View problems with increased resolution

I'm reporting this as a bug because

A) I am of the opinion that the practical implementation of how long-range contacts are rendered in DCS is not resulting in the outcome that ED intends., and

B) I think that overcoming this issue would be a significant step forward for DCS, and a step in a direction that competitor sims are having trouble making, or are unwilling to make. It therefore would provide a small competitive advantage in the market for DCS.

The video below presents:

1. How I tested / proved this problem

2. Three Separate tests, with varying hardware configurations

3. Proposed solutions for ED to resolve this.

The bug report is submitted primarily as a video. If ED do not wish to view the video I can also submit a full written description, however I think it's most easily demonstrated in the video.

+1. It has been discussed so many times... still it's been like that since 1.5 and Model Enlargement removal. Maybe we should make voting how many people think this bug is the most important (?) I've switched to 1080p on 1440p monitoring and DCS looks ugly but at least I can spot something.

I've switched to 1080p on 1440p monitoring and DCS looks ugly but at least I can spot something.

This is telling. We shouldn't have to downscale our hardware to get the best gaming experience.

I really didn't appreciate how bad this was when I was only on 1080p. I knew there was a problem, but I just thought it was minor. Now that I@ve upgraded (and I am NOT an early adopter) I realise how disabling this problem is. More and more PC gamers will move to 2K and 4K over the next couple of years, DCS needs to recognize that and adapt accordingly.

+1000

I run in 4k and without labels in singleplayer I can´t see any air target at all. I think this is really an issue that needs some attention.

So i currently run the game at 1440p on a 27" and have always struggled with distant contacts and even close ones, losing them in the background clutter/cockpit glare. I recently ran the game in 1080p on my 27" and the results were easier for me to spot at distance and able to maintain eye contact with an aircraft in a dogfight <5nm as the aircraft tended to stand out from the background more.

So i currently run the game at 1440p on a 27" and have always struggled with distant contacts and even close ones, losing them in the background clutter/cockpit glare. I recently ran the game in 1080p on my 27" and the results were easier for me to spot at distance and able to maintain eye contact with an aircraft in a dogfight <5nm as the aircraft tended to stand out from the background more.

Same. Spotting is terrible for me with a 1440 27 Inch display.

Quit playing because of this.

Targets also disappear, especially ground targets at around 4-1 kms they can be in sight and if you zoom in will just vanish, at 2 kms all ground vehicles should be clearly visible to the naked eye but they just vanish. and then come back at around 1 kms.

There are 4 targets by the smoke, all are tracked vehicles from the WW2 assets pack

The pics shown what I can see at 9 kms (no vehicles in sight)

What I can see zoomed in at 4 kms (4 vehicles in sight)

Target viability pic at around 1 kms, the bottom vehicle is in sight (green circle) there are 3 more vehicles in the red circle that pop in to the picture as you get past the 1 kms mark these vehicles should clearly show up. now

Clearly DCS has a viability problem, makes using ground attack roles really hard especially the close in disappearing vehicles in my pics.

People seem to forget that uspscaling resolution without increasing the size of your monitor will lead to higher pixel density. With the way that spotting works in DCS, this translates to nearly invisible targets at range.

I still think that spotting at even 1080p is too hard, although its better than it used to be in 1.5.X. Higher contrast monitors help in this regard, but even in close range losing targets in the ground clutter is a coin toss basically.

People seem to forget that uspscaling resolution without increasing the size of your monitor will lead to higher pixel density. With the way that spotting works in DCS, this translates to nearly invisible targets at range.

 

I still think that spotting at even 1080p is too hard, although its better than it used to be in 1.5.X. Higher contrast monitors help in this regard, but even in close range losing targets in the ground clutter is a coin toss basically.

I'm flying DCS in less of a resolution than the native res of my 32" wide screen, should I be at the native res of 2560x1080 to spot enemy's easier ??, or should we should fly DCS in 640x480 or 800x600 then to see ground targets easier ??, actually I may try that tonight.

I have no trouble spotting ground targets in IL2 BOS @ 2560x1080 (my monitors native res), I think the way the sim scales out the ground target models in the 1-3 km range is an issue.

All my testing has been done on the Gulf map and all targets we placed on desert sand, not much ground clutter out in the desert.

I also discovered in some testing that only certain units disappear at around 1.2km's and then come back into view, so far its mainly some of the WW2 assets pack that does it.

Yes, this is so true. I have a 4k monitor and fly in 2k and was able to see all kinds of things prior to the change in the label system. The ED reps then said "nothing has changed" then you post clear proof and they skip right over acknowledging you are correct and go straight to defending changes they swore never took place before the proof is presented. This is how they operate on here. I have no problem if they want to change the vis settings but you can't do it by accident and then say, "well I think this is better even though I denied it was changed until I was proven otherwise". That is not how you do development. I had to entirely quit Cold War era servers that I use to go rackup kills on (and survive as well) because guys with lower res gear can see you and you can't see them at all. I even posted images and video of a Mig-21 less then 1 mile behind me and when paused and zoomed in on that spot there is absolutely nothing there. Then a second later a white trail start to grow out of the sky because he fired a missile and that is the only visible indication he is there. Take the same track and replay it in 1080p and you can clearly see the guy. These things go on and on and with the label change the zoom has also started having a big effect on what you see. There was con trails 2K above me and no indication they were there. I happened to zoom all the way in for a second and you would thing an air show was going on right above me and you can't even see it without zooming all the way in. Zoom back out and tons of con trails completely disappear and they are right there above me.

