Multiplayer success is all about SA

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, sniperton said:

This translates to "icons for all' provided the contact is close enough. I'm for it, to be clear, but it's a sacrilege for the hard-core people.

Icons are sacrilege. ?

Edited February 29, 2020 by SharpeXB

[sniperton]

12 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

No, it does not.

You're right, I could have been more precise. I try again.

 

We see what realistic spotting does to airplanes in the range beyond 1 km (unzoomed). Some argue it's realistic, but I'm here for flying, not for some pixel-hunting game.

 

Now the problem is that whatever you do to overcome this problem, you need to substitute those "realistic" tiny pixels with a more apparent "placeholder". This placeholder image shouldn't be necessarily an icon, but it should behave as an icon in order to do the trick ("the main goal should be to get it more or less even for everybody regardless of their display and settings").

 

I guess the root of our problems is that the game is scaling down objects relative to the real world and our FOV, and not relative to our screen size. FOV change/zoom is there to compensate for this, but zoom comes at the price of losing SA. Ideally, there would be no zoom, but objects would appear as big as in RL regardless of screen size.*

 

Anyway, I cross my fingers that the devs can find the sweet spot.

 

* A 10 m object watched from 1000 m has the same apparent size (in degrees) as an 1 cm object watched from 100 cm. With displays smaller than 50" we can't have that mark even with full zoom.

Edited February 29, 2020 by sniperton

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, sniperton said:

. Ideally, there would be no zoom, but objects would appear as big as in RL regardless of screen size.

This would look really awful and would over-enhance far away objects. I can’t imagine anyone would want this effect. Nor is this even workable in a game. 

[Nocke]

Please do NOT use any "smart scaling" at all. I rather prefer to loose sight. How am I supposed to estimate a contacts distance when its size changes with distance? I need to be able to compare it to my revi dimensions.

Or give an option to switch any scaling off.

[WokeUpDead]

1 hour ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Please do NOT use any "smart scaling" at all. I rather prefer to loose sight. How am I supposed to estimate a contacts distance when its size changes with distance? I need to be able to compare it to my revi dimensions.

Or give an option to switch any scaling off.

 

It’s ok, we’re talking about distances beyond gun range here.

[CSW_Rannisokol]

5 hours ago, sniperton said:

Ideally, there would be no zoom, but objects would appear as big as in RL regardless of screen size.*

Boy, the human´s eye works like you have 100% zoom all the time and widest FOV you can in game. This compromise was done because 2D monitors. Try to imagine that you can´t zoom your eyes in real life you will not read anything that will be farer than 3 metres

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

It’s ok, we’re talking about distances beyond gun range here.

“Smart scaling” applies a factor at every range beyond zero. So targets are scaled up by a ludicrous value even at gun range. 
AFAIK IL-2 applies a scale algorithm at ranges beyond 10k with Alternate Visibility. It’s possible that Normal Vis uses a factor as well but it’s an almost undetectable amount. 

[Nocke]

1 hour ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

It’s ok, we’re talking about distances beyond gun range here.

Sorry, it's not o.k. for me. First, what SharpeXB wrote above.

Second, you can use your gunsight also to estimate if a bomber is 1, 2 or 5km away. Not at all with that scaling s***.

[WokeUpDead]

29 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Sorry, it's not o.k. for me. First, what SharpeXB wrote above.

Second, you can use your gunsight also to estimate if a bomber is 1, 2 or 5km away. Not at all with that scaling s***.

Now now, no need for a tantrum. Scaling could be made to be off at gun ranges and start working only beyond it. And also, what improves the game more: better spotting for all of the players, or being able to tell if that Heinkel is 4km away or actually 5km away when flying your four or so planes that have revis? And I suspect there’s a way for the devs to make the revis accurate with scaling anyway.

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, WokeUpDead said:

Now now, no need for a tantrum. Scaling could be made to be off at gun ranges and start working only beyond it. And also, what improves the game more: better spotting for all of the players, or being able to tell if that Heinkel is 4km away or actually 5km away when flying your four or so planes that have revis? And I suspect there’s a way for the devs to make the revis accurate with scaling anyway.

