Visibility: 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440

But they are. These improvements are needed to improve visibility because the moment the graphics don't look like the real thing is the moment visibility queues are not the same.

I meant that I do agree don't know why I typed it that way must have accidentally autocorrected and made the point that I agree a bit more muted.

Remember, we have real pilots on the team, Mr. Grey spends a lot of time peering at WWII birds in their air.

 

And I talk to real pilots like Habu quite often too and they are in full support of smart scaling so this can go both ways.

ED isn't looking into smart scaling, we tried something like it a while back, it wasn't great, of course, you read all this already, cuz I know you would make sure to look at everything that has been discussed already.

You just tried a straight upscaling across all ranges... and sefross even says this is a far from an optimal solution so I wouldn't call what ED did even remotely close to the scaling were talking about. Also as has been said before you can make scaling take into account monitor size so it really is a non-issue here. Yes maybe large monitor people won't see much of a change but it'd be night and day for smaller monitor people and probably VR.

honestly, much like gun dispersion, this has all been talked about before, and like the other threads, people will start fighting with each other, then someone on the mod team will have to lock it.

Finally yes there's been talk amongst players but not much in terms of response from ED itself other than 'it'll get worked on'.

edits: clarified points a bit more / grammar and spelling

I have been playing multiplayer a bit lately and it's not that bad. 2560 x 1440

There are pro's and con's here and I think I will leave it up to ED's engineers to brain storm this one out for balance.

But they are. These improvements are needed to improve visibility because the moment the graphics don't look like the real thing is the moment visibility queues are not the same. The visual distances for say the dogfighting does not need scaling, they need better contrast such as you might see against a blue sky or against the ground, flashes or reflections, etc are all better ideas than resizing.

This would be a good start with contrast from what I've seen, many like to adjust there monitor settings to help. Even more so when looking down at the ground at someone.

Serfloss tries to make sense on paper but the reality of using this system in a game is just not acceptable. He applies a 2x upscaling factor to an aircraft only 1 mile away.

This would look terrible. And it would play hell with your ability to judge range. Like this...

:doh:

His study was probably done in a vacuum of air to air spotting. DCS features low flying ground attack aircraft and helicopters which would be seen up against non-scaled terrain. Again this would just look terrible.

This has all been discussed hundreds of times. :cry:

Serfloss tries to make sense on paper but the reality of using this system in a game is just not acceptable. He applies a 2x upscaling factor to an aircraft only 1 mile away.

Yes as it's the scaling factor that best matches the data that was collected from hundreds of ACM engagements.

This would look terrible. And it would play hell with your ability to judge range. Like this...

:doh:

no it doesn't, if anything it makes it easier, again you haven't tried the demo, have you...

And this is an argument in your favor how?

His study was probably done in a vacuum of air to air spotting. DCS features low flying ground attack aircraft and helicopters which would be seen up against non-scaled terrain. Again this would just look terrible.

A) If it really does look that terrible why not just disable it for heli's (I know groundbreaking stuff right!)?

B) No it wouldn't

C) if this is about zoom well... its unrealistic and the scaling factor can easily account for this as has been told to you dozens of times already...

This has all been discussed hundreds of times. :cry:

and yet you still need to keep having it explained to you why you're wrong...

Yes as it's the scaling factor

Here's an aircraft at 1 mile, you want this rendered 2x its size?! That would look really awful.

This isn't an academic paper, it's an entertainment product and people expect it to look realistic and believable.

A) If it really does look that terrible why not just disable it for heli's

Because that would look really awful and be really confusing. Scaling some objects and not scaling others?

ED isn't looking into smart scaling

Thank you.

Now can you people please stop asking for this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again! :doh:

Here's an aircraft at 1 mile, you want this rendered 2x its size?! That would look really awful.

This isn't an academic paper, it's an entertainment product and people expect it to look realistic and believable.

 

 

Because that would look really awful and be really confusing. Scaling some objects and not scaling others?

A) No it does not look awful it actually makes it look a lot more like it does irl.

B) how would this be confusing?

C) smart scaling on heli's is a non-issue

A) No it does not look awful it actually makes it look a lot more like it does irl.

