Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Maybe it is not so much that the question went under the radar, but that no one with an answer has actually seen it.
  3. A colleague has the chance to run the STMark on a Ryzen 7 3800X at 4.4GHz. The result was 3130!! And it can be overclocked a bit more! Remember that Intel CPUs (8700K, 9700K, 9900K) at 5.1GHz delivers around 3090 and at 5.2GHz deliver 3190. So, I think this new Ryzen line is going to be quite attractive in single-core.
  4. To be honest, my post wasn't aimed at you at all. I was just answering motoadve's initial question, the one I quoted. No hard feelings, man 🙂
  5. That's why I posted scientific papers and was not just bringing up "my feelings". Ironically the dude who is all in for the current model and is embracing the change is solely going for the "feeling card". Again I like the change, I like G-loc, I dont like total blackout at 6G in non G-Suit planes.
  6. If the devs revised the g tolerances and increased 0.5 g to the g tolerance, my bet is that nobody would notice and peeps wouls still black out in maneuvers in absolutely the same way. This is not about „just not enough“, it is about ridiculous flying habits that were rewarded in 20 years of flight simming. I‘d really appreciate a g indicator to educate people how many g they actually were pulling when chasing down their prey.
  7. cant find big gear part found the rest. What’s the big gear part model/markings?
  8. Kind of you to say so, but given the drop in frame rate I've a lot to do to produce a mod that could deliver results like that for the majority of players.... Most folk already reckon they have to turn down graphics settings just to run IL-2, whereas with everything maxed out the stock game will render "heavy" clouds for me at about 130FPS effectively meaning that with a 60Hz monitor I'm needlessly wasting about half the processing power of the old/second hand GPU I was recently donated as an upgrade. That last image dropped the frame rate down to about 75FPs by using a lot more GPU.... I've been running various test to optimise things with my previous experiments, that last image was just a first "raw" "what happens if?" test of a few new ideas that pleasantly surprised me with how visually pleasing it was. The real challenge will be keeping that quality whilst making it run faster. HH
  9. This change is very fortunate for me, because i don't need to change anything. Ive always been flying more or less like i am really inside the plane, thanks to VR. And since i know more or less my real G tolerances, i always, instinctively did the maneuvers that i would dare to do irl. I am enjoying the fact that now all my hard work of flying in a way that is easy on your pilot is finally rewarded. Now, lets talk about the blackouts...
  10. On the memory you have to try to go to the highest ratio in Freq/Latency. Just last week I did some research in what is available on the market (regardless of price and number of sticks 2 or 4) and make a table with the lowest latency available for each frequency, then calculated the ratio. So as said above, 3200 CL14 or 3600CL16 is the best for the money. I really don´t know is frequencies above 4000 are really worth. The problem of SiliconLottery is that they use an AVX offset of -2 for all their test. So, when they say 5.2GHz, it means 5.0 with AVX instructions (which are used by IL-2 VR). It is a kind of a trick what they play. Since IL-2 VR is very much dependent on CPU singlethread performance, the new AMD line processors (3700X, 3800X, 3900X) could be also a good choice. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54715-is-still-intel-better-than-amd-for-single-thread/
  11. Because many people have a problem dealing with change, especially when they are forced to change behaviour that always worked before suddenly becoming invalid. After all, it's all about people's feelings. They often directly admit it. My favorite example comes is following situation: Racing game developer: 'We worked closely with real world race drivers, who helped us to improve the driving model based on their experience, to give the players a better, more realistic experience than ever before.' Long time players: 'The new driving model feels all wrong. Game is bad! Old game far better!' It's quite ironic that people who claim to want an experience as realistic as possible often play the 'feelings card' when it comes to change that is based on scientific evidence and facts, because in the end all they communicate can be boiled down to 'I have trouble when it comes to coping with change.'
