non-uniform rendering size across different resolutions

[SCG_Tzigy]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Ive never been killed by a pixel sized bandit either. The ones who get me are close enough to be plenty visible. 
I don’t know why it’s such a big deal seeing targets that far away. In WWII combat they might as well be on the moon. Anyone in relevant range is plenty easy to see. 

 

mostly flying fighter bombers, so admittedly my focus many times scattered between target localizing and looking for EA threats BUT still, at least for me, i wish the EAs in MY RELEVANT range  could be little easier to see....

[Floppy_Sock]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok here are two images 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 with AA Off

and a Dropbox link to the originals

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b1b1c8or5w7jjom/AADNV9xTyx4fOzhSknDEX8pga?dl=0

Jesus you must have a solid rig.

 

So here the scaling seems to be correct. I’m on my phone so I can’t make figures.  I will this evening. 
 

I see the contacts in 4k are correctly 2x the width of those in 1080p.

 

So, clearly my original statement is not uniformly true! 
 

I need to do more testing. Thank you for uploading these @SharpeXB

 

do you happen to know what aircraft those are? Looks like a bomber formation?

[SharpeXB]

This is what I get looking at pixels

[Floppy_Sock]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

This is what I get looking at pixels

Yep, I see the same! The scaling is correct here!

[Beazil]

4 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

 

 

do you happen to know what aircraft those are? Looks like a bomber formation?

 

I'm going to guess fighters based purely on the single contrails and size.  (edit: looking at the posted images, not the super blown up stuff just posted)

 

 

I REALLY want to try this sim on the "good" TV upstairs so I can see what SharpeXB sees.  Maybe next time the wife goes out...

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

do you happen to know what aircraft those are? Looks like a bomber formation?

They're 109s and Yak 1s

 

I just happened to make that track during a Career mission because that's when I spotted them and I was curious what the range was (I have the icons off)

Edited May 19, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Floppy_Sock]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

They're 109s and Yak 1s

Great, thanks!

[SCG_Wulfe]

Thankyou for the counter evidence sharp. Next question is to see if it is settings related.

[[DBS]Browning]

This is interesting. Are we 100% sure AV was off the first time?

[Floppy_Sock]

In my tests? I will doublecheck the startup file when I get home

[QB.Gregor-]

I tested this back early this year and came to the same conclusion as SharpeXB - contacts have half as many pixels with half the resolution. Floppy_Sock might have had AV turned on. But I believe something changed with the rendering update 4.006 and the problem actually exists now. AV is definitly turned off in my tests.

Left is 1280x720, right is 2560x1440, they are definitly not half as big and seam to have a higher contrast on the lower resolution.

Full pictures: https://imgur.com/a/gOKB9va

Even looking at the lower resolution image next to the other one, it is a lot easier to see the contact and the picture is only half as big. I had to take two screenshots for the high resolution, the higher contacts where invisible on the first one.

Edited June 11, 2020 by QB.Gregor-

[Floppy_Sock]

@QB.Gregor- It’s important to know the ranges that the contacts are at.

 

As I noted in my original post,  I observe a bubble where the scaling is correct. 

 

It’s at very far ranges - somewhere at/above 5km that I observe this scaling behavior. At least in my testing replay.

 

By AV do you mean alternate spotting? In which case no, it is off. 

 

Before I proceed I should reiterate that there is clearly more to this that I / we don’t understand. Testing needs to be done systematically, across different maps, aircraft, ranges, altitudes, aspects etc before a conclusion can be made.

 

 I take it it’s ordered from lowest to highest resolution? I clearly see the contacts better in the first picture - which I think is what you’re alluding to. Note that I’m just looking at them on Imgur where they’re compressed. I need to look at them in full Rez and compare the contact size pixel for pixel. I take it you’re already clipped the relevant part out which is what you’ve posted? It would be nice to have the full image including the cockpit. This is a sure way to compare scales up close vs far away. 

[QB.Gregor-]

I updated it with captions, threw this together quite quickly. Feel free to do more indepth testing.

19 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

I take it it’s ordered from lowest to highest resolution? I clearly see the contacts better in the first picture - which I think is what you’re alluding to.

Yep you got it. They should be original quality .png-files if you download them on Imgur, filesize stays exactly equal.

Distance is 4.25km, 7.5km, 6.5km, 6km, 5km top to bottom in the comparison picture.

Edited June 11, 2020 by QB.Gregor-

[Floppy_Sock]

@QB.Gregor- 

 

 

Ah thanks for the captions! 

 

Wait there’s 5 contacts? I only see 2 right below the horizon! 

 

Could you maybe highlight the other 3 - I’m clearly blind.

[QB.Gregor-]

8 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

Could you maybe highlight the other 3 - I’m clearly blind.

Lol here you go, they are in the same spot on all of them:

[Floppy_Sock]

@QB.Gregor-

Wow it’s really obvious there. 

 

Maybe it’s imgur being weird for me but maybe it’s compressing? I don’t see any of the contacts other than the 2 on the horizon when I look at them there.

 

But I appreciate your post.  It’s clear that this wasn’t fixed in the last spotting update. This is motivation to think of a more comprehensive test! 

 

Thanks for bringing this up!