That’s only your opinion. I don’t imagine most players will want to see the aircraft drawn that far out of scale. It certainly doesn’t look like reality.

B) how would this be confusing?

It would make judging range to different targets drawn at different sizes confusing.

C) smart scaling on heli's is a non-issue

Actually it’s a big problem. So are ground targets. Are those to be scaled up as well? A2G is a big part of DCSW. The Serfloss paper seems confined to A2A without any surrounding context.

You’re wasting everyone’s and your time with this.

Because

ED isn't looking into smart scaling

That’s only your opinion. I don’t imagine most players will want to see the aircraft drawn that far out of scale. It certainly doesn’t look like reality.

Over the course of 3 days I spent 3+ hours just observing aircraft as part of my observations in the lead up to this post. It is these observations that I based my conclusions off of in the first post. I highly recommend, if you get time to do so, to do the same as I have because I truly do think it would help show just how wrong you are about vision in video games.

It would make judging range to different targets drawn at different sizes confusing.

It doesn't, I've played other games with scaling for years, and games without it. And it's always been easier to judge range in the former games because the aircraft isn't just a tiny dot right up until 1nmi. Not only that but being able to tell their orientation in space is also so much easier.

Actually it’s a big problem. So are ground targets. Are those to be scaled up as well? A2G is a big part of DCSW. The Serfloss paper seems confined to A2A without any surrounding context.

I haven't put much thought into A/G so i'l have to get back to you on this one.

You’re wasting everyone’s and your time with this. Because

well it wouldn't be the first time ED has said one thing but ended up doing another

Over the course of 3 days I spent 3+ hours just observing aircraft as part of my observations in the lead up to this post. It is these observations that I based my conclusions off of in the first post.

You act like you’re bringing something new to this discussion and that you’re the only person to have ever seen a real aircraft. This type of information about aircraft visibility ranges has been posted here dozens upon dozens of times.

I've played other games with scaling for years,

Not relevant.

I haven't put much thought into A/G so i'l have to get back to you on this one.

As if smart scaling wasn’t screwed up enough, it’s really screwed up when you try to work it out for A/G

well it wouldn't be the first time ED has said one thing but ended up doing another

Don’t hold your breath... they have never said anything that would indicate they are considering it. Quite the contrary.

So I felt seeing how visibility here compares would be important. In the end though any vision system imo should factor in FOV and seek to maintain how visible a target would be irl no matter the FOV.

What? ''The object should be the same size and visibility no matter how powerful the binoculars I'm using are or whether they are even pointed at the object. ???? No, that's just completely illogical.

I think you guys have an unrealistic expectation of how some of this stuff works, #1. Even in the ''sim that shant be named'' it doesn't work like that. It is not even remotely feasible to try to poll the system for stuff like that that varies from user to user and moment to moment and is going to introduce abherrant results. It sounds like the sort of thing a coked up Chris Roberts would spout in amongst muttering about ''fidelity''.

Regarding FoV, it doesn't matter what people are using, it's still zoomed out too far in most cases. For reference approximately 55-60' is about right for the average monitor size and sitting distance, although as display sizes increase this is likely to as well, my ultrawide 35'' is probably more along the lines of 90' true FoV (which is about what it's set to as a maximum FoV).

I get why the notion is appealing to people, but it's a bit ridiculous that people keep citing the same thing over and over like they're the first people to find it on the internet, or that it's the only possible solution to a partially self-inflicted problem.

Serfloss tries to make sense on paper but the reality of using this system in a game is just not acceptable.

Incorrect. It's not something he “tries” to make sense or only “on paper”. This is a curve that has been empirically proven against a massive amount of real-world data to be more realistic than a purely trigonometric function of perspective. It makes sense in simulations because it is specifically aimed to solve a simulation problem and to make that simulation more realistic.

Now, granted, if you want DCS to be more game:y and to eschew realism, then I guess from some point of view, it would not be acceptable to have a system that requires a tiny bit more work on the rendering side and which offers a mechanism for alleviating differences in hardware… But for a simulation — which DCS ultimately strives to be — it is not just acceptable, but bordering on absolutely required.

