Visibility: 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

I’m looking at this chart here, the blue Cumulative Magnification line. What’s crazy is he ends up with the largest value from orientation (4) with the largest profile. How does that make sense?

If you read on, you'll note several pages of discussion on this as well as a final graph where his and other research are consolidated into a final answer.

Ok lets work this.

 

So I assume you’re flying at 5,200’?

The point is at that distance of 1 mile the aircraft are quite visible to you. If they’re scaled up you’ll see them out of scale.

If they are scaled up by some tiny factor why bother?

If they are scaled up too much like by 2x then that will be noticeably bad.

Did you post a baseline where they are not scaled?

 

All the pics look the same to me, are you photoshopping these?

According to the scaling demo its 1.23 at .46 Nmi.

So I assume you’re flying at 5,200’?

The point is at that distance of 1 mile the aircraft are quite visible to you. If they’re scaled up you’ll see them out of scale.

If they are scaled up by some tiny factor why bother?

If they are scaled up too much like by 2x then that will be noticeably bad.

Did you post a baseline where they are not scaled?

 

All the pics look the same to me, are you photoshopping these?

 

A) 1 Nmi so 6076ft

B) Not really

C) To make the transition smooth and to match the statistical data.

D) No not really

E) Check the spoiler at the top

F) Yes, the third aircraft on the right is scalled up the first two are not. Also... good to see you can't tell its scalled XD progress has been made! As we've been saying the scaling at closer ranges is not extreme and quite hard to notice where it really kicks in is at 2-3 Nmi where it is sorley needed to improve the ability to tell a targets orientation.

Edited December 5, 2019 by nighthawk2174

A) 1 Nmi so 6076ft

B) Not really

C) To make the transition smooth and to match the statistical data.

D) No not really

E) Check the spoiler at the top

F) Yes, the third aircraft on the right is scalled up the first two are not. Also... good to see you can't tell its scalled XD progress has been made! As we've been saying the scaling at closer ranges is not extreme and quite hard to notice where it really kicks in is at 2-3 Nmi where it is sorley needed to improve the ability to tell a targets orientation.

Ok I didn’t see the default spoiler. I thought they all looked the same because I didn’t see the default

The scaled up aircraft looks terrible. Obviously Serfoss is the worst. The scaling would make you even misidentify them as not being F-18s. At first glance I thought that was actually a different plane.

The Chihirobelmo example, it’s scaling enough to be bad looking but not enough to help you really spot it so why bother?

And the last example (Snapat) you said looks smaller when you zoom in?, that effect would look awful too.

 

Thanks for posting those, now everyone can see how bad scaling would look. :thumbup:

Edited December 5, 2019 by SharpeXB

The scaled up aircraft look terrible. Obviously Serfoss is the worst. The scaling would make you even misidentify them as not being F-18s

The Chihirobelmo example, it’s scaling enough to be bad looking but not enough to help you really spot it so why bother?

And the last example (Snapat) you said looks smaller when you zoom in?, that effect would look awful too.

 

A) Serfoss isn't awfull, its just not as optimal as other options when dealing with zoom as again piolts don't have that irl so it wasn't factored in. Not that just using raw Sefross is awfull it works just fine but when you can make it better why not do so?

 

 

B) It doesn't look bad and at this point, I think you're just saying that to keep face. Next, it still helps a bit with target orientation and it matches the data collected by sefross just adjusted for FOV and screen res + size.

 

 

C) No it doesn't

 

A) Serfoss isn't awfull,

Serfoss scaling is horrible. How can you correlate what is seen in that screenshot with his own statement?

“It was believed that the target could be enlarged enough to do this, yet not be so large as to appear unrealistic or give the pilot a false sense of how the target would look in real combat.”

The scaling of the target aircraft affects your ability to even identify it correctly.

Serfoss’s own explanation of his system is “work-around solution” until better display technology might be developed. DCS doesn’t need a work-around because that better display technology is here and the sim has a zoom view which wouldn’t be feasible for real simulators. Pro simulators today have much better displays no doubt than they did in 2003.

