Eagle Dynamics: Request a rethink on spotting mechanics.

Just to be clear, go to 1:40 for exactly what Wags said about smart scaling and why they didn’t use it.

 

…and at the actual timestamp (2:50), he does not actually say what you claim. He says that smart scaling increases the LOD model (which is a highly questionable characterisation to start with), and that this somehow increases RCSes and target sizes for fuse proximity calculations. At no point does he say that “DCS can’t do smart scaling”. It is ill-advised for you to lie about what ED developers say, you know…

 

It can. It has consequences, but it can. It can only have the consequences he claims it has if sensors work the way I explain, which means that there is an immense problem with sensors that needs to be solved.

 

So once again, before you try to refute a claim — and indeed before you make any claim — please look up and investigate what you're talking about. Until you start doing that, your credibility takes a massive hit ever single time you post.

 

You mean circa 2003 1440p 17” 4:3 CRT monitors.

No, I mean 2003 1440p 21"+ monitors, and as the science proves, no matter how much you desperately flail about in your failure to offer the slightest shred of a refutation, it remains relevant now and forever.

 

If you want to dismiss this, offer scientific studies and data of your own — if you don't have that, please stop trying to argue against reality.

 

You mean smart scaling doesn’t scale up models?

No, that is not what I mean. You know what I mean because it has been exhaustively explained to you and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy — doubly so when the ignorance is feigned. Stop relying on that to cover up your complete lack of an actual, coherent, reality-based argumentation.

 

You’re glossing over that fact.

Your wholesale invention based on a self-professed lack of experience is not “fact”. The fact is that your description (and imagination) of what it looks like does not match reality.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tippis

…and at the actual timestamp (2:50), he does not actually say what you claim. He says that smart scaling increases the LOD model (which is a highly questionable characterisation to start with), and that this somehow increases RCSes and target sizes for fuse proximity calculations. At no point does he say that “DCS can’t do smart scaling”. It is ill-advised for you to lie about what ED developers say, you know…

Your getting into the semantics of “didn’t, can’t or won’t”. Whatever. The above video explains why they didn’t, couldn’t or won’t do smart scaling.

 

Not worth debating in circles anymore because it’s already been explained why DCS isn’t using it.

Your getting into the semantics of “didn’t, can’t or won’t”.

No. I'm demonstrating that, as with everything else, you are misinformed about what he's saying. In fact, since we've been down this road numerous times, and this “misunderstanding” on your part has been pointed out every time, I'm given every reason to suspect that you are deliberately lying at this point for some incomprehensible reason.

No. I'm demonstrating that, as with everything else, you are misinformed about what he's saying. In fact, since we've been down this road numerous times, and this “misunderstanding” on your part has been pointed out every time, I'm given every reason to suspect that you are deliberately lying at this point for some incomprehensible reason.

It’s not lying to post the exact video and you can draw your own conclusions. He’s explaining quite clearly why ED did not implement smart scaling.

No offense but perhaps English is not your primary language?

Edited May 20, 2019 by SharpeXB

It’s not lying to post the exact video

Posting it is not, no, but claiming that it says something it very clearly does not is. Pretty much by definition.

Posting it is not, no, but claiming that it says something it very clearly does not is. Pretty much by definition.

I’m “claiming” or paraphrasing exactly what he says in the video. If you have trouble understanding it that’s on your end. Are you a native English speaker? This is the English language forum after all.

I’m “claiming”

…that, and I quote:

it’s been stated clearly by Wags that DCS can’t do smart scaling.

This is false. You know it to be false. You said it anyway.

 

Turning abusive will not change the this fact. Nor will it somehow make all the other false things you claimed suddenly become true. You have no argument and no facts backing your apparent desire to keep DCS unbalanced and unrealistic. Just let it go.

What I see on a 4K screen is fair. The problem is that DCS uses some sort of sprite that appears excessively large at 1080p making distant fighters visible at 30 miles. In 4K for me they become visible about 10 miles which is realistic.

 

I'd love to see this "large sprite" on my Rift, which is ballpark 1080p (actually less)

Well someday, more than likely before this debate is ended, we'll have 32K VR HMD's, and it'll kinda make the issue obsolete.

