Spotting.

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

Almost missed this

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

Yeah the paper is for a Dr of Philosophy. How does that make any sense? Because the guy was probably a video gamer and apparently nobody cares what a Dr of Philosophy writes their thesis about.  

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah the paper is for a Dr of Philosophy. How does that make any sense? Because the guy was probably a video gamer and apparently nobody cares what a Dr of Philosophy writes their thesis about.  

The Doctor of Philosophy, (PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil.) is a degree a person gets from a university by finishing a doctorate program. In many areas of study, the PhD/DPhil is the highest degree that a person can earn (this is called the "terminal degree").

 

Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems.

 

"He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems."

 

I have no words.

Edited October 13, 2019 by YIPPEE

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

The Doctor of Philosophy, (PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil.) is a degree a person gets from a university by finishing a doctorate program. In many areas of study, the PhD/DPhil is the highest degree that a person can earn (this is called the "terminal degree").

 

"He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems."

 

I have no words.

Well this Doctor of Philosophy guy really screwed up your skills at flight sim games that’s for sure. He gets an A+ for that. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[nighthawk2174]

[LColony_The_Blackadder]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this Doctor of Philosophy guy really screwed up your skills at flight sim games that’s for sure. He gets an A+ for that. 

The clear ravings of a defeated person.

 

"Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems." 

 

Damn this video gamer

[Barnacles]

If one real life fighter pilot on one monitor/graphics set up, says that the spotting is realistic and one real life fighter pilot on another, probably different monitor/ graphics set up says it's not realistic, then it just shows how dependent on monitor settings or just straight up subjectivity this issue actually is.

 

*after I've properly adjusted the contrast and brightness settings on my monitor*, I find the expert mode visibility to give a close approximation to what I expect my spotting ranges would be in real life.

 

In my oculus rift, my experience matches what several people are complaining of, in that I can only see stuff that's very close, ie contacts where I can start to spot them at around 6km. This gives a close approximation to what Andre Petrovich described.

 

If I was insistent on only flying in VR, (I don't exclusive, as my frame rates are sh*t) I'd prefer to use alternative. With a monitor it's the opposite.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Reading through this thread clearly shows what a divisive issue the new alternative spotting has become.

I am fully aware that there are real world studies available not only from WWII but also modern-day high-tech programs being developed regarding aircraft visual acquisition and identification.
That is all great but unfortunately, we are not dealing with a real-world issue but a PC gaming one.

The crux of it is the very different experience players are reporting with the different visibility settings.
It seems we may have established that display resolution settings or the hardware being used seems to be the main cause of the varied user experience but I cannot be certain.

On my setup I have been using a high-resolution monitor (3840 x 2160) and all graphics settings on maximum. Prior to the major update aircraft visibility past 10 km seemed impossible (on my system anyway).  However, I didn’t notice disappearing aircraft at closer range. The zoom function worked as intended (to make up for 2D monitor deficiencies that the human eye doesn’t have). 

Alternative visibly
Display setting: (3840 x 2160)
With alternative visibly on my experience changed dramatically. I could spot 109’s from 40 Km away, they looked huge, I wasn’t keen on that at all. 
Unfortunately, what was worse is the aircraft got smaller the closer they got so I’m thinking WFT? When the aircraft got to around the 7-5 km mark, I also noticed them “disappearing” or they were getting so small I couldn’t see them.  To compensate for this this by using zoom was completely useless as it was now inverted.

I have tried various resolution settings on my monitor (2560 x 1440 -no good) and by turning down the resolution to 1920 x 1080 the alternative visibility is bearable. The aircraft still look huge at a long distance (Which I hate) but they scale much better as the approach. Also, zoom seems to work better.   

Standard visibility  
Display setting: (3840 x 2160)
With this setting the 10 km bubble is gone and I can spot aircraft at much longer distance, 15-20 km. They also do not look out of scale. As aircraft approach they do not get smaller and I haven’t noticed them “disappear.” Turning my monitor down to lower resolution, 2560 x 1440  cause no issues.
When set to (1920 x 1080) it does make spotting a little more challenging but the aircraft scale correctly and don’t “disappear.”

 

In summary, standard visibly is miles better for me on my system. This is of course where we have a problem, user experience.

From reading the forums,  some VR users seem to have benefited greatly from using the new setting, this also seems the case for those using a lower resolution display. #not-all
I genuinely hope that when time is available the devs will be able to look into this situation.