This amount of scaling looks really awful when the aircraft is seen against unscaled objects. Like this example. The carrier is only 1 mile away, the aircraft on the right is “smart scaled”

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by SharpeXB

[WokeUpDead]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This amount of scaling looks really awful when the aircraft is seen against unscaled objects. Like this example. The carrier is only 1 mile away, the aircraft on the right is “smart scaled”

 

I agree, it looks odd. But it’s a trade off, I’d rather have this AND have everyone be able to not regularly lose enemies in a close up dogfight over a forest. 
 

Anyway, there might be other solutions to spotting other than scaling. For example someone on the previous page mentioned CLoD and its reflections which may be a bit exaggerated but provide better spotting with less/no scaling. 

Edited February 29, 2020 by WokeUpDead

[Nocke]

Please excuse my tantrum. 

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:

I agree, it looks odd. But it’s a trade off, I’d rather have this

I’d rather not have something that ugly. No game today would spoil it’s sophisticated graphics with something so awful looking. Smart scaling is a solution from back when everything looked awful anyways. 
 

That image was made by someone trying to propose smart scaling to DCS, actually thinking it looked ok. ED just laughed at it. 

Edited February 29, 2020 by SharpeXB

[sniperton]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

This would look really awful and would over-enhance far away objects. I can’t imagine anyone would want this effect. Nor is this even workable in a game. 

One can enjoy a war movie on a small TV, but one cannot effectively play a war game on a small TV. One way to go is to scale up the contact, another way to go is to scale up the screen. You propose the latter (do you?), but not everyone is ready or willing or able to run the game on a 50+ inch display in 4K. So what?

 

I repeat: We.Are.Seeing.Everything.Much.Smaller.Than.In.Real.Life. We.Are.Seeing.Everything.Much.Smaller.Than.In.Real.Life.

 

IMO current scaling should be kept within gun-range (<400m) to preserve consistency with the piper. Beyond that mark, however, target size shouldn't shrink in a linear way, but apparent size should be observed instead, that is, a target at 600m should be slightly smaller than a target at 400m, but not as much smaller as it is now.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

31 minutes ago, sniperton said:

I repeat: We.Are.Seeing.Everything.Much.Smaller.Than.In.Real.Life. We.Are.Seeing.Everything.Much.Smaller.Than.In.Real.Life.

 

Not in VR

[Leon_Portier]

I like the alternate visibility a lot, really helps with my 23 inch screen.

Alt vis can scale up the planes a little extreme at long distances, but I feel much more confident on 3 - 7 km distances, which is nice!

So it might be a step in the right direction, but its a little overkill.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Leon_Portier

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, sniperton said:

One can enjoy a war movie on a small TV, but one cannot effectively play a war game on a small TV.

Then maybe you shouldn’t play this game since you can’t grasp seeing things on a screen. 
 

Or get VR. That would solve your problem. 

[sniperton]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Then maybe you shouldn’t play this game since you can’t grasp seeing things on a screen. 
 

Or get VR. That would solve your problem. 

Thank you. I really appreciate your advice. In your opinion, can I use it as an argument when I reclaim my money back from 1CGS?

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

Thank you. I really appreciate your advice. In your opinion, can I use it as an argument when I reclaim my money back from 1CGS?

?

[nighthawk2174]

On 2/29/2020 at 10:32 AM, SharpeXB said:

“Smart scaling” applies a factor at every range beyond zero. So targets are scaled up by a ludicrous value even at gun range. 
AFAIK IL-2 applies a scale algorithm at ranges beyond 10k with Alternate Visibility. It’s possible that Normal Vis uses a factor as well but it’s an almost undetectable amount. 

Ludicrous you say... as has been shown not just here but on other forums your definition of ludicrous is a bit different than most peoples.  For those interested try this out:

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

It's a demonstration of not just BMS's system but more complex and advanced systems that fix the issues the BMS one has when zooming in (Chihirobelmo/Snapat) or at really odd fov's/resolutions(Snapat V1 clamped).  This is a merged image, I screenshoted an example with scaling off then on.

