This is true, at least for single player experiences.
I guess it boils down to the old «what is realism» discussion. Some want to experience everything that is thrown in the face of a fighterpilot, and call this realism. But since they don’t have years of government funded fighterpilot training and experience, it’s in fact not realistic.
Scaleability is the key.
2 Likes
Another important point (I guess y’all know what is coming because it is one of the topics I talk about most) for a good singleplayer experience is AI.
Right now the AI is very good at spotting as soon as a certain distance is reached. They spot a target even when it is coming from strange angles (other than behind and low. They are weirdly bad at spotting then), has the sun in its back, behind a cloud etc, and never loses sight in a dogfight.
It is very easy for a human (in RL and the sim) to go blind on a brown or green aircraft flying low over the ground, that’s why camouflage paint jobs exist. The AI doesn’t seem to care.
(At least I don’t know if they do. I asked ED a few times but never got any answers).
AI planes don’t get confused in 1v2 situations either.
The way the AI acts (especially when damaged) is also somewhat unrealistic, but I guess that’s not the topic now.
Bottom line: It means that a somewhat realistic engagement against AI in SP or MP is not possible.
Between humans we have a decent situation IMO. It might not be realistic but almost good enough. It is a bit dependent on resolution and some other parameters but I think with a few tweaks ED can get close.
A player can kind of simulate AI level of spotting by turning on labels and using external padlock views. I don’t want to do that though. It breaks my immersion.
So yeah, there is need to work on that.
Oh yeah, while what we have now is awesome, it still can be improved in countless ways. Visibility is one, AI another. How about weather? or maybe something of a game framework to the flying, you know, bit of strategy, bit of RPG? Time will bring these things. Be sure. Two more weeks 
1 Like
From Philstyles recent video, found in the first post,
it shows there’s a major difference in contact spotting depending on your resolution.
This, of course, should not be the case.
However, and this is my point, in real life it would be totally possible to fly more or less the same track, and spot the contact on one occasion, but not on the next.
But this shouldn’t be affected by your resolution.
So, how do you simulate spotting contacts in a 3D environment, on a 2D screen?
Look at the excerpt from the paper I posted earlier.
How far away you can spot a contact is not always dependent on your distance to it, but also where you are happening to be focusing.
How do you simulate this…?
I think the easiest way would be some randomization to when the first contact pixel appears on your screen.
That would perhaps not be totally fair, as everybody wouldn’t see eachother at the same distance. But that’s actually realistic. This is actually very random in real life.
1 Like
for me spoting objects in DCS is much harder than IRL. it is obvious from the pictures already posted and pictures which folows below.
here are the problems I see with spoting objects in DCS :
-
it is harder to spot object when certain parts of it are mising. the object is of course smaller as it should be
-
it is harder to ID already spoted object as certain parts of it are mising. the shape of the not complete object could resemble many other objects
-
it is harder to track already spoted object as certain parts of it are randomly disapearing and apearing again
here are pics captured yesterday in DCS 2.5 latest released version
Res 1920x1080
MSAA OFF
AF OFF
A-10A, F2 default view, same distance, diferent angles
Fw-190D, F2 default view, same distance, diferent angles
Mi-8MTV, F2 default view, same distance, diferent angles
1 Like
I’m not so sure it’s that obvious to me.
I do see that the way DCS handles visibility poses a problem. I just don’t see how to solve this without creating other problems.
What you are illustrating in your series of pictures are that the level of detail and how it’s presented on screen, varies. I think that this happens because of how DCS manages objects visibility and how the object sort of grows into view.
I mean, I see your point that in one pic you see the tailboom of the 8, and in the other you don’t.
The alternative would be for the full detailed object to just pop into view. Not sure this would be preferable.
The problem isn’t in the ranges I see in your pics, but more at what distance you get the initial contact pixels, and that it vary greatly with resolution, as depicted in Philstyles video.
But, again, how do you simulate realistic contact spotting on a screen…?
This has been a problem in flightsims since the dawn of joysticks.
I think some sort of «cheat» is actually called for. Some sort of scaleable impostor that the user can set in size and distance.
1 Like
I concurr. I have been fiddling with labels settings for a good few hours yesterday, but the way those are done makes it hard to put the dot or o exactly where the thing is. Still, putting a little marker with no extra info at realistic median ranges is better than nothing, especially when wearing goggles. 