 

This is very frustrating and unfortunately it has and will cause a divide in multiplayer. I really do not envy the server admins right now because whatever settings they use they are going to lose players from the server. 
 

[Barnacles]

Also, honest point of argument for the advocates of scaling; you seem to think that alt vis setting is the only setting with scaling, and expert is totally without scaling; maybe both settings do have scaling, but they do it in different ways? I was always under the impression (demonstrated for example by zooming in on a parked flyable i16 next to the stationary object, parked i16) that as you get more distant the flyable objects have always been scaled to an extent in IL2 GB. 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Also, honest point of argument for the advocates of scaling; you seem to think that alt vis setting is the only setting with scaling, and expert is totally without scaling; maybe both settings do have scaling, but they do it in different ways?

I'll be honest, I think that both setting use scaling but using standard visibility on my setup is just so much better. If alternate visibility was the better option I'd use it all the time. This is where the problem is we are getting different results with what display or hardware we are using.

As are you

50 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

If I was insistent on only flying in VR, (I don't exclusive, as my frame rates are sh*t) I'd prefer to use alternative. With a monitor it's the opposite.

 

[Sgt_Joch]

3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

In my oculus rift, my experience matches what several people are complaining of, in that I can only see stuff that's very close, ie contacts where I can start to spot them at around 6km. This gives a close approximation to what Andre Petrovich described.

 

which pretty much matches my experience.(spec: original RIFT/steam VR:100%/2xAA).

 

I can usually spot and track targets from 0-6 km and track them usually once spotted. You can see something at 5-6 km in 1:1, usually a faint smoke trail, use the 2x zoom to see the bogey, then track it at 1:1 with occasional 2x zoom use. The smoke trails and new sun reflections help. Planes are also easier to track when below.

 

This is actually a big improvement from pre-patch. I have not noticed a difference between alternate and realistic below 6km. Being unable to spot targets was my biggest peeve about VR, glad to see that problem is being addressed.

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, The_Blackadder said:

The clear ravings of a defeated person.

 

"Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems." 

 

Damn this video gamer

Good for him. This study of his was related to Air Force simulators with a specific fixed projection system. It would be terribly problematic to implement in an entertainment product like IL-2 where everyone has different hardware and setups. Furthermore it’s visual effects would just be ugly in a game that’s supposed to feature a believable looking environment. 

 

His solution is really flawed both for gaming and for actual simulators. I have a hard time imagining it would ever actually be used. Depicting aircraft greatly out of scale would cause all sorts of problems. He tries to acknowledge other solutions like having better projectors etc. And there are many references to video games as a use which is what makes me think that was his goal all along. Along with all the credentials he may very well be a gaming enthusiast as well. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[LColony_Kong]

1440p alternative vs non-alt max FOV

 

ALT

non alt

 

alt

 

non-alt

1080p "expert" spotting

 

[[DBS]TH0R]

The more people reply here the more it is painfully obvious neither of the two offered spotting systems are up to the job. A compromise is sorely needed. An imperfect system that works, is better than the two that don't (i.e. only works for a group of users).

 

That is even worse than all this, is the split in the community caused by the two spotting systems. I don't forsee Jason sticking with them for too long...

 

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And HDR is not in its infancy. It’s in full implementation everywhere except niche PC games like this one. Every Xbox kiddie is running it. Anyways it would be a super good feature where this issue is concerned. 

 

On what info do you base your conclusions here? Does this sim run on Xbox?

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Good for him. This study of his was related to Air Force simulators with a specific fixed projection system. It would be terribly problematic to implement in an entertainment product like IL-2 where everyone has different hardware and setups. Furthermore it’s visual effects would just be ugly in a game that’s supposed to feature a believable looking environment. 

 

His solution is really flawed both for gaming and for actual simulators. I have a hard time imagining it would ever actually be used. Depicting aircraft greatly out of scale would cause all sorts of problems. He tries to acknowledge other solutions like having better projectors etc. And there are many references to video games as a use which is what makes me think that was his goal all along. Along with all the credentials he may very well be a gaming enthusiast as well. 

 

And what makes you think the current system (Expert in this case) is believable looking environment?

 

What makes you believe depicting planes slightly out of proportions in order to bridge the gap between real world peripheral view would cause all sorts of problems?

