Do you use smart scaling?
-
Thats because 5760 x 1080 is same res as 1920 x 1080. Just more pixels on more screens spread out. 2560 x 1600 is higher res quality than 1080. Go by the lowest number not the highest number for resolution sharpness.
not necessarily. the figure you want is the pixel density, frequently given in pixels per inch.
-
not necessarily. the figure you want is the pixel density, frequently given in pixels per inch.
Using multiple monitors does not raise the resolution to higher quality res. 5760 x 1080 is same res as 1920 x 1080. Just three monitors with same res. My only point.
-
Using multiple monitors does not raise the resolution to higher quality res. 5760 x 1080 is same res as 1920 x 1080. Just three monitors with same res. My only point.
Yeah , but i don’t have to zoom back so much for wide FOV. So i have more pixels to draw far away targets…
-
Yeah , but i don’t have to zoom back so much for wide FOV. So i have more pixels to draw far away targets…
You can zoom a target same on one monitor. Just less FOV when you do it. No quality difference above 1080.
Anyway, we are hijacking this thread.
-
You can zoom a target same on one monitor. Just less FOV when you do it. No quality difference above 1080.
Yes BUT your SA is shitty then and thats my point. Even with 3x2560x1600 res displays we still look trough narow tube compared to real life vision. This is my point too
-
Yes BUT your SA is shitty then and thats my point. Even with 3x2560x1600 res displays we still look trough narow tube compared to real life vision. This is my point too
-
When you talk about resolution compared to real life you want to use terms like arcseconds, angular resolution. At a constant pixel angular pitch the size of monitor controls FOV and distance to screen. Assuming the pixel pitch is fixed the ideal setup is a big monitor (FOV) far away (tiny pixel angular size).
The human eye has an angular resolution of about 4 minutes of arc or ~0.001 radians or 1 milliradian. A typical LCD pixel pitch might be 0.25mm. Thus to achieve 1 mrad for a .25mm object you need to be 250 mm away which is quite close. I think it takes a group of pixels to be one unit of color so it might be more like 2x or 3x that number. It’s easy to see intuitively if you look at a circle on the screen you can tell it is a staircase of square pixels but just barely.
-
When you talk about resolution compared to real life you want to use terms like arcseconds, angular resolution. At a constant pixel angular pitch the size of monitor controls FOV and distance to screen. Assuming the pixel pitch is fixed the ideal setup is a big monitor (FOV) far away (tiny pixel angular size).
The human eye has an angular resolution of about 4 minutes of arc or ~0.001 radians or 1 milliradian. A typical LCD pixel pitch might be 0.25mm. Thus to achieve 1 mrad for a .25mm object you need to be 250 mm away which is quite close. I think it takes a group of pixels to be one unit of color so it might be more like 2x or 3x that number. It’s easy to see intuitively if you look at a circle on the screen you can tell it is a staircase of square pixels but just barely.
Yes, my english is not so great so it may take time before i write all right at first time. :shock::D
-
Before BMS 4.32, smart scaling was completely unrealistic but now smart scaling in BMS provides more realistic perspective / flight than without.
It is based indeed on universtity studies in order to compensate the fact that we have small screens
i personnaly use it and dont see any problems for formation flying
The hitboxes of the objects that are being scaled should also be scaled in parallel. Contoured, multi-paneled hit boxes would be awesome, but I don’t believe F4 has this ability, or would cause too big a CPU hit perhaps. If I had a tool to create them, I’d do it myself. Anyhow, that’s digressing into the rudimentary damage modeling F4 has, that wasn’t thought through very well when they made it.
Do you still have a link to this university study on the smart scaling perspectives?
Thanks,
-
Heres a question to through inot this discussion.