  12. I hate the idea sometimes that we cant have “make do” planes. why everything has to be historical. But taking it too far I will hate even more. I really wished for a Typhoon and would be happy for rockets on Tempest. Because I fly it as a Typhoon. Lovely aircraft. But asking for it is beating a dead horse
  13. This is my main concern, we are probably going to end up with another situation like the spotting debacle. Pilot physiology is introduced, suddenly our online pilots are not getting the amount of kills that they used to, they also can't pull off highly unrealistic manoeuvres any more without an adverse effect taking place. The dev's will/could feel pressure to change something and some people will be happy and some people won't. If the developers have to revisit functions and features this will most likely slow things down, I'm fairly sure they probably don't have the time. IRL studies have shown that some individuals can tolerate G-Force better than others and there are many videos out there showing modern day pilots taking excessive amounts of G. There are of course other videos where pilots really do genuinely look like they're struggling at around 5 and one guy in this video starts panicking at 2 G I like the system very much, you have to think much more about how you fly. I'm really not that great of a virtual pilot but I am really enjoying the challenge the current system brings. It certainly brings a whole new dynamic to multiplayer. I genuinely don't know how accurate it is is because I've never flown at high speed or in combat in a WWII aircraft. As others pointed out, there is an "off" switch.
  14. Check Attack Area altitude, it also needs to have 6000 m. If it's OK then replace B-25 to any another bomber to test your mission as maybe B-25 has some bugs in the current version.
  15. Not before you mentioned it, but since then I gave it a go. Not sure about other details, like what altitude you had set up or what you were flying and how it was set up nor if you were alone, which if you were, would drastically increase your chances of being hit and hit often, especially if you were to hang about at all or make any turn within striking distance. So I gave it a go, just me, with a decent altitude advantage once in a 109G-6 with 3x20mm and once in an 190A-8 with the added 30mm option. Both times I damaged a B-25 on my first pass enough to down it and did not suffer any hits myself. With these sort of heavily armed fighters and after much past practice of this technique, high sided attack, this was the expected outcome for me. After one pass I kept the nose down and ran clear, jinking a little, then quit the mission as in my view QMB is the wrong place to test repeated attacks on bomber formations. The QMB mission soon after starting has the bomber formation split into two groups turning in circles and if your on your own in the middle of this your chances of being hit are extremely high, regardless of the bomber. Historically bombers in formations without fighter escort and using their own guns for defense kept tight formation and kept on a fixed heading, regardless of flak or fighters. Fighters attacking said bombers did so in numbers, never alone. So while you've opened a fairly old bottle of Luftwhine here, I reckon it hasn't aged well and appears to be corked If you want to test this properly, set up a co-op mission with at least 4 well armed interceptors going up against a bomber formation that flies straight and level and fast like they did. Then try it with other bombers and compare the results. Otherwise it's a waste of time.
  16. True that. Quote: More here: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2016/11/gorings-pill-stimulant-use-and-alcohol.html
  17. The chips are out and they are being reviewed. I would expect them become available within two weeks or so. It would now depend on your location and how easy you can get a hold of the latest things. It is not just the availability, but going down from $103 to $57 USD per core will not come easy on the shelf value of the distributers, so many might be holding the new parts back before having to slash the value of their inventory. I only point this out because I‘m guessing those significant price changes in the days coming, not weeks or month. Normally, I‘d advise to just go today for what you need today. The 9700 plus the fastest RAM certified (that is available to you) for your mobo will serve you well. Silicon lottery is nice, as it sells the fast cpus. However, it might make the 9700 a less attractive proposition as it comes with a price hike. If cost is really a metric. But just check the prices, you might find a suitable deal. Also you should be aware that socket 1151 will not be used anymore on any higher end future CPU from Intel. The Core Wars require more power pins. Any future upgrade will be a platform change.
  18. Usually I set 500 - 1000 m for the fast planes to avoid ANY problems.
  19. Only our support can do it https://il2sturmovik.com/support/
  20. That is what I've experienced. The Mission Editor Manual says the following:
  21. Could use some help identifying where I have gone wrong with this. Currently I have 1 B25AI with 6 bombs fly to a WP 6km from the target. the WP is target linked to a attack ground MCU. Currently the B-25 calls out the target in the mission, but then proceeds to just fly in circles and just drop altitude. Ideally I would like the AI to maintain his altitude of 6000m and drop the bombs over the target. note* in the picture I wrote 450mph as the b25 speed, I meant 450kph
  22. Don't feed him, he lives under a bridge and eats Billy's goats gruff.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...