[KNOWN] Spotting with 4K, Monitor size vs Resolution

Seriously, guys? I mean I don't think there is anything wrong with my eyesight, but I need to zoom in on the image without labels to see these F-5 dots. And, the images themselves are already fully zoomed in cockpit!

I'm sitting calmly in a seat looking at static images and am struggling, what on earth chance is there of spotting them non-zoomed in and in a fluid flight situation? None, I would say.

I'm sitting calmly in a seat looking at static images and am struggling, what on earth chance is there of spotting them non-zoomed in and in a fluid flight situation? None, I would say.

Yes, but why would you like to be able to do so? They are miles away. Either you get vector from AWACS or search with radar all the time - fighter pilot's life. You won't see until WVR, but you already have them locked on.

 

If you like to see all like a god - use labels.

 

 

It struck me too in the Tomcat, that I don't see them. I used to fly in the Eagle a lot. I loaded the Instant Action to get back for a relief and realised I don't really look for contacts with eyes - always with the radar unless dogfighting.

Yes, but why would you like to be able to do so? They are miles away. Either you get vector from AWACS or search with radar all the time - fighter pilot's life. You won't see until WVR, but you already have them locked on.

 

I don't think we're really getting anywhere here, but in answer to your question, they are WVR, that's the point. I can't remember what the label range is, but I think it's 5nm. Should be able to see them quite easily at that distance.

Should be able to see them quite easily at that distance.

 

But should we, really? What I take from various actual aviators in this thread and others is, that it's damn hard to spot something small like fighter planes, even if you know where to look, depending on a whole load of factors.

 

That's why I am not conviced that some of us being able to better see them in other games is necessarily a proof for ED doing something wrong... I am starting to strongly suspect the other games making it too easy.

But should we, really? What I take from various actual aviators in this thread and others is, that it's damn hard to spot something small like fighter planes, even if you know where to look, depending on a whole load of factors.

 

That's why I am not conviced that some of us being able to better see them in other games is necessarily a proof for ED doing something wrong... I am starting to strongly suspect the other games making it too easy.

Yes, we should be able to see them at 5nm. There are dozens of threads on this topic over the last few years, and it is something that ED are well aware of and have been looking into for some time.

One of the current threads is here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3847177#post3847177.

One of the current threads is here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3847177#post3847177.

 

I know, I read that thread - I am just not convinced, that we actually should be able to.

I am starting to strongly suspect the other games making it too easy.

Apparently they did. Because it spoiled a lot of players into thinking that it should be easy.

Exactly.

The F-5 is a peculiar bird [...] It has no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures, other than the fact that when pointed nose-on to an adversary it completely disappears, like a cloaking device being activated. There is no sophisticated technology required to enable the disappearing act, just the fact the pilot sits in a cramped little cockpit on the head of a needle with tiny, razor-thin wings behind him.

 

Here: Flying the F-5 Tiger II (Part 1)

Well I see them far enough out in the F14 so far.. but maybe the 72" screen helps ;) that is not zoomed in I see them fine.. I am using a crappy intel cpu built invid card and see them no problems..

What does affect seeing objects in 4K is that DCS renders distant aircraft as a single pixel and that pixel appears larger in 1080p. Try a test and reduce your resolution to 1080x1920 and you’ll see contacts at 30 miles. Not very realistic and it’s like a holdover from old Model Enlargement. Don’t know what the solution for that should be. I get that they don’t want distant aircraft to vanish but making a pixel sized sprite handicaps higher resolution displays, VR included when it’s running a higher pixel density. It’s a little backwards if you ask me. I still think the benefit of 4K is worthwhile because seeing better overall is an improvement over the ability to see a single dot that’s only apparent with good contrast. I wouldn’t run with lower resolution all the time just for that ability. The game looks like crap and you sacrifice better visibility in every other circumstance.

Edited March 20, 2019 by SharpeXB

I agree.... it is hard.

 

Its hard in real life too. i havent played outside of 4k for awhile, but it does take a bit to see stuff. have no real world experience to compare it to lol.

