Eagle Dynamics: Request a rethink on spotting mechanics.

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

The developers own words on the subject contradict what you claim. I agree with your conclusion, but you're addressing it to the wrong party.

 

Form an actual argument — one based on some kind of fact or at least some kind of logical inference — and there might be a discussion worth having. Until then, you're free to avoid a topic where you have repeatedly said you do not know or care to learn the facts.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tippis

The developers own words on the subject contradict what you claim. I agree with your conclusion, but you're addressing it to the wrong party.

 

Form an actual argument — one based on some kind of fact or at least some kind of logical inference — and there might be a discussion worth having. Until then, you're free to avoid a topic where you have repeatedly said you do not know or care to learn the facts.

 

Has ED ever said anything that would lead you to assume they will consider implementing smart scaling?

The only feedback I have ever seen. And I’m quoting Wags himself:

- It interferes with how the game calculates RCS

- It creates a problem with object fuzing (I don’t know what that is)

- It’s “not a smart option.”

 

Have you seen anything to the contrary from ED regarding this feature? If so please share.

If not I will take the above statements at face value and assume this feature isn’t coming to DCS

Has ED ever said anything that would lead you to assume they will consider implementing smart scaling?

Yes. They've repeated said that they're looking to improve spotting in particular, and they're currently on a tear talking up how important realism and simulation is.

 

In addition, per Wags statements, the sensor and rendering pipelines are a horrible tangled mess and at some point they're going to have to disentangle those to make both viable in the long term (to say nothing of cutting off access to some pretty spectacular entryways for exploits).

 

(I don’t know what that is)

I do. That's why I'm able to infer all these facts about the underlying code.

I also take his statements at face value, but with more knowledge behind it, it leads me to a very different conclusion than your assumptions.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Tippis

Yes. They've repeated said that they're looking to improve spotting in particular, and they're currently on a tear talking up how important realism and simulation is.

Yes they did. In this post just now

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3917869&postcount=71

Nowhere in here is any mention of smart scaling.

Nowhere in here is any mention of smart scaling.

That wasn't the question. Shall we add moving the goalposts to the list of your favourite fallacies?

Actually its not. There are some serious scientific methodologies from "sensor world" like the Johnson Criteria that very effectively quantify that, and when coupled with what's known biologically about the human eye you can get some pretty reasonable figures on it, assuming you aren't actually hiring blind fighter pilots.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%27s_criteria

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

 

And hey turns out that ED/belsimtek is actually aware of this at least for "Virtual" pilots

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3341529&postcount=1

 

But hey, its way easier to hem and haw about it I guess. If you want to discuss further...

 

 

actually it is. according to a real fighter pilot recollection. try to find the a very popular tv show call dogfight. one IAF pilot said he could spot the fighter around 20 to 25nm while his colleague can only see around 15nm. some people has the eagle eye, probably beyond the chart that could measured.

yes you can "effectively quantify that." what if someone who calling out of bandit or bogey multiple times at longer distance than anybody who can see them?

 

i`d more prone to someone who was actually up there.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Contact409

I think some of you guys really need to consider a new hobby because this one ain't working. Generally speaking, people play a hobby to relax, unwind, relieve stress, etc.

 

I want my processor to run at 6.0 GHz without liquid nitrogen. I don't go and complain about it on Intel's forums because that would be a waste of time. The laws of thermodynamics and the technical limitations of the processor prevent that.

 

Do I think spotting should be better? Sure.

 

Do I want it to work across all the permutations of displays, resolutions, VR goggles, graphic settings? Sure.

 

Do I think it would improve game play and make it more fun? Especially as an option? Sure.

 

If ED developers could easily change this why wouldn't they? If it was feasible they would have done it already.

 

What I see lacking in all these complaint threads is any kind of specific solution from someone with software engineering experience. Citing all the data and studies in the world doesn't matter if you don't possess the math and physics background and can translate the data into functioning computer code that works for all DCS fans. If it's such an easy fix, maybe you guys should code a mod or something and donate it to the community. I'm sure it would be appreciated.

 

It's nice to see someone bring up the issue of camouflage which seems to be ignored in these "debates". Talk to any other vet or someone with military experience, or even a hunter. Camo works. The USAF and USN put a lot of money and research into choosing these colors and flat paints that don't reflect sunlight. Compare cold war aircraft paint jobs with more recent ones.

Anyone who has made a model knows the difference a glossy coat of paint can make on visibility.

 

As one of the posters already mentioned, IRL these aircraft are not easy to see. BG Ritchie and Randy Cunningham both said a MiG-21 is a dot at 2 miles. If they aren't SMEs, I don't know who is. There's an episode of Dogfights where an F-4 pilot and RIO talk about a MiG that flew right through their formation and the pilot did not see it. I was skeptical, but then they played the actual radio recordings. Weather over Vietnam tended to negatively affect visibility due to mist, fog, clouds, etc.

 

I realize there are toxic players in any online PC community with open forums but all the people freaking out should really consider a new hobby, maybe spend some time with their family. I like to hunt, shoot, fish, make models. I think I spend more time building and tinkering with PCs than actually playing them. Just a suggestion...