This would look terrible.

This has all been discussed hundreds of times. :cry:

It would make judging range to different targets drawn at different sizes confusing.

No, it would not. It's a continuous function. They would have a specific size and a specific distance. It would be no more confusing than looking out the window. And again, you're making assumptions based on not having seen it in action whereas the actual research has proven that it makes the whole matter more realistic.

As if smart scaling wasn’t screwed up enough, it’s really screwed up when you try to work it out for A/G

This is your unproven, unfounded opinion. So again: prove it.

Show your research that demonstrates that not only is it screwed up to begin with, but especially so when used against A/G targets. Until you can prove the research wrong, you have no argument. It's really that simple.

What? ''The object should be the same size and visibility no matter how powerful the binoculars I'm using are or whether they are even pointed at the object. ???? No, that's just completely illogical.

This is called strawmaning a person's argument. The change in size due to FOV is to ensure a measure of consistency across the board. Additionally, I've made it no secret in the past I think that being able to zoom in anywhere as much as you can right now needs to go. A smaller snap zoom like what you often see in shooters or that older WWII sim that can't be named is far more realistic. to ensure consistency across screens.

I think you guys have an unrealistic expectation of how some of this stuff works, #1. Even in the ''sim that shant be named'' it doesn't work like that.

yeah and that is a limitation of that sim. I never said it was perfect, hence why I've never advocated for raw sefross scaling (not that its awful, just it can be made better).

It is not even remotely feasible to try to poll the system for stuff like that that varies from user to user and moment to moment and is going to introduce abherrant results. It sounds like the sort of thing a coked up Chris Roberts would spout in amongst muttering about ''fidelity''.

its a single windows API call..., for the distance either just assume a value or make it so you can set it in the special options. Additionally, I think you're overestimating how much discrepancies such as the distance you sit at impacts this.

Regarding FoV, it doesn't matter what people are using, it's still zoomed out too far in most cases. For reference, approximately 55-60' is about right for the average monitor size and sitting distance, although as display sizes increase this is likely to as well, my ultrawide 35'' is probably more along the lines of 90' true FoV (which is about what it's set to as a maximum FoV).

Right but you need at least some superficial vision. So if you fly at higher FOV's the target should be scaled up a bit more to make it so you can see it at the appropriate distances and glean the information from it you should (such as relative angle). Or if you fly at really zoomed in FOV's it should not scale as much to maintain consistency with the higher FOV.

I get why the notion is appealing to people, but it's a bit ridiculous that people keep citing the same thing over and over like they're the first people to find it on the internet, or that it's the only possible solution to a partially self-inflicted problem.

No, it just solves part of the problem, "that sim that can't be named" could definitely benefit from contrast adjustments and glint. Each fixes a different problem monitors have compared to rlf vision.

and refusal to actually read up on the topic.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992237&postcount=123 - so why should your opinion here outweigh the evidence arrayed against it? Especially considering your refusal to even understand the topic.

so why should your opinion here outweigh the evidence arrayed against it?

Why should ED listen to a few people repeatedly asking for the same thing over and over? There’s no “evidence” here other than opinions and biases repeated over and over.

They’ve heard you. And from the responses I see it seems very doubtful they are going to tailor the sim entirely to your personal wishes.

There is a solution to your dilemma. You can go create your own flight sim! Then you can have everything just the way you want it.

Why should ED listen to a few people repeatedly asking for the same thing over and over? There’s no “evidence” here other than

…scientific research and empirical evidence in favour of the utility of methodology, as opposed to the mere guesswork and misconceptions used to try to suggest otherwise.

Why should ED listen to a few people repeatedly asking for the same thing over and over? There’s no “evidence” here other than opinions and biases repeated over and over.

No evidence you say? It sounds like your talking about yourself.

They’ve heard you. And from the responses I see it seems very doubtful they are going to tailor the sim entirely to your personal wishes.

As I've said before it wouldn't be the first time ED changed its mind and did the opposite of what they said they'd do.

No evidence you say?

Everyone has seen this stupid paper, it has nothing to do with a sim like DCSW. Posting it here a hundred times doesn’t make it any more relevant.