Just as an example this is the difference between unscalled and scaled at 90°fov, a good compromise value between what rlf is like in zoom and fov.

 

On 2/29/2020 at 12:12 PM, WokeUpDead said:

I agree, it looks odd. But it’s a trade off, I’d rather have this AND have everyone be able to not regularly lose enemies in a close up dogfight over a forest. 
 

Anyway, there might be other solutions to spotting other than scaling. For example someone on the previous page mentioned CLoD and its reflections which may be a bit exaggerated but provide better spotting with less/no scaling. 

Can I also just post the original post here for context as sharpie is using the example of what BMS does and its also the zoomed in pic at 40°fov but can be easily fixed... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4128716&postcount=99 . Using snapat V2 there would be no zoomed in difference between no scalling and scalled.

 

Edited March 7, 2020 by nighthawk2174

[WokeUpDead]

A thought about making spotting easier without changing game graphic: what about some sort of lock-on mechanism? It could be activated and stay active only when the enemy is close (maybe within 1.5km) and only when he is in front of you and not obscured by wings or nose. No icon, just make the screen center on him.  

[SharpeXB]

9 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:

A thought about making spotting easier without changing game graphic: what about some sort of lock-on mechanism? It could be activated and stay active only when the enemy is close (maybe within 1.5km) and only when he is in front of you and not obscured by wings or nose. No icon, just make the screen center on him.  

That’s already in the game, it’s called “Padlock”

[Lolrawr]

On 2/28/2020 at 12:58 PM, 56RAF_klem said:

The one huge elephant in the room is visibility and should be addressed now, not wait for some super-solution down the line. It should be the main focus of the entire dev team.

It cannot be the main focus because you can't sell a new graphics engine, what you can sell are new expansions and collector planes. I've got the game in 2016, it was a big problem then, it is a big problem now, nothing has changed.

 

If a AAA studio put out a game in this state it would have been slamed to hell and back. Spotting, the bread and butter of combat flight sims, where who sees who first has the advantage has not been adressed yet can tell you alot about the developer. They are lucky the sim community is small and that they don't have any competition, otherwise they would have been put out of business long time ago.

Imagine a popular FPS game that had this level of spotting how long would it last? I repeat myself, they only lasted this long because there is no competition, what else are we going to play? They know this, they know that you will dish out those $40/80 because what else are you going to do? Can they charge $40/new graphics, $80/premium graphics?

 

Don't get me wrong, i love this game, but the vision and sniper bomber gunners are infuriating. Maybe thats what gets me mad, i care to much and want it to be better.

 

inb4 the fanboys come at me with their lame propaganda that everything is fine and they see no issues, please, stay under your rock.

 

my 2 cents, and excuse my grammar errors.

[SqwkHappy]

I've been watching old videos of WW2 aircraft at close and mid ranges and what I've noticed is that planes in the air tend to be _DARKER_ than their surroundings. I live by an airport, an air museum and an air force base. I see WW2 era planes and up flying all the time, as well as those boring jets.    One thing I've noticed is they are always visible from very long distances. When spotting a plane around 6-10 miles away, I can tell you what plane it is, if I know the make and model. These planes are visible, very visible. 

 

 My proposal here is not that the scaling is wrong, the scaling is right. What IS wrong is the ambient and diffuse colors used for ac models. Those colors need to scale from 1km to 30km (at least) From tinted dark, possibly darker by 0.2 at 1km then increasing until near full black at 30km. Don't even touch the scaling. I want to be 500m from a target and understand perfectly that is the size of the object at 500m.

 

I believe scaling the ambient and diffuse lighting for ac models will help visibility, and make pixels that would blend in with backgrounds "POP" against it instead.

