Do you use smart scaling?
-
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?
-
I belive as u gavagai, the smart scaling in BMS is well made and good thing (i dont use it BTW).
But if your view from simulated pit is the same (including HUD sights?), but AC is different with “SC” ON, then something has to be distorted.
Perhaps the rays in your perspective are not straight line, but parabolic?..or something (I gues it does not scale the object linear)…I dont know, but if the perpective and FOV is the same, but ACs are bigger…BTW what about these popular cannon aiming “lines”…are these upscaled too?
-
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.
Obvisously the field of view and the resolution is different in the real world. The whole “size” and immersion of perception is completly different compared to small or big screens - aka simulations.
BUT !!! …now it comes… there are solutions to the problem …compromising solutions - so to speak.
If one wants to keep it tactially semi-realisitic at least (and that is the important element of it) … three questions appear:
- What are the ranges at which planes of different types can be SPOTTED (presence as dots) ?
- What are the ranges at which planes of different types can be visually ID-ed (silhouette, markings etc.) ?
- How can one achieve that in simulations?
Based on those two questions, realistic data can be gathered and an attempt to replicate this in a sim-environment can be approached. Simple as that.
There is more than enough data available anwsering those two question above in terms or real world perception, including good and bad weather conditions.
This field was/is a problem for many simulation-products and almost none of them solved it right. BMS still delievers an acceptable solution, but we can improve it i think.
There is no need to excuse the usage of a “hubble telescope” FOV-Zoom (or “stalker TV”, how i call it), if things are done right.The idea of “Smart Scaling” delivers a compromising “middle course solution” - so to speak (and it is smart indeed) -, but one has to raise the question, if the hitboxes are proportionally increased to the 3D models. That is an important question.
-
For your information the smart scaling in BMS uses the same algorythm than some profesional sims
-
Well as a RW pilot who flies just about every day I would have to say the picture at 7 nm & 1nm looks more realistic with smart scaling off. Of course I don’t get within 400’ of other aircraft when flying so I can’t make a comparison there :-). On the other hand, sitting in front of a monitor is also not realistic so compromises have to be made. I will be trying it without smart scaling for awhile and make a comparison.
A note about ground targets, at 15,000’ I’ve looked for vehicles on roads to make comparisons etc… and as I suspected it’s VERY hard to identify ground targets from that height with the Mark 1 Eyeball, so again, maybe smart scaling off is more realistic. Problem is, if you don’t take advantage of it and others do then you are at a disadvantage… just like “cough, cough” padlock… uggg, I wish they would take that out of the next version completely.
-
For your information the smart scaling in BMS uses the same algorythm than some profesional sims
Kinda shows. I always liked it alot I remember really baad implemented “Smart Scalings” in other versions of Falcon.
I remember 87thStriker telling me back in days (BMS), that aiming and hitting with the gun appears to him more accurate with SC off.
Same observations are shared to me by KidVicious. Strangly, personally i do not realize any difference in ways it would disturb me or throw
my gunning off, but that is maybe due to my own way of gunning and at best subjective to the topic.
One thing i can confirm and that is, that the “speed immersion” of a bandit with SC off appears to be much more visually in relation to the background.Question is though, is the gun symbology in the HUD really obscured by it (radar <> object) ??
-
@bill_3810:
Well as a RW pilot who flies just about every day I would have to say the picture at 7 nm & 1nm looks more realistic with smart scaling off.
I do agree.
But what is not the same is the resolution of the “picture” produced by human real eyes compared to our screens display (video) resolution. This is where SC ON use useful in sim, it is for identification.
Personally I do not use it (I “do not like” the “tweaked” relative speed perception during formation join up and relative flight maneuvers.) But I will not say that SC is a bad feature. -
yeah… this is the biggest problem I see with the Occulus rift actually, as it would be going down in angular resolution, rather than improving it.
Best answer I can think of with currently available tech is an ultra high resolution projector mounted to a rotating tray, like what Shepard’s thread over at viperpits shows.
I dont use smart scaling, but I find that others can ID vehicles way before I ever can. Im not convinced that is a bad thing. Flying at 80 knots and a thousand feet, I find it hard enough to make out my car in the parking lot if its crowded. I would not expect it to be easier when flying at 400 knots, and trying to ID vehicles painted the same shade of green as the terrain (as opposed to my WHITE car on a BLACK surface…)
-
I do agree.
But what is not the same is the resolution of the “picture” produced by human real eyes compared to our screens display (video) resolution. This is where SC ON use useful in sim, it is for identification.
