The argument for more widespread use of Alternate Plane Visibility in VR

[SCG_Wulfe]

56 minutes ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

 Which is why I say that Alt-Vis levels the hardware playing field as it allows for a wider range of graphics settings. you may not have the hardware to run MSAA with a good frame rate and many don't . I don't think graphics settings and hardware should be the solution to equal spotting. I want to invite my friends with lower end systems to play this game and not leave them disappointed by being blind. 

 

/rant

I’m not trying to start an argument about this, I swear. Just trying to add the counter point as I totally understand where you are coming from. I think we’d all ideally like for hardware to have little bearing on spotting or ID. 
 

The problem is that the current implementation of alternate spotting doesn’t really achieve this. It does nothing to help the critical closer ranges where ID becomes an issue for various hardware. And I think it makes a massive sacrifice to the ebb and flow of realistic ww2 combat where spotting distant contacts and fights should be a challenge. It’s already hard enough for bomber pilots to make it to target and back. It also completely wrecks your ability to determine range to targets beyond close range.
 

I truly think if a single solution would be implemented to achieve the parity you speak of, it would be an inverse of the current alternate visibility system we have. (Closer contacts inflated more, distant contacts not inflated at all.)

Edited June 8, 2020 by SCG_Wulfe

[Mewt]

1 hour ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

It really matters. The difference between FXAA and MSAA or No AA is nearly the improvement I found with horizon distance.

 

No.

 

We are in danger of conflating two different things.

 

In my tests:

 

The Ju-52 didn't even exist to me with anything less than 150 HD.

 

Was the distant target "better" with MSAA? Yes. Absolutely.

Was the distant target "worse" with FXAA. Yes. A little blurrier.

 

(However I would always chose FXAA due to the HUGE performance benefits. Finally, 80 fps on Index etc. Good luck to you if you can do MSAA, its obviously better.)

 

Did the target "exist" or "not exist" due to the AA choice I made? Absolutely not. It was only measurable with the HD setting.

 

The "quality" of the target AFTER Horizon Distance problem is probably another discussion.

 

I know I am muddying the waters of FXAA vs MSAA and Normal vs Alternate spotting, and therefore not helping anything.  It's just that your Horizon Distance thing changed everything for me. (and hopefully in a multi-player sense).

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Mewt

[SharpeXB]

Aha. I finally noticed the AV effect on Berloga. Yeah it’s not good. The trouble too is that it vanishes with zoom level or distance so it’s confusing to see far off aircraft easier than closer ones or get that inverse zoom effect. In 4K the AV enhancement looks like sharp specs instead of blobs and there are extreme reflections every so often. The setting is really like a bug that wasn’t supposed to be released.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Aha. I finally noticed the AV effect on Berloga. Yeah it’s not good. The trouble too is that it vanishes with zoom level or distance so it’s confusing to see far off aircraft easier than closer ones or get that inverse zoom effect. In 4K the AV enhancement looks like sharp specs instead of blobs and there are extreme reflections every so often. The setting is really like a bug that wasn’t supposed to be released.

 

It's important for you to understand that in VR we don't use size to determine distance like you do on a 2D screen. We have advantage of stereo separation. Because of this it's very easy to determine how far away something is without using size. Your argument is a reason I think the 3rd option of a VR only alt-vis could work. We've already proven that the planes render at the same distances regardless. 

 

  

On 6/8/2020 at 4:29 PM, SCG_Wulfe said:

I think it makes a massive sacrifice to the ebb and flow of realistic ww2 combat where spotting distant contacts and fights should be a challenge. It’s already hard enough for bomber pilots to make it to target and back. It also completely wrecks your ability to determine range to targets beyond close range.

 

The study proves that a bomber should be visible by over twice the distance it is in game. I'm not sure what history you are reading but bombers flew in flights with other flights providing cover. They didn't play cat and mouse

 

On 6/8/2020 at 4:46 PM, Mewt said:

We are in danger of conflating two different things

 

FXAA caused the targets to become invisible due to lack of contrast from blending by at least 5KM compared to MSAA. I believe the horizon draw distance's haze is affecting the planes, they are still being drawn at the same distances regardless of settings and the dev's have also confirms draw distance for planes is always the same for everyone regardless of settings. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by VR-DriftaholiC

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

Your argument is a reason I think the 3rd option of a VR only alt-vis could work.