With regard to smart scaling, granted it makes things appear on your screen larger and easier to see, but what about the size of the hit box for a particular object, say a factory, an A-A gun, tank etc or even aircraft. Yes its nice to be able to see them, but to be honest if my daughter was more than 500yds away from me I doubt i could spot her easily to make a full recognition, yet jets going overhead at 5000ft in real life i can make out the silouhette and know its a specific type of plane. But is smart scaling actual SMART or is it just an implimentation of the old vehicle magnification slider?
-
Fire geometry is unaffected.
I wish smart scaling scaled with FOV. The whole point of smart scaling is that at poor FOV ratios (monitor vs image) that you need help to blow things up back to normal size. However when you zoom in (or FOV down) the FOV ratio approaches 1:1 again so the smart scaling should diminish as your monitor approaches a true representation of normal angular sizes.
-
I’m sure smart scalling is for view only and hit boxes are calculated normally and as they should.
-
but I don’t believe F4 has this ability, or would cause too big a CPU hit perhaps.
Hi, no, checking a few more boxes instead of 1 per object won’t kill the CPU
There are some ideas regarding improving hit boxes to be more accurate, but such stuff isn’t expected anytime soon…
Regardless of that, Falcon damage modeling is pretty poor relative to what can be done with today’s HW. Maybe sometime in the future…
-
Hi, no, checking a few more boxes instead of 1 per object won’t kill the CPU
There are some ideas regarding improving hit boxes to be more accurate
What types of ideas? Just resizing them to where the most surface area is encapsulated with the least amount of “dead space”? Or creating additional radii? (like a bullseye with strongest damage effects at the epicenter, and then each outer successive ‘ring’ the damage effect diminishes)
-
I’m sure smart scalling is for view only and hit boxes are calculated normally and as they should.
Not according to the university studies apparently, that’s why I asked Mav-jp for the reference(s). If this is the most accurate scaling that can be represented, then the objects hitboxes should be scaled in parallel.
-
What types of ideas? Just resizing them to where the most surface area is encapsulated with the least amount of “dead space”? Or creating additional radii? (like a bullseye with strongest damage effects at the epicenter, and then each outer successive ‘ring’ the damage effect diminishes)
I meant the resizing yes (example use 2 or more boxes per AC will make hit box way more accurate), but taking different damage type for hits which are more distant from the center I guess can also be done, I don’t see that as a serious problem.
-
Generally speaking my 2 shits…
Visual smart scaling (if done right in proportion to distances - and considered hitboxes are included) is indeed a VERY SMART and simple method to compensate visiblity limitations on simple computer screens.
If done wrong it can backfire with side-effects of course, but it seems to be on the right track atm (we had worse examples in the past). No other sim i am aware of has that feature and it should not be underestimated. -
ok the model is xyz the hit box. Now with smartscaling what it does… makes bigger the dimensions of the model and shows them to u probably according to some triggers or params.
Now the distance difference for the impact between the weapon and the target is way low, and I don’t think it calculates the smartscalled but the actual model size… that way explosions-impact would happen way easier cause u have both enlarged nor to say it would be wrong. Cause those params aren’t visual but actual… it’s like saying if u use binoculars… then the missile is bigger and the airplane is bigger so they will collide sooner… -
Last time I visited the air force museum in Dayton OH my kid and I took turns sitting in the F-16A pit. The field of view you have in the real thing is incredible, and you realize just how tiny objects appear on your computer display. Even with a giant display, like 56", to make objects true-to-life size your field of view has to artificially small.
So when I read comments poo-pooing the smart scaling feature in Falcon4 I have to what they’re trying to prove? There can be a tendency in flight simming to view anything that is more challenging as improving the experience, regardless of any other considerations. Smart Scaling does not distort the size of close range aircraft; it does not cause issues with formation flying; it does not screw with the apparent size of aircraft and hit boxes. Someone may have said these things before because it sounded logical, and now others repeat them as if it were proven.
I would give my little finger to have smart scaling in some of the other flight sims I own.
-
If the aircraft you are looking at has external lights on, you can see that the lights doesn’t match the aircraft as the distance from you increases. So maybe not everything get smart scaled?