|
#4226846 - 02/08/16 06:30 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: KRT_Bong]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Para_Bellum
Oberkriegkaboomführer
|
Oberkriegkaboomführer
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Germany
|
I can't make the image any sharper than this ...
Turn off depth of field in the grafics options. 
"...late afternoon the Air Tasking Order came in [and] we found the A-10 part and we said, "We are going where!? We are doing what!?"
Capt. Todd Sheehy, Hog pilot, on receiving orders during Operation Desert Storm
|
|
|
#4226908 - 02/08/16 08:34 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: Para_Bellum]
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,619
KRT_Bong
It's KRT not Kurt
|
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,619
Sarasota, Florida
|
I can't make the image any sharper than this ...
Turn off depth of field in the grafics options. Oh Thanks  why didn't I think of that, made a HUGE difference
Windows 10 Pro
Gigabyte 970A DS3P FX
AMD FX6300 Vishera 3.5 Ghz
ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 970 Overclocked 4 GB DDR5
16Gb Patriot Viper 3 RAM DDR3 1866Mhz
Onikuma Gaming Headset (has annoying blue lights I don't use)
|
|
#4227248 - 02/09/16 09:14 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
Yeah, DOF can make for nice screenshots/films, but I find it horrible for actual gameplay. In every game I've played with it, not just DCS or other flight sims.
The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
|
#4227728 - 02/11/16 01:32 AM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.l
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
Johnny_Redd
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
|
Yeah... Once you start saying that anyone that disagrees with you is a fanboy, you discredit the entire discussion. 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. Speed reading has its origins in training aircrew to distinguish different aircraft. a minute image was flashed on the screen for only one five-hundredth of a second and with training the eyes the aircrew could establish friend or foe from a great distance. This, with LODs and their disappearing limit is not going to be possible in a video game. However using the speed reading techniques one should be able to spot a moving object, if it is in LOD range, and depending on quality of the LOD model friend or foe can be established. Games have limits but with training one can learn to live with the limits of a video game and become quite proficient in spotting. These aircraft take skill to master, but the learning doesn't stop once the airframe is mastered.
DCS Kickstarter
Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable."
Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
|
|
|
#4227731 - 02/11/16 02:07 AM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.l
[Re: Johnny_Redd]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
|
VID is a short-range matter, on the order of under 1nm unless there are very distinctive features. Spotting without knowing where the bandit is starts maybe at 3-5nm depending on the size and aspect of your target, and gets better as you close in. You can see a target further as a little dot if you know exactly where to look and what to look for - on the order of 7nm for a MiG-29. Yes, DCS has shorter ranges for these things right now, a lot of this for the reasons you mentioned. In addition, we're trying to shoehorn a lot of angles onto a flat screen. Way back in the days of lock-on we had so much visibility that people would turn off their radars and dot-hunt. It was flat out ridiculous  Speed reading has its origins in training aircrew to distinguish different aircraft. a minute image was flashed on the screen for only one five-hundredth of a second and with training the eyes the aircrew could establish friend or foe from a great distance. This, with LODs and their disappearing limit is not going to be possible in a video game. However using the speed reading techniques one should be able to spot a moving object, if it is in LOD range, and depending on quality of the LOD model friend or foe can be established. Games have limits but with training one can learn to live with the limits of a video game and become quite proficient in spotting. These aircraft take skill to master, but the learning doesn't stop once the airframe is mastered.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
#4227733 - 02/11/16 02:13 AM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.l
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Frederf
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
|
1/500th of a second? 0.20 milliseconds? 20 or 200 milliseconds sounds more right. Even 200ms is short in terms of ID but I can imagine it. Real air crew train hard, prepare extensively, and are selected rigorously. In a perfect setup the average PC user should struggle to keep up with the average professional.
Anecdotes are often about extremes because they are noteworthy. Making average users routinely and easily achieve what was a skilled aviator having a lucky spot is not the right balance.
There's a reason the USAF standard formations range in 3000-9000' separation, because it's really hard to keep tabs on your flight member beyond that.
Last edited by Frederf; 02/11/16 02:16 AM.
|
|
|
#4227759 - 02/11/16 04:05 AM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.l
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
|
Try 1.5 seconds for 1nm with the average closure rate.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
#4229346 - 02/15/16 03:22 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: ]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
TerribleTwo
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
|
Thanks for the link! Very interesting read... I found this pertinent to this discussion, on page 11, 'Visual Search Limits': For example, a pilot searching a relatively small sector 90 degrees wide by 20 degrees high might be physically able to see a target at 7 nm range, but the probability it would fall within his 2 degree central vision on any given fixation is just 1/450 (0.002). This per-fixation probability increases to only about 1/110 (0.009) at 3 nm and is still only about 1/5 at 2 nm. ... The cumulative probability of detecting the approaching aircraft remains below 0.50 until it is between 1.9 and 2.8 nm. Actually it has nothing to do with the topic. What does it say about an FW-190 invisible while stationary from 2000 feet above?
