G_fSmartScalingThreshold
-
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?
-
-
-
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?
We’re at crossed purposes. The size of the screen is essentially irrelevant to the scaling problem Serfoss’ paper reads on - he was studying what pilots can reasonably discern at a given range about aircraft orientation which requires greater density of pixels to show aspects of vehicle shape. The range at which your nose is placed from the screen such that you can make out a single pixel or not is a different problem and one that the code can’t and won’t address ever…if you aren’t close enough to see – move or buy a bigger display What the scaling code tries to do is, presuming you are at a suitable nose-to-screen distance from your display, give you enough pixels on the screen arranged to deliver the same equivalent ability to discern orientation as you’d have sitting in a Viper cockpit up in the wild blue yonder.
-
We’re at crossed purposes. The size of the screen is essentially irrelevant to the scaling problem Serfoss’ paper reads on - he was studying what pilots can reasonably discern at a given range about aircraft orientation which requires greater density of pixels to show aspects of vehicle shape. The range at which your nose is placed from the screen such that you can make out a single pixel or not is a different problem and one that the code can’t and won’t address ever…if you aren’t close enough to see – move or buy a bigger display What the scaling code tries to do is, presuming you are at a suitable nose-to-screen distance from your display, give you enough pixels on the screen arranged to deliver the same equivalent ability to discern orientation as you’d have sitting in a Viper cockpit up in the wild blue yonder.
It is what I am talking about and you Your visual cone for IDing aircraft (foveal vision) is only 1 degree, so really screen size makes no difference, it is the number of pixels in your 1 degree cone of “IDing vision.” It’s not screen size that is the magic number here, it is PPI. I am saying how many pixels you have to draw the object for all those details or as you say “greater density of pixels to show aspects of vehicle shape.”
But it just so happens that if you don’t change the resolution and you up the screen size PPI drops. Smaller screen size for same resolution = more pixels to draw stuff. We have industry standard resolutions but we don’t really pair them with screen size. It is the same reason a 27" 1920x1080 looks worse than a 27" 2560x1440.
I redid the math, for 30" (typical monitor viewing distance) is 115 PPI= 20/20 visual acuity. My monitors are actually 92 PPI, so from the get go I have less than 20/20 on the monitor on both my side 20" 1600x900 and my center 32" 2560x1440 monitors (which is why I use Smart Scaling )
So for 30"/76 cm viewing distance and common monitor resolutions here are the largest sizes you can have to have a 20/20 PPI (115 PPI). Smaller screen sizes than listed will actually give you better than 20/20 acuity:
3840x2160=38"
2560x1440=25"
1920x1080=19"
1600x900=16"https://www.sven.de/dpi/
It is buying a monitor to get a PPI and since we sell them by screen size and not PPI you have factor that in.Obviously for the lower resolutions you also tend to not want them because they are smaller FOVs and have less immersion. In general 115 PPI+ is still hard to make in large displays.
-
With my eyes with glasses on at 30" away or arms length, 2560 1600 30inch monitor is great, 40" 4K also great. Smaller monitors are also good with those resolutions, but anything larger and SDE becomes more and more apparent as the size increases and they need to be pushed back further and further.
-
My new 32" 2560x1440 is much better for my failing eyes.
-
PPI isnt really relevant here- supposing you can discern every pixel in the screen, the correct metric would be to compare number of pixel in width vs FOV (default 60°). Distance to screen is not really irrelevant.
In full HD, that would be 60° (default FOV)/1920 pixel = 1/32 ° per pixel ~=2 minute of arc (MOA) per pixel. 20/20 vision is supposedly being able to discern 1 MOA.
-
errr didn’t get the math actually but seeing ppi and monitor sizes and such, so if I have a 440ppi 4,7" monitor (a smartphone lets say) I will have better view of falcon than in my 24" monitor?
Also is known that many large hd tv’s 32" 40" are crap as of ppi or dpi and the comparison is a bit harsh…So I believe the doc and the scaling algorithm doesn’t take in account your actual screen resolution or ppi or dpi but tries to make things better for u. Yes size does matter as for monitor size but detail is also crucial as ppi.
and what we are talking here is few pixels differences… like a needle in the barn.