I don’t have an “argument”. That’s just my account of seeing what everyone else sees with AV despite running a higher resolution. I imagine in VR you still see the “inverse zoom” 

Alt Vis can already be selected as a server option for anyone who prefers it, but that setting should be available to all players on the server, not just VR

[VR-DriftaholiC]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t have an “argument”. That’s just my account of seeing what everyone else sees with AV despite running a higher resolution. I imagine in VR you still see the “inverse zoom” 

Alt Vis can already be selected as a server option for anyone who prefers it, but that setting should be available to all players on the server, not just VR

Sure but those who don't prefer it are then forced to use it as well. This in turn causes more segregation. Same thing happened briefly while Techno-Chat was either forced on or off with no client side option. 

 

Alt-Vis on with the option to turn off client side may be all we need. Then people who don't like the inverse zoom can be satisfied turning it off. Those with lower end hardware can enable and be on equal footing to others spotting wise by using it.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by VR-DriftaholiC

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

Alt-Vis on with the option to turn off client side may be all we need.

I really can’t see many players wanting that option. If you elect to turn AV off you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage. That would be like playing on an icons server and then switching them off on yourself. Why do that instead of playing on a server where icons are off for everyone?

Everyone wants a level field online. 

[VR-DriftaholiC]

 

Your graphics settings and hardware should NOT affect spotting distance in a game, yet sadly they do.  

 

^This is why alt-vis should be a user side option.

 

20 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I really can’t see many players wanting that option. If you elect to turn AV off you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage. That would be like playing on an icons server and then switching them off on yourself. Why do that instead of playing on a server where icons are off for everyone?

Everyone wants a level field online. 

 

It sounded like you wanted that option since it's "a bug" and "inverse zoom" 

 

We've shown in this thread that depending on your graphics setting planes can be rendered in from 10km to at least 25k without alt-vis on. That the same spotting distance is much more consistent with alt-vis on. So truly the ONLY thing holding people back from spotting past 10k is their graphics settings and likely their computer hardware preventing them from running those settings. I think a level playing field is created by letting people with lower end PC's and/or older VR headsets or even monitors all spot to the same distances that a well optimized non-alt-vis user can by using alt-vis. 

  

On 6/6/2020 at 2:21 PM, SharpeXB said:

I tried this in 1080p too (upscaled to 4K though)

still can’t tell any difference between Normal and Alt Visibility. Hmmm

I see the 52 at about 9km either way.

 

You posted the same discoveries when testing originally only seeing the plane sub 10km. Others didn't even think the game spawned planes past the 10km bubble! That's how unlevel the playing field is. I can see the plane at the same distance with alt-vis on or off with my settings but they take a toll on frame rate to do so. 

[SharpeXB]

49 minutes ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

You posted the same discoveries when testing originally only seeing the plane sub 10km. Others didn't even think the game spawned planes past the 10km bubble! That's how unlevel the playing field is. I can see the plane at the same distance with alt-vis on or off with my settings but they take a toll on frame rate to do so. 

I mentioned it earlier but this is what I discovered running the test. 
The high aspect (head on merge) tests what I do see. I tests when I might see that target based upon random behavior based upon where I might be looking. I discover the target at close range because I don’t know where to look. 
The low aspect (flying away) tests what it’s possible to see. Because now I know where to look I can follow the target aircraft for a very far distance and see it easily past 10k

So it’s hard for me to make conclusions about max visibility range using that test. 

54 minutes ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

 

It sounded like you wanted that option since it's "a bug" and "inverse zoom" 

No I don’t like Alt Vis. It behaves oddly and isn’t realistic.  

56 minutes ago, VR-DriftaholiC said:

So truly the ONLY thing holding people back from spotting past 10k is their graphics settings and likely their computer hardware preventing them from running those settings. 

I don’t think aircraft visibility range should depend on graphic settings like draw distance. If that’s true it should be fixed. 

[Alonzo]

On 6/8/2020 at 5:46 PM, Mewt said:

The Ju-52 didn't even exist to me with anything less than 150 HD.

 

Was the distant target "better" with MSAA? Yes. Absolutely.

Was the distant target "worse" with FXAA. Yes. A little blurrier.

 

(However I would always chose FXAA due to the HUGE performance benefits. Finally, 80 fps on Index etc. Good luck to you if you can do MSAA, its obviously better.)

 

I'm running at 130km currently - should I go up to 150 and reduce other stuff? I'm trying hard to get MSAA to run at an acceptable rate on my rig, because I feel like 2x MSAA and 1.0 pixel density is actually pretty good clarity on my Rift S. But the MSAA is a definite performance hit. I'm currently all the way down on Balanced overall, 130km horizon distance.