Yes pilots don’t have a zoom view because they’re not looking at a small 24” screen.

 

C) No it doesn't

 

That effect with Sanpat is pretty awful looking where the plane doesn’t change in size as you zoom in and out. But this demo isn’t showing any context for scale like the carrier so it’s hard to evaluate.

Edited December 6, 2019 by SharpeXB

Serfoss scaling is horrible. How can you correlate what is seen in that screenshot with his own statement?

“It was believed that the target could be enlarged enough to do this, yet not be so large as to appear unrealistic or give the pilot a false sense of how the target would look in real combat.”

 

Well first the scaling is based on hundreds of A/A engagements and pilot input so I'd take their word that it's accurate over yours. And even from my own limited experience sefross is far more realistic looking. Targets in DCS just fade into dots far quicker than they do irl.

 

The scaling of the target aircraft affects your ability to even identify it correctly.

 

If anything it makes it better

 

 

Serfoss’s own explanation of his system is “work-around solution” until better display technology might be developed.

 

Right, and has that display technology arrived yet? Because it really hasn't...

 

DCS doesn’t need a work-around because that better display technology is here and the sim has a zoom view which wouldn’t be feasible for real simulators.

And this is an excuse to not have proper spotting via scaling how?

 

That effect is pretty awful looking where the plane doesn’t change in size as you zoom in and out.

 

? It changes the size just like the rest of them do to a realistic size for the current zoom level and distance.

Serfoss scaling is horrible.

Prove it.

 

The scaling of the target aircraft affects your ability to even identify it correctly.

That is indeed part of the problem the scaling is attempting to solve.

 

DCS doesn’t need a work-around because that better display technology is here and the sim has a zoom view which wouldn’t be feasible for real simulators.

The first part remains as false as the first time you made that claim. Current display technology is actually generally worse than it was back then — especially when you account for new tech like VR — and the latter is just further demonstration that what you're actually arguing for, even if you don't know it (or want to) is the removal of zoom.

 

That effect is pretty awful looking where the plane doesn’t change in size as you zoom in and out.

This is incorrect. I'm starting to think that the problems you're having have nothing to do with scaling, but with bad eyesight. It would certainly account for many of the bizarre claims and evasions you've attempted before…

Well at least somebody finally posted screenshots of what scaling would actually look like in DCS. Nobody has ever done that so far. Anyone can decide for themselves now if this looks awkward or not. My guess is most players won’t like it.

 

Anyways this discussion really has no further purpose, there are just basic concepts about view systems in flight sims you just can’t or won’t understand so this just goes in circles. The troubles you have are of your own making so ED can’t do anything about it. You’re just going to cause yourselves more frustration by not adapting to how this game is and banging your head against a wall hoping it will change just for you.

 

In the end none of this matters, because:

 

ED has played with scaling, they are not interested in pursuing it further, so while this discussion is fine, it's not changing any minds.

In the end none of this matters, because:

 

Well as said before it wouldn't be the first time ED has changed their minds and I sure hope they do here.

Well at least somebody finally posted screenshots of what scaling would actually look like in DCS. Nobody has ever done that so far.

This is incorrect. It's kind of amazing how, now that you've actually started to half-read the research, you've instead gone and stopped reading the actual thread and forgotten the old threads where this was shown to you.

 

there are just basic concepts about view systems in flight sims you just can’t or won’t understand

…such as…?
Edited December 6, 2019 by Tippis

just throwing this out there....

 

those screenshots posted are of poor quality. wouldn't resolution at the highest quality sway any of these results, i would presume yes.

just throwing this out there....

 

those screenshots posted are of poor quality. wouldn't resolution at the highest quality sway any of these results, i would presume yes.

Well yes because scaling oddities are even more apparent at higher resolution.

just throwing this out there....

 

those screenshots posted are of poor quality. wouldn't resolution at the highest quality sway any of these results, i would presume yes.

 

? my pics they're at full res 2560x1440.