Just like someone pointed out above, I was running in 2K and when I would dive on an enemy right in front of me, as I would close in he would just disappear, even his shadow would disappear and he was right in front of me. I changed the res to 1080p I was able to track a plane on the deck half way across the battle area.

Yes, it's an ancient problem with the game. It simply uses very simplistic trigonometry to determine on-screen size in terms of number of pixels, with no attempt to adjust for actual screen size, pixel density, any kind of target value for visibility, or to simulate any of the myriad of visual cues that would make a target stand out (or be hidden, for that matter) in a given situation.

This naive approach means that the better your hardware, the less you will see of a unit and the more it will blend into the background. It also means that there is an inherent imbalance in one of the most important aspects of the game, even though it's pretty simple to compensate for and equalise across various setups. Above all, it means that this “simulation” fails at one of its core tasks: to simulate the environment it's trying to replicate — the critical factors of perception and cognition is left completely by the wayside, in favour of maths that break in almost every conceivable way.

The results of this simplistic approach have already been mentioned: hardware matters where it it shouldn't; hardware also matters in the inverse manner to what you'd expect (higher visual quality means worse visibility); and units flicker in and out of visibility as the zoom component (which really shouldn't be there either, but at least there's a gameplay argument to keep it) is added to the mix.

It's all broken, and there really is no excuse for it. Or, rather, there is an excuse for it, but that excuse just exposes a vastly more massive and even more inexcusable issue that also needs to be fixed.

Hey guys, just wanted to add my two cents to this, as I've recently started playing DCS more often now that the F-14 is out. I even upgraded my entire rig and simming gear for this beautiful plane, only to find that my gorgeous new 32 inch 2650 x 1440 monitor makes it simply impossible to spot anything, even at extremely close range, such as 5nm or so.

I first realised this while doing the sidewinder training for the F-14 module, where I would get seeker lock much sooner than my Mk1 eyeballs. After more research, I discovered that this is a fundamental flaw with DCS, which is becoming more prominent among my flying friends now that 1440p monitors are so cheap.

With 4K monitors plunging in price, this is going to be a HUGE issue for DCS' playerbase. As simmers, much of us pour money into high-end rigs, yet A2A is nigh on impossible on current mid-range rigs that run a lowly 1440p. Heck, even the console games being made now have 4K resolutions in mind.

There are other solutions for other sims that currently exist that deal with this issue, so why hasn't ED implemented them? If one community modder can come up with a solution for this exact issue for another sim, I fail to see why ED's team of paid experts can't.

Until this is fixed I'm going to have to really consider which sims I play. Sadly this means I'll be giving the F-16 module a miss, which is a real shame as it would have been great to get into a knife-fight with that acrobatic wonder. This problem is not going to go away,and will only increase in the near future as higher resolution monitors plunge in price. Hopefully my inbound Valve Cosmos offers a better experience, but I'm not holding my breath as it too is higher res than the 1080p displays that ED appears to develop on. In the meantime I'm going back to IL2 and RoF for my A2A fix.

ED, please hear our concerns - this issue appears to be longstanding, and it's in your best interests to get it fixed. Would love to hear you acknowledge the issue, and give me some insight into any action being taken to solve it for this otherwise outstanding simulation.

Oh god, not again...

I'm reporting this as a bug because

A) I am of the opinion that the practical implementation of how long-range contacts are rendered in DCS is not resulting in the outcome that ED intends., and

B) I think that overcoming this issue would be a significant step forward for DCS, and a step in a direction that competitor sims are having trouble making, or are unwilling to make. It therefore would provide a small competitive advantage in the market for DCS.

 

The video below presents:

1. How I tested / proved this problem

2. Three Separate tests, with varying hardware configurations

3. Proposed solutions for ED to resolve this.

 

The bug report is submitted primarily as a video. If ED do not wish to view the video I can also submit a full written description, however I think it's most easily demonstrated in the video.

 

Thank you very much for this post. I might be wrong, but I seem to notice that with the latest release version things have slightly improved, but anyways, not nearly as they should be to really be able to spot distant planes / targets, even at relatively near distances.

Can I ask what resolution you're playing on zhukov032186? If you're on a modern rig, you'd be dismayed at this issue too. If you are on 1440p or above, can I ask what your resolution to this resolution problem is? (pun TOTES intended)

Has this "bug" been fixed?

Has this "bug" been fixed?

No, but at least its commonly suggest solution — using labels — is also broken, so there's some balance to the whole thing. :D

zhukov032186, seriously, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to fairly spot targets on monitors that now sell for approximately US$200 - ie what most people are now buying because they're so darned cheap, and make game look so much better.

