It would be interesting to see that same first shot at something other than midday. Different Seasons too (Winter terrain in July is an odd choice).

Nate

I don't think we can be so ambiguous with our answer here. There is a right and wrong, regardless of angle, the 190 is dissolving into the terrain, and that is just wrong. Additionally, the plane will be moving past you in combat, essentially making it a certainty that you will never be able to see it.

I hate to start accusing folks being fanbois, but they just might be one if they try and justify the first pic. If that's the case, we will lose flyers and never gain flyers.

TT,

I argued without any progress just the opposite in Rise of Flight--that planes are much harder to spot and track IRL life than they are in the game. And, I think RoF is one of the greatest flying sims every made. DCS is also easier to spot small flying objects and track them than in real life but is still much better in that regard than RoF. BTW, I just came within 300 yards of colliding with a Cherokee that flew through my NOTAM'd aerobatic box today so visibility is something I think of often. In sims, this is a poor science. They will never get it right but it doesn't hurt to try to get them to get it close.

But you're diverting the issue and changing the parameters. I've asked if the FW-190 D9 either in real life, or in the DCS example I pictured, should be visible or not. You have the parameters, you have the actual evidence at hand. You can see the low altitude, and you have the frame or reference for the size of the plane compared to the planes on the tarmac. It's is 1200 hours noon, clear and sunny.


DCS is doing exactly that, making the plane invisible. I cannot think of any FW-190 that would be invisible from 2000 feet on a sunny high noon day sitting in the terrain. Maybe you have evidence of one?

Maybe I should post more pics from different angles and times to prove the point even further? We all have access to the game, so anyone can see this for themselves.

So like the real photo provided in the first post I have taken a shot in DCS with a bright ground and shadows that are slightly offset and the aircraft appears a slightly different colour (which can also be due to light reflection from the sun)

Please note that what you see will be affected by gfx settings, monitor res etc.


right click and open in a new tab (they are 1080)

I sat a USA (non-camoed) FW190 in the terrain, clear and sunny, 1500 hrs, summer, looked at it from several angles and heights. Same result, invisible, had it not been for the lights at the wingtips you wouldn't see it.

I could post pics, but anyone can do this for themselves. It's an inherent problem with "something" in the graphics.

Is it a fade at that distance? Ie. application of transparency.

Yeah... Once you start saying that anyone that disagrees with you is a fanboy, you discredit the entire discussion.

Is OP using the model enlargement feature? Because that does all sorts of weird stuff at various ranges, smudging, transparency, etc. that alter spotting much more than the pure geometry mode (M.E. off). Those values (half a dozen I think) have not been tweaked very well so far. It is a new feature after all. The DCS forum thread about those values and tweaking them paints a complex picture.

I won't say DCS spotting is perfect but I won't say it's broken either. The one plane on one background in one lighting environment is not sufficient to really understand the whole topic.

Perhaps it turns folks off, but what other explanation is there for clear denial of the issue I pointed out? It's very similar if I posted a picture of the blue sky, and someone says no, it's green.

The invisibility issue is documented, and sitting there in post number one for proof. I CAN post more with different paint jobs at different angles and times with perfect weather, and planes are invisible at low altitudes where they should not be.

It's a little off putting for folks to blindly deny the issue because it does nothing to cause DCS to fix it. Planes are not invisible from 2000 feet, overhead, on clear sunny days. That is a fact.

I believe the tendency is exactly the opposite.
Doesn't matter if there's a "without a margin of a doubt proof" that something doesn't or isn't working well in the game, the most "die hard fanboys" will never admit (or very rarely do) that something is wrong with "their game".

This being said, I cannot for the sake of logic understand how the Google Earth photo shown on the first post isn't evidence enough that the visibility range/distance in DCS is just too low compared to real life!
If there's one thing that I know about human physiology is that the human eye will spot moving objects at a distance much better than spotting static objects at a distance!