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life" - Paul Ryan
|
|
|
#4229431 - 02/15/16 06:11 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Frederf
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
|
Problem is, how the heck do you simulate this on a PC? The scan is quite narrow as we only have a screen to look at. At small FOV (aka zoomed in) the screen represents true eye-limited resolution better. At large FOV the opposite. Making the spotting assist FOV-based seems the most logical.
|
|
|
#4229445 - 02/15/16 06:29 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: Frederf]
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
komemiute
Hell Drummer
|
Hell Drummer
Hotshot
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 7,033
|
Problem is, how the heck do you simulate this on a PC? The scan is quite narrow as we only have a screen to look at. At small FOV (aka zoomed in) the screen represents true eye-limited resolution better. At large FOV the opposite. Making the spotting assist FOV-based seems the most logical. I'm all up for this. Didn't Rise of Flight have a similar problem? How was it fixed? Honest question...
"Himmiherrgottksakramentzefixhallelujah!"
Para_Bellum
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..."
Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!"
MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands."
Sauron
|
|
|
#4229480 - 02/15/16 07:50 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: ]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
TerribleTwo
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
|
Actually it has nothing to do with the topic. Nothing? Nothing at all? Since this is the first paragraph of the first post in this thread, I beg to differ... I just did this on the fly, but I think it strongly proves a point about why DCS is severely flawed in it's plane visibility. You can argue the specifics until you're blue in the face, but the two pics illustrate what every real life pilot already knows - planes are not as hard to spot as DCS thinks they are, and it ruins the experience of air combat. And this in the second paragraph: Now imagine this thing is flying past and below you. Simply impossible to spot. You made some pretty general statements about poor plane visibility. Yes, the pics showed aircraft on ground, but you did write about spotting planes in general, and how it ruins air combat... Didn't you? But, I found the quote from the study interesting because it tells us that the ability to spot objects vary a great deal. Now, It could go a long way in proving your point as well. It is physically possible to spot an object at 7NM, if you know where to look. And looking for aircraft at an airfield narrows it down quite a lot. OTOH, it says it's pretty hard to spot it if you don't know it's there. I know this is specifically for air to air spotting, but I wouldn't imagine it gets any easier spotting camo'd aircraft on the ground... Problem is, how the heck do you simulate this on a PC? The scan is quite narrow as we only have a screen to look at. I assumed no one would disagree with the screenshot, which illustrates graphical issues with DCS. Really has nothing to do with real life plane visibility, it's purely an example of the planes textures blending in with the ground at close range. Now when that same plane is moving under you so the terrain is the background, it remains invisible. I didn't generalize about spotting distances because it is quite clear that not seeing a plane 2000 feet from you because it turns invisible, it more detrimental than not seeing one 5 miles away. I could care less about whether I want to see a plane 2 miles away and was never my argument. I just want to be able to track it from 2000 feet away..
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life" - Paul Ryan
|
|
|
#4229496 - 02/15/16 08:32 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
|
Can you see it when it's moving?
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
#4229890 - 02/16/16 07:03 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: ]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
TerribleTwo
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
|
Ok... I guess I will never understand why you made the reference to what all RL pilots know then... Because every pilots knows a plane from 2000 feet is not invisible int he terrain, barring atmospheric conditions, none of which are part of the DCS screen shot. Just tried flying online again. Green P51, winter terrain, in and out of visibility as I am tracking him about 1000 feet ahead. He goes down into the terrain, boom, gone and not because he took any evasive maneuvers, he simply gelled into the graphics of the terrain. You take away the excellent flight models, and I will guarantee nobody would fly this in the WW2 online arena.
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life" - Paul Ryan
|
|
|
#4229917 - 02/16/16 07:53 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Para_Bellum
Oberkriegkaboomführer
|
Oberkriegkaboomführer
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,771
Germany
|
Do you use the enlarge objects option? I just tried a 1vs1 Mustang dogfight (green camo) over winter terrain and I had no problems tracking a Mustang at up to 2km range. Granted, at larger distances the A/C do blend in pretty well with the terrain but as long as I'm tracking a moving target it's not a big problem for me. And I tend to be quite horrible when it comes to not losing sight of a target.
"...late afternoon the Air Tasking Order came in [and] we found the A-10 part and we said, "We are going where!? We are doing what!?"
Capt. Todd Sheehy, Hog pilot, on receiving orders during Operation Desert Storm
|
|
|
#4229990 - 02/16/16 11:10 PM
Re: This is why DCS needs a visibility revamp.
[Re: TerribleTwo]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
TerribleTwo
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
|
I generally fly the EU WW2 server, or the dogs of war server, I have objects on large.
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life" - Paul Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
