Jump to content

WheelwrightPL

Members
  • Content Count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

235 Excellent

About WheelwrightPL

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1919 profile views
  1. I don't think this new Star Wars game will be as deep and rewarding as IL-2. It simply cannot be because its combat is too chaotic, and therefore random. And as is the case with any such random gameplay: it results in players who are not sufficiently rewarded for their hard-learned skills, because too much depends on a simple toss of a coin. This lack of a learning-curve can kill a motivation to play in the long run. That's why I like slower paced WW2 sims because they give you sufficient time to plan and execute your moves. Such planning, being the opposite of chaotic and twitchy Star Wars combat, is also inherently rewarding when you manage to execute it properly and consistently. So you keep coming back to the sim. Also in WW2 your individual flight manoeuvres must make logical sense, as part of a broader sequence of rock/paper/scissor manoeuvres, that are grounded in intuitively understood aerodynamics. Particularly in 1-1 combat it is akin to playing by a set of fair rules for both an attacker and a defender. There is nothing like that in Star Wars universe, as it is not grounded in commonly understood reality, but in whatever flawed, shallow system was made-up for each Star Wars game, without consideration of energy management or even Newtonian physics. So it looks like for me this new Star Wars game will be a short-lived diversion at best. And to boot: it doesn't even have TrackIR support.
  2. BTW I tried to return to VR flying, but Zoom stopped working for me. Is there a special VR-zoom binding ? And if so where is it ? Thanks
  3. With the new G-model it is mostly numbers game and surprise boom-n-zoom attacks, because many manoeuvres that pilots used to be able to perform to get out of jam, now result in an instant blackout. For me this makes the sim less interesting.
  4. You may never find what's causing this because it could be CPU threads' deadlocking (circular scenario where thread 1 waits for 2, while 2 waits for 1), or threads contending for access to a non-sharable resource (ie. semaphoring). In situations like those where the internal software code causes those problems, only software devs with deep understanding of all the pertinent parallel processing nitty gritty can even attempt to tackle them (or in our case: one dev who "wears many hats").
  5. Unless you have a 4k monitor which produces much sharper image. Also g2 has the same pixel density as a first-gen Reverb, so the image isn't any sharper. Maybe you will be able to super-sample the image on rtx3090 at least 2-times, which will improve (frankly atrocious) VR antialiasing, but that alone won't make the image sharper. In the final analysis it may be worth it to you, as it is all a personal choice, based on multiple tradeoffs.
  6. I upgraded to 2080Ti from 1080Ti and there was a noticeable improvement in graphics smoothness. I play at 4k with all settings maxed out. My CPU was i3-8350k at 4.6Ghz, and I had 32 GB RAM at 3200Mhz. So depending on the price, and how soon you want that graphics boost it may be worth it.
  7. Maybe faster in specially tailored tests, but not in reallife. I call bullshit.
  8. That would be i9-10900k. However some reviewers say that you can get a regular i9-10900 for much cheaper and easily thermally-overclock it to reach the levels of i9-10900k ( https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900/ ). Also: according to them such thermal overclocking allows you to preserve single-thread optimizations that Intel engineers built into the chip, so it looks like i9-10900 may actually end-up faster than the k-version in single-threaded applications such as IL2 . I wanted to go that route myself, but to my amazement I was able to effortlessly overclock my old i3-8350k to 5.0Ghz on a 140mm Noctua air cooler. At 5.0 my Prime95 benchmark fails, but I have yet to see any crashes while playing IL2 or during other day-to-day computer usage.
  9. I just overclocked my CPU to 5.0 Ghz. My new single-thread PASSMARK score jumped to 3139. Despite this my CPU temp never exceeds 80'C when running "Intel Extreme Tuning Utility" stress test. All this on my old trusty NOCTUA 140mm air cooler, which I could barely hear during that stress test (I have it in quiet mode). Not bad for a $150 CPU. So far I just ran 2 missions, around 20-minutes each, and can see improved smoothness, but there are still situations when the framerate dips below 60fps. But I ran all this on the maxed-out graphics, by manually editing startup.cfg ( "land_anisotropy = 16" and "land_tex_lods = 7 ). Thanks THERION! I didn't touch the RAM speeds, because it is hard to overclock RAM, compared to the CPU. FYI: My Clouds are "High" (frankly I cannot tell the difference versus the Extreme), and my shadows are "Ultra". With this newfound performance improvement I may just give VR another chance, we will see..
  10. I have to agree car chairs are unbeatable, no gaming chair even comes close when it comes to comfort. Why not adapt car chair technologies to design a proper gaming chair ? I bet it would be a bestseller.
  11. I play on "Hard" difficulty, Iron Man, but my ground density is set to "Low" for performance reasons. I also have "Simplified Physiology" checked (because I believe the excessive blackouts deprive this game of a lot of skill that's involved in flying "on the edge", by lowering everybody's skill to the lowest common denominator that's determined only by the hardcoded "rookie level" physiology). Below screenshot is from my Winter Bf109-G2 campaign where I flew with the attached gunpods. That's what I like about the German planes: they have much more ammo than their Russian counterparts, which leads me to believe this score would not have been possible with guns-only-equipped Yak (prove me wrong). I forgot to mention: I play purely by instruments and in-cockpit timers (except for Yaks which don't have any timers), which means ALL computer aids are turned off. I sincerely encourage other people to fly in such manner as well, because I found it elevates my satisfaction and enjoyment immensely.
  12. I find this quote believable: I have i3-8350k at 4.6, 2080TI and 32GB at 3200, and my Reverb performance is unsatisfactory with Clouds set to "High" and Shadows set to "Extreme" (I really like those so cannot go any lower). SSOA and HDR are also enabled (or else the cockpit looks washed out). With above settings I am forced to set reprojection on to enable a somewhat smooth framerate (however this reprojection also introduces annoying graphical errors). Sorry, but based on my experience the Reverb laughs at midrange cards like 2070S, I predict it will be a stuttery mess even with potato quality graphics. So I am seriously considering an upgrade to an I9-10900 (non-K, but I will thermally overclock it to near K-levels), and 4400 RAM, but it is really a coin toss, because I cannot get a reliable confirmation it will alleviate my Reverb performance problems.
  13. I hope math geniuses improving IL-2 engine can make use of this (the guy seems to really know his stuff): https://blog.uhawkvr.com/ And a video of above theory applied in practice:
  14. G-effects are overdone in my opinion. They made the Russian side less competitive, because of how they crippled Red planes' outstanding manoeuvrability (unless flying at low speeds). Current G-effects may be realistic, but I prefer to roleplay as an elite "blue angel" level pilot (those guys don't wear G-suits even in their F-18s). Certainly some pilots like that existed during WW2, didn't they ? But what the game currently simulates is raw recruits. So I personally chose to turn on "simplified physiology" checkbox in the menu, because it allows me to push my airplane to its limits, which in turn rewards my coordinated flying and offers me more tactical options, as opposed to just watching for an invevitable and brutal blackout. I think more people should try "simplified physiology": you still get blackouts, but can extract so much more from your airframe and thus the enjoyment of simulation goes through the roof.
  15. 7 GHZ CPU is the minimum recommended for smooth gameplay. On a more serious note: I petitioned the devs to add an additional option "density of air assets", so we can adjust the amount of planes in similar way to what we are already doing to the ground assets. Of course I only heard crickets in response.
×
×
  • Create New...