I'm not saying that the player should be able to visually ID an another aircraft (for example to know if it's a F-16 or a Mig-29) at lets say 3Km away but it surely should be able to spot the aircraft at that distance or above. A dot/pixel is IMO a good solution to model this in a flight sim!
By the way, if I (and anyone else here I believe) can detect a small airliner such as an Airbus A320 at distances above 16Km (or 10 Miles) why can't for I example see a Mig-29 which is around 3 times smaller than the Airbus A320 at a distance 3 times less - let's say 5.3km or 3.3 miles away - And this is something you aren't able to do in DCS!


For what's worth, I agree that the visibility distance varies in real life varies with the weather conditions (obviously), however it seems that the visibility distance in DCS corresponds to the visibility distance in somehow bad (or at least not good) weather conditions and if the visibility conditions can only be a fixed distance in DCS (namely due to engine/technical issues) than the visibility distance in DCS should correspond to a good/better weather condition and not to the opposite.

Again, there are claims by fighter pilots that can visually spot (granted in a good weather day) fighter seized aircraft at 10 miles away. IMO, this claims shouldn't be ignored.

If said aircraft is in the contrail level, or has smokey engines (F-4) then it would be possible yes. A head on F-5 without any of those helpers would be unlikely.

Yes this is the same never ending issue no one will ever resolve...........especially if people who dont know what the reality is continue to ignore it from those that do!!

Anyway clearly I'm playing a different version of DCS because this visibility thing is a non issue for me.......guess I'm just special.

I thought I'd check this out..

10K out an A-10A is indeed visible - though SimHQ reducing the image size makes does not help in the slightest.

EDIT:- I forgot to say this is on the largest visibility setting.

http://imgur.com/pSCNt6d



Nate

I would say the first shot taken by OP is "unfortunate condition" where the light is not rich(sun covered by could perpahs?) and grass color and plane's are well blended.

I could spot the same plane from 1500ft with ease on the April daytime settings.

Well ok, I've made a point, as on the ED forums, there are folks perfectly content with invisible planes. I think it hurts the population count in the WW2 arenas - it's one area we need more pilots.

Well, why do yo think arcade battles have so much success in Warthunder as opposed to Simulator Battles (also known as Arcade 3)?

There is a slice of people playing airsims pie that think visibility in real life is so great, especially in war time from cramped cockpits behind scratched plexiglass and flight goggles against camouflaged small fighters hidden in the sun or against terrain trying to kill you dead. They have a A.I. like perception and a fighter buzzing around their plane CANNOT escape. Also... people in this slice of that pie have a well formed and healthy vanity of "Killing" the enemy without "helpers". So because of this mix what they want is the most "realistically" looking... ICONS.

Icons! This is all what this bs is about. Anywhere you see this discussion what is the bottom line is people want the icons gone but their help to stay so they could brag in the bar how they downed 27 planes in one sortie. They never think that to be as close as real they should simply fly most of their missions without seeing the enemy. Also most of their deaths should be this way.

No... 27 huns duuude... all dead!

Since 1.52 with the improvements to aircraft rendering and the ability to use to the enlarge objects feature neither me nor the guys I regularly fly with have any issues with spotting aircraft. I agree that spotting was a pain before EDGE, but now? Nope. I'm quite happy with the way it is now.

The biggest problem I think is that shadow rendering stops at a relatively short distance compared to everything else. In reality a shadow can be MORE visible than an object, depending on the time of day, latitude, time of year, and current weather. With the shadow gone the contrast drops precipitously, and contrast is what our eyes are made to see.

Another issue is simply color range. In reality there are infinite shades of colors, and finding two things the same color is really quite hard unless they're both artificial. In a computer sim you'll find that things blend in easily because they can quite simply be literally the same color. An airplane and the grass? Never in reality, easily in a game.



The Jedi Master

I think that whatever DCS uses to make the view of object in the game look like reality is way over done

Note that this image the 109 is mere yards away but it looks like a blurry mess on my screen

I can't make the image any sharper than this and when chasing other aircraft in flight they look odd, not too mention sometimes appearing to rotate in a manner out of what their apparent flight direction would indicate when you can spot them at a distance. I mean doesn't that look like you seriously need glasses if things were this blurry?

I think there's an option for that, Depth of Field... or summat.