 

If that doesn't seem like a good idea, too much of a quick hack or the gfx system is too complicated to not recode a lot of stuff to make it work, then I have a second idea involving an aircraft and possibly vehicle shader that calculates the difference in color values of the pixels of the AC versus the pixels of the BG surrounding it and creates a soft outline of the AC/veh against the bg. That kind of shader isn't too difficult to do, might take a knowledged shader guy/gal an hour or two depending on everything needed to get a patch approved and official. I've done something like it to add dark/black outlines around fonts in games i've worked on that would otherwise be hard to read because the text just kind of blended in with everything. It's nearly the same thing as doing a cheap by-hand anti-aliasing around models via shader except your forcing the output color to be darker.

 

Wouldn't mind hearing from Jason about these ideas, if possible.. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by SqwkHappy
wrong numbers for miles

[Lolrawr]

On 4/6/2020 at 2:50 AM, SqwkHappy said:

Wouldn't mind hearing from Jason about these ideas, if possible.. 

This subject is taboo around here, i wouldn't hold my breath for that response.

[SqwkHappy]

19 hours ago, Lolrawr said:

This subject is taboo around here, i wouldn't hold my breath for that response.

 

  One of the ways to stop beating a dead horse that the devs and Jason have pleaded are dead is to find a new horse that does the same type of work but differently. Hence my ideas to leave scaling alone and try ambiet/diffuse color changes/lighting changes OR the idea I think is better is a shader for the models to provide a soft-dark-outline around all planes/vehs.  I think the devs and mods appreciate THAT kind of help. As well as unyielding praise and to-the-death loyalty for all of eternity. But that is another subject discussed in my book, "How to kick-ass by kissing-ass: Avoiding dirty lips and The Constant Supply Of Donuts" 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by SqwkHappy

[gimpy117]

On 4/7/2020 at 3:46 PM, SqwkHappy said:

 

  One of the ways to stop beating a dead horse that the devs and Jason have pleaded are dead is to find a new horse that does the same type of work but differently. Hence my ideas to leave scaling alone and try ambiet/diffuse color changes/lighting changes OR the idea I think is better is a shader for the models to provide a soft-dark-outline around all planes/vehs.  I think the devs and mods appreciate THAT kind of help. As well as unyielding praise and to-the-death loyalty for all of eternity. But that is another subject discussed in my book, "How to kick-ass by kissing-ass: Avoiding dirty lips and The Constant Supply Of Donuts" 

 

i wonder if you could make a shader mod, test it, see how it looks and show it to the devs 

[SqwkHappy]

5 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

i wonder if you could make a shader mod, test it, see how it looks and show it to the devs 

 

They could probably spend less than a day setting code to scale the ambient lighting color for rendering models from full ambient light to dark:

 

scalar = 1.0 - (model_distance_from_viewer / MAX_DISTANCE_TO_SCALE) ;

newambientcolor = ambientcolor * (scalar,scalar,scalar,1.0);

 

Then probably clamp it so it never goes pure black, (0.1,0.1,0.1,1.0) instead of (0,0,0,1);

 

Of course, if a model is allowed to scale to such a degree there are only a few pixels showing and people are running 4k screens and whatnot, it wont matter too much, but it in theory would increase visible distance from short to medium ranges. Right now planes approaching fast from 1.0k are very difficult to see moving, which I've never had an issue with before. /conjecture

 

I will look into how much work trying a shader mod would be but if they don't already have a shader on AC models I can access in one of the data files and modify it for mod use, there isn't anything I can do. IF there happens to be a shader I can get my hands on, I can guarantee it would take me much, much longer to do. 

 

*EDIT*

 Unfortunately There is no AC shader I can modify.

 

I am thinking to make and test a shader I have to make a mock-up demo with an AC model and landscape and throw in a shader.. 

*/EDIT*

 

I would love to help out if possible but another hobby project is going to make my family and bill collectors upset.

Edited April 13, 2020 by SqwkHappy
update

[Eclipse4349]

On 3/30/2020 at 2:18 PM, Lolrawr said:

... Spotting, ... has not been adressed yet can tell you alot about the developer...

To be fair, I think it tells more about how complicated the issue is, and how impossible it is to please everyone.  Especially when the "everyone" is as passionate as they are about the hobby and this topic.  If it was as easy as "just do 'x' and it will all be better", it would have been done in 2016.