 

8 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

*after I've properly adjusted the contrast and brightness settings on my monitor*, I find the expert mode visibility to give a close approximation to what I expect my spotting ranges would be in real life.

 

This is also a huge part of the spotting problem. That is why so many YT videos feature very dark cockpits because people turned down gamma to the minimum in order to improve their visibility.

 

Messing about with gamma settings and contrast in order to improve spotting is not the way it should work, and is also another proof of the problem.

Edited October 13, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

On what info do you base your conclusions here? Does this sim run on Xbox?

Many mainstream games (PC and console)  support HDR. And the current consoles Xbox One and PS4 

All newer 4K UHDTVs support HDR

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Many mainstream games (PC and console)  support HDR. And the current consoles Xbox One and PS4 

All newer 4K UHDTVs support HDR

 

How many virtual pilots here use 4K monitors do you think? Of those that do, how many of those have HDR certified monitors, i.e. tech that can utilize that support?

 

 

[Barnacles]

27 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

The more people reply here the more it is painfully obvious neither of the two offered spotting systems are up to the job. A compromise is sorely needed. An imperfect system that works, is better than the two that don't (i.e. only works for a group of users).

 

That is even worse than all this, is the split in the community caused by the two spotting systems. I don't forsee Jason sticking with them for too long...

 

 

On what info do you base your conclusions here? Does this sim run on Xbox?

 

 

And what makes you think the current system (Expert in this case) is believable looking environment?

 

What makes you believe depicting planes slightly out of proportions in order to bridge the gap between real world peripheral view would cause all sorts of problems?

 

 

This is also a huge part of the spotting problem. That is why so many YT videos feature very dark cockpits because people turned down gamma to the minimum in order to improve their visibility.

 

Messing about with gamma settings and contrast in order to improve spotting is not the way it should work, and is also another proof of the problem.

I've got gamma at 1. Adjust your monitor so black is black, with max contrast. Use one of those test screens you can find on the internet, like the old test card on TVs. I've not adjusted it in order to min max competitiveness in MP, I've just adjusted it properly. I'm surprised what a difference it made.

[SharpeXB]

13 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Ad hominem.

Argument from authority.

Misunderstanding of the actual content of the paper.

No specific argument as to how any of the it is wrong.

 

Sharpe you have been going at this one for years and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence posted yet. I am still waiting for you to provide some specific reason as to how any of the calculations or rationals in that paper are wrong.

 

"gamer"

 

Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory.  He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems.

 

Thats "dr. gamer" to you

Clearly Devs think his solution is “wrong” for their games because none of the current flight sims use it. The only one I’m only aware of which does is BMS
ED won’t use it and neither had 1CGS. I doubt they ever will. Mostly because it’s just ugly looking. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

13 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I've got gamma at 1. Adjust your monitor so black is black, with max contrast. Use one of those test screens you can find on the internet, like the old test card on TVs. I've not adjusted it in order to min max competitiveness in MP, I've just adjusted it properly. I'm surprised what a difference it made.

 

I have calibrated my monitor with X-Rite i1Display Pro, which is far more precise than what online test screens can do (still rely on mk1 eyeball).

[Barnacles]

7 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

I have calibrated my monitor with X-Rite i1Display Pro, which is far more precise than what online test screens can do (still rely on mk1 eyeball).

I'll try that! Ty 

8 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

I have calibrated my monitor with X-Rite i1Display Pro, which is far more precise than what online test screens can do (still rely on mk1 eyeball).

I'll try that! If I can borrow one

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

How many virtual pilots here use 4K monitors do you think? Of those that do, how many of those have HDR certified monitors, i.e. tech that can utilize that support?

It would be interesting to know that figure. My guess is that HDR monitors are rare because TVs have replaced them for gaming

30-40% Of US households (biggest game market) have a 4K TV (all 4K TVs are also HDR unless they’re quite old) so it’s a safe assumption that this same % of console gamers use them at least. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/12/30/4-k-tv-video-movies-shows-watch/2420546002/

 

The Steam Hardware survey shows 1080x1920 used by 63% and the next most common resolution as1366x768 at 12%

2160 is at 2%

Of course that’s just a survey of everyone who has Steam installed and maybe not indicative of enthusiasts. 