Personally I do not use it (I “do not like” the “tweaked” relative speed perception during formation join up and relative flight maneuvers.) But I will not say that SC is a bad feature.I guess I should have been more specific. As far as being able to spot an aircraft and identify what it is, as well as ground targets, it appears that with SC off it looks similar to what I’ve seen in the air. However as you say, i’m looking through a glass window at a real object as apposed to an image on a screen. I just finished flying in formation, tanking and viewing aircraft from a distance as well as attacking ground targets and I am intrigued enough to give it a thorough testing, but again due to the limitations of being in front of a monitor, SC indeed may be the way to go. I will have to run it through the ringer.
One final note, I found with smart scaling off, that keeping lateral distance in a tight finger tip was quite easier than with Smart Scaling on. I was able to keep in position through turns and straight and level, quite easily. Am I full of shit or is there something to this???
-
@A.S:
One thing i can confirm and that is, that the “speed immersion” of a bandit with SC off appears to be much more visually in relation to the background.
_HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR LOOK OUT TO STAY ALIVE
To carry out a visual identification (VID) on a boggey or to engage a
bandit with short range weapons (gun on the alphajet), you must see the
target as soon as possible to join the key point for the tracking manoeuvre.
More over, if you don’t see the bandit in your rear sector, you may be shot
down without any notice or at the best, you may engage a dogfight in a
very defensive situation. Consequently, it is vital for a fighter pilot to train
for the best look out technique to fly safely and to fight in the best
condition.
Initially, the look out is not obvious for a trainee. This chapter
encomposses few top tips to improve his/her technique.1 – THE FOCUS
At high level the eyes focus at short range due to the lake of outside
reference (panel, map, around 60 cm). When looking out it is necessary to
focus on a cue far away like a point near the horizon, a cloud or a contrail.
It is necessary to focus for about one or two second on this cue before
scanning the sky. Initially strive to « feel » this effort from your eyes to be
able later to force them to reproduce this muscular effort without any cue
(grey or blue sky, poor horizon). Without this work the eye will naturally
focus on the reflexions on the canopy but not on the black dot at 10 Nm.
Re-initiate this work when you change your look out sector.2 – WHERE AND WHEN ?
When you master the focus technique, you must decide where and how to
scan the sky. A quick and continuous scan is not good because your
(limited) brain doesn’t have enough time to assimilate the informations.
You must focus on one direction. Your eyes will be able to detect a
movement in the vincinity of the point. Thus, you have to divide the area
in 20 to 30° azimuth and elevation cells and to spend 1 or 2 seconds in
each one. Carry on, thinking about elevation (look high and look low).
The principle is the same in low level. The most difficult is to spot a
traffic below the horizon (only with is relative motion from the
background).
Besides, as a wingman, you have to split your work between the look-out
and your position relatively to the leader (with cross-cover).
With the informations given by the controller (and later on by the onboard
radar), you will be able to select a specific look out area (azimuth,
elevation, crossing left/right).
Remenber that the elevation is related to the range._ -
Good post. Loosing tally is “normal”. Knowing what to do if that happens is “skill”.
-
@A.S:
Good post. Loosing tally is “normal”. Knowing what to do if that happens is “skill”.
Personnally, I shamelessly press “Padlock” :mrgreen:
To my defense, I’m on a 15" laptop :oops:
-
I rode in a sailplane recently and the instructor pointed out the tow plane a mere 3 miles away, white against a blue sky, and I looked and looked and looked given a very good talk on and I never saw it. I’ve tried SS on and off in BMS and it seems too easy compared with real life with it on and too difficult with it off. I’ve been flying with it off recently and it’s been super hard, but with it on I had no problem spotting stuff out to 20nm if I knew it was there.
-
Personnally, I shamelessly press “Padlock” :mrgreen:
To my defense, I’m on a 15" laptop :oops:
I know what you mean … sorry to say but this is masturbation
If I refer to my RL experience of close air combat (not that much, but way enough to be able to compare it to the simulation.), IRL, you are not loosing the visual the same way than in the sim. The Track IR is not replacing the RL head an eyes movements. It is just a more ergonomic way to replace the coolie hat, nothings more.
First because IRL you have a much wider FOV and peripheral sight than in our sim, resolution of eyes is far far better and much more accurate. Your neck and eye’s muscles memory are making much more easier, after a quick glance forward to check you alt and speed, to reacquire the sight by pointing you head in the right direction intuitively (ther target will not jump in a total different position in two seconds) The eye sight stabilizing of the head and a/c movements … not talking about relative movement of the tgt over a hazy sky or sun reflexion of canopy flashing like a strobe …In close combat at distance below 0.5 - 1Nm, the padlock (if set “realistic” in order to break the lock when tgt is masked by airframe or lost in the sun) is definitively not driving you away from RL required skills … more realism does NOT necessarily always mean more difficulties than in real.
My 2 cents