[SqwkHappy]

3 hours ago, Eclipse4349 said:

To be fair, I think it tells more about how complicated the issue is, and how impossible it is to please everyone.  Especially when the "everyone" is as passionate as they are about the hobby and this topic.  If it was as easy as "just do 'x' and it will all be better", it would have been done in 2016.

 Sometimes... Developing is hard. Creating a "simple" dialogue menu system without fancy stuff like scrolling and embedded objects will take you at least a day to get going and mostly tested. Even the best developers and designers get stuck in a project. Not for a lack of talent, skill or knowledge. It's fatigue.  The brain refuses to come up with new ideas until you take a three week vacation and the thought of programming doesn't make you want to cry / break stuff anymore. Even then getting your muse back is a task in itself...

 

  Anyway, these are digressions to the topic.

 

  I have run a mockup 3D landscape with a simple plane shaped object floating around. In one version the "plane" has it's ambient color set to full ambient color, in the other it is set to black. I'm unable to scale the ambient color against the distance of the camera because coppercube3d, unlike the engine it is created from (irrlicht) It is very, very limited in it's functionality. 

 

  Attached are two screenshots from higher-altitude than the target.

 

  I'm still for scaling the ambient color of AC and vehicle models to near zero beyond a certain distance because a black dot is _always_ easier to see, whereas whatever color you may get from the texture at that distance could be anything and usually will get mixed in with the background. 

 
  Of course in real life, camouflage was used intentionally to disguise a plane at a distance as a piece of the landscape or sky. The reason I think using that logic in IL2 is flawed is because we do not have the same visibility in IL2 looking into a monitor or VR headset versus the view of your eyes. Eyes win every time.  So we have to come up with little tricks to increase visibility from a monitor / VR headset. However, I am firmly against changing the way things scale to achieve higher vis to get a SA that is closer to your real skill level.

 

 I also firmly believe that scaling the ambient color for the models, as well as disabling any fancy texture mapping techniques such as specular reflectivity, diffuse mapping, etc, etc.. Once the AC / vehicle has reached a certain distance those effects are not only a useless burden on the CPU & GPU ( why do we need effects on a small clump of pixels? ), but also cause issues with visibility because the GPU will ultimately return a few pixels that blend in well with it's surroundings. 

 

 You may no be as convinced from the screenshots of my mockup, but also remember I have no effect techniques running on the model, and the environment is very, very simple compared to IL2. I may next take a few screenshots in il2 from various alts and superimpose the "small clump of pixels" on the images and post the results here as well to try an mimic the actual environment better. Without access to models and the effects on them in-game, I have to wing it.

 

 Here is the video of the mockup I performed.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kd6Wn58wC3WKFwMwcurQNCNSxIXh3S2e/view?usp=sharing

 

   

 

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by SqwkHappy
Update

[WokeUpDead]

Interesting! Darker pixels would be a particularly big help for spotting planes far a way and at slightly higher altitude. Currently it's difficult to spot planes against the ground like the first half of your video shows, but it's even harder if the pixels are light-coloured against a light-coloured sky.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

@SqwkHappy Funnily enough, I thought of the exact opposite as a possible solution, increase the ambient light of planes at medium to low distance to make them stand out more. IIRC Battlefield V did something like this to adress the visibility issues they were plagued with for the first few months after release.

Edited April 17, 2020 by So_ein_Feuerball

[SqwkHappy]

On 4/17/2020 at 1:10 PM, So_ein_Feuerball said:

@SqwkHappy Funnily enough, I thought of the exact opposite as a possible solution, increase the ambient light of planes at medium to low distance to make them stand out more. IIRC Battlefield V did something like this to adress the visibility issues they were plagued with for the first few months after release.

 

I played combat box last night where it was morning, dark on one side of the map, light on the other. and I could spot every plane. I thought for a second they updated the game. Then, Of course, I ran a quick mission and during day time operations it's still near impossible to see a plane until it's on you, or be the one lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a 128,130,130 colored pixel running along 140,140,120 like-colored pixels.  I'm thinking maybe no hardcoded color is good, but an inverse of the background colors would stand out.