What I see lacking in all these complaint threads is any kind of specific solution from someone with software engineering experience. Citing all the data and studies in the world doesn't matter if you don't possess the math and physics background and can translate the data into functioning computer code that works for all DCS fans.

That's the funny thing: the study already provide the maths, and that's really all you need for the built-in scale transform that already exists in the code. The study is the scientific and engineering solution.

 

If it's such an easy fix, maybe you guys should code a mod or something and donate it to the community. I'm sure it would be appreciated.

That would constitute disassembly, code injection, code modification, distribution of code modification, and (most likely) interference with DRM — all of which would run afoul of the EULA. Also, it would qualify as a cheat or exploit in an online environment.

That wasn't the question. Shall we add moving the goalposts to the list of your favourite fallacies?

That was the question. Show me where ED has made any positive statement regarding smart scaling.

 

Please stop hijacking every thread about visibility and turning it into a debate on a feature that was only ever used in another 20 year old game. And that ED shows no indication of ever including. And that breaks the game engine as it’s currently designed.

Edited May 21, 2019 by SharpeXB

How do you know this scale transform already exists in the code if you can't reverse engineer it?

 

You also conveniently left out the part of the statement about translating it into functioning computer code.

 

If you can code a better alternative and market it, I'll happily buy it. If it was easy to design a good functioning flight simulator and sell it for a profit, more companies and people would.

 

Maybe you guys should take a break from DCS and play another game for a while. Arguing with random people on the internet over something you have no control over is no way to live. I like a good counterfactual historical argument as much as the next aviation nerd but...

 

You guys have a good night. I hope you can find some meaningful purpose in your lives. I'm going to make some dinner and watch the 4th season of Better Call Saul.

That was the question.

No. The question was:

Has ED ever said anything that would lead you to assume they will consider implementing smart scaling?

I answered that in full. Now you're attempting to move the goalposts because reality did not agree with you. Again. A fallacy is not an actual argument, and that's all you have.

 

Please stop hijacking every thread about visibility and turning it into a debate on a feature that was only ever used in another 20 year old game . And that ED shows no indication of ever including.

All of this is also wholly divorced from reality. You're the one debating the feature at every opportunity, from a position of fully admitted and complete ignorance. It was not used in another 20 year old game — the methodology is 16 years old. As demonstrated, the indications are there even though you wish they weren't.

 

just because you have no arguments to support your stance does not mean I should stop contributing facts to the discussion.

 

And that breaks the game engine as it’s currently designed.

And that's why the game engine needs to be fixed. Well, that and the abuse potential.

 

How do you know this scale transform already exists in the code if you can't reverse engineer it?

It's a 3D engine.

 

You also conveniently left out the part of the statement about translating it into functioning computer code.

It's maths. In fact, it's not even that — it's solved maths. There is nothing to translate.

 

Oh, and ad hominems will not work for you either.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Tippis

Cool, I didn't know you could just directly input mathematical notation into C++ and a functioning program comes out.

 

What is your software development experience exactly?

Cool, I didn't know you could just directly input mathematical notation into C++ and a functioning program comes out.

C++ does indeed use numbers. You learn something new every day.

And if you input those numbers directly the compiler would kick it back.

 

So you are an expert in 3D graphics engines? How many have you developed? What IDE do you use?

And if you input those numbers directly the compiler would kick it back.

No.

You keep avoiding my questions and can't explain the logic or technical rationale for your answers. Why is that?

You keep avoiding my questions and can't explain the logic or technical rationale for your answers.

I did both of those things, actually. I also did you a favour and skipped over the OT stuff that the nice moderator said we should skip over. Maybe you should do the same…

Please post an example of your C++ code where you can input mathematical notation directly without calling libraries or using some other syntax.

 

What is your background in Math, Physics, or software development?

Please post an example of your C++ code where you can input mathematical notation directly without calling libraries or using some other syntax.

x = y*0.5;

 

 

But language basics is not the topic of this thread, and perhaps you should get back to making your dinner if you do not want to discuss that topic…

That is not functioning C++ code and would not compile as a functioning program.

 

What is your background in Software development, Math, or Physics?

 

You are obviously intelligent and articulate. But this isn't a legal debate in law school. We play a game on a computer. There are certain technical limitations we are dealing with here. I think you are out of your depth.

Ah. I see the same people arguing the same shit they do in literally every thread on this topic. Don't you guys get tired of this revolving conversation with each other?

 

I directed OP to read the pre-existing threads, you're all going at it again like something relevant is going to be said here =D

That is not functioning C++ code

Incorrect.

 

and would not compile as a functioning program.

Also incorrect. You conveniently forgot about the rest of DCS surrounding it.

Yep

Ah. I see the same people arguing the same shit they do in literally every thread on this topic. Don't you guys get tired of this revolving conversation with each other?

No, I rather enjoy correcting gross misconceptions, especially when they're being used as an argument against improving the game.

OK show me that program running in C++ without any other syntax or libraries.

 

What is your background in professional software development, math, or physics.?