Planes visibility and smooth online gameplay in DCS 2.0?

As for Matt's comments on Smart Scaling, what else would he be talking about than implementation in DCS, he isn't going to discuss BMS or any other sim, smart scaling is exactly what it sounds like, it scales the object, if ED feels it would adversely effect radar in the game or something else, it makes sense that this is a poor old school option.

Please, rhetoric only muddies the water, Sith. In the problem of how to overcome the visual limitations of a computer display in flight simulation there are no silver bullets. Every solution has its positives and negatives. In that spirit, I will refer to smart-scaling simply as "scaling" below.

Let me put it this way: it is surprising to me that Matt did not state that in Falcon scaling does not change an object's RCS, but in DCS it would. That is an important point to explain if you're going to cite object RCS as a reason against scaling.

Can you agree with that?:yes:

----------

P.S. I lose all-metal P-51s in the ground clutter just as easily as camouflaged 109s.

Again, there is no reason to bring up BMS/Falcon or anything else, the focus has to be on DCS World, and what will and what wont work for it, nothing else. He tried to explain why Smart Scaling wont work for them, he shouldn't have to explain why it may or may not work for any other game, right? He isnt responsible for anything other than DCS World.

The focus IS on DCS World. That is why we keep bringing up Falcon BMS. Because they did it right. What's the point in reinventing the wheel? Why not look at sims like BMS and IL-2, see how they did it, and then figure out how we can apply that to DCS? And if something doesn't work right off the bat, then we will have to adapt. If smart scaling a la BMS doesn't work in DCS, then ED will have to work their way around it. Don't get me wrong, I'm stoked for 2.0 and that ED added a model visibility option. But if it only works at long ranges, the problems at close range will still persist.

Also, what will happen when we get the F/A-18 and slew our TGP to the radar? Will we see the actual aircraft that we have locked up, or will we see a low resolution image of it which then suddenly becomes a 3D model as you get closer?

It's more to do with the ground detail than anything, contrast is the killer, the lack of it will kill your ability to spot something easier. Higher resolution textures, more ground detail/objects, effects like the shine of a metallic skin from the sun, etc are all ways this can improve. Once 2.0 hits we will be able to see where ED is, and what, if any, improvements are needed.

It does not have to do with ground detail more than anything. Sure, ground detail plays a part, but the biggest problem is that objects appear way smaller in-game than they do irl. Sure, the improved graphics in 2.0 will probably help, but the biggest problem will still be there. Especially in WWII combat and dogfights.

Even though it is way better than what we have now, imho, the scaling solution ED has come up with feels a bit slapdash.

Based upon what Matt said, "smart scaling" is not going to happen in DCSW 2.0.

Besides that fact, scaling would not help the problem some appear to have in the visual range WWII arena because I can't imagine even if scaling was implemented that it would be applied to aircraft within WWII combat distance.

The issue at this point is moot in any case. Let's see how this Model Visibility and better rendering works in EDGE before more speculations about a feature that's not going to be added and comparisons to other game engines.

The issue at this point is moot in any case. Let's see how this Model Visibility and better rendering works in EDGE before more speculations about a feature that's not going to be added and comparisons to other game engines.

^This.

They aren't doing scaling

To be honest it is just semantics. I mean if the system uses a sprite and the setting in the control panel changes the size of the sprite between standard and enhanced then technically that is 'scaling'.

Who cares what it's called, if it helps with initial visual contact then I am all for it.

just no winning, is there? :)

What is interesting is that DCSW2 solution is in some ways similar to the old IL21946 one, and we will be even able to mess around with how effective it is. :)

Not only that, it will work for ground units as well. I am eager to see what kind of improvements we will have when for instance the plane is facing toward you and has the ground in the background (currently the most difficult situation to spot nearby planes in DCSW1).

... Let's see how this Model Visibility and better rendering works in EDGE ...

Yup, anything else is speculation at this point.

Seems to me that a tiny icon (that doesn't look like an icon) is the best solution you can get on a P.C. monitor. At least it isn't actually getting the model size wrong. The two methods may effectively have the same result, but I'd rather go with the one that adds a subtle game-overlay cue (we already have a game-overlay chat window, so the dot is a merely a minor addition to the overlay), which doesn't screw with the "within-sim" model sizes.

Examining the problem closely, the one that doesn't mess with the sim-world & objects in it, but rather adds a small subtle icon to the interface, breaks the simulation less; or maybe I'm just daft. But I like what E.D. is doing with this. We'll have to wait & see how well it works at medium range. Adjustable size means that one can fiddle with it to get a personalized balance between accurate scale, and more-like-real visibility. : )

 

~

 

Yup, anything else is speculation at this point.

 

With that, I agree with you totally ;)

IL-2, see how they did it

They did it wrong. Or at least with the card I used back then, all distant planes were rendered as horrible blobs having absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of realism whatsoever. So please, spare us from that at least if at all possible ;)

The focus IS on DCS World. That is why we keep bringing up Falcon BMS. Because they did it right. What's the point in reinventing the wheel?

So you basically say: "Neanderthals did it right! They used clubs to kill their prey. No need to invent Bows and Arrows, leave alone guns" ;)

Weird argument...

DCS is not BMS. EDGE is a complete new engine utilizing DirectX11 whereas BMS is what DirectX9 with all its limitations plus some add on effects?

smart scaling is exactly what it sounds like, it scales the object, if ED feels it would adversely effect radar in the game or something else, it makes sense that this is a poor old school option.

"Object" is too vague as it can be 3D model, physic engine object or combination of them. When people speak about smart scaling, they mean rendering of 3D model with applied scale factor.

The old school (and accepted) way is to make physics engine influence the graphics engine and not vice versa, so something like visual representation affecting radar is so weird, that I am even inclined to write it off as miscommunication.

However, there are more than enough graphical problems related to smart scaling and those make it a no go in visually detailed environment. I.e. objects partly intersecting without collision, almost blending with each other on collision, "wrong" shadows and lights, too dense or too small debris and etc.

so something like visual representation affecting radar is so weird, that I am even inclined to write it off as miscommunication.

I'm going to assume Matt knows how the DCS engine works. So what he says is actually interesting that apparently the radar cross section in DCS is dependant on the games 3D models.

DCS is dependant on the games 3D models.

Indeed. But to pick a nit, is it dependent on the actual 3D models, or how the visibility is scaled by the user? Gotta ask Wags direct I presume... any takers? ;)