Why is IFLOLS so dim?

I've been watching all these press release videos of the Hornet and the IFLOLS on the USS John C. Stennis is really dim. It should be much brighter it's really hard to see.

I've been watching all these press release videos of the Hornet and the IFLOLS on the USS John C. Stennis is really dim. It should be much brighter it's really hard to see.

Probably because the whole carrier and procedures are WIP.

I've been watching all these press release videos of the Hornet and the IFLOLS on the USS John C. Stennis is really dim. It should be much brighter it's really hard to see.

The real answer is, it is because currently, and as it has existed for years, DCS does object/physical lighting really poorly. So, even though some are throwin out terms like it is EA, and WIP which is true, it is just what DCS has in their cupboard currently for lighting. Which just need a total overhaul to be useful.

However, there is an effort underway it appears to finally get some traction on addressing this but obviously that work has not made an impact on the IFLOLS as of yet. Hopefully it will along with every other object and vehicle that has a light attached to it because currently they pretty much are all in a terrible practically useless state in regards to spotting from distance. Fingers crossed we can see big improvements in this area soon. They need to experiment with starbursts and other visibility enhancements for their lights as well as just making them able to be spotted from distance.

Lets hope!

Part of participating in early access and an ‘open beta’, which we all will be shortly, is that we help find bugs or other issues with the product.

The lights are clearly dim, and I was going to post about the same fact. Why is it so offensive that something like this is brought up in the product forums?

The lights seem difficult to see in a monitor, I’m thinking they’re going to be next to impossible to make out in VR. Hopefully, ED can reply that they’re:

- a work in progress

- acknowledge they’re too dim and they can correct it

- a 3rd party mod can look at this an create a file for those that want a brighter meatball.

I'm thinking I am not alone in that operating off the carrier is a large part of this modules draw, a specific example would be a high pucker factor night trap in a storm. This is little question in my mind that this will be modeled better in this game than any previous game. Like it or not seeing the ball (or not) is an integral part of the experience of carrier operations.

I'm not saying too dim is game breaking, I'm not even saying it's big or of a very high priority. I do hope this has a somewhat elevated priority compared to say, a switch with an inaccurate sound when actuated.

I've been watching all these press release videos of the Hornet and the IFLOLS on the USS John C. Stennis is really dim. It should be much brighter it's really hard to see.

1. Maybe because it's prior to Early Release.

2. Maybe it has already been reported from the those lucky few that get to test fly it.

3. Maybe they are using different graphic settings than you would use.

4. Maybe they are using 'requested' graphic settings for testing.

5. Maybe the carrier is still in a developmental (DT) phase.

It's a really valid question, but one that's probably more appropriate when you experience "really dim" IFLOLS on your own system. As an old Chief used to say, "there's a difference between b!tc4in and whining." One is fine, the other isn't.

The better solution?

6. Simple ask one of those lucky dudes (Wags excluded), "Say, what do you think of the IFLOLS brightness because it looks really dim from back here in the cheap seats."

Complaints about EA...right on schedule. ..sigh.

How is pointing out an identifiable issue a complaint? I may be missing some hidden context here, but nowhere in the OP did I see anything like, "this is unacceptable! I demand my money back! I'm leaving this game...blah blah blah." <--- That is a complaint.

What the OP did was point out that all footage he has seen seems to show dim IFLOLS, which will be a problem for carrier ops. It's helpful for people to post these things so that nothing important gets missed as the modules continue to develop.

Dino is correct, there is nothing wrong with pointing out issues no matter the status.

i think it's a somewhat inane question because firstly lighting visibility limitations has been a well known, chronic issue for dcs, and secondly anyone paying attention to developments for 2.5 and since would notice steps taken towards addressing engine capabilities in regards to light visibility.

you all recoil when you think other people are "rude" and "insulting" towards you, but give no quarter insulting the intelligence of capable and competent industry professionals by asking questions that imply a lack of awareness on issues they've already been working towards addressing.

It's a perfectly valid question. I was going to ask this very question before this thread was placed. The IFLOLS is a bit dim, But it's not way off. A little bit of a brightness adjustment is warranted and would be appreciated. :)

Examples