objects out of scale just like Smart Scaling. And therefore created similar visual oddities.

The trouble then is nobody is going to be able to agree on how much scaling to use or whether to use it at all. It will end up being an option. And options like this fragment up the MP game which is already small. This was all done before and failed.

And there’s no solution to the fact that scaling changes the size of targets but not their environment. So there’s no way to make it look realistic or believable. Target size alone isn’t the most important factor and there are many better solutions.