I think PC doesn’t have the incentive to go for 2160p because PCs are capable of very high graphic settings that honestly look better and perform better than just having extra pixels. A game looks and runs better at ultra graphics 1080p than medium settings at 2160p. Graphics cards which can do Ultra 2160p/60 are still quite expensive. 

 

List of PC games that support HDR

https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high_dynamic_range_display_(HDR)

 

There are logical reasons why HDR hasn’t found its way into titles like this. Which is too bad because it would be a big help with the visibility issues. 4K+HDR will though eventually become the norm for video just like 1080p is today. 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

And what makes you think the current system (Expert in this case) is believable looking environment?

Statements by the developers themselves:

 

Posted by Sneaksie, October 4

“Dear friends,

Having observed very differrent responses to the visibility change yesterday which returned to more realistic values, we have decided to add a new difficulty option called 'Alternate visibility'.”

 

AnPetrovich

“I understand that many players like to see airplanes in the game at distances more than 20 - 30 km because in this case it is easier to play, and it is more interesting to see many other planes around you, not so boring or something. I got it.
 

I just want these players to understand and accept the fact that this is far away from the real life, and this is not about the 'simulator' or 'historical reconstruction' because it breaks proper tactics of air combat.”

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

What makes you believe depicting planes slightly out of proportions in order to bridge the gap between real world peripheral view would cause all sorts of problems?

Because BMS style smart scaling isn’t “slightly out of proportion”. It’s a factor of something like 2x at 3 miles. And the fact that this factor is only applied to the aircraft and not their surroundings. It would look just plain awful. Devs are all aware of this feature and have heard this thousands of times. ED for example thinks it’s just plain ugly. I’m sure 1CGS would agree. 

[nighthawk2174]

https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration

 

for those interested, i'd call it far from ugly

 

+ https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992242&postcount=131 

[Guest deleted@83466]

A lot of people here seem to be arguing the Scaling vs No-Scaling angle.  For me, it's a matter of degree:  I'm not staunchly opposed to all scaling, I'm being forced to choose between none at all in the Expert option versus what appears to be too much scaling in the the Alternate option (which is clearly allowing spotting for a lot of people at extreme distances).  If the developers have decided it has to be one or the other, and there is to be no further tuning to find a more optimal place on the spectrum, I choose the Expert one.

[[DBS]TH0R]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It would be interesting to know that figure. My guess is that HDR monitors are rare because TVs have replaced them for gaming

30-40% Of US households (biggest game market) have a 4K TV (all 4K TVs are also HDR unless they’re quite old) so it’s a safe assumption that this same % of console gamers use them at least. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/12/30/4-k-tv-video-movies-shows-watch/2420546002/

 

 

Do you happen to know of how bad the input lag is with "gaming TVs"? Where did you obtain the info 30-40% of US households and how does that compare to the EU for the example?

 

Why is that figure even relevant? Are console gamers running realistic flight sims?

 

How does this have anything to do with flight simming and the sim we play here where the majority of users use monitors or VR?

 

What info do you have about eSports hardware and wouldn't you think that would be more important comparison than "fun" console gamer systems?

 

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Statements by the developers themselves:

 

Posted by Sneaksie, October 4

“Dear friends,

Having observed very differrent responses to the visibility change yesterday which returned to more realistic values, we have decided to add a new difficulty option called 'Alternate visibility'.”

 

AnPetrovich

“I understand that many players like to see airplanes in the game at distances more than 20 - 30 km because in this case it is easier to play, and it is more interesting to see many other planes around you, not so boring or something. I got it.

 

How does AnPetrovich's oppinion compare to what we have been trying to explain to you here (hint: max value 20-25km)?

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Because BMS style smart scaling isn’t “slightly out of proportion”. It’s a factor of something like 2x at 3 miles. And the fact that this factor is only applied to the aircraft and not their surroundings. It would look just plain awful. Devs are all aware of this feature and have heard this thousands of times. ED for example thinks it’s just plain ugly. I’m sure 1CGS would agree. 

 

Why do you think ED's developers opinion is important here? What does the majority of ED flight sim users think of their spotting system?

 

How far does the BMS scaling render planes, at what distance? What do BMS users think of their spotting system?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

47 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Do you happen to know of how bad the input lag is with "gaming TVs"?

You can find out here

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

48 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 Where did you obtain the info 30-40% of US households 

From the link in my post. 

53 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Are console gamers running realistic flight sims?