Well yes because scaling oddities are even more apparent at higher resolution.

Oddities such as…? And how would higher resolutions make them more apparent?

Oddities such as…? And how would higher resolutions make them more apparent?

Oddities like seeing those aircraft on the deck of the carrier appearing too large compared to the ship.

Oddities like seeing those aircraft on the deck of the carrier appearing too large compared to the ship.

…which you have yet to prove and which would not be affected by resolution. So nothing, then.

…which you have yet to prove and which would not be affected by resolution. So nothing, then.

The proof is in the screenshots that were already posted here.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4128716&postcount=99

At higher resolutions you see everything more clearly including how the scaled up aircraft are out of scale with the unscaled ship. I don’t know what sort of “proof” you are looking for. The screenshots perfectly illustrate the point.

 

This discussion has run its course and is basically pointless now... :music_whistling:

 

Based on this

ED has played with scaling, they are not interested in pursuing it further, so while this discussion is fine, it's not changing any minds. You need to think about what makes something more or less visible in the real world, and what about that is missing or needs improvement from ED, enlarging things isn't one of them.

1080p 23"

1440p 27-32"

2160p 43" and more

for 16:9 aspect ratio for wide screens you will need couple inch more

Here you have scaling.

Do not expect seeing anything at 23" at 2160p

If someone bought 2080ti and he/she is playing at 27" screen that is crazy !! buy 50" stop complaining about visibility.

No matter ED do about visibility in DCS ppl who has higher inch/res ration will keep advantage,

If now they can see planes from 10-15 nm after changing visiblity they will spot you from 50nm = buy proper screen

Edited December 19, 2019 by grafspee

The proof is in the screenshots that were already posted here.

…and the supposed oddity remains unproven, as does the (unfounded and incorrect) assumption that you'd see a difference in scale.

 

 

At higher resolutions you see everything more clearly including how the scaled up aircraft are out of scale with the unscaled ship.

Eh, no. That's not how resolutions work, nor relative size.

 

 

As for the discussion having run its course — if you feel you can't put up any proper arguments to keep the discussion going, then you're free to not “contribute”. As previous discussions have shown, the quotation marks are quite necessary since your input into these threads has almost entirely consisted of unfounded, wilfully ignorant, contradictory, or just demonstrably and inherently false assumptions about the nature of things. As such, it has less been a contribution so much as trolling and wanting desperately to maintain a level of unrealism and imbalance that you apparently feel that the game must have for you to enjoy it.

…and the supposed oddity remains unproven, as does the (unfounded and incorrect) assumption that you'd see a difference in scale.

You can see it in the screenshot. I don’t know how much more clear that can be.

 

As for the discussion having run its course — if you feel you can't put up any proper arguments to keep the discussion going, then you're free to not “contribute”.

I don’t need to make any more arguments. NineLine just told you that this discussion isn’t changing any minds at ED. So I’m not sure why you feel the need to keep it going.

You can see it in the screenshot. I don’t know how much more clear that can be.

Quite easily: you can check your assumptions and do some work on your own to support your stance.

 

I don’t need to make any more arguments.

If you want to actually support your stance, you certainly do because you don't really have any so far. If you don't want to make any more arguments, you're just making a bunch of off-topic noise that serves no purpose other than to disrupt an on-going discussion — knowing how fond you are of quoting rules, you should be familiar with what they think about that kind of behaviour.

 

So I’m not sure why you feel the need to keep it going.

Fortunately, your unsureness is of no consequence or relevance. If you don't feel the need to keep discussing the topic, just don't.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tippis

Quite easily: you can check your assumptions and do some work on your own to support your stance.

It’s not a complicated stance. When you look at the “Serfoss” screenshot can you tell that the third aircraft on the right is larger than the other two? Yes or no?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4128716&postcount=99

 

Do you think that’s a correct size of a Hornet? Clearly it’s not, the other two are the correct size and the difference is really pronounced. And it’s quite visible.

 

Would that look odd in the sim? Yes.