G_fSmartScalingThreshold
-
Can someone explain this new feature in 4.33.1?
Oops, read it later on in the changelog
Added new config option g_fSmartScalingThreshold (default 0.0). If SmartScaling is enabled via the UI, it sets the distance in nautical miles from your own POV when scaling will start to kick in. Can be useful for ppl who want to use SmartScaling for better visual identification at far distances, but at the same time do NOT want any scaling in very close proximity, i.e. to make sure close formation or HUD cues are not “distorted”. -
as I understood it is the (potentially rather briljant) option to have smartscaling OFF for objects within the defined distance, and ON for objects outside. So; far objects are smart scaled, but the buddy you are wingtip formation with, is not.
-
You can now set the distance when smart scaling will become active.
e.g. 2 miles turn on smart scaling, less than 2 miles turn off smart scaling
-
Sure : basically, smart scaling scales objects up the further away they are. The idea is to compensate the fact that you are on a screen and enable you to identify objects at close to RL distances.
However there are some slight effects that bother people when they notice the scaling - stuff like gun funnel slightly out of proportions, minor things like that. It is really user perception here - personally, I never had any issue with it.
What the config option will allow you to do is the following : shift the distance threshold for scaling.
In image :
-
There was debate about putting this in. Well, that’s to say I didn’t think it was a good approach. Putting it in an setting the default to zero is harmless in the end though because it allows people to choose to use it if they really feel like it. My primary issue with it is that the scaling algorithm is based on scientific method research done with actual combat pilots…setting the threshold non-zero results in deviation from the carefully researched scaling factor. In other words the result it some scaling the effect of which is no longer realistic considering range and target size and human factors in perception.
-
There was debate about putting this in. Well, that’s to say I didn’t think it was a good approach. Putting it in an setting the default to zero is harmless in the end though because it allows people to choose to use it if they really feel like it. My primary issue with it is that the scaling algorithm is based on scientific method research done with actual combat pilots…setting the threshold non-zero results in deviation from the carefully researched scaling factor. In other words the result it some scaling the effect of which is no longer realistic considering range and target size and human factors in perception.
But wouldn’t varying screen sizes and resolutions make that scientific research largely non-applicable anyway?
-
I would like to see a smart scaling that applies only to aircraft.
The way you can see other airplanes and helicopters in the air seems sensible but ground units are far to easy to see with smart scaling on.
it should be possible to create a different smart scaling for ground units but until that is done the switch outlined above should be fairly OK
-
But wouldn’t varying screen sizes and resolutions make that scientific research largely non-applicable anyway?
Read the paper…draw your own conclusion. I think I have work to do here still.
-
Read the paper…draw your own conclusion. I think I have work to do here still.
Do you know where to find the paper?
-
The original algorithm is very effective. I just have this config option set to 0.2 (Nm) so that other aircraft wheels/tyres are no longer sunk into the taxiway/runway.
Any formation further than fingertip is better with the original smart scaling imho. Route formation is virtually identical.
-
Depends on the algorithm. but I think the offset should be a great idea.
Looking forward to viewing it.
-
Do you know where to find the paper?
Off the top of my head, no, but it was handed to me by someone that found it in the public domain. The basic premise of the paper is that the “right” answer is to use a display of sufficient resolution…the problem is that displays aren’t providing close to 20/20 visual acuity yet. At the time of writing the state-of-the-art was 20/40 equivalent; I’m sure it’s better now but even 4k doesn’t get you where you need to be (I recall doing the math at some point to convince myself it was worth writing the code but that was a while ago). Primary reason the config button for the scaling option is there at all comes down to the idea that one day display rez will in fact catch up…then we don’t need the scaling turned on at all…mangled (a bit or a lot) or not.
-
-
Ah, there it is – thanks, Robert!
-
stuff like gun funnel slightly out of proportions,
This has always been my question, especially with modeling the longer range of the PGU-28 round’s longer range of 1.3 NM. BUt never had a good evidence either way. Tried to have a discussion on it in a thread here but I think I only got one taker.
Off the top of my head, no, but it was handed to me by someone that found it in the public domain. The basic premise of the paper is that the “right” answer is to use a display of sufficient resolution…the problem is that displays aren’t providing close to 20/20 visual acuity yet. At the time of writing the state-of-the-art was 20/40 equivalent; I’m sure it’s better now but even 4k doesn’t get you where you need to be (I recall doing the math at some point to convince myself it was worth writing the code but that was a while ago). Primary reason the config button for the scaling option is there at all comes down to the idea that one day display rez will in fact catch up…then we don’t need the scaling turned on at all…mangled (a bit or a lot) or not.
I’ve done the math, by pure visual PPI at normal montior distance around a 37" or less 4K monitor is the right PPI for 20/20 or better. But I haven’t digested that paper yet for the other factors.
-
I’m not an optics guy per se but my understanding is that size of display is only marginally relevant. Discrimination of vehicle detail is all about resolution – think about it this way: a distant a/c reduced to a single pixel shown as a physical millimeter or two across give you no more orientation cues than the same pixel on a jumbo-tron.
-
I’m not an optics guy per se but my understanding is that size of display is only marginally relevant. Discrimination of vehicle detail is all about resolution – think about it this way: a distant a/c reduced to a single pixel shown as a physical millimeter or two across give you no more orientation cues than the same pixel on a jumbo-tron.
Yep, at about 30" distance, if you have only 20/20 vision your eye cannot resolve a single pixel smaller than about 130 PPI (can’t find my original sheet of math right now). The size of the display matters because the larger it is the less PPI you have for the same given resolution.
http://jaredjared.com/2012/10/visual-acuity-dpi/
Edit to add using the Jumbotron analogy: a 32" 4k monitor has much smaller pixels than a 32 foot 4k Jumbotron. You have to be further away from the Jumbotron to not notice individual pixels (screen door effect).
Do you guys know the magnification factor with standard (set 0) Smart Scaling of an aircraft at 1.3 NM?
-
0 is " use original smart scaling" or 0 is 0nm?
-
-