They will be 

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/microsoft-flight-simulator

And it will be in 4K UltraHD HDR. 

57 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

How does AnPetrovich's oppinion compare to what we have been trying to explain to you here (hint: max value 20-25km)?

His opinion is more informed than yours is. He’s also designing the game. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can find out here

https://displaylag.com/best-low-input-lag-tvs-gaming-by-gamers/

From the link in my post. 

They will be 

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/microsoft-flight-simulator

And it will be in 4K UltraHD HDR. 

 

Are you aware how "game modes" on these TVs affect color accuracy in a negative way?

 

What would you chose - a super expensive OLED 4K TV or 2nd gen VR set?

 

And what do you think the majority of users that have tried VR would chose? Especially with IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles in mind.

 

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

His opinion is more informed than yours is. He’s also designing the game. 

 

Please answer my question. I am not questioning his level of information. Thank you.

Edited October 13, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

What would you chose - a super expensive OLED 4K TV or 2nd gen VR set?

I wouldn’t choose OLED for gaming due to burn-in potential. And high cost. I did consider a TV recently as an upgrade but decided to wait on it. The monitor I have now is very good. I don’t consider VR to be worthwhile yet. 

21 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Please answer my question. I am not questioning his level of information. Thank you.

What is your question exactly? Do I agree with AnP? Yes he’s more informed than I am so I trust his judgement on this issue. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I wouldn’t choose OLED for gaming due to burn-in potential. And high cost. I did consider a TV recently as an upgrade but decided to wait on it. The monitor I have now is very good. I don’t consider VR to be worthwhile yet. 

 

Why are you then recommending a solution you yourself wouldn't use? How does that help this thread and the discussion?

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What is your question exactly? Do I agree with AnP? Yes he’s more informed than I am so I trust his judgement on this issue. 

 

Have you even read my question? If not, please read again.

Edited October 13, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Why do you think ED's developers opinion is important here? What does the majority of ED flight sim users think of their spotting system?

Because ED wrestles with the same issues.  And 1CGS unfortunately just made the same mistake they did with creating a user-adjustable visibility system that gives players excessive (unrealistic) enlargement. ED gets asked for this “smart scaling” more because BMS players are probably more attracted to DCS

So ED has already been down this path. 

Just like every flight sim there is a subset of players in DCS who cannot seem to grasp visibility. Much of the trouble is again from the players themselves. A chief reason being that many are BMS players who have been coddled over the years with targets rendered 2x the size of what they see in DCS. That’s not ED’s fault. And it’s not 1CGS fault either. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Just like every flight sim there is a subset of players in DCS who cannot seem to grasp visibility. Much of the trouble is again from the players themselves.

 

Can you define "subset of players". What number or percentage of players is that. Can you back it up with some numbers or data?

 

Do you visit Hoggit to gather non moderated opinions from ED forums?

 

What makes you so certain that you yourself are grasping visibility and the problems we are talking about here?

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Why are you then recommending a solution you yourself wouldn't use?

The reason I didn’t get a TV recently has nothing to do with the quality. The particular model I was looking at seems great. Good inout lag, great picture. Even FreeSync computable. Very nice. I’m honestly holding out because I have a really good new monitor that’s also great. If I upgrade it might be for a 2160p 21:9 (don’t see any of those out yet) or an 8K TV which are now appearing. There are very good gaming TVs and I’m sure a lot of flight sim players use them. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

As a follow up to the last question, do you understand any of this:

 

3 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration

 

for those interested, i'd call it far from ugly

 

+ https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3992242&postcount=131 

 

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Can you define "subset of players". What number or percentage of players is that. Can you back it up with some numbers or data?

Just go and read on the topic there yourself. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Just go and read on the topic there yourself. 

 

Don't change the subject. I am asking you, not AnPetrovich or ED forum users. Please answer the question if you can. Thank you.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

As a follow up to the last question, do you understand any of this:

This topic has been discussed to death over there. Who cares if anyone understands it? We don’t develop these games. 

1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

Don't change the subject. I am asking you, not AnPetrovich or ED forum users. Please answer the question if you can. Thank you.

Don’t have the time or energy anymore. This whole topic is a waste of time. Like the endless flight model arguments. 

[nighthawk2174]

hence:

14 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

Don't change the subject. I am asking you, not AnPetrovich or ED forum users. Please answer the question if you can. Thank you.

he can't its really that simple.