Until then, well probably have at least <xxx> more threads and unresolved debates on the issue.

 

By the way, I always have wondered about this. Seems as if most folks here say and want for it to be "more realistic" for the ground targets to be really easy to spot in DCS, however, I remember us going out of our way to camouflage our ground assets (mostly our ass-ets) back in the day.

Don't tell me all that training and work we did was for nought? I'd certainly hate to think our "ground ass-ets" where hanging out as bad as they are DCS!! :huh:

 

Truth to that... I find that even in VR (Which sucks for spotting, or well really anything relating to fine visual acuity) that I can still generally find those trucks/tanks/AAA/SAMS parked in the field for me drop bombs. On the plus side I can never seem to find that bastard with the manpads, at least without him firing first, and then me either guesstimating where to cluster bomb or using a thermal TPOD to find him.

I'd love to see this "large sprite" on my Rift, which is ballpark 1080p (actually less)

Quite. The funny thing is that resolutions today are actually in some cases lower than they were 15 years ago, and as Sharpe has points out, a plane that he sees at 13nm at 4k resolutions can be seen at 30nm at 1080p, and neither one really makes sense — much less work the same on other displays and/or setting combinations. What has happened between then and now is that we have a much larger spread of resolutions (both in terms of pixel count and pixel density) to have to deal with.

 

If we ever needed a solution to the plethora of visibility issues that the current implementation creates, it is now. So, much like Serfoss identified when he wrote that paper, perception simulation trickery will be as relevant in the future (i.e. now) as it was back then.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tippis

Quite. The funny thing is that resolutions today are actually in some cases lower than they were 15 years ago, and as Sharpe has points out, a plane that he sees at 13nm at 4k resolutions can be seen at 30nm at 1080p, and neither one really makes sense — much less work the same on other displays and/or setting combinations. What has happened between then and now is that we have a much larger spread of resolutions (both in terms of pixel count and pixel density) to have to deal with.

 

If we ever needed a solution to the plethora of visibility issues that the current implementation creates, it is now. So, much like Serfoss identified when he wrote that paper, perception simulation trickery will be as relevant in the future (i.e. now) as it was back then.

 

I'm not sure if it was you that referenced that paper, but that was a good read and I agree that if its possible that something like it be done in DCS. Maybe in the Vulkan version which I guess will be a total re-write of the render pipelines.

 

Also it sounds like I'm screwing myself by running PD larger than 1.0, which sadly I need to do read my MFD's/instruments. Damned if I do or don't.

Also it sounds like I'm screwing myself by running PD larger than 1.0, which sadly I need to do read my MFD's/instruments. Damned if I do or don't.

The credo of VR… :D

The USAF made BVR ranges based aircraft spotting in Vietnam war. And they were extremely close ranges. For Mig-21/F-5 it is just about 3 km. For larger like F-14 it is around 6-7 km IIRC.

A basic range for BVR was around 5 km. Using paintings and other methods like low altitude, low smoke fuels, sun etc, the ranges went super short. It became about few seconds until merging, what is reason why you go to dog fighting so easily if you don't have an assistance telling you the ranges and fly by the numbers based the range data.

 

The eye foveon is only about 1.5° from your vision. Everything else is blurry. That field of view is little smaller than your thumbnail when you extend your arm to your side, thumb up.

 

Now add there few distracting elements, like fear that you dont spot enemy, that someone is talking to you over radio and you are checking aircraft instruments, and you will miss a clear object just front of you.

 

There is reason why wingman fly separation to see leads six, and lead can see wingman six. why they perform randomly turns to check rear positions visually.

 

The F-5 alone is such that when it points its nose at you, you dont spot it until it is firing its cannons at you. It is like trying to avoid a bee hitting your car windshield when you drive 80 km/h, you spot it just before it splashes.

Truth to that... I find that even in VR (Which sucks for spotting, or well really anything relating to fine visual acuity) that I can still generally find those trucks/tanks/AAA/SAMS parked in the field for me drop bombs. On the plus side I can never seem to find that bastard with the manpads, at least without him firing first, and then me either guesstimating where to cluster bomb or using a thermal TPOD to find him.