Everyone has seen this stupid paper, it has nothing to do with DCS. Posting it here a hundred times doesn’t make it any more relevant.

And yet you have yet to explain why its a) stupid or b) any less relevant

Everyone has seen this stupid paper, it has nothing to do with DCS.

It has to do with your false claim that there is no evidence.

It deals with realistic perception in flight simulators.

DCS, last I looked, was a flight simulator with an ambition to offer realism.

It is 100% relevant not just to DCS in general, but also to the discussion at hand, so you're correct on that point at least: posting it a hundred times doesn't make it more relevant, but that's simply because its relevance is already at maximum.

And yet you have yet to explain why its a) stupid or b) any less relevant

I just did. Go back a few pages.

And you keep continually asking for a feature that afaik only one other sim ever used. The features of other games are off topic and irrelevant here.

I just did.

You've only ever made a lot of demonstrably false and/or unproven claims without any evidence or real arguments to back them up. None of it explains why it's stupid or irrelevant — only that you don't want the improve realism and ability to remedy hardware differences (but it still doesn't explain why).

The features of other games are off topic and irrelevant here.

Alright, let's see. The flanking Hornet at 1nm should have about the same angular size as a sun which is about 30 arc minutes. As it flies against the sun should just the model be scaled or both the sun and the model? What if there's a cloud behind? What if there's a mountain, buildings, trees? Should the whole space-time around it be bent or just a model? Now I shoot guns at it. My gun dispersion is constant so should the outer rounds hit the larger model or just pass through? Is it ridiculous enough?

And it all started with users playing at FoV 90 on a 22" LCD expecting to see both distant aircraft and the whole cockpit? Please, get real people and DCS will get more real too. It's like using the binoculars backwards.

And no, user zoom setting have to stay as long as DCS does not have any means of knowing how far you sit from the screen. It won't affect the distant object when fov is properly set based on screen size but hugely affect the cockpit and near objects.

Alright, let's see. The flanking Hornet at 1nm should have about the same angular size as a sun which is about 30 arc minutes. As it flies against the sun should just the model be scaled or both the sun and the model? What if there's a cloud behind? What if there's a mountain, buildings, trees? Should the whole space-time around it be bent or just a model?

[/Quote]

Just the model as that's what we care about and should put our computing power towards.

 

Now I shoot guns at it. My gun dispersion is constant so should the outer rounds hit the larger model or just pass through? Is it ridiculous enough?

[/Quote]

 

A) The size discrepancy at the ranges you'll actually be able to reach with the gun let alone actually start hitting stuff is small enough that this is a non factor. Either or really as the difference isn't that large.

B) Ridiculous no, its based off of "…scientific research and empirical evidence in favour of the utility of methodology"

 

And it all started with users playing at FoV 90 on a 22" LCD expecting to see both distant aircraft and the whole cockpit? Please, get real people and DCS will get more real too. It's like using the binoculars backwards.

 

Strawmaning the argument again. VR users and even people with bigger monitors at higher resolutions have trouble i'm at 24" and I have trouble. And I know people who run at 27" - 32" and they have trouble as well. And why shouldn't there be some mechanism to help out people with smaller monitors? Why can't we have constant spotting across the board?

 

And no, user zoom setting have to stay as long as DCS does not have any means of knowing how far you sit from the screen. It won't affect the distant object when fov is properly set based on screen size but hugely affect the cockpit and near objects.

 

A) it could be a user imputed setting

B) Just make an educated guess, if they sit in a spot that negatively impacts their ability to see... well that's their choice.

As I've said before it wouldn't be the first time ED changed its mind and did the opposite of what they said they'd do.

You are wanting ED to adopt graphic techniques from almost 20 years ago. I very much doubt any developer would do something like that. The future of these sims is much more sophisticated, realistic and beautiful looking. That’s what is expected in today’s market. And the competition is out there.

For your own sake you just need to adapt yourself to today’s world. Expecting ED to go backwards to past solutions isn’t reasonable. Much of this problem is your own making, adapt yourself to the game because the game isn’t going to change just for you.