[Guest deleted@83466]

@nighthawk Can you?

 

It's hard to judge from things like Polls on a forum what most people want, (because people tend to spam them), but at least one poll in FC indicates that users prefer Alternate Vis OFF by a fairly large margin.  I vaguely remember ED going down this path a couple of years ago (I had it, but didn't play it much back then), and when it came to Multiplayer servers, I remember it be very difficult to find one that had both had a decent amount of players in it and that had the 'Enhanced' vis settings enabled.  I don't even know what happened to it nowadays, but I guess it was deemed too gamey for the hard-core sim crowd, so I guess it's gone.  For me the question of what is "popular" it is very problematic, because there are always going to be a lot of players who don't really care about what is realistic, they just want a system that allows them to most easily go in and furball.  All I can say is that I encourage the developers at 777 to keep looking at the issue and try to tune it up so that it doesn't continue to divide the MP community to this extent.  That doesn't look like it going to happen, and I find that unfortunate. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[SharpeXB]

“Model Enlargement” in DCS produced a nearly similar effect as Alternate Visibility. There were three levels to choose from or to turn it off. 

It caused the same problems online but they were even worse in modern combat where aircraft can engage each other at those ranges and simply looking for dots made radar unnecessary. So hardly any server had it set on. It was only present in the Stable Version of the game for a short time, mostly it was running in the Open Beta. After a short time in Stable it was removed. 

[Ehret]

I barely can see anything in few km range unless there is smoking or tracers flying. Only when very close (under 1000m or so) planes render but if the target will go further it just disappears (or look that way - the result is the same for me thought).

Others have the issue too because as long I keep my plane no smoking I'm rarely getting followed at all and that's when orbiting at 10K ft over hot-spots... When I try this with trailing exhaust plumes it takes just a moment to get a six. That's at ranges in few km only.

 

The old system had problems with the 9.5km visibility sphere and occasional bugs related to clouds. However, it was consistent but the current is anything but. I can get objects (including ships as well) just to be gone at some ranges just by changing the zoom settings... Really?! No one asked for that - only to have extended the 9.5km max visibility so there wouldn't be sudden "on/off" for contacts. Now that's is fixed but we (at least some of us) have "on/off" problem at closer ranges.

[[DBS]TH0R]

21 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

... but at least one poll in FC indicates that users prefer Alternate Vis OFF by a fairly large margin...

 

Can you please link me the poll in question. Thank you.

 

KOTA poll I have linked here is showing a nice 50/50 split. Which IMHO is a clear evidence neither offered solutions are doing their job.

 

Why do people bring up ED's attempt at solving the problem. First, it is an unsuccessful example of solving it. Second, one should compare to the successful / better solutions, not trying to replicate un-successful ones. For the example, next to BMS scaling there is one more sim that doesn't have a problem with spotting - Cliffs of Dover. With as many wrong things in that sim, IIRC they got the spotting right. Also, it has a forum section of this very forums.

 

Recently I've been talking with people about this spotting issue, either over VOIP or through forums and Discord. Before anything else, most important thing is to first accurately identify the problem in question. Only then can devs try to fix it / will there be incentive.

 

First problem I see is the quote from AnPetrovich that "people wanted to see planes past 30 km". No we didn't, where did that information come from?! Ships yes, planes - hardly realistic.

 

The spotting / visibility problem is mostly present at ranges up to 15 km. And no matter how certain people here stubbornly try to ignore it or are simply incapable of critical thinking (let alone out of the box thinking), the fact of the matter is that some resolutions and hardware combinations simply do not not simulate believable visual rendering of planes that should be easily visible in real life with a naked eye. This post is just one example (1440p resolution):

 

 

Because of this, people are also using all sorts of tricks to help themselves spot planes in near vicinity around them. Last trick that have learned about is forcing 0.65 gamma through read only startup.cfg in order to increase in-game contrast values so that planes can be rendered / spotted more easily. This is usually combined with reshade.

 

TL;DR: The game still has glaring issues with visible spotting of planes, either nearby or far. And no, most people here aren't looking for a more "fun", "gameiy" or "unrealistic" way to spot targets at unrealistic ranges, rather that the game renders what they would realistically see with their own two eyes if they were flying for real. Pixel hunting simply isn't realistic / believable.

Edited October 14, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R
spelling