 

You should not spot any of those in normal combat configuration. You should be few hundred meters from a person who wears something grey or that slightly blends to environment. And someone camouflaged.... Yeah, good luck for that. you would never spot them from aircraft!

 

You should not spot any of those in normal combat configuration. You should be few hundred meters from a person who wears something grey or that slightly blends to environment. And someone camouflaged.... Yeah, good luck for that. you would never spot them from aircraft!

 

 

That was basically my comment on it. Even with thermal its hard, and turns out you can hide from thermals fairly easily if you are a first world power, or happen to have some green foliage to hide under.

 

I find the "tank/whatever" plinking by A10's and Harriers on the MP servers to be kind of a joke, but that's how the servers are setup cuz that's what's fun to do.

 

PS. DPM is even better ;)

Can’t the visibility issue be dealt with transparency? I mean, to adjust the transparency of the drawn vehicle depending of the distance from the point of view.

 

Just found this video interesting

, where did the SU27 go at 0:40?

…that, and I quote:

 

This is false. You know it to be false. You said it anyway.

 

Turning abusive will not change the this fact. Nor will it somehow make all the other false things you claimed suddenly become true. You have no argument and no facts backing your apparent desire to keep DCS unbalanced and unrealistic. Just let it go.

You’re hung up on semantics. Watch the video and draw your own conclusion.

“Can’t” to me means it’s not feasible given the cost of making changes vs the benefit. He also says “we really don’t consider that (smart scaling) a smart option” So it sounds to me that they just don’t like it.

You’re hung up on semantics.

No, just facts.

Map lighting, the core of the light disappears too soon, and this causes night issues. Draw distances on things like reflections, smoke, fire... it's all being looked at.

Slightly OT, but this really warms my heart to hear — not a moment too soon! :)

 

Now, if only fires could actually work as light sources at night… (what, you didn't think you'd get off that easy, did you? :D)

Ah, I love spotting discussions...

 

 

The key things ED is working on to improve visibility and spotting right now is improving effects and such that are not visible at certain distances, for example, using flat shadows, aircraft shadows can disappear fairly quickly, this makes the model lose a lot of contrast, and of course blends into the background much more. Things like lights as well, if you look at the A-10C, its lights are much better now, the Hornet for example still needs to see these improvements. Map lighting, the core of the light disappears too soon, and this causes night issues. Draw distances on things like reflections, smoke, fire... it's all being looked at.

 

 

 

 

I'm glad that DCS is implementing this ... Actually the lights of the A-10c are the best ones, they are stronger as they are 'and they have the flash effect while the lights of the Su-25T are dim and little intense and they don't have the flash effect even worse the lights of the cokpit of the Su-25T seem to be non-existent.

 

the Fire must be brighter and brighter if I see a fire at a distance of several kilometers in a forest at night.

No, just facts.

Well the fact is DCS doesn’t have smart scaling and likely never will. Don’t hold your breath expecting it.

At some point you have to accept that all games are different and have different features.

Well the fact is DCS doesn’t have smart scaling and likely never will.

That's not a fact, no. You need to accept that you have no case, no argument, and no facts on your side — no amount of trying to get the last word in when reality keeps disagreeing with your wishes will change that.

 

Look, it's quite simple.

 

The topic here is the illogical, unrealistic, uneven, and imbalanced implementation DCS has for spotting. Every time this topic comes up, you seem to immediately jump in to argue against any and all of the numerous suggestions for how to improve or fix these issues. And you know, that's fine. Just don't pretend you're doing otherwise.

 

In addition, if you're going to do that, please have some actual arguments in favour of keeping it unrealistic and imbalanced. Counterfactuals, strawmen, misrepresentations, lack of experience, unwillingness to do research — none of that counts as actual arguments, nor are the ad hominems that usually follow when that well of non-argument runs dry.

 

As NineLine said: discuss the topic, not the person. And please stop trying to replace well-established fact with baseless or unreasoned assumptions.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tippis

That's not a fact, no. You need to accept that you have no case, no argument, and no facts on your side — no amount of trying to get the last word in when reality keeps disagreeing with your wishes will change that.

If the developers own words on the subject aren’t enough for you then there’s no point to the discussion.