 

  Explained: If the pixels behind plane are dark, the plane's colors are turned to light and vice versa, using simple math to do it. that way no matter what the background is, the plane will stand out as a way to augment how spotting planes in real life is much, much easier than in a sim looking at pixels from a small screen compared to the massive view and accuracy we get with our eyes.

 

I was not at all impressed or totally convinced by my demonstration, and I blame a lack of effects being applied to the model and landscape details I'm not about to spend a month on to mimic IL2s environment. If only the devs were paying attention tho. There are solutions that don't involve mucking up the scale.

Edited April 18, 2020 by SqwkHappy
Clarifications

[[DBS]TH0R]

And here we go again, Shape broken record still going strong as ever...

 

On 2/24/2020 at 10:36 PM, SharpeXB said:

There is not much wrong with visibility in IL-2. Its just something that some players have trouble with but it’s impossible to know why. If they play BMS then the reason for their trouble is clear enough, they’re spoiled by seeing aircraft rendered at double the normal size.

 

There is a lot of things wrong with visibility modeling in this game. It was explained to you over and over in various threads by now, yet you keep sticking your head into the sand as usual pretending that nothing is wrong.

 

Furthermore, many real life pilots have voiced their view on the subject confirming it is much harder and near impossible to spot targets in this sim when compared to real life.

 

 

On 2/25/2020 at 3:05 AM, SharpeXB said:

Most of what I read is people screwing up their settings in an attempt to make it better but accomplishing the opposite. So in that sense, yeah it’s a contest of getting your settings correct although that’s different than what many do. 

 

Wrong and blatant/ignorant lie. People try to overcome the unrealistic and limiting visibility settings in stock game by forcing lower gamma settings and using other tricks. If the game didn't have any problems - such tricks would not be needed. Not that they help to fix the problems, they simply alleviate some of the issues.

 

 

On 2/29/2020 at 11:05 PM, SharpeXB said:

I’d rather not have something that ugly. No game today would spoil it’s sophisticated graphics with something so awful looking. Smart scaling is a solution from back when everything looked awful anyways. 
 

That image was made by someone trying to propose smart scaling to DCS, actually thinking it looked ok. ED just laughed at it. 

 

Wrong. Scaling is used in many games, Jason in this very thread said they are/were using it before so the whole comment is nothing but "scaling phobia" and can be completely disregarded as a personal agenda against scaling simply due to the fact YOU don't like how it looks.

 

More over, there are flight sims out there (one of which has a forum subsection here) that do this part of the equation right, i.e. use scaling to achieve realistic modeling if what you can spot with your mk1 eye ball in real life.

 

Back to the topic - current visibility modeling is hindering proper/realistic situational awareness. Contacts disappear depending on zoom level (e.g. wide zoom when used for increasing peripheral vision) and are near impossible to spot on medium ranges (contacts are simply not rendered). For me, and I am sure many others, this is a glaring issue. Until something changes I am sticking to flying bombers only, and spending my money elsewhere.

Edited April 19, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

TLDR...

OMG give it up already... this topic is so tired... ?

6 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Wrong. Scaling is used in many games, Jason in this very thread said they are/were using it

IL-2 apparently uses a scaling algorithm for the “Alternate Visibility” setting which has the side effect of letting players see other aircraft at absurd distances. It’s possible that “Normal” uses a reduced or corrected algorithm but neither produces the excessive scaling effect like Serfoss or BMS.

Edited April 19, 2020 by SharpeXB

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

OMG give it up already... this topic is so tired... ?

Nope

Edited April 19, 2020 by So_ein_Feuerball

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

OMG give it up already... this topic is so tired... ?

 

 

It has become addictive proving you wrong. ?

Edited April 19, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

It has become addictive proving you wrong. ?

 

There’s no “proof” in this topic, so the joke’s on you. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

Not in this thread, no. But there is in so many other threads here.

Edited April 19, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Not in this thread, no. But there is in so many other threads here.

You’re asking for 100% real world visual fidelity on a computer monitor. That won’t be achieved anytime soon.