 

wish I did.

i also think, that there isn't anything fundamentaly wrong with spotting distances, since in the provided screenshot the ac do get rendered properly and it can be assumed, that they get rendered in the appropriate size.

 

however there is some huge problem with spotting in dcs and that is less about rendering size, but pixel quality or shading.

Even if you can clearly make out the shape of the aircraft it tends to blend with the background, especially when there is terrain.

 

I think, that is because the ac are not rendered with the full pbr suite when more than some hundred feets away, this results in the ac not reflecting any sunlight f.e.

I assume that sunlight reflecting back from a maneuvering ac would make it easier to see, not because it would appear brighter, but because it's brightnes would constantly change.

 

i made some tests in blender where i tried to recreate this and with the right settings and a very reflective aircraft geometry, it indeed rendered as a dot, that was pulsing in brightness and was therefore easy to see.

 

of course military ac are not super reflective anymore, but they stills should reflect a decent amount of light and do that dependant on the surfaces angle to the sun, therefore rapidly changing brightness when in relative motion.

 

i don't know if there are technical limitations, but i don't see why distant ac could not rendered with proper shading: it woud still only be a distant lod geometry with very basic shading (only diffuse color and sun reflection + pp glow effect or similar). If used with a pp glow, that glow could even be exagerated as a spotting aid (some shooters do that with enemy sniper scopes, to make it easier for the player to notice).

I'm running a 42' 4k TV with HDR and can see out to beyond 10 miles, twice as far out as when I was running 1080. I suspect it's something to do with the screen size... I'm not sure why you would run at 4k on anything smaller than a 30' display...

however there is some huge problem with spotting in dcs and that is less about rendering size, but pixel quality or shading.

Even if you can clearly make out the shape of the aircraft it tends to blend with the background, especially when there is terrain.

There are plans to improve it. Dev already know:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3842769&postcount=75

 

I'm not sure why you would run at 4k on anything smaller than a 30' display.

There is never enough resolution regardless of the screen size to get better looking picture.

I love how people who think it really should be this hard to spot and more importantly KEEP visual contact on enemy planes, consistantly ignore the reports of real world pilots who are forced to turn LABELS ON to actually enjoy flying in DCS.

 

Boggles the mind.

I love how people who think it really should be this hard to spot and more importantly KEEP visual contact on enemy planes, consistantly ignore the reports of real world pilots who are forced to turn LABELS ON to actually enjoy flying in DCS.

And how many of them sit in front of 100" curved monitor with enough resolution to not discern a single pixel? Right - none. Until then - no point in comparing to the reality... Mind real mil simulators have huge screens too at least 180 deg. around front - I bet they complain about visibility ;)

I'm running a 42' 4k TV with HDR and can see out to beyond 10 miles, twice as far out as when I was running 1080. I suspect it's something to do with the screen size... I'm not sure why you would run at 4k on anything smaller than a 30' display...

 

It does.

 

The fundamental problem is that DCS does not try to normalise sizes across different hardware or make any attempt at actually simulating perception, but rather relies on a horribly naive and limiting method of just drawing a model at its smallest possible size given the available resolution. It is all simplistic trigonometry where optometry would be a better foundation to stand on. :P

 

In more practical terms, it comes down to how those sizes translate into angles, how many pixels each degree covers, and the elastic limits of sub-pixel rendering. If an object is too much below that limit, it is isn't rendered at all; if it is above that limit, it is, with no consideration as to whether it should. The visual cues that actually matter are hardly simulated at all, and the actual limitations of the eye — and the compensating cognitive functions — are completely ignored.

 

It has a couple of unfortunate consequences: first is that aircraft are easier to spot the worse your hardware is — higher resolutions and fancier post-processing makes them show up much smaller and more blended into the environment, whereas on simpler hardware it's just a matter of “above rendering limit = let's draw a huge blotch here, preferably in the wrong colour” and of course lower resolutions makes that blotch even huger and easier to see. Second (and at the other end of the scale), it means that actual visual ranges are massively inflated on higher resolutions — each pixel covers a smaller angle, so the angular size of an object can be much smaller and still trigger that “above limit = draw” logic even though it should be well beyond the angular resolution of the eye.