 

It's really weird, since I now get 80 FPS most of the time it really hurts when I drop frames.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

4 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Actualmente estoy corriendo a 130 km. ¿Debería subir a 150 y reducir otras cosas? Estoy tratando de hacer que MSAA se ejecute a una velocidad aceptable en mi plataforma, porque siento que 2x MSAA y 1.0 densidad de píxeles es en realidad bastante buena claridad en mi Rift S. Pero el MSAA es un éxito definitivo. Actualmente estoy todo el camino hacia abajo en equilibrio global, 130 km de distancia del horizonte.

 

Es realmente extraño, ya que ahora obtengo 80 FPS la mayor parte del tiempo me duele mucho cuando dejo cuadros.

Could you pass us your game settings, SS, and Nvidia ?? this is a problem and I would like to try more configurations different from mine, thx

[Alonzo]

3 hours ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

Could you pass us your game settings, SS, and Nvidia ?? this is a problem and I would like to try more configurations different from mine, thx

 

Rift S, RTX 2080, Open Composite, 1.0 pixel density, ASW off. NVidia "prefer maximum performance", all other NVidia settings default. Graphics:

 

[KEY = graphics]
      3dhud = 0
      adapter = 0
      bloom_enable = 0
      canopy_ref = 0
      desktop_center = 1
      detail_rt_res = 1024
      draw_distance = 0.81800
      far_blocks = 0
      fps_counter = 1
      fps_limit = 0
      full_height = 1527
      full_width = 3620
      fullscreen = 0
      gamma = 0.80000
      grass_distance = 0.00000
      hdr_enable = 1
      land_anisotropy = 1
      land_tex_lods = 3
      max_cache_res = 1
      max_clouds_quality = 2
      mgpu_compatible = 0
      mirrors = 1
      msaa = 1
      multisampling = 1
      or_ca = 0.00000
      or_dummy = 0
      or_enable = 1
      or_height = 1776
      or_hud_rad = 1.50000
      or_hud_size = 0.75000
      or_ipd = 0.06250
      or_sipdc = 0.00000
      or_width = 1648
      post_sharpen = 1
      preset = 1
      prop_blur_max_rpm_for_vr = 155
      rescale_target = 1.00000
      shadows_quality = 3
      ssao_enable = 0
      stereo_dof = 5.00000
      vsync = 0
      win_height = 900
      win_width = 1440
[END]

 

[=X51=VC_]

For a long time I wished we had alternate visiblity (I have a 1st gen Vive). Now we have it, I find it to be a double-edged sword. Yes, I can see things easier, but the fact they render too big completely messes with my ability to judge their distance, speed, relative threat. I fly for ages towards something I think is close, it's confusing. Also it makes it much harder for me to sneak up on people ? and to be honest I don't feel crippled at all on servers that don't have it. So as someone who likely would have said everything you say in your opening post, I've now changed my mind about it. But I don't mind that much either way.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

7 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Rift S, RTX 2080, Open Composite, 1.0 pixel density, ASW off. NVidia "prefer maximum performance", all other NVidia settings default. Graphics:

 

[KEY = graphics]
      3dhud = 0
      adapter = 0
      bloom_enable = 0
      canopy_ref = 0
      desktop_center = 1
      detail_rt_res = 1024
      draw_distance = 0.81800
      far_blocks = 0
      fps_counter = 1
      fps_limit = 0
      full_height = 1527
      full_width = 3620
      fullscreen = 0
      gamma = 0.80000
      grass_distance = 0.00000
      hdr_enable = 1
      land_anisotropy = 1
      land_tex_lods = 3
      max_cache_res = 1
      max_clouds_quality = 2
      mgpu_compatible = 0
      mirrors = 1
      msaa = 1
      multisampling = 1
      or_ca = 0.00000
      or_dummy = 0
      or_enable = 1
      or_height = 1776
      or_hud_rad = 1.50000
      or_hud_size = 0.75000
      or_ipd = 0.06250
      or_sipdc = 0.00000
      or_width = 1648
      post_sharpen = 1
      preset = 1
      prop_blur_max_rpm_for_vr = 155
      rescale_target = 1.00000
      shadows_quality = 3
      ssao_enable = 0
      stereo_dof = 5.00000
      vsync = 0
      win_height = 900
      win_width = 1440
[END]

 

the clouds flicker in the distance?