There are other ways of handling objects of subpixel size, but it involves processing that will inevitably cost some performance.
Anyway, most of the latest images illustrate spatial aliasing. Not a bug per se, but it could be handled better.
2 Likes
Just so we’re on the same page. Are you thinking of situations where the entire contact size is less than a pixel?
Well, yes, probably could. But how, given the requirement to stay within the realms of realism?
I think that accurately simulating object visibility on a 2D screen is impossible, without concessions.
Long range spotting and visual tracking of distant objects are a perfect example of where the requirements for visual realism and tactical realism bite eachother. I for one opt for tactical realism, even if that means smearing immersion-breaking labels and icons all over my sim.
Not exclusively, this also applies when, e.g. the wings have less than 1 pixel thickness.
You could use supersampling to determine how much of a pixel is occupied by an object and then use that information to smoothly fade the color of the pixel from background towards the actual object color. That is sort of what a supersampling antialiasing filter does, if i’m not mistaken.
Doing this computationally efficient though is quite the challenge.
Indeed. Considering that the size of a pixel will vary with the resolution of the screen, this is a problem.
From Nevos pics one can see that there is some aliasing going on. There are pixels with colors that’s actually not there on the model, itself. I guess this could be fine tuned, but as you say, at a cost.
But still, the core problem as I see it, is the underlying problem of simulating visual spotting where the distance at which you make contact is dependent on som many variables, and that you happen to be focusing at that distance.
Once the model works as intended, it could be tuned to different pixel densities. It will never be perfect, but there are things that can lead to at least minor improvements.
Yes, but it still won’t be possible to simulate the spotting problems as decribed in the article excerpt I posted. With the visual lobe and focusing at a distance, as your eyes are always focusing on the screen, and not at a distance.
Perhaps in VR?
Since spotting IRL is as hard as it is, I’m not sure how much work I think is justifiable to achieve an improvement in an aspect of 2D flightsimming that won’t be perfect, no matter what.
But yeah, as you say, improvements could be possible. I just don’t know how, or how much effort is needed to do something about it. But, I’m not clever, or knowledgeable, enough to make flightsims 
Ya damned right DCS has a visibility problem… I can’t see an f-111. !!!
10 Likes
All I know is that I fly with labels for a reason, and that reason is that I am over 40 and I have no time for foolishness.
3 Likes
Who can argue with that, @PFunk…
You do what makes you happy!
There are many different flightsimmers, with different needs and wishes.
Maybe ED can look into this and make some sort of easy spotting system, or some other help, besides labels. There was as setting, of sorts, in 1.x, wasn’t there? Or was that in 2.x? Can’t remember. But it went away…
1 Like
It’s sad that being old farts and needing labels not to be myopic moles feeling our way around a battlefield full of instant long range death we are prohibited in taking part in much of the multiplayer goodness.
There is no middle ground between no spotting support at all and see-all labels that tell you what, who and how far at incredible ranges like some sort of scifi sensor fused hivemind monstrosity.
ED should add some middle ground patterns that can be enforced in a server, like labels settings are now. Sensible ranges so you do not get more information than a keen-eyed, well trained 20 year old would get.
1 Like
I set up a training mission for the Hornet last night, with an IL76 as a nice fat target for my AIM7’s. I picked the aircraft up on radar a long way out (about 90 miles) and locked it up. Looking through the HUD, with the target box showing me where to look, I could see there was something there at about 30 miles out. The IL76 isn’t exactly a small target though. I forgot to mention I was flying in VR.
Personally I’m ok with targets being hard to spot. It isn’t easy IRL even with practice. Some people are better at it than others too, so some natural ability comes into play. By the time you add in atmospheric conditions, there really should be a certain degree of randomness to it. Also, we are not dealing with G’s or turbulence, which make things harder again.
It seems to me, that we strive for realism in our sims right up to the point where it becomes an inconvenience. I remember one person complaining that he couldn’t keep track of targets while flying with the Rift because the resolution was too low and checking his direct 6 o’clock was almost impossible because the back of his chair was in the way. LOL.
2 Likes
and a third of your field of view taken awaaaaaaaaaaaaay
2 Likes