Ok, so I was on the Grim Reapers Discord, and somebody recommended disabling MSAA, and just using SSAA. I set it to 2X SSAA 0XMSAA, and BINGO! I could now spot targets at a range of around 10 miles, or 14 or so km. Phew!

Ok, so I was on the Grim Reapers Discord, and somebody recommended disabling MSAA, and just using SSAA. I set it to 2X SSAA 0XMSAA, and BINGO! I could now spot targets at a range of around 10 miles, or 14 or so km. Phew!

Yeah, a bit better, but still far from what it should be.....

It will be fixed in DCS 3.0 :lol::doh:

:music_whistling::huh:

Can I ask what resolution you're playing on zhukov032186? If you're on a modern rig, you'd be dismayed at this issue too. If you are on 1440p or above, can I ask what your resolution to this resolution problem is? (pun TOTES intended)

I have a 3440x1440 35'' screen. And no, I'm not ''dismayed'', I think the people complaining about this are variously ''doing it wrong with unrealistic expectations'', observing glitches and/or incorrect LoDs, and sometimes just insufferably whiney.

#1

1A. Too small screen and/or too far away and/or improperly configured. The higher your res, the larger your screen should ideally be. You should not be sitting terribly far away, which also helps tremendously. Lastly every screen is different and may need some tweaking for proper color and contrast. I don't ever endorse minmaxing, but if you configure for ''cinematic effect'' this can potentially be detrimental to practicality. Adjust color/contrast/gamma resolved most issues I had.

1B. Skill. Hate to say it, but even in ''other sims'', the biggest issue I had with people was getting them to actually notice things that were right in front of them. When people say ''I can't keep track of another plane flying in formation less than a mile away'' that is 100% a competency issue. There is a method to tracking other aircraft and it is not by glancing around crazily trying to focus on everything, you watch for movement peripherally. Also, practice practice practice.

1C. ''Hurrr I can see planes from 36 miles away''. No. You can't. People notice stray aircraft and think ''oh how far away he is'' not realising there were a half dozen other that flew by unobserved. I am frequently at an airfield, watching planes come and go. Some of these have a 55' wingspan. When they turn just right, or the lighting is just right, you can barely see them at all, then the lighting changes and it's like ''hey, there's a big plane right there!'' People talking about how easy it is to see aircraft in real life are just blatantly foolish. They are NOT that easy to see unless conditions are right and/or you have an idea where to look (like a TrackerApp). Reallife does not have ''model enlargement'' or ''dynamic contrast adjustment'' to hold your hand and make sure you don't lose track of something so you can live out a power fantasy. In real life poor contrast/lighting can render other aircraft near invisible with great frequency.

2. Glitches/LoDs. This isn't ALWAYS the issue, but it is OFTEN part of it. One aircraft was observed as winking in and out of existence at specific distances. This is not a ''DCS spotting issue'' this is a bug that needed correcting. Many of the ground vehicles, and some of the aircraft have outdated and/or missing LoDs causing them to derender at long distances (in some cases different vics at different ranges etc). If you observe vics/aircraft flatout derendering you should note the exact vics/aircraft and file a bug report.

3. Insufferably whiney. This is the internet and people like to bitch. They also are frequently unwilling to accept that decisions THEY make might directly influence a problem real or perceived that they are experiencing. They want it ''their way'' and they want it to magically work the way they imagine it should. It can't POSSIBLY be their own choices are suboptimal. It's always SOMEBODY ELSE'S fault because they're SUPER GOODER and it's so easy so obviously it's ED's fault. This is untrue. People cause their own very problems in a logical fashion, are obnoxiously obtuse about it, and then go on the forums to vent.

PS

4. ''But controller agnostic'' and ''balancing for hardware''. Just... stfu. For real. This line of reasoning is so utterly backasswards and stupid it makes my face hurt.

PPS

Not directed at specific person, just commentary on the most common ''complaints''.

 

Disagree almost completely:

 

#1 I sit 50 Cm from my 4K 32" Monitor.

 

1B. Skill. Plenty of that, in all modesty.

 

1C. Not 36 miles, but YES half of that number.

In DCS at that distance the planes are not even a pixel.

 

2. Glitches/LoDs. This one I agree.

 

3. Insufferably whiney. No, factual bug report.

 

PS

4. YOUR reasoning makes my face hurt.

Reallife does not have ''model enlargement'' or ''dynamic contrast adjustment'' to hold your hand and make sure you don't lose track of something so you can live out a power fantasy. In real life poor contrast/lighting can render other aircraft near invisible with great frequency.

What real life does have, however, is eyes and an entire cognitive process for perception that picks up on numerous cues that aren't (and arguably can't be) replicated on a computer screen. Instead, there are numerous methods to simulate those cues and processes so as to replicate what a trained eye will actually pick up on in real life and hold your hand as you try not to lose track of something. If DCS has any ambitions towards being a good flight simulator, it would be well served by employing those methods to better replicate real conditions.

4. ''But controller agnostic'' and ''balancing for hardware''. Just... stfu. For real. This line of reasoning is so utterly backasswards and stupid it makes my face hurt.