 

The former is an issue where sizes are not normalised — something that takes up 2mm on one screen can take up 4mm on another and 1mm on a third, when it's not actually all that hard to make them all the same size (of course, people sitting at different distances from their screen will still mean that something showing up the same on-screen size will differ in how apparent it is). The latter is (mostly) an issue of zoom levels, where there is no hard stop for how the angular resolution the game will provide.

 

The annoying thing is that these are not some hugely complex or difficult issues to handle. It's a solved problem. The issue is just one of implementation and dealing with people who'd no longer get the advantage (in either direction) they're accustomed to…

Edited March 22, 2019 by Tippis

There are plans to improve it. Dev already know:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3842769&postcount=75

 

oh. thanks for the heads up. i didn't see that post.

It has a couple of unfortunate consequences: first is that aircraft are easier to spot the worse your hardware is — higher resolutions and fancier post-processing makes them show up much smaller and more blended into the environment, whereas on simpler hardware it's just a matter of “above rendering limit = let's draw a huge blotch here, preferably in the wrong colour” and of course lower resolutions makes that blotch even huger and easier to see. Second (and at the other end of the scale), it means that actual visual ranges are massively inflated on higher resolutions — each pixel covers a smaller angle, so the angular size of an object can be much smaller and still trigger that “above limit = draw” logic even though it should be well beyond the angular resolution of the eye.

I don’t know if that’s what is really happening. I think DCS won’t let a distant aircraft vanish to below a single pixel. And that single pixel is larger when your resolution is smaller. In the same mission as the screenshots I posted earlier, those aircraft were visible at 30 miles instead of 13

 

The former is an issue where sizes are not normalised — something that takes up 2mm on one screen can take up 4mm on another and 1mm on a third, when it's not actually all that hard to make them all the same size (of course, people sitting at different distances from their screen will still mean that something showing up the same on-screen size will differ in how apparent it is).

Well the difference isn’t as huge as that. A pixel is much smaller than 1mm. Most any aircraft close enough that you should actually see IRL is already being rendered as more than one pixel in 1080p or 4K and that’s where the advantage of a higher res screen is apparent. If you look at my earlier screenshots which show an aircraft 13 miles away, a very far distance for seeing them IRL, they are rendering as several pixels in UHD. They are also, in that contrasted condition, quite apparent especially since in the actual game they’re moving.

Edited March 22, 2019 by SharpeXB

I don’t know if that’s what is really happening.

It is. The pixel size just sets an uneven limit for when that stops happening, which is a pretty significant balance problem at both ends of the spectrum.

 

Well the difference isn’t as huge as that.

Sure it is — it's all a function of screen size and pixel density. While a 300% variation might indeed be on the extreme end without people using rather silly resolutions for their monitors, but remember, 72 ppi is still the nominal “screen resolution” for images; your average TV sits in the 50–60 ppi region; 4× that is 200–250 ppi, which is about what you get out of “retina” or similar HiDPI screen modes.

 

It's also not just an issue for when an aircraft is 1px (even though it's probably the case when it matters the most) — it can happen at larger sizes too.

 

 

At any rate, whether or not the difference is “as huge as that” is somewhat besides the point — it's that the difference needlessly exists at all that is the silly problem.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Tippis

At any rate, whether or not the difference is “as huge as that” is somewhat besides the point — it's that the difference needlessly exists at all that is the silly problem.

That’s true. No matter the resolution contacts shouldn’t be visible at 30 miles.

I don’t feel what I’m getting in 4K is necessarily unreal. And I’m mostly doing SP so I don’t really care about other people in MP. Even if I did all things considered this isn’t the end all be all of detecting opponents. Mostly in SP I’m concerned about tangling with the all seeing AI.